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

Classification of loans collateralized by residential and commercial immovable property

According to Annex V (FINREP), ‘Loans collateralized by immovable property’ shall include loans and advances formally secured by residential or commercial immovable property collateral, regardless of their loan/collateral ratio (commonly referred as ‘loan-to-value’) and the legal form of the collateral. In the case of an exposure collateralized by both a residential and a commercial immovable property, where just one of the two collaterals (e.g. Residential) is capable of securing all of the exposure and is the only collateral allocated so that the commercial immovable property is formally and contractually associated to the exposure but it is not allocated, how shall such loans be represented? • Loan collateralized by residential and commercial immovable property, being the existing formal/contractual relationship; • Loan collateralized by residential immovable property, assessing the real allocation of the collateral in consideration of collateral capacity and ability to back the loan.

  • 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: 2021_6267
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 31/03/2023

COREP C91.00 - Consistency control v10242_s

The validation report of the COREP is failing due to the taxonomy rule v10242_s which is expecting positive amounts in the column C0030 on template C91.00. The instructions state that: “Institutions shall report the sum of net all positive and all negative sensitivities to the different delta risk factors within a risk class”. Should this control be reviewed?

  • 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: 2021_6266
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 12/01/2022

Validation Rule EGDQ_0480

Is it correct that the Validation Rule doesn’t take into account the total amount of past due >90 days exposures in F07.01 excluding those in C 0120?

  • 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: 2021_6265
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 12/01/2022

Validation rule v6011_h

The validation rule v6011_h checks if the accumulated impairment of loans and advances for non-financial corporations (row 190) is lower than the sum of accumulated impairments of small and medium-sized enterprises (row 200), belonging to non-financial corporations. In most cases the accumulated impairment is negative. e.g.: Impairment = - 40 r190 (Loans and advances NFC) = -40 r200 (of which: SME) = 0 In this case c190 < c200 and the validation rule is not violated. The question is, how should we deal with positive accumulated impairment due to POCI deals? e.g.: Impairment = + 40 r190 (Loans and advances NFC) = +40 r200 (of which: SME) = 0 In this case c190 > c200 and the validation rule is violated, although positive impairment is generally allowed.

  • 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: 2021_6264
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 12/01/2022

Common Equity Tier I Minority Interest Calculation

Should a specific level of profit distribution set by a third country competent authority, and communicated specifically to an institution, be considered “any additional local supervisory regulations in third countries insofar as those requirements are to be met by Common Equity Tier 1 capital” for the purposes of the minority interest calculation provided in Article 84 1 i) and ii))  when this limit has been set above legislative prudential requirements with the aim of preserving capital above an specific limit by the way of limiting profit distribution?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2021_6262
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 29/04/2022

Reporting non performing exposures into days past due time bands

Table F 18.00 of FINREP contains the breakdown by past-due time bands of performing and non-performing exposures. How shall time bands of non-performing exposures be reported? Using days past due or material days past due?

  • 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: 2021_6263
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 12/01/2022

Application of Articles 52 and 54 of Regulation No. 575/2013 (CRR) at consolidated level

How should the consolidated level of AT1 instruments where the issuer is a 100% fully owned subsidiary of an EU institution where the subsidiary is established in a third country and has not been designated in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) as part of a resolution group the resolution entity of which is established in the Union be treated?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2021_6261
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 29/04/2022

Purchase of credit receivables as a form of 'granting credits'

  Should the purchase of credit receivables be classified as 'granting credits' within the meaning of CRR's definition of credit institution? And if so, would a subject (a natural or legal person) whose activity is that of repeatedly purchasing credit receivables from a credit institution and concurrently taking deposits or other repayable funds from public, be required to obtain a license under Article 8 CRD?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2021_6257
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/03/2023

Payee-initiated transactions with irregular period or variable amounts for account payments.

Please clarify whether payee-initiated account transactions available in Account Servicing Payment Service Providers (ASPSPs)’ online banking channels are considered discriminatory under PSD2 when not available in the PSD2 Application Programming  Interfaces (APIs). 

  • 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: 2021_6256
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Obligation to report risk-weighted exposures under SEC-ERBA and under SEC-SA as memorandum items in COREP template C 14.01

When does the obligation apply to report risk-weighted exposures under SEC-ERBA in column 0447 and under SEC-SA in column 0448 of template C 14.01?

