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

Definition of "financial holding company"

Does a financial institution need to have multiple subsidiaries to meet the definition of a financial holding company?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_6980
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 01/02/2024

Clarification on How the Guidelines Impact Vendors Whose Products are Not Deemed as Outsourcing Arrangements

In light of the EBA's clarification(pages 88 and 89) we understand that the purchase of standardized/licensed software or services, such as those supporting IT platforms (e.g., web hosting, DDoS systems, data backup processes), does not fall within the scope of outsourcing (as per the EBA's response to related queries). Paragraphs 24 and 25 on page 11, however, require financial institutions to assess risks from third-party arrangements, even if not classified as outsourcing. As a vendor providing non-outsourcing arrangements, we seek clarification on whether the EBA requires financial institutions to mandate compliance with the EBA outsourcing guidelines in our case, considering our offerings are explicitly excluded from the outsourcing definition. Can financial institutions require compliance with these guidelines, citing them as a compulsory regulatory requirement, even when our offerings do not qualify as outsourcing arrangements? 

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2019/02 - Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements
  • ID: 2024_6979
  • Topic: Internal Governance
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 04/03/2024

Template 3: Banking book - Indicators of potential climate change transition risk: Alignment metrics

1.           Should the year of reference column refer to the year for which the latest emission intensities are available for a specific sector included in the template? 2.           Could you please confirm if alignment metrics should be calculated based on actual gross carrying amount (column c) in combination with the latest emission intensity information that is available for the specific sector?

  • 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_6975
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/03/2024

Template 3: Banking book - Indicators of potential climate change transition risk: Alignment metrics

In relation to the minimum ‘list of NACE sectors to be considered’ in template 3, when detailed assumptions/ specific scenarios are not available on the IEA website for one of the NACE codes included in the “the minimum ‘list of NACE sectors to be considered’” (e.g. 29.32 Manufacture of other parts and accessories for motor vehicles), should it be left blank in the template?

  • 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_6974
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/04/2024

Sum of breakdowns in Template 1 (financed emissions)

Should the sum of NACE sub-sectors for GHG financed emissions in columns i and j of Template 1 be equal to the total GHG financed emissions for that NACE sector?

  • 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_6973
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/03/2024

Sovereign credit assessment to apply to exposure of central government, central bank and government-100%-owned central bank.

1. Is sovereign credit assessment of a country by a nominated ECAI available for assigning a corresponding risk weight to exposures to the central government or central bank of this country? 2. Is sovereign or central government credit assessment applicable to central bank when a central bank is 100% owned by central government?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_6970
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 22/02/2024

Optionality of certain payer information required to accompany transfers of funds

Is Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2015/847 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on information accompanying transfers of funds and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 (‘TFR’) (and the successor provisions found in Articles 4(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on information accompanying transfers of funds and certain crypto-assets and amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 (‘TFCR’) to be read such that the payer’s (as well as, from 30 December 2024, the originator’s) date and place of birth constitute an alternative data point to:                               all preceding data points listed in Article 4(1)(c) of TFR (Articles 4(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) of TFCR as from 30 December 2024), such that transfers may, along with the information required under the other points of Article 4(1) of TFR (Articles 4(1) and 14(1) of TFCR), be accompanied by the payer’s or originator’s date and place of birth alone; or, exclusively, the data point referenced immediately prior in Article 4(1)(c) of TFR (Articles 4(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) of TFCR as from 30 December 2024), i.e., the customer identification number, such that transfers must, along with the information required under the other points of Article 4(1) of TFR (Articles 4(1) and 14(1) of TFCR), always be accompanied by the payer’s or originator’s address and official personal document number, as well as either their customer identification number or their date and place of birth? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) 2015/847 (WTR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_6969
  • Topic: Electronic fund transfers
  • Date of submission:

Scope of market risk inclusion

Should underlying securities in repo transactions be included in the calculation of own funds requirements for position risk when the firm does not have these securities on the balance sheet (i.e. the firm does not own these securities outright)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_6968
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 07/02/2024

