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

Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2

Should the Additional Tier 1, Tier 1 ,Tier 2 and own funds stemming from undertakings of third countries outside Europe and subject to local requirements equivalent to those requirements under Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) and Directive (EU) 2013/36 (CRD), be included in the consolidated own funds?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_620
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 31/10/2014

FINREP Reporting - Cumulative from ARD or period-on-period

Can the EBA please confirm whether data in the FINREP templates should be reported on a cumulative basis (from the start of the accounting reference date), or period-on-period?

  • 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Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)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: 2013_619
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2014

Assessment criteria of the conditions of forbone exposures that are performing

Performing exposures with forbearance measures are distinguished into these that were considered as performing from the date when forbearance measures were extended (see paragraph 178) and these that were previously non-performing and have been reclassified from the non-performing category. Is there a distinction regarding the assessment criteria for these two types of exposures or have all performing exposures with forbearance measures to be assessed on a quarterly basis (see paragraph 177), although the class of formerly non-performing exposures is exposed to a higher risk to become non-performing again as compared to these that have always been performing since forbearance measures were extended?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
  • ID: 2013_618
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/08/2014

Calculation of EADi(total) for CVA purposes under the standardised method

How should an institution using Mark-to-market Method for calculating the exposure value for CCR purposes calculate an EADi(total) when calculating the own funds requirements for CVA risk under standardised method? How should collateral be taken into account?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_616
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Validation Rules FINREP - COREP

CRR states that certain balance sheet items shall be used for COREP reporting only, if they have been reviewed by an auditor. The last reviewed or audited values have to be used for COREP purposes until auditor’s review or audit of the current values have been carried out (so called "static principle"). For example some interim financial statements are not published and/or not reviewed by auditors (e.g. as of March 31st). In this case the last audited deferred tax assets or liabilities - i.e. as of December 31st of the preceding year- have to be used for all COREP reporting (e.g. March 31st, June, 30th, etc) until the next financial statement is reviewed or audited by the auditor. For FINREP reporting the most recent accounting values would be used for preparation of the quarterly reporting- e.g. even if no auditor’s review is conducted as of March 31st, 2014 current accounting values would be submitted for FINREP reporting. Because of this static principle for COREP reporting, COREP values may not equal FINREP accounting values for specific positions and specific reporting dates. However, according to EBA validation rules specific balance sheet positions (e.g. deferred tax assets or liabilities) shall equal in the FINREP and COREP templates. These validations do not appear to be valid because of the difference in principles in preparing COREP and FINREP numbers. For example validation rule v1780_h states that {F 01.01 , r330} = +{F 01.01 , r340} +{C 04.00 , r010}). COREP- FINREP validation rules are applicable for share premium and accumluated other comprehsensvie income too. These validations do not appear to be valid for all reporting dates. Which numbers are required for deferred tax assets and liability reporting in the COREP and FINREP tables respectively?

  • 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: 2013_612
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2014

Calculation of exposure value for counterparty credit risk under Mark-to-market Method

Is there any exemption for the calculation of "add ons" when using Mark-to-market method for determining the exposure value for Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013 (CRR)? What is the right treatment of a single transaction that is not subject to legally enforceable netting agreement, if the contract has a negative value?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_611
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Validation Rule

German Question (Deutsche Frage): Die validation rule mit der ID-Nr v1927_h sieht eine Abstimmbarkeit der Zeile 520 in Tabelle F 02.00 mit der Zeile 100 in Tabelle F 16.07 vor. In Tabelle F 02.00 ist Zeile 520 aber die Summe der Zeilen 530 bis 570, (fünf Zeilen) während in Tabelle F 16.07 Zeile 100 die Summe der Zeilen 110 bis 140 (vier Zeilen)ist. Da außerdem die Zeilen 530 bis 560 der Tabelle F 02.00 abstimmbar sein sollen zu den Zeilen 110 bis 140 der Tabelle F 16.07 (siehe validation rules ID Nr. v1333_m, v1334_m, v1335_m, v1928_h) gibt es hier einen Widerspruch: Entweder ist Zeile 570 in Tabelle F 02.00 obsolet und ist entsprechend zu streichen, oder die validation rule v1928_h ist insoweit zu erweitern, dass Zeile 140 in Tabelle F 16.07 abstimmbar sein muss mit der Summe der Zeilen 560 und 570 aus Tabelle F 02.00. Die EBA ist zu fragen, wie dieser Widerspruch gelöst werden soll. English Question: The validation rule with the ID No v1927_h provides for reconciliation of row 520 in table F 02.00 to row 100 in table F 16.07. In table F 02.00, however, row 520 is the sum of rows 530 to 570 (five rows), whereas in table F 16.07, row 100 is the sum of rows 110 to 140 (four rows). Furthermore, as rows 530 to 560 of table F 02.00 should be reconciled to rows 110 to 140 of table F 16.07 (see validation rules ID Nos v1333_m, v1334_m, v1335_m, v1928_h), there is a contradiction here. Either row 570 in table F 02.00 is obsolete and must therefore be deleted, or validation rule v1928_h must be expanded accordingly so that row 140 in table F 16.07 is reconciled to the sum of rows 560 and 570 from table F 02.00. The EBA must be asked how this contradiction should be resolved.

