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

EBA Mapping Tool Clarification - EU OV1

‘Template C 02.00, row 690 et seq.: according to the mapping tool for CRR3_step1 provided within the consultation on public disclosure (EBA/CP/2023/38) this row is mapped to the template OV1, row 1 “credit risk”. To our understanding additional “other risk exposure amounts” reported in row 690 et seq. could arise from all kinds of risk categories and are not limited to credit risk. More guidance about what is to be reported in row 690 et. seq. is needed, especially what is to be reported in row 760.’ 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7485
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 21/08/2025

EBA Pillar 3 Mapping Tool Clarification - EU CMS1

1. CMS1 R8/Col b mapping: [OV1, row 29, column a} - {CMS1, row 8, column a}: We are using OV1 R29a as TREA and then deducted the IM RWA from CMS1 to get the SA RWA.   2. CMS1 R7/ Col b: The mapping is a balance from R8, deducted R1-7; in that case – ‘amounts below the thresholds for deduction (row 25 in Template OV1)’ will be missing from R7 given that’s not include in the TREA (this line item was mentioned in the CMS1 instruction)

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7484
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 21/08/2025

SCA exception for Contactless only terminals (SoftPOS) in case of emergency

We are in the process of developing a backup solution for our SoftPOS terminal application, intended for use during exceptional circumstances such as cyber-attacks or other disruptions to internet connectivity and acquirer systems. As SoftPOS terminals operate exclusively with contactless transactions, and contactless transactions does not support Offline PIN, it is technically not possible to perform Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) in offline mode. We would like to confirm whether, under these conditions, it is acceptable to process offline contactless transactions without applying SCA and follow Directive (EU) 2015/2366 article 0 (15)

  • 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: 2025_7482
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:

Determination of exposure value cap for netting sets subject to a margin agreement.

Article 274(3) states "The exposure value of a netting set that is subject to a contractual margin agreement shall be capped at the exposure value of the same netting set not subject to any form of margin agreement". This wording has slightly diverged from Basel CRE52.2 which stated "The EAD for a margined netting set is capped at the EAD of the same netting set calculated on an unmargined basis".  Basel focused on applying the unmargined methodology in the wording not that it should be treated as if there were no margin agreement. This nuance in wording is leading to a misinterpretation of the CRR which is exacerbated by EBA Q&A 2023_6962 which has allowed for firms to apply SA-CCR in a manner which significantly underestimates capital requirements vs economic exposure. In situations where firms are posting excess variation margin which has a real economic credit risk to the counterparty the wording of the CRR and the Q&A implies that this can be fully disregarded from the exposure calculation. This would therefore mean that firms are able to arbitrage the capital rules and avoid capital charges by lending money to counterparties by posting it as variation margin under a CSA and then disregarding that exposure by applying the "unmargined" cap. This needs to be resolved by a clarification to the EBA Q&A to the effect that any collateral posted/received under a variation margin CSA should still be included in the exposure calculation, albeit using the unmargined rather than margined formulation to achieve the effect that the cap is designed to do per Basel CRE52.2 FAQ1.  i.e. this could easily be interpreted that if you are not subject to a margin agreement then anything which was variation margin should now just be characterized as NICA as it still economically exists as collateral. This would satisfy both the purpose of the rule and avoid the risk of understatement of capital requirements.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7478
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 08/07/2025

EBA Mapping Tool - Template EU CC1 Logic

The EBA Mapping Tool that specifies the mapping of the templates and tables for disclosures with those on supervisory reporting is incorrect for Template EU CC1, r57 (Column a).

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7477
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 21/08/2025

EBA Mapping Tool - Template EU KM1 Logic

In relation to the EBA Mapping Tool that specifies the mapping of the templates and tables for disclosures with those on supervisory reporting, we believe that the logic provided is incorrect for the certain cell references within the EU KM1 Template.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7476
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 21/08/2025

Disclosure of EU ILAC - Incorrect Mapping Logic

With regards to the disclosure of the EU ILAC template, we believe that the mapping logic provided, relating to M 03.00 is incorrect. For Row EU7 - column b, the mapping logic states: {M 03.00, r0260, c0020} + {M 03.00, r0270, c0020}. However, the reference to {M 03.00, r0270, c0020} relates to a greyed-out cell in M 03.00. For Row EU22 - column b, the mapping logic states: {M 03.00, r0590, c0020}. We believe that the logic is referencing the incorrect cell (Residual maturity of >= 1 year and < 2 years).

