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

Treatment of derivatives not recognized on-balance under national GAAP

In case derivatives are not recognised on the balance sheet according to national GAAP based on BAD, how should they be treated for the purpose of FINREP and asset encumbrance reporting?

  • 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Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)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_5263
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 19/03/2021

Updated: Operational Risk - Gross Losses & Rapidly recovered loss events

A credit institution recently changed the scope of the gross losses for operational risk reported in COREP. The credit institution explained that they do not automatically report some types of incidents in the ‘gross losses’ for operational risk in COREP (C17.01a) when the amount is recovered after 5 days. We refer here to transfer of cash involving e.g. a human input error whereby a cash amount is transferred for a far greater size than intended, at the wrong price, or with any number of other input errors, or to the wrong counterparty. The credit institution explained that gross losses for operational risk should be reported in COREP only if there is a P&L movement in the financial statements. Therefore, if the credit institution considers that there is a high probability to recover the amount linked to the operational risk event, even if they recover the money after more than 5 days, they will not increment any amount in the financial statements, they do not consider it as loss, and therefore they will not report the amount in the COREP ‘gross losses’ for operational risk. According to us, the competent authorities, this interpretation seems to be incorrect. Our interpretation is that the gross losses for operational risk in COREP should not be dependent on the decision of the credit institution to book losses in its financial statements for this operational risk event. Therefore, if there is an operational risk event, the amount should be reported in COREP in the ‘gross losses’ for operational risk. The only exception is if the losses are recovered within 5 days, in which case it is considered as a “rapidly recovered loss events” and can be deducted from the reported gross losses in COREp (C17.01a) Could you please clarify which interpretation is correct?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/451 – ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions
  • ID: 2020_5261
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/10/2021

Counterparties referred to in Article 428h (1) (c) CRR

Does Article 428h (1) (c) of regulation 2019/876, amending Regulation No 575/2013, imply that the counterparty necessarily must be a bank? More specifically, would this condition also be met if the counterparty is a private limited liabilities company, which according to Regulation 575/2013 is not required to apply the NSFR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5253
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Reporting of positions in a securitisation that has not achieved SRT in C14.01.

It is not clear whether these positions should be reported in C14.01, or under which approach.

  • 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_5252
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 19/03/2021

Access to account for FinTech Solutions that incorporate regulated services

Do FinTech companies offer payment accounts by their use of regulated services as part of their offering and are they therefore required to provide access to accounts to Third Party Providers (TPPs)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5249
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 18/03/2022

Number of Collateral obtained by taking possession, F 25.02.b - Collateral obtained by taking possession other than collateral classified as Property Plant and Equipment (PP&E)

How to calculate the number of collaterals obtained in case of securities? Should it be the number of issues or the number of securities within the issue?

  • 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_5248
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 19/03/2021

Clarification of remote payment for dynamic linking

Is a SEPA Credit Transfer (SCT) transaction, whereby a user mobile phone interacts locally via Near Field Communication (NFC) with a merchant payment terminal to initiate the SCT transaction, whereby the user mobile phone does not communicate remotely over a mobile network for this purpose but whereby the payment terminal connects on-line to a payment system and handles the required strong customer authentication (SCA) through this on-line channel, considered an electronic remote payment transaction?

  • 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_5247
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/04/2022

Territorial scope of the Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements in relation to supervisory cooperation requirements for credit institutions

1. Is it correct to conclude that the cooperation requirements under paragraph 63 of the Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements should be complied with in regard to EU establishments only, considering the distribution of responsibilities between competent supervisors set out in relevant EU law? 2. If a service provider is part of a third-country group but is located in an EU Member State as a separate legal entity, should it be considered outside of the scope of paragraph63 of the GLs?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5245
  • Topic: Internal governance
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

National regulation contradicts with Directive 2013/36 - v8714

According to Fin-FSA and based on national regulation (Sijoituspalvelulaki 747/2012) the capital conservation buffer should not be applied to investment firms with personnel under 250 and balance sheet amount under 43 million. Validation rule v8714_m requires that this row (CA4_r750) is reported. How should the capital conservation buffer be reported in this case?

