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

Interpretation of the term "all observed defaults" in Article 500 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as amended

Both Article 181(1)(a) and Article 500(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as amended contain the expression “all observed defaults”. Is that expression meant to be interpreted in the same way in the context of both articles to include both completed and incomplete recovery processes? It is our understanding of Article 181(1)(a) that no observed defaults should be excluded. This understanding is further supported by paragraph 163 of EBA/GL/2017/16, which states that for the purpose of LGD quantification, “institutions should not exclude any defaults in the historical observation period that fall within the scope of application of the LGD model”. Should this view also be extended to the calculation of the threshold under Article 500(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as amended, and can it be in particular be deduced that neither completed nor incomplete recovery processes can be excluded?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4820
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Adjustment for massive disposals

Regarding the interpretation of Article 500(1) of the Regulation (EU) 2019/876 amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (hereafter “Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as amended”), do we understand it correctly that:“the average estimated LGDs for comparable exposures in default that have not been finally liquidated” should be derived by applying the estimation method for incomplete recovery processes, which is required under Article 181(1)(a) Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and further explained in paragraphs 158 and 159 of EBA/GL/2017/16, to the disposed assets as of the date just before the disposal;“the average realised LGDs including on the basis of the losses realised due to the massive disposals” should be the average observed LGD for all disposed exposures based on the economic loss of each exposure, taking into account the disposal price as well as material discount effects and material direct and indirect costs associated with collecting on the instrument in line with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013the adjustment based on Article 500 for all disposed exposures cannot lead to an estimate of average losses for the disposed assets that is lower than the estimated LGD calculated under point (a) above?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4819
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/03/2021

Clarification regarding reporting of Central Bank deposits in column 90 (collateral value CB-eligible) of row 120 in C71.00 Concentration of Counterbalancing Capacity by issuer/counterparty

We have got clarification regarding reporting of central bank deposits in row 120 of C71.00 with reference to Q&A 4217. But further clarification would be needed that the same central bank deposits can also be reported in column 090 as collateral value CB-eligible. As no specific product are mentioned to be eligible for column 90 so can this be interpreted that all products reporting in C71 are eligible to be reported in column 90 if it meets the below condition. "The collateral value according to the central bank rules for standing facilities for the specific assets "

  • 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: 2019_4818
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/09/2020

NPE calculations of NPE workout options

Should the NPV calculations that paragraph 143 of the EBA Guidelines on management of non-performing and forborne exposures describes be performed with a risk adjusted discount rate, i.e. the original effective interest rate should not be used for these calculations?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2018/06 - Guidelines on management of non-performing and forborne exposures
  • ID: 2019_4814
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 09/04/2021

The amount of a card payment transaction authorised online in HRK

Please clarify for card payment transactions authorised by the Payment Services User (PSU) in Member State A’s currency online on a web shop of an EU merchant that has an domain extension of Member State A, but that is not a Member State A merchant.The payment service provider is an EU acquirer (not from Member State A).The Member State A’s Payment Services Provider (PSP) issuing the payment card charges the PSU a different amount in Member State A’s currency (different from the amount that has been authorised).The difference between the original and charged amounts is caused by a currency conversion due to a card transactions settlement in another currency (EUR, USD, etc.) in the Payment Scheme.

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4811
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Large Exposures treatment of Nostro Accounts used for correspondent banking

Do Nostro Accounts used for correspondent banking activities always meet the exclusion criteria specified under Article 390(6) CRR?To the extent that a low amount of exposure is always left in the same accounts, as a buffer to avoid going overdrawn as a result of the correspondent banking activity, would this be eligible for the exclusions as well? If yes, under which circumstances?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4805
  • Topic: Large exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/05/2020

NSFR calculation - deposits

In the context of the reporting of stable funding (i.e., C 60.00 and C 61.00), we have the following two questions: (1) How should institutions report retail term deposits with a residual maturity of four months but where early withdrawal (i.e., < three months) is possible contingent upon the payment of a penalty that corresponds to the interests due for the time that elapsed between the date of deposit and the date of withdrawal? Are these deposits to be reported in the maturity bucket “within three months” or “between three and 6 months”? (2) Considering the deposits provided under (1), what would be the treatment if these deposits are provided by wholesale customers?

  • 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: 2019_4804
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 08/05/2020

Validation rules v2.8.1

This question refers to the validation rule v5532_m. The prerequisites indicate that template F 04.02.2 triggers this validation rule. Specifically, the prerequisites are : F 06.01 and (F 04.02.1 or F 04.02.2 or F 04.03.1 or F 04.04.1). In the French Gaap environment, only F 04.02.2 is defined as compulsory but not the other templates F 04.XX. For this reason the rule may not be valid in general because all the other files are not produced. For reminder the formula is {F 06.01, r190, c010} = {F 04.02.1, r160, c010} - {F 04.02.1, r160, c020} + {F 04.02.2, r170, c010} - {F 04.02.2, r170, c020} + sum({F 04.03.1, r160, (c015, c030, c040)}) + sum({F 04.04.1, r120, (c015, c030, c040)}) Could it be possible to modify the appliance conditions of this Validation Rule ? Will it be corrected in a further evolution of the EBA VR ? Thanks

  • 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: 2019_4803
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 08/05/2020

Interaction of voluntary capital deduction (CRR art 3) with required coverage of non-performing exposures (art 47c), exposure value for credit risk (art 111) and treatment of expected loss amounts (art 159)

Can voluntary CET1 reductions taken following CRR article 3 qualify as 'other own funds reductions' referred to in articles 47c, 111 and 159?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4801
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Whitelisting

Will a clearing house for distribution be enabled to facilitate the on-going maintenance of the whitelisting process?

