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

Payment Initiation Scope and Trusted Beneficiaries

Should non-payment accounts be listed as trusted beneficiaries where they are exempted from Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) as Beneficiaries of a 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_5135
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/01/2021

Treatment of FX transactions settled via central settlement counterparties i.e. CLS (The Continuous Linked Settlement foreign exchange settlement system)

Can CLS (as a central settlement counterparty) be treated as a counterparty when netting FX transactions according to Article 21 of the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61?

  • 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: 2020_5134
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/09/2022

Dynamic linking: transactions for which the final amount is unknown and may be lower or higher than authenticated amount

For remote card transactions, is it acceptable that there are legitimate cases where the final amount may be lower or higher than the amount authenticated by the cardholder?

  • 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_5133
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/05/2020

Need of prior permission to include minority interest arising from Common Equity Tier 1 instruments issued by subsidiaries located in EU member state and third countries in consolidated CET1 capital of parent institutions established in the EU.

According to Article 26(3) CRR, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/876 (CRR2), is a prior permission by the competent authority required in order for a parent institution located in the EU to include in consolidated CET1 capital minority interests, arising from CET1 instruments, issued by subsidiaries located (a) in an EU Member State, or (b) in a third country? The answer should also clarify whether before granting a permission pursuant to Article 26(3) CRR (if such permission is required), the competent authority is required to consult the EBA (as per the third subparagraph of Article 26(3) CRR), as the instruments issued by the subsidiaries in third countries would not be included in the EBA CET1 instruments list.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5129
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/12/2020

Deduction of pledged own shares from Common Equity Tier 1 items

Should shares pledged to the issuing credit institution as collateral to secure a loan granted by the same credit institution to a customer be deducted from Common Equity Tier 1 items where, in case of default of the customer, the credit institution has the option to either appropriate the collateral or force its sale, bearing in mind that this does not affect the existence of a relationship between the value of the loan and the value of the shares?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5128
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/07/2022

SCA for staff assisted electronic channel

Please clarify where a customer is physically present and identified in branch, the strong customer authentication (SCA) requirements if that customer completes a Standing Order instruction (Setup, Amend or Cancel) or initiates a credit transfer through a staff assisted electronic channel (i.e. tablet device)?

  • 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_5124
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/01/2022

Group financing companies of non-financial company groups / definition of "financial sector entity" in Article 4 (1) (27) CRR

Do group financing companies belonging to non-financial company groups (e.g. in the industrial sector) qualify as a "financial sector entity" according to Article 4 (1) (27) CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5122
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 31/05/2022

Validation rule eba_v6295_m

When a just established bank has nothing to report yet in the Corep and therefore reports a nil report, two validation rules fails: validation rules eba_e4887_e and eba_e4888_e. This concerns two cells r850 and r860 on C04.00 that should be filled. After filling in a zero in these cells the two validation rules do not appear anymore, but a new validation rule is failing now: eba_v6295_m ([C 04.00 (r860)] {c010} > 0 and {c010} != empty). Apparently a zero is not permitted. Is it possible to change the validation rule to greater to or equal to zero?

  • 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_5120
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 19/03/2021

Large exposures – excluding exposures if fully deducted from own funds

Will Q&A 787 still apply when the amended large exposures rules in accordance with CRR2 are in force?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5116
  • Topic: Large exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 20/06/2022

Using Trusted Beneficiary Lists to Auto Reject PISP Transactions

Is an Account Servicing Payment Service Provider (ASPSP) able to block a Payment Initiation Services Provider (PISP) transaction before attempting Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) if the beneficiary account does not appear in the Payment Services User (PSU)'s regular payee list/trusted beneficiary list?

  • 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_5115
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/01/2021

Definition of retail deposits which meet conditions from Article 25(2)(d) LCR Amending Act

Which maturity shall be taken into account at assessing if deposit meets the conditions from Article 25(2) (d) of the LCR amending Act, the original maturity of the originally placed fixed-term deposit or the residual maturity of the present fixed–term deposit? What is the meaning of term "originally placed"? Can the deposit meet conditions from this Article if it wasn't originally placed as fixed-term deposit but was later prolonged as fixed-term deposit and will mature in next 30 calendar days?

  • 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: 2020_5107
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/02/2022

Implementation of this article for subsidiaries that do not belong to the same resolution group as the EU parent institution.

