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

Clarifications on the scope of ‘New Funding’ in C69.00

We would like to clarify two matters: 1. Whether ‘new funds’ are meant to be calculated with reference to the institution’s funding levels as a whole, or with reference to the individual depositor’s position at the reporting date. For example, Client A holds a sight deposit with Bank ABC, and transfers funds to Client B into an account held with the same bank. Should Bank ABC report a ‘nil’ balance in C69.00 given that there has been no increase in the institution’s overall level of funding? Or is some other treatment applicable in this case? 2. What would be the appropriate reporting for amounts transferred from a sight deposit account to a defined-maturity deposit pertaining to the same depositor? Given that this scenario is not addressed in the instructions, could you clarify whether such amounts should be treated as ‘rolled-over’ (and therefore within the scope of ‘new funds’ as per Annex XIX, 1.4(10))? If so, in such instances should institutions include in C69.00 the volume and spread pertaining to the new term deposit under its corresponding maturity bucket? Or is there another applicable treatment for these types of scenarios?

  • 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Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)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: 2019_4893
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/09/2020

Definition of an "exposure" in C 15 instructions

We would like to clarify C 15 reporting requirements. Especially which exposures should be included here in case there is immovable property collateral.

  • 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: 2019_4892
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/12/2020

Operational requirements for holdings of liquid assets

Can banknotes held in locations other than branches be classified as ‘coins and banknotes’ under Delegated Regulation 2015/61 and thus be eligible to be classed as Level 1 liquid assets if the operational requirements per Article 8 can be satisfied?

  • 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: 2019_4891
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/02/2021

Outflows from other retail deposits

Would a retail deposit account, which can be serviced by telephony as well as by internet, not trigger the “internet only” risk factor for high outflow classification?

  • 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: 2019_4890
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/02/2021

USA public sector entities risk weight

USA is listed by the EBA as applying supervisory and regulatory arrangements at least equivalent to those applied in the Union. However the competent authorities of this country does not require the use of ECAI ratings to assess risk weights of exposures to public sector entities. Should we nevertheless consider that this competent authority treat exposures to public sector entities in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 of article 116, and so should we risk weight these exposures in accordance to paragraph 1 or 2?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4889
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Collateral swaps with domestic central bank

Should collateral swaps that produce an outflow, where the counterparty is the credit institution’s domestic central bank, be subject to 0% outflow rate as per the general remarks?

  • 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: 2019_4879
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/09/2020

Failed Authentication Code

Please clarify under what circumstances Article 4 Paragraph 3(a) of the Regulation (EU) 2018/389 – RTS on SCA and SC might it be impossible to apply in remote authentication where SMS based One time passwords (OTPs) are used as the authentication method.

  • 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: 2019_4875
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 25/09/2020

Roles that can be assigned to electronic money institutions in certificates

Please clarify which roles may be assigned to electronic money institutions (EU 2015/2366 Art 1(1) b) by qualified trust service providers (QTSPs) in the certificates. There seems to be some contradiction between EU 2015/2366 Art 11(1) and the EBA Opinion on the use of eIDAS certificates under the RTS on SCA and CSC (EBA-Op-2018-7) item 26.

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4874
  • Topic: Authorisation and registration
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Unutilised Limits of Guarantess

Are the unutilised limits of guarantees to be included in LCR {C73,r870,c010}?

