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

Interaction between the State aid framework and the application of resolution actions

Could you please clarify the interaction of the State aid framework and the application of resolution actions in the context of Article 34 (3) and Recital 47 of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2182
  • Topic: Resolution objectives and triggers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 10/03/2017

Application of the NCWO principle

Regarding to the no-creditor-worse-off principle as referred to in Article 34(1)(g) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) - does it apply to write down and conversion as well? Or only to the use of resolution tools?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2181
  • Topic: Resolution objectives and triggers
  • Date of submission:

Resolution action with regard to a holding

When can a resolution action be taken with regard to a holding according to Article 33(4) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD): are the conditions individual or cumulative?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2180
  • Topic: Resolution objectives and triggers
  • Date of submission:

Clarifications regarding the scope of application of Article 33

Can you please clarify Article 33 of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD); as a whole, we interpret it to mean that the special rule for Financial Institutions should apply only to Financial Institutions that are not parents in accordance with Article 1(1)(c) or (d), but are subsidiaries of a credit institution or an investment firm. Is this correct?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2179
  • Topic: Resolution objectives and triggers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/11/2016

Clarification on the applicable framework for public recapitalisation

We would like clarification on the applicable framework for public recapitalisation which is not classified as precautionary recapitalisation accordingly to Article 32(4)(d)(iii) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD), in particular i) its relation to Government Financial Stabilisation Tools, and ii) differences in rules applicable in 2015 and from 2016 onwards.

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2178
  • Topic: Resolution objectives and triggers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 02/12/2016

Determination made by competent authority

Must the “determination made by competent authority”, mentioned in Article 32(1)(a) of the Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD), be enshrined in a formal decision of the competent authority?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2177
  • Topic: Resolution objectives and triggers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Declaration of insolvency / bankruptcy

When the entity is failing or likely to fail and the public interest condition referred to in Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) is not fulfilled, who is supposed to take initiative for the purpose of the entity’s bankruptcy motion? How do the determination under Article 82(2) BRRD and the assessment of resolvability under Articles 15 and 16 BRRD relate to each other?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2176
  • Topic: Resolution objectives and triggers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Clarification on formal decision

Should the determination to be made by the resolution authority under Articles 32(1), 32a and 33 of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) on whether the conditions for resolution are met be enshrined in a formal decision? If so, should the latter be a separate decision from the decision on the actions to take?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2175
  • Topic: Resolution objectives and triggers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Determination the failure of an institution

If, when performing the valuation under Article 36 of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD), the resolution authority finds that the conditions for resolution or for the write down or conversion of capital instruments and eligible liabilities in accordance with Article 59 are not met, can it ‘reverse’ the competent authority’s determination that the institution is failing or likely to fail?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2174
  • Topic: Resolution objectives and triggers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Stating in law that banks’ activities are always in the public interest

Is it compliant with Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) if the national transposition measure provides that it is always in the public interest to take resolution action in relation to all credit institutions?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2173
  • Topic: Resolution objectives and triggers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Coverage of further losses following bail-in

Can it be clarified as to whether in cases where there has been bail-in of at least 8% of the total liabilities, and on all liabilities other than liabilities excluded by Article 44(2) the settlement financing scheme (or alternative financing sources in accordance with Article 44(7)) cannot make a contribution if the liabilities has not been excluded under Article 44(3)? This also seems to follow from Article 101(1)(c).How are further losses covered? The guarantee scheme can only provide limited funds in accordance with Article 109(5).

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2172
  • Topic: Resolution objectives and triggers
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 02/12/2016

FINREP - Contents of template F 40.1 Group structure "entity-by-entity" - Col 160 "Carrying amount" should be higher than 0

Template F40.01 requires carrying amount higher than 0. As a principle of consolidation, enterprises over which the Group exercises significant influence (associates) are accounted for by the equity method. If the Group’BNP Paribas'share of losses of an equity-method entity equals or exceeds the carrying amount of its investment in this entity, the Group discontinues including its share of further losses. The investment is reported at nil value ans respect in this case the control in FINREP template 40.1 concerning the carrying amount. But the Group BNP Paribas consolidated also controlled but non material entities under equity method. In these cases the carrying amount is not reported at nil, due to the fact that the Group is fully involved in the entity. Is it possible to modifiy the control to authorize negative carrying amount under the condition that a comment is reported in a dedicated cell?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 530/2014 - RTS on materiality of thresholds for internal approaches to specific risk in the trading book
  • ID: 2015_2170
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/12/2019