  • 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_5235
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2021

FinRep Table 26: Loans and advances to which forbearance measures were granted in addition to already existing forbearance measures

It is unclear if the following exposures have to be reported in row 120 of template F 26.00: - Example A : an exposure was classified as non-performing with forbearance measures and fulfilled all required exit criteria mentioned in paragraph 231. During the 2 year probation period mentioned in paragraph 256 the exposure is granted an additional forbearance measure. At the reference date the exposure is classified as non-performing because the new forberance measure has been extended to a performing forborne exposure under probation that has been reclassified out of non-performing category (according to paragraph 260). - Example B : a performing exposure is granted a forbearance measure. During the 2 year probation period the exposure is granted an additional forbearance measure. According to Q&A 2014_736 the exposure shall not be automatically reclassified into the "non-performing forborne" category and then at the reference date the exposure is classified as performing. - Example C: a performing exposure is granted a forbearance measure. During the 2 year probation period the exposure is granted an additional forbearance measure. According to Q&A 2014_736 the exposure shall not be automatically reclassified into the "non-performing forborne" category. Nevertheless, if the bank considers that there exist some conditions of "unlikeliness to pay", the exposure A shall be reclassified into the "non-performing forborne" category. Then at the reference date the exposure is classified as non-performing.

  • 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_5239
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 19/03/2021

Excess of collaterals after deduction from netting set for NSFR

What treatment should be applied on excess of collaterals for the NSFR calculation?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5231
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/12/2022

Consent solicitation to introduce a contractual recognition of bail-in in Terms of Conditions (T&Cs) of capital instruments and MREL eligible liabilities

Would a consent solicitation to amend the T&Cs of a capital instrument (AT1, Tier 2) or MREL eligible liability (Senior Non Preferred, Senior Preferred or Senior HoldCo) in order to introduce a contractual recognition of bail-in be deemed a ‘material change’, in which case the amended instrument would be deemed as a new issuance?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5227
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 22/02/2022

Transport and parking exemption for parking and electric vehicle charging

Does the transport and parking exemption under Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication apply to transactions at unattended terminals for the payment of a parking fee that includes electric charging?

  • 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_5224
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/01/2021

Definition of the parameter E* in the formula regarding the Adjustment of risk-weighted non-defaulted SME exposures.

We believe there is a need of clarification in the definition of the parameter E* in the formula of the article 501 in order to insure that the result of the formula is valid in all cases.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5223
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 20/06/2022

Consideration of Cloud services as outsourcing arrangements

a.- Are activities which are not listed in Annex 1 of Directive 2013/36/EU (amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC Text with EEA relevance) outside the scope of outsourcing for GL purposes?? d.- How do the EBA Guidelines on outsourcing apply to those entity EU branches’ whose national law conflicts with the EBA Guidelines on outsourcing? And if it is a non-EU branch? e.- Regarding the transition period of outsourced functions, the current wording of paragraph 99.b. Section 13.4 Termination Rights, Title IV – Outsourcing process, states that the provider continues to perform the outsourced function when the outsourcing agreement is already terminated. - Is there an inconsistency in regards of the wording set forth in paragraph 99.b. as it states that the provider would be rendering services during the transition period without an enforceable contract and therefore the agreed contractual conditions would not be in force at the time of the transition period of the outsourced function? - If not, shall contracts allow their validity to be extended only for the period of time that the service is being transferred in order to avoid interruptions and to include a suspension clause for termination so that the contract terminates at the time of the effective transfer?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2019/02 - Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements
  • ID: 2020_5220
  • Topic: Internal governance
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/11/2022

Money Remittance

Where an entity accepts payment on behalf of a payee (such as a debt collector and the debt due to the payee is extinguished upon receipt of payment by the debt collector), is it correct to say that this does not constitute Money Remittance? (i.e. there is no need to rely on the commercial agency exemption since there is no payment service being provided). In addition, if there is no Money Remittance in this situation, can the same be said if the entity receives money into one account then pays these monies to a second account in its name,before transferring the money to the relevant payee? If this is Money Remittance, can the commercial agency exemption be relied on where an entity receives monies but then transfers them to another account held by it before then transferring to the relevant payee?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5216
  • Topic: Authorisation and registration
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 18/03/2022

Elements of possession (SIM card) and knowledge (knowledge-based responses to challenges or questions)

1. Can evidence of possession (SIM card) can also be verified by reading and identifying the phone number used for the phone call? 2. Can a knowledge element be based on a) transaction history of the customer; b) contact information of the customer?

  • 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_5215
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/11/2021

Use of the “maturity of the tranche” (MT) as defined in Article 257 CRR as the “residual maturity” for purposes of the volatility adjustments for securitisation positions under Table 1 of Article 224(1) CRR.

Where collateral takes the form of securitisation positions meeting the criteria in Article 197(1)(h) CRR, can the institution use the “weighted average maturity” (WAM) as defined in Article 257 CRR as the “residual maturity” for purposes of the volatility adjustments set out in Table 1 of Article 224(1) CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5211
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 17/12/2021