  • 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: 2025_7472
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Other
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 21/08/2025

Submission Error related to FC.06/L0600 “Label: Duplicate fact, not same value"

Could you please check if this duplicate ERROR is incorrect and needs to be corrected?When we try to submit the FICO IGT & RC report via local FSA Portal we get an ERROR regarding template FC.06/L0600 “Label: Duplicate fact, not same value”. It seems like the validation rule creates an ERROR if an “Identification code of the external counterparty” (column 0020) is included on more than one row. According to EU 2022/2454 Article 7.2 instruction for column 0080 it needs to be allowed to include the same ID code for the counterparty if there are more than one entity of the conglomerate involved,   I.E. two rows with the same Counterparty but two different entities of Consolidation (e.g. A & B), which get the following ERROR: Error in cell: sheet L0600, row 1, column J, with a value of A, Error in cell: sheet L0600, row 2, column J, with a value of B,. 

  • Legal act: Directive 2002/87/EC (FiCOD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2454 – ITS on the reporting of intra-group transactions and risk concentration for financial conglomerates
  • ID: 2025_7471
  • Topic: Supervisory Reporting - FiCOD
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 18/07/2025

Eligibility as collateral under article 207(2) of secured notes designed specifically to remove any material positive correlation between the value of the note and the credit quality of its issuer.

Entity A issues a secured note designed specifically to remove any material positive correlation between the value of the note and the credit quality of its issuer (entity A). The note is secured by assets uncorrelated to entity A. In legal structure I, entity A deposits the assets with a third-party custodian trust account, pledged to the note holders.  In a variant legal structure II, entity A sells the assets to a SPV, which has been setup by entity A for that sole purpose; the SPV then issues a guarantee to the noteholders, backed by the assets it holds. Bank B enters into a reverse repo with entity A, where it lends cash to entity A and receives the secured note as collateral. From bank B’s perspective, does such secured note qualify as eligible collateral under CRR article 207(2) when: the secured note is secured by the assets held in a third party custodian trust account, pledged to the noteholders (legal structure I)? the secured note is guaranteed by a SPV holding the assets (variant legal structure II)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7470
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:

Additional liquidity outflows corresponding to collateral needs resulting from the impact of an adverse market scenario.

Pursuant to Article 423(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, institutions are to add an additional outflow corresponding to collateral needs that would result from the impact of an adverse market scenario on the institution's derivatives transactions if material.  Should this be extended to include financing transactions if an outflow corresponding to collateral needs from the impact of an adverse market scenario is deemed material by an institution?

  • 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: 2025_7469
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 08/07/2025

COREP C35 - consistency controls v23722_m_0

The control claims that for C35.02 row r0120 column 0110 should be the sum of row r0080-r0100. If the control were to apply to line 0120, then the amounts reported in line 0120 columns 0010 to 0070 would not be included in the total of column 0110, which is inconsistent.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions
  • ID: 2025_7465
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 04/06/2025

Payment account definition

Does an account provided by a payment service provider, linked to a payment instrument that can be used to make payment transactions to [certain] third parties (e.g. merchants) from that account, as well as to withdraw cash from that account (e.g. from an ATM) and receive incoming payments in the respective account from the same payment users to which the funds were transferred (i.e, refunds from merchants) fall under the definition of a payment account in accordance with PSD2, even if the respective account cannot receive funds from third parties via credit transfers?  

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7463
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

error in taxonomy

in COREP_OF template C_08.01.C cells r0070 c0130 and r0180 c130 seem to be common facts which in my opinion shouldn't be the case  how do we proceed from here?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7462
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 04/06/2025

Template 2: location of the collateral

Is it intentional to show the location of counterparty rather than the physical location of the property in question for Template 2 ?