  • 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: 2013_609
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2014

Cash and cash balances at central banks’

German Question (Deutsche Frage): In dem ITS-Update vom 26.7.2013 wird in dem Dokument “EBA FINAL draft Implementing Technical Standards.pdf” auf Seite 51 folgende Aussage getroffen: “On the basis of the feedback on the definition and use of ‘cash and cash equivalents’, the EBA decided to change the item to ‘cash and cash balances at central banks’, in line with the practice followed by banks. In addition to the instructions provided in the ITS examples will be provided in additional implementation guidance on the EBA website.“ Diese Aussage scheint inkonsistent zu der vorgenommen Zuordnung des Postens “other demand deposits” in Tabelle F 05.00 (alt F 09.00) zu sein und insofern gerade nicht der Praxis der Bilanzierung der Barreserve bei Kreditinstituten zu entsprechen. Wie ist hiermit umzugehen? Daneben ist eine „additional implementation guidance on the EBA website” nicht zu finden. Der letzte Stand datiert diesbezüglich aus 2009. Wann ist mit einem entsprechenden Dokument zu rechnen? English Question: In the ITS Update of 26.7.2013, the following statement appears in the document ‘EBA FINAL draft Implementing Technical Standards.pdf’ on page 51: ‘On the basis of the feedback on the definition and use of “cash and cash equivalents”, the EBA decided to change the item to “cash and cash balances at central banks”, in line with the practice followed by banks. In addition to the instructions provided in the ITS, examples will be provided in additional implementation guidance on the EBA website.’ This statement seems to be inconsistent with the assignment that was already carried out of the item ‘other demand deposits’ in table F 05.00 (prev. F 09.00), and is therefore not in line with the practice of balancing the cash reserve in credit institutions. How should this be dealt with? Moreover, the ‘additional implementation guidance on the EBA website’ cannot be found. The last update on this is from 2009. When can the relevant document be expected?

  • 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: 2013_608
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2014

Template 5 - Missing Validation Rule

German Question (Deutsche Frage): Während die nun verbal formulierte Zuordnung der “balances receivable on demand classified as cash balances at central banks“ zu Tabelle 5 (alt 9) in den alten Validation Rules ausdrücklich als Formelbezug angegeben war (F 09.00, r010, c010 = F 01.01, r030, c010), ist diese Verbindung in den aktuellen Validation Rules nicht mehr angegeben. Wie ist dies zu interpretieren? English Question: Whereas the now verbally formulated assignment of the ‘balances receivable on demand classified as cash balances at central banks’ to table 5 (prev. 9) was given expressly as a formula in the old validation rules (F 09.00, r010, c010 = F 01.01, r030, c010), this connection is no longer given in the current validation rules. How should this be interpreted?

  • 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: 2013_607
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 27/06/2014

Validation Rule

Original question: Stimmt die EBA den folgenden validation rules für Tabelle 7 Spalte 100 zu: F07.00 (c100; r060) = F04.04 (c050; r010) bis F07.00 (c100; r180) = F04.04 (c050; r130) Translated question: Does the EBA agree with the following validation rules for table 7 column 100: F07.00 (c100; r060) = F04.04 (c050; r010) to F07.00 (c100; r180) = F04.04 (c050; r130)

  • 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: 2013_606
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/08/2014

Validation Rule

Original question: Stimmt die EBA den folgenden validation rules für Tabelle 7 Spalte 090 zu: F07.00 (c090; r060) = F04.04 (c040; r010) bis F07.00 (c090; r180) = F04.04 (c040; r130) Translated question: Does the EBA agree with the following validation rules for table 7 column 090: F07.00 (c090; r060) = F04.04 (c040; r010) to F07.00 (c090; r180) = F04.04 (c040; r130)

  • 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: 2013_605
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/08/2014

