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

Annex II of Instructions for resolution planning reports vs defined drop downs in DPM model

Annex II specifies that for template Z 09.01, the allowed value for column c0040 should be “Payment systems”, so why is that not included in DPM and what would then be correct system type for e.g. NKS/STEP2/TARGET2?

  • 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_7754
  • Topic: BRRD Reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/04/2026

Annex II of Instructions for resolution planning report template Z03.01 vs EBA validation rule v7511_m

Could you please check the logic behind the EBA validation rules regarding Combined Buffer Requirement in RESOL report? Details are stated in the background section.

  • 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_7751
  • Topic: BRRD Reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/04/2026

Template Z 03.01 Own funds requirements– validation rule v7511_m

In template Z03.01 column 0010 row 0400 Combined buffer requirement according to instructions should be equal to COREP (OF): {C 04.00;740;010}). However, the hotfix validation rule v 7511_m of the EBA creates a discrepancy. The validation rule v7511_m is: with {tZ_03.01, c*, default: 0, interval: true}: {r0400} = {r0410} + {r0420} + {r0430} + max( {r0440}, {r0450} ) (i.e the Combined Buffer Requirement in Z 03.01-r0400 must be equal to the sum of r0410  + r0420 + r0430 + the highest of (r0440; r0450)) The validation rule is has an error status, but its referencing appears incorrect. Can the Q&A please be amended?

  • 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_7749
  • Topic: BRRD Reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/04/2026

Missing value in DPM Z09.01, column 0040 System type

'- In the DPM 4,2 file in tab Z_09.01 the column 0040 (System type) there is a missing value 'Payment system'. This value is used by the bank and was present in the previous taxonomy 4.0. with the value qx2049 Payment systems. The value is also present in the EBA guidance. Could you please add the value qx2049 Payment systems in the taxonomy 4.2 in the Z09.01, column 0040?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7748
  • Topic: Resolution plans
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/04/2026

Error in Validation rule v7511_m

'- In the Validation rules for DPM 4.2, the validation rule v7511_m seems wrong. The current formula {r0400} = {r0410} + {r0420} + {r0430} + max( {r0440}, {r0450} ) doesn't include the line r0460 in the sum. Indeed, for for the entities which are not GSIIB and which report their requirement only on r0460 line dedicated for the OSIIB, the sum is wrongly calculated.  Could you please update the validation rule including the line 460 in the formula?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7747
  • Topic: Resolution plans
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/04/2026

Blocking Key Value (qLEC:qLE) Legal entity

'- In the DPM 4,2 file in tab Z_01.02 the fields 0020 (Code) there is a blocking Key value which prevents the declaration of all the ownerships inside of the consolidated group. The field 0020 (Code) is set up as a unique value which can be declared only once in the tab while according to the guidance the institution should declare in this tab all the investors and investees entities. A s one investor entity can have several invetsees entities, the institution shloud be able to declare several line with the same code.    Could you please confirm if the Key value (qLEC:qLE) as a unique value should be removed from the taxonomy? for information, it's an urgent question for RESOLUTION

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7746
  • Topic: Resolution plans
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/04/2026

Reporting of multiple investees per investor in template Z_01.02 (Ownership structure)

In template Z_01.02, how should institutions report cases where one investor is linked to more than one investee, given that column 0020 (code of investor) is defined as the Key value and columns 0040 and 0050 identify the investee?

  • 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_7743
  • Topic: Resolution plans
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/04/2026

RES 4.2 taxonomy - template Z_01.02 “Ownership Structure”

The bank has noticed an inconsistency identified in the RES 4.2 taxonomy regarding template Z_01.02 “Ownership Structure”. In this template, the technical key is currently set only on field 0020 – “Investor Code” (Unique identifier of the legal entity or investor). Since each investor may be associated with more than one investee, this results in a duplication of the key whenever multiple relationships exist for the same investor. Given that the key must be unique, it is not possible under the current setup to correctly represent the group structure. Otherwise, generating a duplicated key would make the file incorrect and not processable and would result in an error of the whole RESOL1 package.

  • 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_7742
  • Topic: BRRD Reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/04/2026

Classification of payment systems providers in Resol2 Z_09.01 template.

How it’s possible to classify FMI Providers for Payment systems in template Z_09.01?

