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

Exemption from deduction of Equity Holdings in an insurance company from CET1

Institution “A” currently applies the exemption provided under Article 471 CRR, whereby it does not deduct from its own funds a qualifying shareholding held in Insurance Undertaking “C” for an amount not exceeding the amount held in CET1 instruments issued by that Insurance Undertaking as of December 31, 2012 . Following the completion of a merger by absorption between Institution “A” and Institution “B” – as a result of which Institution “B”, as surviving entity, becomes the direct holder of the shareholding in Insurance Undertaking “C” by virtue of universal succession – is Institution “B” entitled to continue to apply the exemption under Article 471 CRR, as previously applied by Institution “A” in respect of such shareholding? Upon completion of the merger mentioned in question 1 above, would Institution “B” be entitled to apply the exemption under Article 471 CRR on a consolidated basis in case its direct shareholding in Insurance Undertaking “C” is transferred (as a result of a partial de-merger) to its wholly owned subsidiary Institution “D”, given that the shareholding in Insurance Undertaking “C” would in any event be held within the consolidation perimeter of Institution “B”? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7903
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 06/07/2026

RESOL1 - how balance of cash collateral received as variation margin for intra group Repurchase Agreements should be reported in Z11.00 and Z02.00

How cash collateral received as variation margin for intragroup Repo trades be reported in Z11.00 and Z02.00 when the underlying Repo has already matured? What should be the insolvency ranking (c0030) of this balance intragroup variation margin in Z11.00?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2025/2303 - ITS on Resolution Planning Reporting
  • ID: 2026_7895
  • Topic: BRRD Reporting
  • Date of submission:

Requirement for a consolidated ICARA process under Directive (EU) 2019/2034

Does Directive (EU) 2019/2034 require investment firms that are subject to prudential consolidation under Article 7 IFR to prepare, maintain and document an ICARA process on a consolidated basis? In particular, does Article 25(4) IFD impose an obligation to perform the ICARA at consolidated level, or does it merely extend the application of Part Three without creating a standalone consolidated‑ICARA requirement?

  • Legal act: Directive (EU) 2019/2034 (IFD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7891
  • Topic: Supervision of investment firm groups
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/06/2026

Application and interpretation of the 50% / 80% weighting of positive changes under IRRBB SOT

How should Article 4(l) of the RTS on Supervisory Outlier Tests be interpreted in relation to the weighting of positive changes, in particular regarding: Whether the 80% weighting factor and associated cap should apply to EUR, given that EUR is not an ERM II currency. Whether the reference to “absolute value of negative changes in EUR or ERM II currencies” when calculating the cap should be interpreted as a sum of negative changes across all currencies or as a minimum reference between EUR and ERM II currency buckets. Whether the weighting of positive changes should be applied at the individual risk level or at an aggregated level?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7886
  • Topic: Interest Rate Risk for Banking Book (IRRBB)
  • Date of submission:

Incoherent formulae of the validation rule v90317_m

The control formula currently in place for column 0070 / row 0340 of template C16.02 does not seem aligned with your definition of this indicator. Could you clarify the expected logic?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions
  • ID: 2026_7862
  • Topic: Operational risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 13/05/2026

Incoherent formulae of the validation rule v90316_m

The control formula currently in place for column 0070 / row 0310 of template C16.02 does not seem aligned with your definition of this indicator. Could you clarify the expected logic?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions
  • ID: 2026_7861
  • Topic: Operational risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 13/05/2026

Incoherent formulae of the validation rule v90315_m

The control formula currently in place for column 0070 / row 0260 of template C16.02 does not seem aligned with your definition of this indicator. Could you clarify the expected logic?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions
  • ID: 2026_7860
  • Topic: Operational risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 13/05/2026

Sectoral classification of UK credit institutions

In the context of FINREP reporting, institutions are required to apply counterparty sector classifications as laid down in Annex V to Regulation (EU) No 680/2014. Following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, banks established in the UK are considered third‑country institutions and are no longer subject to the CRR/CRD framework. This has raised interpretative questions regarding their appropriate sectoral classification as counterparties in FINREP, in particular when ensuring consistency across EU supervisory reporting frameworks.    

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions
  • ID: 2026_7843
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/07/2026

PILLAR 3 - form EU CMS2 mapping for row EU 7d: Categorised as subordinated debt exposures in SA

According to official mapping for row EU 7d: Categorised as subordinated debt exposures in SA, column "d" and "EU d" include form c07-qx2062 that refers to CRE IPRE OTHER. Is intention to see CRE IPRE OTHER , or maping should be changed and include subordinated debt exposures?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2014/14 - Guidelines on materiality, proprietary, confidentiality and disclosure frequency under Pillar 3
  • ID: 2026_7838
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 12/05/2026

PILLAR 3 - form EU CMS2 mapping for columns d and EU d

According to mapping, column “d” and “EU d” refers to c07 and c10. Some of cells in column “d” and “EU d” refers only to c10. Please, could you explain the reason to exclude c07 from some cells in column “d” and “EU d”?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2014/14 - Guidelines on materiality, proprietary, confidentiality and disclosure frequency under Pillar 3
  • ID: 2026_7837
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 12/05/2026

Proportional application of K-ASA under Article 19 IFR in non-discretionary custody models linked to the operation of an MTF