Validation Rule

Original question: Stimmt die EBA den folgenden validation rules für Tabelle 7 Spalten 080 und 110 zu: F07.00 (c080; r060) = F04.04 (c030; r010) bis F07.00 (c080; r180) = F04.04 (c030; r130) F07.00 (c110; r010) = F04.03 (c040; r010) bis F07.00 (c110; r050) = F04.03 (c040; r050) Translated question: Does the EBA agree with the following validation rules for table 7 columns 080 and 110: F07.00 (c080; r060) = F04.04 (c030; r010) to F07.00 (c080; r180) = F04.04 (c030; r130) F07.00 (c110; r010) = F04.03 (c040; r010) to F07.00 (c110; r050) = F04.03 (c040; r050)

  • 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: 2013_604
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/08/2014

Table 7 Validation

German Question (Deutsche Frage): Tabelle F 07.00 Spalte 080 sollte allein schon aufgrund der Benennung und der angegebenen Referenzen abstimmbar sein zu Tabelle F 04.04 Spalte 030. Problematisch ist hierbei jedoch, dass es in Tabelle 7 auch noch eine Spalte 110 gibt, in der beispielsweise der Verbrauch von Einzelwertberichtigungen für noch nicht abgegangene Forderungen zu zeigen wären. Eine solche Spalte gibt es in Tabelle F 04.04 jedoch nicht. Es könnte daher argumentiert werden, dass in Tabelle F 04.04 Spalte 030 der Bestand der Einzelwertberichtigungen um diesen Verbrauch zu erhöhen wäre (dann wäre aber keine Abstimmbarkeit zu Tabelle F 07.00 Spalte 080 oder zu der entsprechenden IFRS-Abschluss-Position mehr möglich) oder dass in Tabelle F 04.04 Spalte 020 der gross carrying amount für abgeschriebene Forderungen den Betrag nach Direktabschreibungen darstellt (dann wäre die Bezeichnung gross carrying amount aber inhaltlich fragwürdig. Aufgrund dieser Konsistenzprobleme sollte der EBA vorgeschlagen werden, dass die Tabelle F 04.04 um eine Spalte 060 „Accumulated write-offs“ zu erweitern ist und die bisherige Spalte 060 in Tabelle F 04.04 zur Spalte 070 wird. Ferner wären für Tabelle F 04.04 die entsprechenden über die Spalten summierenden validation rules anzupassen. English Question: Table F 07.00 column 080 should be reconciled from its name alone, and the references given therein, to table F 04.04 column 030. However, the problem here lies in the fact that in table F 07.00, there is another column 110, in which would be shown, for example, expenditure of specific allowances for debts not yet disposed of. However, no such column exists in table F 04.04. It could thus be argued that in table F 04.04 column 030, the amount for specific allowances should be increased by this expenditure (although reconciliation to table F 07.00 column 080 or to the corresponding IFRS final position would then no longer be possible), or that in table F 04.04 column 020, the gross carrying amount for written-off receivables represents the amount after direct write-offs (although this would then make the accuracy of the term gross carrying amount questionable). Because of this problem of consistency, it should be suggested to the EBA that a column 060 ‘Accumulated write-offs’ be added to table F 04.04, and that the column which was previously 060 in table F 04.04 become column 070. Furthermore, for table F 04.04, the corresponding validation rules for totalling up the columns would need to be adjusted.

  • 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: 2013_603
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2014

Validation Rule

Original question: Stimmt die EBA den folgenden validation rules für Spalte 070 zu: F07.00 (c070; r010) = F04.03 (c020; r010) F07.00 (c070; r020) = F04.03 (c020; r020) F07.00 (c070; r030) = F04.03 (c020; r030) F07.00 (c070; r040) = F04.03 (c020; r040) F07.00 (c070; r050) = F04.03 (c020; r050) F07.00 (c070; r060) = F04.03 (c020; r060) + F04.04 ((c020./.c030./.c040); r010) F07.00 (c070; r070) = F04.03 (c020; r070) + F04.04 ((c020./.c030./.c040); r020) usw. bis F07.00 (c070; r180) = F04.03 (c020; r180) + F04.04 ((c020./.c030./.c040); r130) Translated question: Does the EBA agree with the following validation rules for column 070: F07.00 (c070; r010) = F04.03 (c020; r010) F07.00 (c070; r020) = F04.03 (c020; r020) F07.00 (c070; r030) = F04.03 (c020; r030) F07.00 (c070; r040) = F04.03 (c020; r040) F07.00 (c070; r050) = F04.03 (c020; r050) F07.00 (c070; r060) = F04.03 (c020; r060) + F04.04 ((c020./.c030./.c040); r010) F07.00 (c070; r070) = F04.03 (c020; r070) + F04.04 ((c020./.c030./.c040); r020) etc. to F07.00 (c070; r180) = F04.03 (c020; r180) + F04.04 ((c020./.c030./.c040); r130)