  • 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: 2025_7461
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/07/2025

CET1 buyback - sufficient certainty

Should CET1 buybacks be deducted from the CET1 capital from the moment the permission from the competent authority has been granted or from the moment the transaction has been announced?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 - RTS for Own Funds requirements for institutions
  • ID: 2025_7460
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 18/07/2025

Transfer of banking business – presentation of transaction in FINREP movements tables

An application for approval of the legal merger of Bank A with Bank B has been submitted to the Central Bank of Cyprus. The legal merger will be completed in two steps, (i) the transfer of banking business of Bank B to Bank A via a transfer of business agreement, (ii) the merger of the two entities via a scheme of reorganisation. Following step (i) of the merger, Bank B will not maintain any activities or deposits and it will surrender its banking license. As such it will cease to be a credit institution and will temporarily obtain ~36% of Bank A through the transfer of business to Bank A (subject to regulatory approvals). The said legal merger is expected to be effective from 1 July 2025 onwards. The first FINREP report that will be prepared for the “merged” entity will be for reference date 30/09/2025. Given the transaction described above, how should we approach the FINREP tables that show movements (i.e. tables F12.01, F12.02, F18.01, F24.01, F24.02, F25.01& F 25.03)? In our view, the possible options are as follows: (i) Opening balances comprise of the sum of the opening balances of both entities (prior to the transaction) as at 01/01/2025. Additions/disposals/other movements during the reference period are again the sum of the additions/disposals/other movements of the two entities. As such the transfer of balances from Bank B to Bank A will not be explicitly shown. (ii) Amounts transferred from Bank B to Bank A form part of the inflows/additions of the “merged” entity, meaning the opening balances on the movements tables present the figures as presented by Bank A in its current reporting.  (iii) Opening balances will be shown as nil and all will be shown as “Inflows”, as if a new entity is set up.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions
  • ID: 2025_7458
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 26/06/2025

C 25.01 - CREDIT VALUATION ADJUSTMENT RISK (CVA) - Template Dimensions - Row 0130 / Column 0050

C 25.01 Data point intersecting Row 0130 (“Total non-centrally cleared SFTs that are fair-valued for accounting purposes, excluding exempted transactions” and Column 0050 (“Simplified treatment for derivative positions of CIU”) – we do not believe that the template dimensions are correct whereby SFTs are subset of derivatives.

  • 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: 2025_7456
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 27/06/2025

C 02.00 - OWN FUNDS REQUIREMENTS (CA2) - Scope of Row 0690

Template C 02.00, row 690 et seq.: according to the mapping tool for CRR3_step1 provided within the consultation on public disclosure (EBA/CP/2023/38) this row is mapped to the template OV1, row 1 “credit risk”. To our understanding additional “other risk exposure amounts” reported in row 0690 et seq. could arise from all kinds of risk categories and are not limited to credit risk. More guidance about what is to be reported in row 0690 et. seq. is needed, especially what is to be reported in row 0760. Should this row be used for mandatory requirements by competent authorities? Should this row be used for risk exposure amounts which could by assigned to a risk category like credit risk or market risk?

  • 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: 2025_7455
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 04/06/2025

C 02.00 - OWN FUNDS REQUIREMENTS (CA2) - CoRep S-TREA Allocation in Col 0020

C 02.00 – Row 690/ Col 0020 (Other RWA under S-TREA): If the firm were back testing any models that identified a shortfall, would this necessarily result in the equivalent Fully Standardised RWA needing to be computed, given that the fully standardised position would be driven by rule-based criteria, so in essence captured in the appropriate rows before Row 690 (risk types) already? In addition, for any regulator driven add-ons, again assume the same would be applied.

  • 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: 2025_7454
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/06/2025

Whether the derogation under Article 119 (5) of CRR can be applied in the context of Article 395(1) of CRR

According to article 119 (5) of CRR, exposures to financial institutions shall be treated as exposures to institutions when calculating risk weighted assets for credit risk. Is article 119(5) applicable for the purpose of calculating large exposure limits in accordance with Article 395 of CRR? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7453
  • Topic: Large exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 08/07/2025