  • 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: 2019_4800
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 25/09/2020

Merchant IDs and SCA

In the situation where Strong Consumer Authentication (SCA) was completed at the time of completing a hotel booking by an Online Travel Agent (OTA) or hotelbrand.com under their Merchant ID but the actual payment will take place at the time of arrival: will the SCA authentication token remain valid for the hotel (merchant) making the charges and its respective Merchant ID?

  • 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: 2019_4797
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/11/2021

Intermediaries and Merchant-ID

In the hotel industry, given that when a customer reserves a room, a payment is often not taken at this time, should an entity (intermediary, online travel agent or brand/hotel group) that collects payment details from a customer also facilitate strong customer authentication (SCA), regardless of when or by whom the actual payment transaction may be processed? If yes, should the customer be explicitly informed of the entities involved in order for their consent to be valid?

  • 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: 2019_4796
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Validity of SCA

If  Strong customer suthentication (SCA) is required at the time of booking which is more than 90 days before the guest’s arrival, will hotels be able to process the payment at location with an expired authentication token? If not, can an SCA be renewed and who would be responsible for doing so?

  • 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: 2019_4795
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Consumer mandate under Merchant Initiated Transactions

Terms and Conditions to outline future charges (under Merchant Initiated Transactions (MITs)) may be disclosed by the booking entity (such as online travel agent or brand/hotel group) instead of the hotel merchant. Does the consumer acknowledgement of these terms through a party other than the merchant (in this case, the hotel) meet the MIT requirement? Will the merchant in this situation continue to be the hotel, instead of the intermediary?

  • 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: 2019_4794
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/03/2021

Merchant Initiated Transactions exemption for hotel transactions

For the following scenarios, does digital acknowledgement by the consumer at time of booking that subsequent charges may be collected adequately meet the requirement for Merchant Initiated Transactions if SCA is also taken at time of booking:i. total room charges and applicable taxes disclosed to the consumer when a prepaid rate has been selected.ii. deposit amount disclosed to the consumer when the reservation requires payment of a deposit to guarantee the booked room and/or dates.iii. disclosed late cancellation or no-show fee incurred by the consumer if the consumer fails to cancel their reservation per the disclosed cancellation policy.iv. disclosed descriptions of types of charges that will be processed by the hotel merchant if incurred after payment for the stay has been settled. Examples include but are not limited to charge-to-room meals, spa treatments, retail purchases, mini-bar consumption identified by housekeeping and room damage.

  • 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: 2019_4792
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/03/2021

Processing payments for hotel reservations

Can hotels continue to process payments for which strong customer authentication (SCA) has not been completed at the time of reservation, or for charges which do not become apparent until after the customer has departed the hotel and for which he/she may refuse to conclude a first or additional SCA?

  • 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: 2019_4791
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/03/2021

Keyed Mail Order or Telephone Order (MO-TO) transactions

In the hotel industry, if a consumer contacts the hotel directly to make a reservation, the hotel may need to manually key the payment details into their payment terminals. Does this qualify as a Mail Order or Telephone Order (MO-TO) 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: 2019_4790
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/03/2021

Treatment of electronic bookings similar to Mail Order and Telephone Orders (MO-TO) transactions

Would hotel use-cases, which include reservations taken by third parties (such as online travel agents or brand/hotel group) for the merchant and subsequent transactions (such as post-booking processing of prepaid rates or deposits, processing of cancellation/no-show fees, processing of post-checkout charges) fall under the scope of Mail Order and Telephone Orders (MO-TO) transactions and are they therefore excluded from the strong customer authentication (SCA) requirements?

  • 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: 2019_4788
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/03/2021

Treatment of securitisation Class A notes guaranteed by a Member State

Pursuant to specific national decree, an originator of NPLs under a securitisation transaction complying with certain requirements may request the government to guarantee the payments of interest and principal on the senior tranche of asset-backed securities. Where senior noteholders of a securitisation benefit from this unconditional, irrevocable and first-demand guarantee from a Member State, what is the expected treatment in the LCR for securitisation notes with respect to Articles 10 and 13? Do we have to consider that article 13 prevails to any other article when qualifying the eligibility for a securitisation?

  • 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: 2019_4786
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 20/11/2020

Unsuccessful authentications and declined transactions effect on the counters of cumulative amount and number of consecutive transactions

Do failed authentications or declined transactions increase the counters of cumulative amount or number of hits?

  • 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: 2019_4785
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 06/12/2019