  • 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: 2019_4872
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/02/2022

Unlikeliness to pay (UTP) - exit from NP status

Can a customer exit non-performing status immediately (provided of course no other UTP criteria are applicable), or does a period of 12 months need always to pass before the customer can exit?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2018/06 - Guidelines on management of non-performing and forborne exposures
  • ID: 2019_4867
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/01/2021

Reporting of card transactions that are out-of-scope from the requirement for SCA

In the Fraud Reporting, how should payment service providers (PSPs) report card transactions without Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) that are out of scope of the requirement for SCA, i.e. one-leg transactions and merchant-initiated transaction?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4866
  • Topic: Fraud reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/07/2020

Interplay between subordination and calibration for MREL

Shall subordination and calibration requirements set out in Art. 45b and 45c BRRD be met at all times, independently from each other?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4863
  • Topic: MREL
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Reference to provisions governing the access to extraordinary financing in MREL calibration

Is the reference to the provisions governing the access to extraordinary financing (37(10), 44(5) and 44(8) BRRD) a mandatory component of MREL calibration for resolution and non-resolution entities?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4862
  • Topic: MREL
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) – Transitional periods

1) Can resolution authorities set transition periods with an end-date before 1 January 2024?2) Can resolution authorities set a transition period with an end-date before 1 January 2022 (date referred to in the context of the "intermediate target" introduced in the legislation?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4861
  • Topic: MREL
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/03/2021

Range of application of the LGD regulatory floor for the calculation of own funds requirements at individual and consolidated levels

Shall the LGD regulatory floor be applied at the territory level of the Member state to exposures secured by property located in the territory of that Member state (Article 164(7) CRR) for the calculation of own funds requirements at any level, i.e. individual and/or consolidated level?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4859
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 18/02/2022

Treatment of intragroup liabilities when one of the institutions is established in a country being a member of EEA and EFTA (i.e. non-EU Member State but EEA Member State), which has implemented Directive 2014/59/UE, but entry into force of the Decision of the EEA Joint Committee (‘JCD’) No 21/2018 of 9 February 2018 is pending and the draft JCD incorporating Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is under consideration by the EU (EEAS) and the EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway)

Should, according to Article 5(1)(a) of the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, intragroup liabilities be deducted from the contribution base when one side of the transaction is an institution established in a country being a member of the EEA and EFTA (e.g. Norway), but (according to information available on www.efta.int, retrieved on 1 August 2019) entry into force of the Joint Committee Decision (JCD) No 21/2018 of 9 February 2018 incorporating Directive 2014/59 and Joint Committee Decision (JCD) No 79/2019 of 29 March 2019 incorporating Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36/EU is pending and the draft Joint Committee Decision incorporating Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is under consideration by the EU (EEAS) and the EFTA States?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 - DR on ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements
  • ID: 2019_4857
  • Topic: Resolution financing arrangements
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Type of accounts accessible through common and secure communication

Should credit lines (namely “credit cards accounts”), accessible online, be available to Account Information Service Provider (AISP), Payment Initiation Service Provider (PISP) and Card Based Payment Instrument Issuer (CBPII)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4856
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/03/2021

Application of the strong customer authentication (SCA) in case of refund

Does a refund, which is considered as an electronic payment transaction, be subject to  strong customer authentication (SCA)? Does a merchant that initiates a refund request be considered as a payer? If so, does a Payment service provider (PSP), that holds the payment account of a Merchant, have to set up SCA each time his Merchant is doing a refund from its payment account?

  • 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: 2019_4855
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 23/04/2021

Account Data required by a ASPSP to execute a payment order via a PISP

In the context of Payment Initiation Service (PIS) where a Payment Service User (PSU) payment order is to be carried out, the Payment Initiation Service Provider (PISP) accesses the PSU e-banking account to require a payment. The PSU may: a) hold a single payment account to be debited or b) hold multiple payment accounts where only one of them is to be debited to finalize the payment order (in this case PSU has to select a payment account).With reference to both use cases and in the presence of an Account Servicing Payment Service Provider (ASPSP)’s dedicated interface, may the PSU be obliged to digit the IBAN of the account to be debited each time she/he initiates a transaction? Is the PISP always required to report the account number to be debited in the payment request or may this parameter be managed bilaterally among ASPSP and PSU (e.g.: default payment account, drop-down selection menu during the strong customer authentication (SCA) procedure, communication over Out-of-Band (OOB) channels, etc.)?

  • 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: 2019_4854
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/03/2021