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

Minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) – Transitional periods

1) Can resolution authorities set transition periods with an end-date before 1 January 2024?2) Can resolution authorities set a transition period with an end-date before 1 January 2022 (date referred to in the context of the "intermediate target" introduced in the legislation?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4861
  • Topic: MREL
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/03/2021

Range of application of the LGD regulatory floor for the calculation of own funds requirements at individual and consolidated levels

Shall the LGD regulatory floor be applied at the territory level of the Member state to exposures secured by property located in the territory of that Member state (Article 164(7) CRR) for the calculation of own funds requirements at any level, i.e. individual and/or consolidated level?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4859
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 18/02/2022

Treatment of intragroup liabilities when one of the institutions is established in a country being a member of EEA and EFTA (i.e. non-EU Member State but EEA Member State), which has implemented Directive 2014/59/UE, but entry into force of the Decision of the EEA Joint Committee (‘JCD’) No 21/2018 of 9 February 2018 is pending and the draft JCD incorporating Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is under consideration by the EU (EEAS) and the EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway)

Should, according to Article 5(1)(a) of the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, intragroup liabilities be deducted from the contribution base when one side of the transaction is an institution established in a country being a member of the EEA and EFTA (e.g. Norway), but (according to information available on www.efta.int, retrieved on 1 August 2019) entry into force of the Joint Committee Decision (JCD) No 21/2018 of 9 February 2018 incorporating Directive 2014/59 and Joint Committee Decision (JCD) No 79/2019 of 29 March 2019 incorporating Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36/EU is pending and the draft Joint Committee Decision incorporating Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is under consideration by the EU (EEAS) and the EFTA States?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 - DR on ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements
  • ID: 2019_4857
  • Topic: Resolution financing arrangements
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Type of accounts accessible through common and secure communication

Should credit lines (namely “credit cards accounts”), accessible online, be available to Account Information Service Provider (AISP), Payment Initiation Service Provider (PISP) and Card Based Payment Instrument Issuer (CBPII)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4856
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/03/2021

Application of the strong customer authentication (SCA) in case of refund

Does a refund, which is considered as an electronic payment transaction, be subject to  strong customer authentication (SCA)? Does a merchant that initiates a refund request be considered as a payer? If so, does a Payment service provider (PSP), that holds the payment account of a Merchant, have to set up SCA each time his Merchant is doing a refund from its payment account?

  • 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_4855
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 23/04/2021

Account Data required by a ASPSP to execute a payment order via a PISP

In the context of Payment Initiation Service (PIS) where a Payment Service User (PSU) payment order is to be carried out, the Payment Initiation Service Provider (PISP) accesses the PSU e-banking account to require a payment. The PSU may: a) hold a single payment account to be debited or b) hold multiple payment accounts where only one of them is to be debited to finalize the payment order (in this case PSU has to select a payment account).With reference to both use cases and in the presence of an Account Servicing Payment Service Provider (ASPSP)’s dedicated interface, may the PSU be obliged to digit the IBAN of the account to be debited each time she/he initiates a transaction? Is the PISP always required to report the account number to be debited in the payment request or may this parameter be managed bilaterally among ASPSP and PSU (e.g.: default payment account, drop-down selection menu during the strong customer authentication (SCA) procedure, communication over Out-of-Band (OOB) channels, etc.)?

  • 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_4854
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/03/2021

The C 05.01 template seems not compliant with CRR2

The 494b of CRR2 relates to Grandfathering of own funds instruments and eligible liabilities instruments and indicates that : " 1. By way of derogation from Articles 51 and 52, instruments issued prior to 27 June 2019 shall qualify as Additional Tier 1 instruments at the latest until 28 June 2025, where they meet the conditions set out in Articles 51 and 52, except for the conditions referred to in points (p), (q) and (r) of Article 52(1). 2. By way of derogation from Articles 62 and 63, instruments issued prior to 27 June 2019 shall qualify as Tier 2 instruments at the latest until 28 June 2025, where they meet the conditions set out in Articles 62 and 63, except for the conditions referred to in points (n), (o) and (p) of Article 63." We have to classify some instruments in Grandfathered instruments but without applying the same percentage than CRR1, but the C 05.01 template is not appropriate because it is not updated. How do we have to fill this template to be consistent with the C01.00 template?