  • 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: 2013_602
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/08/2014

Validation Rules

German Question (Deutsche Frage): Wie sind in den Validation Rules zu Tabelle F 20.05 die Ergänzungen der Tabellenbezeichnungen um die Buchstaben „a“ und „b“ zu interpretieren? Dies betrifft auch die Tabellen F 08.01, F 15.00, F 16.01 und F 16.07. English Question: In the validation rules for table F 20.05, how should the fact that the letters ‘a’ and ‘b’ have been added to the table names be interpreted? This applies also to tables F 08.01, F 15.00, F 16.01 and F 16.07.

  • 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: 2013_601
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Other
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2014

Validation Rule

German Question (Deutsche Frage): In den Validation Rules wird angegeben, dass der Betrag in Zelle (F 20.04, r140, c030) mit dem Betrag in Zelle (F20.07, r190, c020) identisch sein soll. Während in Tabelle F 20.04 sämtliche loans and advances ausgewertet werden, handelt es sich in Tabelle 20.07 nur um solche loans and advances, die ggü. non-financial corporations bestehen. Eine Identität der Beträge kann deshalb nicht vorliegen. Insofern ist die EBA um eine diesbezügliche Untersuchung der Angabe zu bitten. English Question: The validation rules indicate that the amount in cell (F 20.04, r140, c030) should be identical to the amount in cell (F20.07, r190, c020). However, whereas in table F 20.04, all loans and advances are assessed, table 20.07 deals only with loans and advances to non-financial corporations. Identity of the amounts is therefore not possible. In view of this, the EBA is requested to investigate the details on this point.

  • 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: 2013_600
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2014

Table 14 - Fair Value Hierarchy

Warum sind die Felder in Bezug auf AfS Instrumente bei den Accumulated change in fair value before taxes nicht ausgegraut ? Wenn kein change in fair value for the period angegeben werden kann, da sich dieser gem. ITS Part 2.86 lediglich auf die Gewinne und Verluste der Bank bezieht, ist entsprechend ein Ausweis des kumulierten change in fair value für AfS Positionen u.E. nicht sachgerecht.

  • 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: 2013_595
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 25/04/2014

Application of transitional provisions to Additional Tier 1 and to Tier 2 instruments with an incentive to redeem

When all the call options from an AT1 (or T2) instrument which has an incentive to redeem occur during the period that an institution is under state aid and, thus, subject to a ban on exercising call options on own funds instruments, should the AT1 (or T2) instrument be subject to the provisions of Article 489(5) (or 490(5) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) assuming that the effective maturity date, as defined in Article 491, is the first call date after the referred ban has been removed?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_590
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/04/2014

Own funds requirements for commodities risk

Article 359(2) of Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013 states: “Positions in the same commodity may be offset and assigned to the appropriate maturity bands on a net basis for the following: (a) positions in contracts maturing on the same date; (b) positions in contracts maturing within 10 days of each other if the contracts are traded on markets which have daily delivery dates.” A Fair Value Option is applied to the positions in the Banking Book. The positions are hedged “back-to-back” in terms of cash flows that are exactly offsetting each other and represent thus a perfect economic hedge. Due to discounting effects positions are not however perfectly netted in terms of market values, and thus in terms of net delta weighted equivalents. Does that still mean that the institution shall assign zero values to all the maturity bands in the Table 1 referring to the Maturity ladder approach, or must the netted cash deltas be assigned to each the maturity band instead?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_589
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 30/04/2014

Application of specific national filters and deductions when computing threshold deductions

When applying the transitional provisions calculation of Common Equity Tier 1, the threshold deductions exist: (a) associated with non-significant holdings in financial sector entities (FSE) which are covered by Articles 36(1)(h) and 46 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR); and, (b) the ones associated with the significant holdings in FSE and Deferred Tax Assets that arise from temporary differences that are covered in article 470 of CRR. Both take into account theoretical values for a “relevant Common Equity Tier 1” (or “aggregate amount of Common Equity Tier 1” in the wording of 46(1)(a) of CRR which serves as a base for the calculation of the threshold that determines the deductions arising from these assets. Assuming there are specific national deductions and filters subject to transitional provisions to be applied at the Common Equity Tier 1 level pursuant Article 481, how should these be incorporated when determining the “relevant CET1” for the thresholds calculations in both cases?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2013_588
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 08/05/2014