  • 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: 2021_6252
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 10/03/2023

Application of strong customer authentication (SCA) where Account Information Service users access the Account Information Service Providers’ (AISPs) own channels and the previously retrieved payment account information compiled and stored therein

Are Account Information Service Providers (AISPs) exempt, in respect of their own channels, from the requirements of Article 97(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 and of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2018/389, and therefore allowed: to let users of their Account Information Service, access the AISPs’ own channels and the payment account information compiled and stored therein – previously retrieved by AISPs from the users’ respective Account-Servicing Payment Service Providers (ASPSPs) – without applying any strong customer authentication (SCA) upon that access to AISPs’ own channels, irrespective of whether the conditions of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2018/389 are satisfied – such that AISPs may, in their own channels, allow users of their service to consult, without SCA, previously retrieved payment account information of a broader scope (more than the last 90 days’ worth of data, and potentially the users’ complete transactional history) as compared to the data that ASPSPs may, without SCA, display to the same users in the ASPSPs’ own channels (maximum the last 90 days’ worth of data, and provided that SCA was applied no more than 90 days prior) – and such that AISPs, despite being payment services providers (PSPs), need not afford users of their services the same level of protection that ASPSPs are required to, and can expose said users to the risks of abuses referred to in Article 97(1)(c) of Directive 2015/2366?  

  • 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: 2021_6248
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:

Change of TPP access rights for AIS consent by the PSU prior to authorisation

A clarification / harmonised guidance on the Scope of the Bank Offered Consent, as defined in the Berlin Group standard, is needed.

  • 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: 2021_6246
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 14/10/2022

ASPSP restricting access for TPPs who embeds the redirect

Do Account Servicing Payment Service Providers (ASPSPs) have the right to block access to payment accounts for a Third Party Provider (TPP) who embeds the ASPSP-provided redirection website in order to provide the Payment Service User (PSU) with a TPP-provided user interface?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2021_6245
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/04/2022

Discount factor for the exposure under the standardised CVA risk capital requirement

Is it still correct for non-IMM banks to discount the exposure according to Article 384 CRR?

  • 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: 2021_6244
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 29/04/2022

Identifying the customer of a collecting PSP

Does the fact that a collecting PSP (e.g. one providing the payment service acquiring of payment transactions to the payee) is involved in the flow of funds between the payer and the payee mean that the same PSP, if also providing merchant-facing payment initiation services, would have to assess the payer using PIS to be its customer in a different way than it would have to do if it were to provide PIS only (i.e. by way of deviation from what would otherwise apply according to Guideline 18.8 a of EBA/GL/2021/02))?

  • Legal act: Directive (EU) 2015/849 (AMLD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2021/02 - Guidelines on customer due diligence and the factors institutions should consider when assessing the ML /TF risk associated with individual business relationships and occasional transactions under Articles 17 and 18(4) of AMLD
  • ID: 2021_6243
  • Topic: Customer Due Diligence
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/12/2023

Calculation of “payment volume” for method B in the Article 9 of Directive EU 2015/36 (PSD2)

Can you please clarify the definition of 'previous year' when computing the “total amount of payment transactions executed” referred to in the calculation of “payment volume” for method B in the Article 9 of Directive EU 2015/36 (PSD2) as to whether it should be the previous 12 months from the date of calculation, therefore a rolling calculation, or whether it refers to the 'previous accounting year'? 

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2021_6241
  • Topic: Authorisation and registration
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 06/01/2023

Identifying the customer of a PISP

Is the assessment of who the customer is, from the perspective of a payment initiation service provider (PISP) with a merchant-facing business model (as referred to in Guideline 18.8 a) of EBA/GL/2021/02), affected by the frequency with which a single payer uses the PISP’s services?

  • Legal act: Directive (EU) 2015/849 (AMLD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2021/02 - Guidelines on customer due diligence and the factors institutions should consider when assessing the ML /TF risk associated with individual business relationships and occasional transactions under Articles 17 and 18(4) of AMLD
  • ID: 2021_6242
  • Topic: Customer Due Diligence
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/12/2023

EBA Guidelines - critical outsourcing - references to BRRD

Pursuant to paragraph 75(o) of the EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements, the outsourcing agreement for critical or important functions should set out a clear reference to Articles 68 and 71 of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD). On the other hand, the BRRD, as amended through the Directive (EU) 2019/879 (BRRD 2), imposes an obligation to include such articles only in financial contracts (these will essentially include derivative contracts, repurchase agreements etc.), governed by third country law. Clarification is sought as to whether contracts for critical outsourcing arrangements should incorporate references to Articles 68 and 71 of BRRD, as amended, irrespective of such contracts not being financial contracts pursuant to BRRD. 

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2021_6240
  • Topic: Internal governance
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 29/04/2022

Nature and treatment of off-balance financial leasing exposures (generated by the lag between the order of the asset and the rental starting date)

Should off-balance financial leasing exposures (generated by the lag between the order of the asset and the rental starting date) be considered as a “credit line” and hence fall into Article 166.8(d) of the CRR or as an “undrawn credit facility” and hence fall into Article 166.10?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2021_6239
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/11/2022

LCR treatment of deposits received as collateral

Should deposit received as collateral for a facility, in the case where a credit institution’s client has an option for early termination of this facility, which could lead to an outflow of the collateral during the next 30 calendar days, be assigned an additional outflow corresponding to 100% in accordance with Article 30(6) of Delegated Regulation (UE) 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: 2021_6238
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 29/04/2022