Treatment of Eligible CRM CDS for Leverage Ratio

Should credit derivatives subject to the CRR Article 273(3) which have zero exposure value for counterparty credit risk purposes also be treated as having zero value for the Leverage ratio exposure measure under CRR Article 429c(1)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/62 - DR with regard to the leverage ratio
  • ID: 2015_2165
  • Topic: Leverage ratio
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/05/2016

Definition of Aggregate Liabilities

Does the term ‘Aggregate Liabilities’ referred to in Article 415(2)(a), refers solely to ‘Liabilities’ or does it refer to ‘Liabilities and Equity’?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 - DR with regard to liquidity coverage requirement
  • ID: 2015_2158
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Minority interests

Are minority interests that arise from a bank subsidiary (as in the example), which are indirectly attributable to third parties, eligible at the EU parent consolidated level?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2157
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 28/04/2016

Minority interests

According to Article 84 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) institutions shall determine the amount of minority interests of a subsidiary to be included in consolidated Common Equity Tier 1 capital. This is calculated by subtracting the excess of Common Equity Tier 1 capital of the subsidiary attributable to minority interests from the total amount of minority interests of that undertaking. In the formula considered under Article 84(1)(a) CRR, how should Common Equity Tier 1 deductions be taken into account when computing this excess?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2015_2155
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 17/03/2017

FINREP – Non-performing probation period start date on forborne exposures

Clarification is requested surrounding non-performing probation periods where forbearance precedes classification of non-performance. Scenario 1) T0 - A customer’s performing exposure has a concession event applied and is classified as performing forborne and begins the 2 year performing assessment. 2) T1 - At a later date the customer becomes non-performing through criteria in paragraph 145 (e.g. “material exposures which are more than 90 days past-due”) (not by paragraph 179 as deemed not applicable in Q&A 2014_736) and is classified as non-performing forborne. 3) T2 – Customer exits non-performing criteria. In the above scenario at which point would non-performing probation period start from? a) The non-performing probation period starts from T0, the date of where the forbearance measure is extended. i.e. Probation starts from before the exposure is classified as non-performing; b) Non-performing probation period starts from T1; c) Non-performing probation period starts from T2; or d) There is no non-performing probation period which contradicts Q&A 2014_735. It has been confirmed by the EBA in Q&A 2014_735 that a non-performing probation period is required in the scenario.

  • 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: 2015_2146
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/12/2019

FINREP – Non-performing exposures during performing probation period

Clarification is requested surrounding non-performing probation periods. Scenario If a customer 19s exposure has previously had a concession event and has been classified as non-performing then they shall serve a 1 year non-performing probation period from the date of the concession event followed by a 2 year performing probation period (on the assumption they met all the exit criteria from non-performing probation). If the customer re-enters non-performing classification during the 2 year performing probation period, through: 1) Going more than 30 days past due; or 2) Non-performing as per any of the criteria per paragraph 145. a) Will the customer serve another 1 year non-performing probation? And if so, when would that non-performing probation period start from, as there has not been a new forbearance measure? b) Or would the customer go straight to a new 2 year performing probation period on the exit of non-performing criteria? Note: The scenario where customer becomes non-performing again due to a new concession event being issued (paragraph 179) is intentionally excluded from the above query. It is believed by the institution that this could only follow option a) above with a new non-performing probation period starting from the date of the new concession event.

  • 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: 2015_2145
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/04/2016

FINREP Template F 16.07 - Accumulated Impairment

Validation rule v3956_s requires all values presented in column 040 (Accumulated impairment) of template F 16.07 to be negative. The row labels on rows 060 and 100 state “Impairment or (-) reversal of impairment”. As a result, column 040, presented negative, appears to only allow the disclosure of accumulated net reversals of impairments. Please could we receive clarification that this validation is correct?

  • 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: 2015_2143
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/12/2019

FINREP Template F 40.01

Annex V Part II paragraph 296 (f) of Commission Implementing Regulatio (EU) No 680/2014 states of  “”Equity of Investee”, “Total assets of the Investee” and “Profit or (loss) of the Investee” include the amounts of these items in the last financial statements of the investee.” Does this refer to the latest set of financial statements of the investee which have been approved by the investee’s board of directors, or similarly authorised committee?

  • 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: 2015_2141
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/12/2019