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

Validation rules between template F 18.01 and F 24.01

We have three groups of rules affected: A. There are these validations in template F 18.01 : Template ID columns Formula F 18.01 v7866_m (0010) {r0050} >= {r0070} + {r0080} F 18.01 v7867_m (0010) {r0050} >= {r0090} F 18.01 v7868_m (0010) {r0100} >= {r0110} F 18.01 v7869_m (0010) {r0100} >= {r0120} F 18.01 v8114_m (0010) {r0050} >= {r0060} F 18.01 v8115_m (0010) {r0060} >= {r0070} F 18.01 v8116_m (0020) {r0050} <= {r0060} F 18.01 v8117_m (0020) {r0060} <= {r0070} B. There are validations between these templates: ID Formula v8509_i {F 18.01, r0060, c0010}=={F 24.01, r0020, c0050} v8510_i {F 18.01, r0060, c0020}=={F 24.01, r0120, c0050} v8511_i {F 18.01, r0070, c0010}=={F 24.01, r0020, c0060} v8512_i {F 18.01, r0070, c0020}=={F 24.01, r0120, c0060} v8513_i {F 18.01, r0080, c0010}=={F 24.01, r0020, c0070} v8514_i {F 18.01, r0080, c0020}=={F 24.01, r0120, c0070} v8517_i {F 18.01, r0110, c0010}=={F 24.01, r0020, c0030} v8518_i {F 18.01, r0110, c0020}=={F 24.01, r0120, c0030} C. And this within template F 24.01: ID Template Formula v8051_m F 24.01 {r0320} = {r0010} + {r0020} + {r0120} Knowing that we have to comply with rule group A, rules B and C cannot be complied simultaneously. What set of rules should we follow, B or C?

  • 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_5613
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 10/09/2021

Reconciliation between the sum of Total Risk Exposure contributions in {C06.02;c250} and the Total Risk Exposure reported in ({C02.00;r010;c010}).

The sum of Total Risk Exposure contributions in {C06.02;c250} is not expected to differ greatly from the Total Risk Exposure reported in C02 ({C02.00;r010;c010}). However, the amount in the COREP C02 includes the RWA for entities consolidated using the equity method, while the amount in the COREP C06.02 does not, because entities consolidated using the equity method are out of the scope of this COREP. According to the reporting instructions, the entity should allocate the RWAs so that the value for the group is the sum of the values reported for each entity in ‘Group Solvency’ template. The entity consolidated using the equity method should play no role. I understand that the column 250 (and therefore columns 260 to 290) of the COREP C06.02 should not report actual risk figures, but “contributions”. According to the regulation 2014/680 Annex II paragraph 35, “The institutions shall define the most appropriate breakdown method between the entities to take into account the possible diversification effects for market risk and operational risk”. I understand that reporting entities has to split the total RWA for credit risk, market risk and operational risk (and other risks) – as reported in the COREP C02 – between entities reported in the COREP C06.02, using a breakdown method. Therefore, I understand that the “real” amount of RWA of entities consolidated using the equity method is in fine allocated to other entities. Hence, could you confirm that indeed, the amount of RWA of entities consolidated using the equity method should be allocated by the reporting entity to other entities using the “most appropriate breakdown method” in the COREP C06.02?

  • 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_5612
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 25/06/2021

Article 94 (4) discretion on Remuneration

Does the discretion of article 94(3) (a) provide the member states of the EU with the option to set the said threshold to the ultimate minimum (i.e. to set the threshold at zero)? And if the answer to the above question is yes, does the option not to transpose at all the wording of subparagraph (a) described above, effectively set the threshold at zero?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5609
  • Topic: Remuneration
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 23/09/2022

Use of UTP triggers when default definition is on facility level

If an obligor has a mortgage loan and other loans (like credit card, private loan, business loans etc.) where definition of default is on the facility level, and the institution has certain obligor level triggers (bankruptcy, death, divorce etc.) and the obligor defaults on his mortgage (due to an obligor level trigger), should there be an automatic cross default on the other loans as well. If the opposite happens, i.e. the obligor defaults on one of the other loans (also due to an obligor level trigger) should the mortgage be defaulted as well?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2016/07 - Guidelines on the application of the definition of default under Article 178 CRR
  • ID: 2020_5592
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/02/2022

