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

Exit criteria for performing exposure under probation that has been reclassifiied to non-performing because it has been re-forborne or is more than 30 days past-due

According to paragraph 180 non-performing exposures with forbearance measures comprise forborne exposures that meet the criteria to be considered as non-performing. These exposures are forborne exposures which have been reclassified from the performing category, including exposures under probation having been re-forborne or more than 30 days past-due. However, which exit criteria does apply to cease being non-performing for this specific non-performing exposure?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
  • ID: 2014_886
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/10/2014

Residual maturity of exposures with an undefined maturity

Do exposures with an undefined maturity, such as deposits or time deposits which can be called by the depositor and must then be reimbursed with a delay shorter than three months, quality as such?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_883
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/07/2014

Scope for probation period

Paragraph 176 defines the criteria to discontinue forbearance classification. According to paragraph 176 (b) "...a minimum 2 year probation period has passed from the date the forborne exposure was considered as performing". According to Annex II “EBA ITS 2013 03 Annex I (Annex I ITS FBE NPE Amemdments Annex III ITS reporting IFRS templates)” paragraph 176 (b) is only applicable to table 19 column 50 (of which: Performing forborne exposures under probation). Does this mean that the 2 year probation period is only required for exposures which are reported in column 50 – i.e. exposures with forbearance measures which have been reclassified out of the non-performing forborne exposure columns (see paragraph 180)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
  • ID: 2014_878
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 27/03/2015

Confirmation of waiver in particular situations

Is it confirmed that the waiver of the provisions in respect of deduction applies to capital instruments or subordinated loans that an entity holds or has granted temporarily for the purposes of a financial assistance operation designed to reorganize and save another entity even prior to the CRR/CRDIV regulations coming into force? Is it confirmed that the waiver of the provisions in respect of deduction for capital instruments or subordinated loans envisaged for the purposes of a financial assistance operation designed to reorganize and save the entity still applies also with reference to holdings already acquired but still necessary for the purposes of the financial assistance operation?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_875
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Where and how much to report forward starting repo or reverse repo ?

Should article 422.2 and 425.2(d) in CRR be applicable on the initial disbursement flow of forward starting repo or reverse repo for purpose of LCR ? Where to report initial disbursement flows and maturing flows (if within 30 days) of forward starting repo or reverse repo in report C52 and C53?

  • 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: 2014_872
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 20/02/2015

FINREP Template F20.4 (r210,r230)

In template 20.4 row 210 loans to non-financial corporations shall be broken down to “of which: Commercial immovable propertys”. In row 230 loans to household shall be broken down to “of which: loans collateralized by residential”. Are gross carrying amounts of loans formally collateralised by residential or commercial immovable property respectively required in rows 210 and 230? Or shall row 210 include gross carrying amounts of loans that are used to finance commercial immovable properties?

  • 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: 2014_864
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/08/2014

Lower maximum penalties for natural persons

Articles 66 (2) d) and Art. 67 (2) f) of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD) provides that for certain breaches stipulated in Articles 66 (1) and 67 (1) Member States shall ensure that administrative penalties that can be applied include at least up to 5 million euro in the case of natural person. May Member States, considering the circumstances of particular Member State, provide directly in their national law lower maximum amount of the penalty (e.g. "up to 1 million euro") for natural persons in the case of the breaches set in Articles 66 (1) and 67 (1)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_859
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 06/06/2014

Definition of a financial institution

Following the corrigendum of November 30 2013, the definition of a “financial sector entity” (FSE) was modified, however, the definition of a “financial institution” (FI) remained unchanged. We seek clarification for the following two main issues: 1) Clarification is sought on whether all “undertakings other than institutions, the principal activity of which is to acquire holdings” – irrespective of whether the holdings in question relate to undertakings in- or outside of the financial sector – qualify as a financial institution (FI) (and accordingly as a financial sector entity (FSE) pursuant to Article 4(1)(27) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)) for prudential consolidation purposes and also for purposes of capital deductions for investments in FSEs. 2) As the CRR does not give a definition of what “principal activity” means in relation to FI, there is room for interpretation leading to divergent treatment across Member States – in particular, where a bank owns shares in a holding company that owns a non-financial group (i.e. a group that does not undertake an activity under Annex 1 of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)). We seek clarification on whether an undertaking’s principal activity (e.g. to acquire holdings) needs to be determined on an individual basis (i.e. also in the case of holding companies) or whether it can be determined on the basis of its consolidated situation (i.e. including the holding company plus its non-financial subsidiaries and holdings) and by taking into account all relevant qualitative and quantitative criteria (e.g. proportion of assets, of profits and of capital resulting from the acquisition of holdings versus operating activities, including activities listed in Annex I to CRD; human resources deployed; etc) on group level.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_857
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 18/07/2014

Annex XV Validation formulae

Ilogical validations in Annex XV

  • 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: 2014_854
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

Inclusion of derivatives in the product list mentioned in Article 378

Are derivatives also to be included in the product list mentioned in Article 378?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_851
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/10/2014

Classification of in default exposures that are at the same time is an Item Associated with Particular High Risk

Following the decision tree, it is clear that "Items Associated with Particular High Risk" take precedence over "Exposures in Default". However, if for example we have a case of speculative immovable property financing that is in default where do we classify it? If we include the exposure in the Associated with Particular High Risk class, then during COREP review or other regulatory review exercises, it might not give the correct picture for the level of in default exposures that an institution has in its portfolio. Shall the in default items with particular high risk be classified in the "In default" exposure class?

