Search for Q&As

Enquirers can use various factors to search for a Q&A:

  • These include searching by the Q&A ID; legal reference, date submitted, technical standard / guideline, or by keyword if known.
  • Searches can be extended to more than one legal act, topic, technical standard or guidelines by making multiple selections (i.e. pressing 'Ctrl' on your keyboard, and selecting the relevant ones from the drop-down lists by left mouse-click).

Disclaimer:

Q&As refer to the provisions in force on the day of their publication. The EBA does not systematically review published Q&As following the amendment of legislative acts. Users of the Q&A tool should therefore check the date of publication of the Q&A and whether the provisions referred to in the answer remain the same.

Please note that the Q&As related to the supervisory benchmarking exercises have been moved to the dedicated handbook page. You can submit Q&As on this topic here.

Final Q&As Q&As under review Rejected Q&As Archived Q&As All Q&As

List of Q&A's

Treatment of lease commitments from operate-lease contracts in supervisory reportings

Gemäß Art. 5 Abs. 1 CRR sind Risikopositionen als Aktivposten (Vermögenswert) oder außerbilanzieller Posten definiert. Bedeutet dies im Umkehrschluss, dass Leasingzusagen für Operate-Lease-Verträge nicht in den aufsichtsrechtlichen CRR-Meldungen auszuweisen sind, da diese nach nationalen Bilanzierungsregeln (HGB) nicht als außerbilanzieller Posten unter dem Bilanzstrich auszuweisen sind? According to Article 5 (1) CRR, risk positions are defined as an asset or off-balance sheet item. Conversely, does this mean that lease commitments for operate-lease contracts are not to be shown in supervisory CRR reportings, as these are not to be reported as off-balance sheet items below the balance sheet line under national accounting rules (HGB)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7101
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 05/02/2025

validation rules v16059_s and v16069_s for Template 3 are not aligned with above referenced article / paragraph in the ITS

We believe the validation rules are incorrect as they prescribe that the value should always be equal to or larger than zero, which is not always the case when applying the fixed formula for calculating the distance from the IEA Net Zero benchmark.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2024_7100
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 05/07/2024

Loan commitments, financial guarantees and other commitments received in F 9.2

What should be presented as “Loan commitments, financial guarantees and other commitments received” in F 09.02?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/451 – ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)
  • ID: 2024_7099
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 20/12/2024

Misalignment between scope of reportable exposures against public authorities in template 7 ( CRR) and template 1 ( EU Taxonomy - acc to 2021/2178)

Should rows 280, 290 and 300 from Template 7 under ESG Disclosure only be limited to "Loans and advances" or should the scope of the rows be extended by including also debt security exposures (or other categories of exposures) in order to align with  Annex V from European Commission published on 27.6.2023 , updating Section 1.2.1.4 from 2021/2178 ?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2024_7097
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 28/06/2024

Exemption for Non-EU ICT Intra-group Service Providers

Is it accurate to interpret that an ICT intra-group service provider established outside the EU (non-EU country), providing critical services to an EU-based financial institution (parent undertaking), falls within the exemption outlined in Article 31(8) of DORA, thereby exempting the need for establishing a subsidiary within the EU?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7096
  • Topic: Oversight framework of CTPPs
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/12/2024

Maximum amount of the collateral or guarantee that can be considered in F 13.01 and F 18.00

Could you please more precisely clarify what should be used for “Maximum amount of the collateral or guarantee that can be considered”? Primarily use Market value of collateral as it is prescribed in ESRB Recommendation? or  Each Institute can have individual approach, where Internal collateral value (Market value of the assets reduced by a certain percentage => the “haircut”) also can be primarily used?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/451 – ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)
  • ID: 2024_7095
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 14/06/2024

Definition of weighted average maturity (WAM) and weighted average yield (WAY)

Can you please confirm that the WAM is based on the residual time to maturity according to the contractual conditions? Furthermore which notional amount shall be used for averaging: the notional amount at reporting date or future notional amount including any amortization payment? If we base the calculation of the  WAM on the residual maturity, wouldn’t we – for consistency reason also the yield to maturity to be reported under WAY?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2022/14 - Guidelines on interest rate risk arising from non-trading book activities
  • ID: 2024_7094
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - IRRBB
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 12/12/2024

Clarification needed in dedicated Interfaces supervision

We seek clarification and insights into how competent authorities shall fulfill their responsibilities in line with Recital 23 and Article 32.2 of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389, specifically regarding the supervision of payment initiation service's dedicated interfaces to ensure effective oversight and monitoring.

