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

Leverage Exposure Exclusion for guaranteed parts of Export Credit

Can a qualifying guarantee which meets the conditions of Article 429a(1)(f) only be used to reduce the Exposure of On Balance sheet Export related Credit (i.e. drawn amounts)? or can it also be applied to the Off Balance Sheet exposures related to Export Credits, such as the undrawn portion of an Export related facility?

  • 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: 2020_5627
  • Topic: Leverage ratio
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/07/2022

Association with the payment service user by means of a remote channel

Is it sufficient to use a company level knowledge element, in combination with a peronal posession element to associate a user of a business application with personalised security credentials such as authentication software or a knowledge element?

  • 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: 2020_5626
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Subcontractor of electronic money distributor

Does Article 3, paragraph 4 of Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD) mean that that a legal person acting as an electronic money distributor on behalf of an electronic money institution may enter into a contract with another legal person (subcontractor) for the execution of distribution and redeeming of electronic money? Or on the contrary, an electronic money distributor may not use subcontractors to distribute electronic money in the name of the electronic money institution under EU law?

  • Legal act: Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5624
  • Topic: Not applicable
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 18/03/2022

Application of SCA to issuing a payment instrument and tokenisation

Is strong customer authentication (SCA) required when a Payment Service Provider (PSP) issues a payment instrument or creates a token?

  • 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: 2020_5622
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 31/01/2023

Use of new technology for SCA

Is a Payment Services Provider (PSP) allowed to adopt innovative technologies for verifying Payment Services Users (PSUs) where the PSP maintains fraud levels below a certain threshold?

  • 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: 2020_5621
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 23/04/2021

Use of behavioural data for SCA

Can a Payment Service Provider (PSP) use behavioural data and auditable scores to apply Strong customer authentication (SCA) in a way that protects consumer privacy?

  • 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: 2020_5620
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 23/04/2021

Independence of the elements for SCA

Can a Payment Service Provider (PSP) apply Strong customer authentication (SCA) using elements from the same category provided that the elements are independent (i.e. breach of one does not compromise reliability of the other elements)?

  • 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: 2020_5619
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 23/04/2021

Consideration of posted variation margin in LRCalc, when conditions of Article 429c (3) point (a) to (e) are met

Following the second sentence of Article 429c (3) provided cash collateral, which meets all the conditions set out in points (a) to (e) of Article 429c (3), shall be considered as variation margin posted to the counterparty and shall be included in the calculation of the replacement cost of the netting set under SA-CCR for leverage ratio. We kindly ask EBA for instructions how to consider cash variation margin provided to the counterparty, when points (a) to (e) of Article 429(c) are met, in LRCalc.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
  • ID: 2020_5617
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Leverage ratio
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2021

Adding to own funds the unredeemed part of own funds.

When and under what conditions can the unredeemed part of own funds, for the redemption of which an institution had previously obtained a general prior permission from the competent authority in accordance with Article 77 and the second subparagraph of Article 78(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR), be included in own funds again?

  • 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: 2020_5615
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/02/2023