  • 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_4851
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2021

Granularity required for reference data required

Should we list every reference data attached to an instrument,or a subset of reference data?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2016/2070 - ITS on Supervisory Reporting (for benchmarking the internal approaches) (as amended)
  • ID: 2019_4848
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

FINREP validation rule v5284_m

Validation rule v5284_m verifies that the amount entered in table F18.00a, column 060 – Non-performing Gross carrying amount for Debt securities – Other financial corporations (rows 050 + 185 + 215, At Amortized Cost + FVTOCI + FVTPL) should be equal to the amount entered in table F20.04, row 120, column 025 – Debt securities – Other financial corporations, of which: non-performing. According to FINREP Annex V, art. 217, Held for Trading exposures are not included in table F18.00a: “For the purpose of template 18, ‘exposures’ shall include all debt instruments (debt securities and loans and advances which shall include also cash balances at central banks and other demand deposits) and off-balance sheet exposures, except those held for trading exposures.” As Held for Trading exposures are included in table F20.04., this validation rule is creating a non-blocking error. We therefore question whether the current validation rule is defined appropriately and if yes, how should Held for Trading instruments be included in the table F18.00a?

  • 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_4847
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/09/2020

LCR - Treatment of securities borrowing-transactions for non-refinancing-purposes

How should securities borrowed which were not borrowed for refinancing-purposes be recognised in the LCR?

  • 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_4837
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/02/2021

Calculation of supervisory delta and adjusted notional for digital options

Despite the fact that the Basel committee in its Q&A on counterparty credit risk (march 2018), has explained that the adjusted notional should be calculated by treating them as call/put spreads where the upper and lower strike levels should be modified to reflect a 5% difference up and down to the actual strik level in the trade, this approach has not been echoed in the CRR text published as of June 2019. Instead a much simpleler approach has been described which is described in article 279b 1 (c) where the digital payoff should be taken as the adjusted notional amount. Are institutions still allowed to use the Basel committee approach as described above ?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4834
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Definition of Rating and Date of most recent rating of counterparty

How is the rating and date of most recent rating of counterparty to be reported, in case there is an actual exposure but no valid rating available anymore?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions (for benchmarking the internal approaches)
  • ID: 2019_4830
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Minimum loss coverage of non-performing exposures under Article 469a, subparagraph 2 CRR

When does a transaction that falls under the provisions on the minimum loss coverage of non-performing exposures under Article 469a, subparagraph 2 CRR become non-performing within the meaning of Articles 47a to 47c CRR? From the day on which the risk position increases due to a forbearance measure (e.g. 01.06.2019) or from the day on which the risk position actually became non-performing (e.g. 01.12.2018)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4829
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Tokenised card details as a SCA possession element.

In relation to card tokenisation that can be used for the purposes of various payment solutions, does the token that is created from the card details qualify as a “possession element” according to 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_4827
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 07/08/2020

Scope of contingency mechanism

Should the interfaces – referred to in Article 33(4) of the RTS - be interpreted to include not only the internet banking interface of the account servicing payment service provider (ASPSP) but also its proprietary mobile banking interface?

  • 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_4826
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 19/06/2020

LGD adjustment for massive disposals.

Article 500, first paragraph, point (c) of the Regulation (EU) 2013/575 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/876 provides for a 20% threshold to qualify disposal operation as “massive”. This question seeks clarification on how to compute the threshold.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4824
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/03/2021

3 month notification period on interface changes to ASPSPs’ interfaces

Do account servicing payment service providers (ASPSPs) need to adhere to a 3 month notification period for all interface changes, or only for breaking interface changes, as specified in the RTS on on strong customer authentication (SCA) and secure communication (CSC) Article 30 Paragraph 4?

  • 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_4823
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/10/2019

Operational deposits in NSFR

Should operational deposits 422(3)(c) and part of 422(3)(a) not covered by DGS should be reported in ID 1.2.8 (row 250 of C61 ASF) – ‘any other liabilities’ or in IDs 1.2.2.3 and 1.3.3.3 of C61 (ASF)? Current instructions appear contradictory and may lead to inconsistent 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: 2019_4821
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/09/2020

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