Under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2019/2033, is there any scope for a more proportionate or risk-sensitive application of K-ASA where an investment firm: operates an MTF as its core activity; safeguards assets strictly on behalf of clients as direct participant in a CSD; does not exercise discretion over those assets; does not assume balance-sheet risk in relation to them; is prohibited from trading on own account or lending client securities; does not exercise voting rights, represent clients at meetings, or administer decisions regarding the underlying instruments; and has demonstrably reduced operational risk through technological investment and streamlined post-trade processes? More specifically: can competent authorities take into account the specific characteristics of such a business model when assessing the prudential effect of K-ASA, or is the calculation strictly volume-based in all cases regardless of the underlying risk profile; and is there any scope to differentiate K-ASA treatment depending on the type of instruments safeguarded, in particular between equity and debt instruments, or depending on whether the custody client is itself a regulated financial institution such as an investment firm or a bank?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2019/2033 (IFR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7836
  • Topic: K-factor requirements
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/05/2026

Scope of the exemption under Article 7(7) with respect to Level 1 assets referred to in Article 10(1)(c)

Do the requirements laid down in Articles 7(5) and 7(6) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 apply to assets referred to in Article 10(1)(c)?

  • 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: 2026_7835
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 29/05/2026

Own funds requirement for entities authorized as Crypto Asset Service Provider (CASP), Electronic Money Institution (EMI) and Investment Firm (IF)

How should own funds requirements be determined for a legal entity authorised as a crypto-asset service provider (CASP) under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCAR), as an electronic money institution (EMI) under Directive 2009/110/EC, and as an investment firm under Regulation (EU) 2019/2033 (IFR) and Directive (EU) 2019/2034 (IFD), in particular where certain crypto asset services – such as the transfer of crypto assets on behalf of clients – require a specific CASP authorization rather than a notification regime, and given the absence of explicit provisions governing the interaction between the two prudential frameworks?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7834
  • Topic: Own Funds (MiCAR)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 29/05/2026

Shadow Banking Definition - Alternative Investment Funds

Where an entity qualifies as an alternative investment fund (“AIF”) for the purposes of Directive 2011/61/EU, but its constitutive documents do not explicitly prohibit loan origination or the purchase of third‑party lending exposures, should that entity be regarded as meeting the criterion in Article 1(c)(iii) of the relevant Delegated Regulation 2023/2779 (Identification of Shadow Banking) solely on the basis of what it is permitted to do, notwithstanding that it does not in practice carry out banking activities, as referred to in Article 394(2) CRR? In particular, should the assessment of whether an AIF falls within the definition of a shadow banking entity be determined by: the theoretical scope of permitted activities under its rules or instruments of incorporation, or the actual activities carried out by the AIF in the ordinary course of its business?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions
  • ID: 2026_7833
  • Topic: Large exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 29/05/2026

Z08.0x The Service Identifier can only be set as an Integer instead of free text

Is it possible to apply the data type “free text” for the Service Identifier as specified in the Annex II IT Solution?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2025/2303 - ITS on Resolution Planning Reporting
  • ID: 2026_7832
  • Topic: BRRD Reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/09/2026

Z08.04 The current key is incorrect in the ITS

Z08.04 The current key is incorrect in the ITS

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2025/2303 - ITS on Resolution Planning Reporting
  • ID: 2026_7831
  • Topic: BRRD Reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/09/2026

Geographical allocation of exposures arising from synthetic securitisations for the purposes of the Countercyclical Capital Buffer (CCB)

For synthetic securitisations where the originator: retains certain securitisation tranches (e.g. senior or mezzanine tranche), obtains funded credit protection for part of the junior risk, and obtains unfunded credit protection for another part of the junior risk, how should the geographical location of the originator’s remaining exposures be determined for purposes of CCB calculation? Specifically: Should all exposures arising from the securitisation—whether securitisation exposures or CRM‑transformed exposures—be allocated according to Article 4 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 1152/2014, based solely on the obligors of the underlying exposures?  Or should the following differentiated approach apply: retained securitisation exposures: allocation under Article 4 DelVO 1152/2014. funded protection: no remaining exposure → no CCB geographical allocation; unfunded protection: exposure is no longer a securitisation exposure but a CRM‑transformed credit exposure; Should the geographical allocation follow the logic of Q&A 2016_3050 (pre‑CRM exposure = underlying obligors = allocation according to Article 4 DelVO 1152/2014 the same as for the retained securitisation exposure), or                the standard CRM logic for credit exposures (location of the protection provider instead of location of the underlyings)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 1152/2014 - RTS on the identification of the geographical location of relevant credit exposures for institution-specific countercyclical capital buffer rate
  • ID: 2026_7830
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:

Identical cell F_13.02.1 Collateral obtained during the period

Could you pls de-activate the 'identical cells' below in DPM 4.2.1? VariableVID = 5459395 ---> {F_13.02.1.a, r0020, c0010}=={F_13.02.1.c, r0080, c0040} ----> 120783==366904 VariableVID = 5460187 ---> {F_13.02.1.a, r0020, c0020}=={F_13.02.1.c, r0080, c0050} ----> 120791==366905    

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
  • ID: 2026_7829
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 05/06/2026

Validation rule v7511

validation rule v7511m Z_03.01, c, default: 0, interval: true}: {r0400} = {r0410} + {r0420} + {r0430} + max({r0440}, {r0450}, does not seem to be complete as it does not consider Z0.3.01 r0460

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2025/2303 - ITS on Resolution Planning Reporting
  • ID: 2026_7828
  • Topic: BRRD Reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/09/2026

Templates Z07.01.2 - Timing of substitution for Lending

Please confirm the time buckets to be used for reporting col 0130 'Timing of Substitution' in template Z07.01.02 FUNC1 Lending

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2025/2303 - ITS on Resolution Planning Reporting
  • ID: 2026_7827
  • Topic: BRRD Reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/09/2026