Validation rules between template F 18.01 and F 24.01

We have three groups of rules affected: A. There are these validations in template F 18.01 : Template ID columns Formula F 18.01 v7866_m (0010) {r0050} >= {r0070} + {r0080} F 18.01 v7867_m (0010) {r0050} >= {r0090} F 18.01 v7868_m (0010) {r0100} >= {r0110} F 18.01 v7869_m (0010) {r0100} >= {r0120} F 18.01 v8114_m (0010) {r0050} >= {r0060} F 18.01 v8115_m (0010) {r0060} >= {r0070} F 18.01 v8116_m (0020) {r0050} <= {r0060} F 18.01 v8117_m (0020) {r0060} <= {r0070} B. There are validations between these templates: ID Formula v8509_i {F 18.01, r0060, c0010}=={F 24.01, r0020, c0050} v8510_i {F 18.01, r0060, c0020}=={F 24.01, r0120, c0050} v8511_i {F 18.01, r0070, c0010}=={F 24.01, r0020, c0060} v8512_i {F 18.01, r0070, c0020}=={F 24.01, r0120, c0060} v8513_i {F 18.01, r0080, c0010}=={F 24.01, r0020, c0070} v8514_i {F 18.01, r0080, c0020}=={F 24.01, r0120, c0070} v8517_i {F 18.01, r0110, c0010}=={F 24.01, r0020, c0030} v8518_i {F 18.01, r0110, c0020}=={F 24.01, r0120, c0030} C. And this within template F 24.01: ID Template Formula v8051_m F 24.01 {r0320} = {r0010} + {r0020} + {r0120} Knowing that we have to comply with rule group A, rules B and C cannot be complied simultaneously. What set of rules should we follow, B or C?

  • 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: 2020_5613
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 10/09/2021

Reconciliation between the sum of Total Risk Exposure contributions in {C06.02;c250} and the Total Risk Exposure reported in ({C02.00;r010;c010}).

The sum of Total Risk Exposure contributions in {C06.02;c250} is not expected to differ greatly from the Total Risk Exposure reported in C02 ({C02.00;r010;c010}). However, the amount in the COREP C02 includes the RWA for entities consolidated using the equity method, while the amount in the COREP C06.02 does not, because entities consolidated using the equity method are out of the scope of this COREP. According to the reporting instructions, the entity should allocate the RWAs so that the value for the group is the sum of the values reported for each entity in ‘Group Solvency’ template. The entity consolidated using the equity method should play no role. I understand that the column 250 (and therefore columns 260 to 290) of the COREP C06.02 should not report actual risk figures, but “contributions”. According to the regulation 2014/680 Annex II paragraph 35, “The institutions shall define the most appropriate breakdown method between the entities to take into account the possible diversification effects for market risk and operational risk”. I understand that reporting entities has to split the total RWA for credit risk, market risk and operational risk (and other risks) – as reported in the COREP C02 – between entities reported in the COREP C06.02, using a breakdown method. Therefore, I understand that the “real” amount of RWA of entities consolidated using the equity method is in fine allocated to other entities. Hence, could you confirm that indeed, the amount of RWA of entities consolidated using the equity method should be allocated by the reporting entity to other entities using the “most appropriate breakdown method” in the COREP C06.02?

  • 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: 2020_5612
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 25/06/2021

Article 94 (4) discretion on Remuneration

Does the discretion of article 94(3) (a) provide the member states of the EU with the option to set the said threshold to the ultimate minimum (i.e. to set the threshold at zero)? And if the answer to the above question is yes, does the option not to transpose at all the wording of subparagraph (a) described above, effectively set the threshold at zero?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5609
  • Topic: Remuneration
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 23/09/2022

Use of UTP triggers when default definition is on facility level

If an obligor has a mortgage loan and other loans (like credit card, private loan, business loans etc.) where definition of default is on the facility level, and the institution has certain obligor level triggers (bankruptcy, death, divorce etc.) and the obligor defaults on his mortgage (due to an obligor level trigger), should there be an automatic cross default on the other loans as well. If the opposite happens, i.e. the obligor defaults on one of the other loans (also due to an obligor level trigger) should the mortgage be defaulted as well?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2016/07 - Guidelines on the application of the definition of default under Article 178 CRR
  • ID: 2020_5592
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/02/2022

Definition of participation for the purposes of Article 18(7) CRR

In the context of Article 18(7) CRR, where an institutions holds a participation in another undertaking that is not an institution, financial institution or ancillary services undertaking, shall the default treatment for this participation be the equity method or shall the valuation be affected in accordance with the applicable accounting framework (Article 24(1) CRR), if that would result in a different measurement base?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5590
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 17/12/2021

Treatment of Repo and Reverse repo with bilateral early termination option

A supervised institution has entered a reverse repo with a financial counterparty which features an early termination option exercisable at the supervised institution’s discretion. In order to be able to map the reverse repo on the option date for the purpose of NSFR - RSF calculation, how are the supervised institution and the competent authorities supposed to assess the reputational factors that may limit the institution’s ability to exercise the option? [ref. Article 428q 3.]