1. Is it possible to adopt a reading of Article 72e(4) CRR that would allow the application of the formula to subsidiaries established in third countries that are not included in a resolution group of the parent institution in line with point (83b)(iii) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU (“BRRD”)? 2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, what conditions should be met for the exercise of discretion by the resolution authority of the parent institution with respect to allowing the parent institution to deduct an adjusted amount subject to the floor provided by the formula? In particular, how should the variables “r(i)”, “aRWA(i)”, “LP(i)”, and “OP(i)” in the formula in Article 72e(4) CRR be understood, given that they refer to formal terms and concepts that are defined by European law?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5101
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:

Clarification of the relationship between EBA's Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements and Section 4 of the Directive (EU) 2015/849 - AML

Does the term of outsourcing (paragraphs 12 and 26) of EBA GL/2019/02 include performing of customer due diligence by third parties under Section 4 of the AMLD4, i.e. whether or not the application of GL/2019/02 to Performance by third parties would be in violation of the AMLD4?

  • Legal act: Directive (EU) 2015/849 (AMLD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5100
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 10/02/2023

Collection of fees for utilities or other regular services

Does a business model where the contributions (collected fees for utilities or other regular services) received from the payers are transferred to the payees (service providers) in individual transfers, without opening or maintaining accounts on behalf of neither payers nor payees (service providers), nor issuing any payment instruments to them, but the Company has contracts with the payees for accepting the transfers, constitute the provision of money remittance service as it is defined in Article 4(22) PSD2?Does a business model where the contributions (collected fees for utilities or other regular services) received from the payers are being aggregated and then transferred to the payee (service provider), without opening or maintaining accounts on behalf of neither payers nor payees (service providers), nor issuing any payment instruments to them, constitute the provision of money remittance service to the payer and acquiring of payment transactions service to the payee, as money remittance and acquiring of payment transactions are defined in Article 4(22) and (44) PSD2?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5099
  • Topic: Authorisation and registration
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 06/01/2023

EBA validation rule v4859_m: [C 24.00 (c030;040;050;060)] {r100} <= {r030} + {r060} + {r080} + {r090}

The prevailing implementing technical standards (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 of 16th April 2014 as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1627 of 9th October 2018 provide guidance, about the breakdown of figures relevant for the calculation of market risk, when using internal models. In the Annex II point 5.7.1 - General Remarks, is stated: "142. Generally, the reporting depends on the structure of the model of the institutions whether they report the figures for general and specific risk separately or together. The same holds true for the decomposition of the VAR /Stress-Var into the risk categories (interest rate risk, equity risk, commodities risk and foreign exchange risk). An institution can resign to report the decompositions mentioned above if it proves that a reporting of these figures would be unduly burdensome". Considering that the separate reporting of specific and generic risk, for equity instruments, would be unduly burdensome and low material, it is not foreseen by the structure of the model applied, therefore we judge that total amounts for general and specific risk should be checked against total positions only. This feature has never been reviewed during the assessments and extensions of the model.

  • 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_5082
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/12/2020

Inconsistency in validation rule v4797_m COREP C14.00

Validation v4797_m states that [C 14.00 (All rows)] abs({c210}) &lt;= {c140}. The instructions in Annex II ITS "REPORTING ON OWN FUNDS AND OWN FUNDS REQUIREMENTS" for the completion of template C14.00, state that c130 "...the amount (according to original exposures pre conversion factors..", which corresponds to c010 to C 07.00 template. Additionally the instructions for c140 state to "...report the value of the securitised portfolio at reporting date...". Value in ITS is always net of value adjustments and provisions." Did we misinterpret the Annex II instructions? Please advise.

  • 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_5077
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2021

LCR treatment of liquidity inflows stemming from factoring

What is the LCR treatment of liquidity inflows stemming from factoring business?

  • 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: 2020_5075
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 26/01/2023

Treatment of unfunded default fund contributions.

How should unfunded default fund contributions facing Qualifying and Non-qualifying CCPs be treated for leverage purposes?

  • 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_5074
  • Topic: Leverage ratio
  • Date of submission:

Reporting of e-commerce card-based payment transactions falling within the scope of EBA Opinion EBA-Op-2019-06 for which no strong customer authentication was applied

Should e-commerce card-based payment transactions – falling within the scope of the EBA Opinion on the elements of strong customer authentication under PSD2 (EBA-Op-2019-06) and for which no strong customer authentication was applied – be reported under the higher-level category “Of which authenticated via non-strong customer authentication”?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2018/05 - Guidelines on fraud reporting under PSD2 (amended by EBA/GL/2020/01)
  • ID: 2020_5070
  • Topic: Fraud reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/07/2020