C.34.07 invalid validation rule EGDQ_0802 and EGDQ_0803

The validation ruleEGDQ_0802: The total exposure value ({c0010}) and RWEA ({c0060}) with own estimates of LGD and/or conversion factors ({s0001}) should be equal to the sum of all portfolios with own estimates of LGD and/or conversion factors. and EGDQ_0803: The total exposure value ({c0010}) and RWEA ({c0060}) with own estimates of LGD and/or conversion factors ({s0002}) should be equal to the sum of all portfolios with own estimates of LGD and/or conversion factors.Are incorectly implemented resulting in wrong validation error messages.EGDQ_0802 and EGDQ_0803 have to be looked at simultaneously. Both checks seem to be ''intertwined', resulting in a wrong comparison. The sum over all sheets 'with own estimates of LGD' is compared with the total sheet for 'without own estimates of LGD', and vice versa. The first check I would expect is to sum over all sheets 'with own estimates of LGD' , and compare it with the total sheet for 'with own estimates of LGD'The second check I would expect is to sum over all sheets 'without own estimates of LGD' , and compare it with the total sheet for 'without own estimates of LGD'.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6934
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 12/01/2024

Ability of the Share Premium to absorb losses

Can the Share Premium be recognised as CET1 capital if there are features preventing its use to absorb losses?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6932
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/01/2024

Card data (PAN) to be returned in AISP calls

Does the ASPSP have to return the card number (PAN) attached to a fetched payment account in case the user can access this data during a standard session with its ASPSP in the direct internet banking interface? In case of "YES", does the TPP that is fetching this data have to be PCI DSS certified, since this data has to be encrypted based on the PCI DSS requirements? Moreover, could be the "card number (PAN)" considered sensible, since it could be potentially used for fraud?

  • 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: 2023_6946
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Share-linked instruments

Is it possible for listed institutions to award variable remuneration under a prospective remuneration plan in share-linked instruments which are priced based on their fair value, applying certain value tunings to the underlying share price due to regulatory availability constraints, including an adjustment to the market value of the share considering that the market value reflects a full entitlement to all expected future dividends?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2021/04 - Guidelines on sound remuneration policies under CRD (repealing EBA/GL/2015/22)
  • ID: 2023_6945
  • Topic: Remuneration
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 08/03/2024

Prospective remuneration plan for variable remuneration

What requirements must a remuneration plan fulfil in order to fall under the concept of “prospective remuneration plan for variable remuneration, including LTIPs, […] exclusively based on future performance conditions”, as per para. 139 of the EBA Guidelines, so that instruments awarded under then plan should exceptionally be valued for the purpose of the calculation of the ratio between variable and fixed components of the total remuneration with the market price or fair value at the time the prospective remuneration plan was granted? In particular, can an incentive plan which combines both short-term and long-term performance conditions fulfil the requirements of a “prospective remuneration plan” within the meaning of para. 139 of the EBA Guidelines?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2021/04 - Guidelines on sound remuneration policies under CRD (repealing EBA/GL/2015/22)
  • ID: 2023_6944
  • Topic: Remuneration
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/01/2024

Mandatory substitution approach according to Article 403 when applying the CCR exposure value calculation as set out in Sections 3 to 5 of Chapter 6 of Title II of Part Three of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (Derivatives and Long Settlement Transactions)

Is the mandatory substitution approach according to Article 401 (4) detailed in Article 403 of the CRR to be applied when an institution uses SA-CCR, Simplified SA-CCR or OEM for the derivative business?If yes, what is the amount that the institution shall assign to the protection provider/collateral issuer? Also, what will be considered as original direct exposure value to be reduced by the amount assigned to the protection provider/collateral issuer? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
  • ID: 2023_6943
  • Topic: Large exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 31/01/2024

Template 4 - Exposures to top 20 carbon-intensive firms

Could you please provide a single list to identify the top 20 most carbon-intensive firms?If not possible, can you define the criteria to be considered to identify the top 20 most carbon-intensive firms? For instance: sector of the counterparty, emissions scope considered (1, 2, 3)?