Definition of participation for the purposes of Article 18(7) CRR

In the context of Article 18(7) CRR, where an institutions holds a participation in another undertaking that is not an institution, financial institution or ancillary services undertaking, shall the default treatment for this participation be the equity method or shall the valuation be affected in accordance with the applicable accounting framework (Article 24(1) CRR), if that would result in a different measurement base?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5590
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 17/12/2021

Treatment of Repo and Reverse repo with bilateral early termination option

A supervised institution has entered a reverse repo with a financial counterparty which features an early termination option exercisable at the supervised institution’s discretion. In order to be able to map the reverse repo on the option date for the purpose of NSFR - RSF calculation, how are the supervised institution and the competent authorities supposed to assess the reputational factors that may limit the institution’s ability to exercise the option? [ref. Article 428q 3.]

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5588
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/02/2022

Interaction between 45f(3) and 45f(4) BRRD

In case of a “daisy chain” structure involving three entities (resolution entity, intermediate entity which is subsidiary of the resolution entity and subsidiary of the intermediate entity) which are all in the same Member State, how and with respect to which paragraph of Article 45f ofDirective 2014/59/EU (BRRD) should resolution authorities and institutions proceed to assess waiver requests? Is any of the two potentially applicable paragraphs (Article 45f(3) and 45f (4)) required to be privileged/rejected? Should they be combined? Also, in such a situation: a) Could you confirm that the impossibility to meet conditions under one paragraph (for instance, intermediate entity in shortfall or cross-border SPE) does not preclude requesting a waiver and the request being examined based on the other paragraph? b) Regarding condition set out in article 45f (3)(d) and 45f(4)(d) )BRRD, which entity should be the guarantor, the resolution entity or the parent entity? How to interpret/ apply these two options in case there is no MREL target set at the parent level but only at resolution entity level? c) In case the interpretation is that in order for an indirect subsidiary of a resolution entity to be granted a waiver from the application of internal MREL, its direct parent must comply with a sub-consolidated MREL target in the same MS (Article 45f(4) BRRD/12h(2) SRMR), can you clarify if the condition set out in Article 45f(4)(b) BRRD/12h(2)(b) SRMR requiring the (direct) parent undertaking to comply with the sub-consolidated MREL requirement referred to in Article 45a(1) BRRD/12a(1) SRMR is met if such parent undertaking is in shortfall but has been granted a MREL waiver? A final related question in case of entities subject to BRRD is whether, when assessing the condition under paragraphs 45f (3)(f) and 45f (4)(f) BRRD on ownership of 50% of voting rights in the subsidiary, such ownership should be assessed both directly and indirectly (direct/ indirect control).

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5582
  • Topic: MREL
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 18/03/2022

Characteristics of the guarantee for the purposes of iMREL waiver

In Article 45f(3) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD), do the "commitments " mentioned refer only to commitments of the subsidiary entered into with external creditors or do they also include intra-group commitments other than those entered into with the guarantor? Please also specify whether the shareholders should be excluded. Is there any other meaning to this term in the resolution framework? Is there a limit for the amount of the guarantee having in mind that the amount of the MREL target for which a waiver is requested would be limited. Is there a minimum duration for the term of the guarantee?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5581
  • Topic: MREL
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/07/2022

Definition of subsidiary for the purposes of the CRR

Can an undertaking over which another undertaking effectively exercises a dominant influence be considered a subsidiary of the undertaking effectively exercising dominant influence over it also for the purposes of the parts of the CRR not explicitly mentioned in Article 4(1)(15)(b) CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5579
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:

FINREP – F 01.01 and F 18.00.