  • 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_7741
  • Topic: BRRD Reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/04/2026

II.29 Z 09.04 - FMI Services – CCPs – Alternative Providers (FMI 4)

According to c0050 "ID alternative provider" definition it looks like the entity should only report Alternative Provider when these providers are already reported in Z09.01.In the case an entity has a contingent contract of substitution with an alternative provider which currently doesn't provide any services to the entity, should the entity report this alternative provider? In affirmative case, which c0050 ID should we provide?

  • 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_7739
  • Topic: BRRD Reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2026

Inconsistency between ITS and Taxonomy

In the Annex II of the ITS for report Z0600, Column 0030 - DGS , the ITS clearly states that the value other can be reported :"If the officially recognised DGS of which the entity is member is not listed above, ‘oter shall be reported".   But the DPM 4.2 as a restriction fur such column based on subcateogy EN3 which does not allow any "other" value and just nammed the principal DGS to be used. In the previous version of the DPM, the DGS column was technically binded by another enumeration that was allowing an other value : x128 - Other deposit guarantee scheme.   Can you explain us : if it's normal that the DPM 4.2 is now excluding the Other value even if the ITS seems to say that it's a valid option if it's correct for a client for which some CI may used some DGS not listed in the subcateroy EN3, to let this column empty?  

  • 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_7737
  • Topic: BRRD Reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/04/2026

Definition of Default (CRR Article 178) – Application of contagion and the 20% “significant part” threshold in the presence of joint credit obligations where default is applied at facility level

When the Definition of Default for retail exposures is applied at facility level, how should institutions apply the contagion and pulling effects set out in Article 178 CRR and EBA/GL/2016/07 in the presence of joint credit obligations, given that paragraphs 96–99 are articulated for obligor level default, while Article 178 CRR allows default recognition at facility level. In particular: Should a joint obligor (i.e. a specific set of obligors jointly liable) be treated as a separate obligor for the purposes of assessing contagion and the “significant part” (20%) threshold? How should contagion be assessed between:  joint credit obligations of the same set of obligors, individual exposures of the obligors participating in the joint obligation, and other joint credit obligations of those individual obligors with different counterparties, where default is recognised at facility level (including defaults identified through indications of unlikeliness to pay)? How should this be applied in practice for the 3 illustrative examples given?

  • 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: 2026_7736
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 10/03/2026

Template Z 01.02 Resolution Planning – Uniqueness Requirement for Column 0020

In template Z01.02 in column 0020 the unique identifier of the legal entity or investor referred in column 0010 should be reported. In our ownership structure, several investors hold participations in multiple investee entities, meaning the same investor appears in multiple rows of Template Z 01.02. Because the identifier in Column 0020 must consistently represent the same legal entity, it must be repeated across those rows. This, however, conflicts with the requirement that Column 0020 contain a unique value for each row. 

  • 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_7735
  • Topic: BRRD Reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/04/2026

Treasury subsidiaries of non-financial corporates and “financial customer” definition

How should banks consider the “purpose” of treasury subsidiaries of non-financial corporates, when assessing whether the customer performs one or more of the CRD Annex I activities as its “main business”?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2026_7734
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 10/03/2026

Mapping of Critical Services to Critical Functions Z08.04

We need additional guidance in Z08.04 on how to report a critical service linked to multiple critical functions

  • 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_7732
  • Topic: BRRD Reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/04/2026

COREP Additional Liquidity Monitoring Metrics - technical implementation of DPM v4.2 for template C_67.00.a and C_67.00.w - SubCategory "new_CO4" used instead of "new_CO1"

With DPM v4.2 the modeling of template C_67.00.a and C_67.00.w has been changed to use SubCategory new_CO4 instead of new_CO1. Now it is possible to submit the “LEI code”, the “MFI Code” and “Type of identifier, other than LEI or MFI code” but not the “National code”. How should a national code be reported in template C_67.00.a and C_67.00.w and what is the reason behind this change?

  • 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_7731
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 13/03/2026

Approach in case of misalignments in the taxonomy of the single data point model

Approach to be taken in case of misalignment in the taxonomy and the instructions provided in the single data point model.

  • 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_7730
  • Topic: BRRD Reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/04/2026