  • 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: 2023_6942
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 22/12/2023

Template 2 - Energy efficiency of the collateral without EPC label

Could you please clarify the objective of columns o and p in rows 5 and 10 as EPC label cannot be estimated and the total is already reported in column a?

  • 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: 2023_6941
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 13/02/2024

Template 1 - exposures towards companies excluded from EU Paris-aligned Benchmarks

Should the EU Paris-aligned Benchmarks exclusion criteria be applied at consolidated group level and to that end, exclude the total gross carrying amount of the exposure towards the consolidated group level?

  • 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: 2023_6940
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/04/2024

Treatment of credit institutions from the UK in terms of limits to large exposures

Is it possible to consider the prudential, supervisory, and regulatory requirements applied to credit institutions located in the UK as at least equivalent to those applied in EU for the purpose of Article 391 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6939
  • Topic: Large exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 01/02/2024

Misalignment between table 2 Annex XXXIX and Annex XL

The Pillar 3 DA foresees the publication of three qualitative sections which require the application, in particular, of Regulation (EU) no. 2022/2453. From the examination of this A discrepancy has been observed between the delegated regulation and its annexes I (which includes the text of the original annex XXXIX) and II (which contains the text of the original annex XL) regarding what is reported  in table 2 of the Annex XXXIX and what is described in the instructions for table 2 of Annex XL about letter d) relating to Governance on social risk. In particular:- In Annex XXXIX table 2 - Qualitative information on social risk in line d) for the Governance aspects, it is specified what information must be published: the "Responsibilities of the management body for setting the risk framework, supervising and managing the implementation of the objectives, strategy and policies in the context of social risk management covering counterparties' approaches to: (i) Activities towards the community and society, (ii) Employee relationships and labor standards, (iii) Customer protection and product responsibility, (iv) Human rights". The focus of the information appears to be on the approaches that the Bank's counterparties (customers and suppliers) take towards the community and society, its relationships with employees and compliance with labor standards, customer protection and product liability and human rights, posing an indirect risk for the financial institution.- In Annex XL the instructions for compiling the tables and models referred to in Annex XXXIX provide that "in accordance with Article 449a of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, in conjunction with Article 435(1), point ( b), and Article 435(2), points (a), (b) and (c), of that Regulation, institutions shall describe how their management body is involved in the supervision and management of social risks. That information shall cover the rationale of the approach taken by the management body and take into account a number of social factors. Those factors include the institution’s engagement towards the community and society, its relationships with employees and compliance with labor standards, customer protection and product responsibility, and human rights.” In this case there would be a direct risk for the Bank. The art. 18 bis point 1 a) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 also establishes that, in relation to information on environmental, social and governance risks, entities (intended as financial institutions) publish "qualitative information on environmental, social and governance risks using tables 1, 2 and 3 set out in Annex XXXIX to this Regulation and following the instructions set out in Annex XL to this Regulation”.Should table 2 Annex XXXIX be filled reporting direct or indirect risks?   

  • 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: 2023_6938
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 27/03/2024

Corep reporting C 34.06 – Top 20 counterparties - validation rule EBA_v10236

Concerning the Corep reporting C 34.06 – Top 20 counterparties, further clarification is required for validation rule EBA_v10236.Row 0040 (Sector of the counterparty) specifies that one sector must be chosen for each counterparty based on the following FINREP economic sector classifications: (i) x10 Central Banks ; (ii) x1 General Governments; (iii) x12 Credit institutions; (iv) x599 Investment firms as defined in Article 4(1), point (2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (v) x598 Other financial corporations (excluding investment firms); (vi) x20 Non-financial corporations.However, some counterparties in our EQ options are individuals (households) and do not fall under any of the codes allowed . How to meet the requirements of validation rule EBA_v10236 for the household sector among the 20 largest exposures due to counterparty credit risk?which of the values ('x10', 'x1', 'x12', 'x598', 'x599', 'x20') should be used for physical persons as reporting 'x5-households'  defined in CT16_1 is not permitted?or maybe households are not in a scope of reporting and should be excluded from the table?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 1423/2013 - ITS on disclosure of own funds requirements
  • ID: 2023_6937
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 23/02/2024