  • 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: 2014_847
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 16/01/2015

Calculation of the threshold deductions (from CET1) during the transitional period

In calculating the threshold deductions from Common Equity Tier 1 during the transitional period [Article 470] should the following items be fully or partially deducted from Common Equity Tier 1 according to the national discretion phase-in and/or filter? (i.e. should the “transitional period threshold” be exactly equal to the “full application threshold” or the former should be determined considering the national discretions phase-in/filter effects). More specifically: - Unrealized losses measured at fair value: in countries where national discretion rules provide [Article 467(2)] for a filter to not include in any element of own funds unrealised gains or losses on exposures to central governments classified in the “Available for Sale” category of EU-endorsed IAS 39, the Common Equity Tier 1 considered for the calculation of the threshold deductions during transitional period should be determined with or without those specific unrealized losses measured at fair value? - Loss carry forward: in countries where national discretion rules provide for a phasing-in of loss carry forward deductions (deferred tax assets that rely on future profitability and do not arise from temporary differences) [Article 469 (1)], the Common Equity Tier 1 considered for the calculation of the threshold deductions during transitional period should be determined by subtracting all the loss carry forward or just the applicable percentage determined by the national authority? - Shortfall of expected losses to provision: in countries where national discretion rules provide for a phasing-in of shortfall of expected losses to provision deductions (negative amounts resulting from the calculation of expected loss amounts for IRB institutions) [Article 469 (1)], the Common Equity Tier 1 considered for the calculation of the threshold deductions during transitional period should be determined by subtracting all the shortfall of expected losses to provision or just the applicable percentage determined by the national authority?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_842
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 11/07/2014

Regulatory Add-on % for Inflations Swaps

Should point 3 of Annex II (types of derivatives) have a title? Points 1 and 2 both have titles; it is inconsistent that point 3 has no title. Article 274 (3) makes reference to "contracts relating to commodities other than gold, referred to in point 3 of Annex II". What derivative types, as classified in table 1 in the article, does point 3 cover? This ambiguity leads me to ask should an Inflation swaps linked to RPI index, be treated as an 'Interest rate' contract or a 'Commodity' Contract? Given the current wording of point 3, Annex II suggests that Inflation swaps should be treated as Interest Rate contracts, they are of a similar nature to interest rate contracts.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_841
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Underwriting Commitments

Can underwriting commitments as described under Article 345 of the CRR be included in the Exposure measure of the Leverage ratio?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_839
  • Topic: Leverage ratio
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/08/2014

Discrepancy between taxonomy expectation and ITS

In the report CR SEC DET, C14.00, the ITS clearly says that column 290 and 300 must written according to the following format : MM/YYYY In the taxonomy published in december those cells are defined as DATE. The problem here is that many of our customers only collect Month and Year for those columns in their information system, but not the day as it was not required first. And as far as i know, in the taxonomy a DATE information muste have a Day to be valid (year and month are not sufficient) => Will you keep those fields as date? if so, is it possible to send those fields with a fixed day?

  • 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: 2014_838
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

Large exposures - major trading currencies in overnight transactions

How are the major trading currencies to be determined under Article 400(2)(f) of the CRR? Clarification is needed on what is to be considered a major trading currency under Article 400(2)(f).

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2014_837
  • Topic: Large exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/08/2014

Definition of assets with an undefined maturity date

May CIU shares which do not meet the requirements of article 416, paragraph 6 of the CRR, but that the institution may call and which are contractually repayable at any time within the 30-day time horizon, be considered as assets with an undefined contractual end and taken into account as inflows up to 20% their total amount?

  • 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: 2014_835
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/08/2014

Audit of the FINREP figures

1) As regards FINREP reports, audited figures shall mean: - audited FINREP reports (i.e. the external auditor expressing an audit opinion on the FINREP reports as a whole) OR - building the FINREP reports based on final, audited figures existent in the accounting (i.e. based on the information from the annual published consolidated financial statements)? 2) What is the frequency of the auditing obligation in the case of FINREP information?

  • 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: 2014_834
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/08/2014

C0700 : Descrepancy between Taxonomy and ITS

In the ITS, the row 280 of the reporting C0700 is forbidden for the following exposure classes : -Government, -Corporates, -Institutions, -Retail. When we look at the taxonomy it seems that no particular control is done to forbid figures for those cells. Does the EBA expects any figures for those cells?

  • 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: 2014_833
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014

Label discrepancy

By comparing the ITS published on the EC : http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/regcapital/legislation_in_force... And the Taxonomy published by the EIOPA last year it seems that some "rows label" and "column labels" are not exactly the same. Which label should be considered as the correct one? instance : - Form C0200 EBA Taxo: Row 020 : Of which: Investment firms under Article 90 paragraph 2 and Article 93 of CRR EC : Row 020 : Of which: Investment firms under Article 95 paragraph 2 and Article 98 of CRR EBA Taxo: Row 030 : Of which: Investment firms under Article 91 paragraph 1 and 2 and Article 92 of CRR EC : Row 030 : Of which : Investment firms under Article 96 paragraph 2 and Article 97 of CRR - Form C0501 EBA Taxo: Row 090 : 1.2.2 Transitional recognition in consolidated own funds of minority interests and qualifying Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital EC : Row 090 1.2.2 Transitional recognition in consolidated own funds of minority interests EBA : Row 100 : 1.3 ADJUSTMENTS TO DEDUCTIONS EC : Row 100 : 1.3 OTHER TRANSITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS [...]

  • 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: 2014_832
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/09/2014