Should a supervised entity report past due fees (e.g., due to guarantees provided or management fees) as “Other Assets” (F 01.01, row 360) or as “loans and advances” (F 01.01, Row 183)? According to CRR - Article 178(1)(b) when the obligor is past due more for than 90 days on any material credit obligation to the institution […] it shall be considered to have occurred a default. However, the scope of F 18.00 (Information on performing and non-performing exposures) does not include “Other Assets”, making it impossible to consider the fees that are past due for more than 90 days as non-performing. Therefore, we ask if it was the intention of the regulator to not include “Other Assets” in the scope of F 18.00.? If so, should these fees be considered as “loans and advances” (F 01.01, Row 183)?

  • 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_5577
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2021

FINREP Template F 25.01

Where should changes in a time bucket of already acquired repossessed assets be presented?

  • 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_5575
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2021

Application of Required Stable Funding on the basis of Guarantees Received

Where a loan is made to a non-financial corporate, and the loan is guaranteed by a financial counterparty such that the credit exposure on the loan is viewed by the firm as an exposure to the guarantor (financial counterparty), can the 10% RSF applicable under CRR Article 428v be applied to such a transaction?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5574
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/02/2022

Information to be provided by the PISP to the payer prior to the initiation of the transaction

Is it sufficient that the merchant makes available upon request by the payer (consumer) the information about the Payment Initiation Service Provider (PISP) in the Point of Interaction (POI) environment before the consumer presents their data (e.g., via a QR code) to meet the requirements of Articles 44 and 45, (2), PSD2?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5573
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/12/2021

Consumer explicit consent to the PISP for processing of personal data

Can the presentation by the consumer of its identification data to the merchant (e.g. CustomerID and IBAN through a QR code read by the Point of Interaction (POI)) be interpreted as the consumer providing explicit consent via the merchant to the usage of this data by a Payment Initiation Service Provider (PISP) that has a contractual relationship with the merchant (but not with the consumer) for the processing of data that will enable the initiation of a single (instant) credit transfer with the consumer’s Account Servicing Payment Service Provider (ASPSP), subject to sufficient information about this PISP made available beforehand to the consumer (in accordance with Articles 44 and 45 of PSD2)? Or is the explicit consent of the consumer to the PISP required by way of contract, as mentioned in section 3.2.1 of the EDPB Guidelines 06/2020 on the interplay of Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2) and the GDPR?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5570
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/12/2021

Interplay between Article 13a of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 as regards the deduction of software assets from Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) items and Article 37(a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

Would it be possible that the application of Article 37(a) of the CRR in conjunction with the new deduction rules established in Article 13a of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 could lead to: • A negative deduction, i.e. an addition, of software assets when it comes to the determination of CET1 items, and/or • A non-adequate amount to be risk weighted?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5567
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/02/2021

Topping-up e-money accounts with voucher-based products

If an e-money institution (EMI) sells, through an external network of points of sale, pre-paid non-reloadable vouchers of a fixed value that can only be used to top-up e-money accounts opened with such EMIs, shall the sale of such vouchers be considered as distribution of e-money for the purposes of Directive 2009/11/EC (EMD2)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5566
  • Topic: Not applicable
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 18/03/2022

Scope of internal hedges

Should transactions between non-trading books and trading books closed through clearing houses as market transactions be treated as external market transactions and therefore should they not be subject to the requirements established in Article 106 CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5554
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 04/11/2022

Unterstützungsfaktor für Infrastrukturprojekte - Supporting factor for infrastructure projects

Können sowohl der in Artikel 501 CRR genannte Faktor zur Unterstützung von KMU als auch der in Artikel 501a CRR genannte Faktor zur Unterstützung von Infrastruktur auf eine Risikoposition angewandt werden?Can the supporting factor for SMEs referred to in Article 501 CRR and the infrastructure supporting factor referred to in Article 501a CRR both be applied to an exposure?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5551
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/10/2024

Treatment of cash on Nostro accounts – i.e., Bank’s cash held by a third party institution acting as a service provider for payment and settlement purposes

Do exposures related to cash on Nostro / correspondent bank accounts (i.e., Bank’s cash held by a third party institution acting as a service provider for payment and settlement purposes) qualify for a 0% risk weight (equivalent to cash and cash balances at central banks) in both Standardized and IRB approach according to articles 134(3) and 156 (a), respectively?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5550
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/11/2022