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication
  • ID: 2024_7093
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 30/07/2024

Consistency of Article 447(f) CRR and ITS on public disclosures with the mapping tool for the key metric LCR in KM1

It is clear in article 447(f) of Regulation (EU) N0 575/2013 (CRR) and in the ITS on public disclosures by institutions under Part Eight of Regulation (EU) N0 575/2013 (annex II of Regulation (EU) 2021/637) that average LCR should be reported in KM1 (as well as average of liquidity buffer, outflows and inflows). However, in the mapping tool the references to the LCR numbers in KM1 are to LCR numbers in templates C72, C73, C74 and C76, which are the templates where the regular LCR is reported. The weighted average numbers for LCR are found in template LIQ1. So what is correct and what should be reported in KM1?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/637 - ITS with regard to disclosures of information referred to in Titles II and III of Part Eight CRR
  • ID: 2024_7092
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 20/12/2024

Legal persons to whom the requirement to comply with reporting requirements under Article 54 of the IFR on a consolidated basis applies.

In case Article 7(1) of the IFR applies, does the requirement to comply with the reporting requirements under Article 54 of the IFR rest exclusively on either a Union parent investment firm, Union parent investment holding company or Union parent mixed financial holding company?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2019/2033 (IFR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/2284 - ITS on Reporting
  • ID: 2024_7091
  • Topic: K-factor requirements
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/12/2024

Temporary unavailable (blocked) deposits

Could you please clarify how temporary unavailable (blocked) deposits should be presented?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)
  • ID: 2024_7088
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:

Specification and operationalisation of the phrase "at all times"

How is the wording in Article 92 (1) CRR to be understood with regard to compliance with own funds requirements “at all times” in terms of verifiability?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7086
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 05/06/2024

List of IEA Sectors in Column a vs List of IEA Sectors in the EBA3.3 Annotated Table Layout for ESG

Based on the Excel version of Template 3 (Annex XXXIX), there are 8 sectors explicitly listed in column a (Sector / IEA Sector): Power Fossil fuel combustion Automative Aviation Maritime transport Cement, clinker and lime production Iron and steel, coke, and metal ore production Chemicals And referring to the ITS Annex XL - Instructions for disclosure of ESG risks - Paragraph 19(a), it also mentions that there are 8 mandatory minimum set of sectors: 19. Institutions shall disclose in this template: a. Columns a and b: these columns include the sectors (IEA sectors in column a) under which rows 1-8 lists the mandatory minimum set of sectors, and ..... However, in the "Annotated Table Layout 330-P1-ESG 3.3.xlsx" and in the data dictionary / DPM, downloaded from EBA's website, there are only 7 values mentioned for the IEA sector -  The <Key value> (combination of all <Key value> columns when more than one) must uniquely specify each row. Value restricted to subset [CT55]: (CT:x83) Carbon intensive firms (CT:x84) 1. Power (CT:x85) 2. Fossil fuel combustion (CT:x86) 3. Automotive (CT:x87) 4. Aviation (CT:x88) 5. Maritime transport (CT:x89) 6. Cement, clinker and lime production (CT:x90) 7. Iron and steel, coke, and metal ore production   The IEA Sector named "Chemicals" is not included in the EBA 3.3 list of values. Will either the Excel version and ITS be updated to remove "Chemicals" from the list of mandatory minimum set of sectors or the "Annotated Table Layout for ESG" be updated to include "Chemicals"?  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2024_7085
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/07/2024

Interaction of the risk drivers employed to define the structure of the PD model and the requirement to avoid the excessive cyclicality of own funds requirements.