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5588
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/02/2022

Interaction between 45f(3) and 45f(4) BRRD

In case of a “daisy chain” structure involving three entities (resolution entity, intermediate entity which is subsidiary of the resolution entity and subsidiary of the intermediate entity) which are all in the same Member State, how and with respect to which paragraph of Article 45f ofDirective 2014/59/EU (BRRD) should resolution authorities and institutions proceed to assess waiver requests? Is any of the two potentially applicable paragraphs (Article 45f(3) and 45f (4)) required to be privileged/rejected? Should they be combined? Also, in such a situation: a) Could you confirm that the impossibility to meet conditions under one paragraph (for instance, intermediate entity in shortfall or cross-border SPE) does not preclude requesting a waiver and the request being examined based on the other paragraph? b) Regarding condition set out in article 45f (3)(d) and 45f(4)(d) )BRRD, which entity should be the guarantor, the resolution entity or the parent entity? How to interpret/ apply these two options in case there is no MREL target set at the parent level but only at resolution entity level? c) In case the interpretation is that in order for an indirect subsidiary of a resolution entity to be granted a waiver from the application of internal MREL, its direct parent must comply with a sub-consolidated MREL target in the same MS (Article 45f(4) BRRD/12h(2) SRMR), can you clarify if the condition set out in Article 45f(4)(b) BRRD/12h(2)(b) SRMR requiring the (direct) parent undertaking to comply with the sub-consolidated MREL requirement referred to in Article 45a(1) BRRD/12a(1) SRMR is met if such parent undertaking is in shortfall but has been granted a MREL waiver? A final related question in case of entities subject to BRRD is whether, when assessing the condition under paragraphs 45f (3)(f) and 45f (4)(f) BRRD on ownership of 50% of voting rights in the subsidiary, such ownership should be assessed both directly and indirectly (direct/ indirect control).

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5582
  • Topic: MREL
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 18/03/2022

Characteristics of the guarantee for the purposes of iMREL waiver

In Article 45f(3) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD), do the "commitments " mentioned refer only to commitments of the subsidiary entered into with external creditors or do they also include intra-group commitments other than those entered into with the guarantor? Please also specify whether the shareholders should be excluded. Is there any other meaning to this term in the resolution framework? Is there a limit for the amount of the guarantee having in mind that the amount of the MREL target for which a waiver is requested would be limited. Is there a minimum duration for the term of the guarantee?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5581
  • Topic: MREL
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/07/2022

Definition of subsidiary for the purposes of the CRR

Can an undertaking over which another undertaking effectively exercises a dominant influence be considered a subsidiary of the undertaking effectively exercising dominant influence over it also for the purposes of the parts of the CRR not explicitly mentioned in Article 4(1)(15)(b) CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5579
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:

FINREP – F 01.01 and F 18.00.

Should a supervised entity report past due fees (e.g., due to guarantees provided or management fees) as “Other Assets” (F 01.01, row 360) or as “loans and advances” (F 01.01, Row 183)? According to CRR - Article 178(1)(b) when the obligor is past due more for than 90 days on any material credit obligation to the institution […] it shall be considered to have occurred a default. However, the scope of F 18.00 (Information on performing and non-performing exposures) does not include “Other Assets”, making it impossible to consider the fees that are past due for more than 90 days as non-performing. Therefore, we ask if it was the intention of the regulator to not include “Other Assets” in the scope of F 18.00.? If so, should these fees be considered as “loans and advances” (F 01.01, Row 183)?

  • 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: 2020_5577
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2021