Response to consultation on draft Implementing Technical Standards overhauling the EBA resolution planning reporting framework
Question 1: Are the instructions and templates clear to the respondents?
We welcome the EBA's efforts and objective to reduce the banking sector burden in resolution reporting by combining four reports into a single delivery. However, we would suggest dividing the templates into two reports: one containing templates included in the SRB/Resolution Authority liability data report and one containing the rest. The reasoning is that the LDR contains quantitative data not (directly) related to other templates presented. This would limit the amount of information to be resubmitted should any errors be found.
Regarding the reporting scope, Article 3.3(a) indicates that Z0200 should be provided for relevant legal entities subject to MREL requirements on an individual basis. However, the reporting scope for Z0501, Z0502, Z0600, Z0701 and Z0704 under Article 3.8 has no symmetrical constraint, which is hard to justify in our opinion. The overall reporting scope under Article 3 should be limited to the resolution entity, Union parent undertaking, and other relevant legal entities subject to MREL requirements and templates listed under Article 3.8 should be limited to the Union parent undertaking.
In Article 5, it is unclear the meaning of the last part of para 2 “on an individual, subconsolidated and consolidated level, as appropriate”. The text is ambiguous and unclear as to whether the provision stretches the resolution authority’s mandate to decide on the reporting scope as they see fit or only refer to the scope defined in Article 3. As there should be a level playing field between cooperative groups and other groups, we would suggest that this part be removed or at least clarified that the idea is not to broaden the authority's mandate.
Finally, we see a one-year transition period time as the bare minimum. Setting the first remittance date on 31 March 2026, with the first reference date on 31 December 2025, might create significant operational risks for banks and lower data quality. We would encourage the EBA to review the first remittance date to take into account the significant IT projects and internal changes that banks need to realise to comply with this ITS.
Question 2: Do the respondents need further clarification to understand which of the minimum reporting obligations would apply to their specific profile (Resolution entity, Liquidation entity, RLE, non-institution…?
The EBA uses “recurrent account” for both “Deposit functions” and “Payment functions” in para 35 and 37, respectively. We would suggest the EBA to provide a definition or a reference to a legal text in order to be able to report these requirements correctly, given that both Directive (EU) 2015/2366 and Regulation (EU) 260/2012 do not provide a definition.
i. How does this change impact your organisation’s ability to report resolution data in a timely manner while still retaining data quality?
We urge the EBA to reconsider the approach to request reporting a month in advance. This creates a significant operational risk and will lead to a deterioration of data quality involving potential resubmission. To clarify, some of the reports (CFR notably) depend on data made available by the COREP / FINREP. There is thus a bottleneck and the availability of both data and teams will be lacking for the proper production of some resolution reports.
Therefore, we advise the EBA to maintain the submission date at April 30 to ensure that processes are run with the necessary flexibility, especially in light of the granular reporting introduced. The April 30 submission date is both in the interest of credit institutions (to avoid costly resubmissions, less time for adequate data) and resolution authorities (that in case of a shorter timeline might be faced with impaired data quality, increased probability of errors due to resubmissions, thus defeating the purpose of an earlier resubmission date).
i. Do you have questions on how the new instructions on Onboarding Capacity should be interpreted for your organization?
We encourage the EBA to explicitly delineate the rationale for banks to produce data regarding Onboarding capacity. We would like to underline that this data is not available to all our members and it will be difficult to produce, as it will vary even within business lines depending on clients’ profiles and needs. Similar reflections might also refer to recurrent transactions.
In addition, the Z0701 reporting scope should be limited to Member states (identified as ‘country’) in which the group is active and has one or more functions considered critical in the market for the relevant country. In other terms, if the institution is active