Is considering the requirement of CRR Article 170 4(c) to incorporate the ‘delinquency’ risk driver in the structure of rating systems possible, to avoid a potential excessive cyclicality of own funds requirements via the use of appropriate calibration techniques in line with the Entity’s chosen calibration philosophy?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2017/16 - Guidelines on PD estimation, LGD estimation and the treatment of defaulted exposures
  • ID: 2024_7083
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 05/02/2025

Template 8 – GAR (%)

In "Annex XL - Instructions for disclosure of ESG risk", the denominator of column "Proportion of new assets funding taxonomy relevant sectors" in Template 8 - GAR (%) "shall be the gross carrying amount of new covered assets from those assets, as defined in the instructions corresponding to column ‘a’ of Template 7". But in the document "Annex I - KPIs for credit institutions (Article 8 Taxonomy)" from EBA advises the Commission on KPIs for transparency on institutions’ environmentally sustainable activities, including a green asset ratio | European Banking Authority (europa.eu), the column "Proportion of new assets funding taxonomy relevant sectors" (sheet "4. GAR KPIs flow") has formulas with a difference of stocks in the denominator. What should be considered in the denominator? The gross carrying amount of new covered assets or the difference between gross carrying amount in current disclosure period (t) and previous disclosure period (t-1)? If it is "new covered assets", what exactly does it mean? Are these the exposures considered in current disclosure period (t), but not in previous disclosure period (t-1)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2024_7082
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/11/2024

RSF from contributions to CCP default fund in C80.00

Should the "Unfunded default funds contributions to CCP" reported in rows 0100 and 0200 of C34.10 be reported in C 80.00 row 0960_"1.8 RSF from contributions to CCP default fund"?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/451 – ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)
  • ID: 2024_7081
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 12/12/2024

Template 5 - Reporting of gross carrying amount of exposures sensitive to chronic, acute, chronic and acute climate change events

In Template 5, should the gross carrying amount of exposures in column j (of which exposures sensitive to impact from both from chronic and acute climate change events) be reported also in column h (Of which exposures sensitive to impact from chronic climate change events) and column i (Of which exposures sensitive to impact from acute climate change events) or is the gross carrying amount of exposures reported in these 3 columns mutually exclusive?  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2024_7080
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/07/2024

Interpretation of ‘ The degree of correlation between the value of the assets relied upon for protection and the credit quality of the obligor shall not be too high.’

In Article 194, Quote Institutions may recognise funded credit protection in the calculation of the effect of credit risk mitigation only where the lending institution has the right to liquidate or retain, in a timely manner, the assets from which the protection derives in the event of the default, insolvency or bankruptcy — or other credit event set out in the transaction documentation — of the obligor and, where applicable, of the custodian holding the collateral. The degree of correlation between the value of the assets relied upon for protection and the credit quality of the obligor shall not be too high. Unquote My question is about the aforementioned correlation. If a obligor’s major asset is a very valuable mine asset, and the mine asset is collateralized by a bank as security for a loan, is it eligible for the bank to consider the value of the mine asset for calculating the ‘risk-weighted asset’? The value of the mine asset is valued by independent & renowned evalution agency and it meets with all other regulatory requirements for eligible collateral.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2016/09 - Guidelines on corrections to modified duration for debt instruments under Article 340(3) CRR
  • ID: 2024_7079
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/06/2024

Issuers of EMTs and scope of application AML requirements

To what extent should electronic money institutions (EMIs) that issue e-money tokens (EMTs) under MiCAR comply with the obligations in relation to anti-money laundering and terrorist financing under Directive 2015/849/EU (as amended, AMLD5)? More specifically, should holders of EMTs be considered as clients of the EMI within the meaning of AMLD5, so that the relevant KYC requirements apply on an ongoing basis in respect of holders of EMTs (not only at the time of issuing but also following trading on the secondary market)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7078
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission: