Search for Q&As Submit a question

List of Q&As

T2 instruments, subordinated loans, amortization plan

Can an instrument or a subordinated loan that has an amortization plan during the last five years of its maturity defined in the terms and conditions of the instrument/subordinated loan qualify as Tier 2 instrument when calculating own funds ? Example: a tier 2 instrument (1.000.000 e, 5 years maturity) is issued and complies with the article 63 of CRR. In addition, this instrument has an amortization schedule of EUR 200.000 after the first year, 200.000 after the second year etc. and after fifth year the last 200.000 is paid back to the holder of the instrument.

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2013_579| Topic: Own funds| Date of submission: 28/11/2013

Amortisation of Tier 2 instruments which are not balanced with the nominal amount

What is the correct basis for the calculation of Article 64 (a) CRR when the nominal amount of an instrument is higher than the amount reported in the balance sheet or higher than the amount that qualifies as Tier 2 items (e.g. as a result of a disagio)?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2014_1362| Topic: Own funds| Date of submission: 11/07/2014

Prudential treatment of unrealised gains and losses on AFS exposures to central governments following the EU-endorsement IFRS 9

From which date shall the treatment set out in Article 467(2) of the CRR second subparagraph cease to be applied? Specifically, shall the reference to “until the Commission has adopted a regulation…” made in the third subparagraph of Article 467(2) of the CRR be read as (a) the date of entry into force of Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/ 2067 (i.e. the twentieth day following the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union) or, alternatively (b) the date of effective application of the IFRS 9 (i.e. at the latest, as from the commencement date of its first financial year starting on or after 1 January 2018).

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2017_3162| Topic: Own funds| Date of submission: 13/02/2017

Transitional provisions relating to points (j) of Article 36 as well as point (e) of Art. 56 CRR

Article 469 and 474 rule that the deductions pursuant to Article 36 resp. Article 56 shall be deducted from CET 1 / AT 1 items after applying the applicable percentage specified in Article 478. Then, the residual amount shall be treated pursuant to Article 472 resp. 475. 1. It is not possible to set an applicable percentage according to Article 478 para. 3 points (a) or (d) for the deductions pursuant to points (j) of Article 36 resp. point (e) of Article 56 CRR since those points are not mentioned in Article 478. Is it correct that the transitional provisions do not cover these points? Especially for the AT 1-deductions there is a problem with the wording of Article 474 point (a) which makes the inclusion of point (e) of Article 56 inevitable (the same applies for point (f) of Article 56). 2. If question 1) is answered in a way including the points (j) and (e) into the transitional provisions, a treatment for the residual amount is needed in Articles 472 and 475.

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2014_1361| Topic: Own funds| Date of submission: 11/07/2014

Transitional provisions relating to point (a) of Art. 56 CRR

Article 474 rules that the deductions pursuant to Article 56 shall be deducted from AT 1 items after applying the applicable percentage specified in Article 478. Then, the residual amount shall be treated pursuant to Article 475. It is not possible to set an applicable percentage according to Article 478 para. 3 point (c) for the deductions pursuant to points (a) of Article 56 CRR since this point is not mentioned. We assume that this point (a) of Article 56 shall also be covered by the transitional provisions, especially because there exists a treatment for the residual amount (see Art. 475 para. 2) Do the transitional provisions also apply for the deductions from AT 1 items pursuant to Article 56 point (a) CRR?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2014_1360| Topic: Own funds| Date of submission: 11/07/2014

Prudential filter on unrealised gains measured at fair value

If there are no filters on unrealised gains and losses before 2014, is it mandatory to apply the transitional provision of art. 468 in 2014 and remove all unrealised gains measured at fair value from CET1 capital?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2014_1223| Topic: Own funds| Date of submission: 21/05/2014

Transitional provisions for unrealised gains on shares previously recognised under Tier 2

Should the transitional provisions be extended to phase unrealised gains on shares out of Tier 2 as they are being phased into CET1?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2014_766| Topic: Own funds| Date of submission: 24/01/2014

Transitional provisions for unrealised gains and losses measured at fair value

Consider the reserve for unrealised gains or losses on an Available for Sale non-central government variable-rate debt instrument measured at fair value and the reserve for unrealised gains or losses for a cash flow hedge of that financial instrument measured at fair value. What transitional provisions are to be applied with respect to inclusion in and removal from Common Equity Tier 1 items of these unrealised gains and losses?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2014_750| Topic: Own funds| Date of submission: 20/01/2014

Eligibility of capital instruments for classification as Common Equity Tier 1 instruments where the instruments are supplemented by a profit and loss transfer agreement

According to Art 28 para 1 point (h) (i) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) there shall be “no preferential distribution treatment regarding the order of distribution payments, including in relation to other Common Equity Tier 1 Instruments, and the terms governing the instruments do not provide preferential rights to payment of distributions”. We seek further clarification in the case where a credit institution has issued a capital instrument that qualified as original own funds under the national transposition measures for point (a) of Art 57 of Directive 2006/48/EC. The majority-holder of that instrument which also holds the majority of the credit institution’s ordinary shares has concluded with the credit institution a profit and loss transfer agreement whereby the shareholder receives all profits that are not required to make payments to holders of other capital instruments or to create legally required reserves or reserves for economically substantiated reasons. The shareholders of the credit institution are however free to decide (by resolution) to transfer the whole profit into a reserve instead of transferring the profit. In case of a loss of the credit institution the majority-shareholder has to compensate this loss by payment of the required amount to the credit institution. Through the profit and loss transfer the balance sheet result of the credit institution will always end up with zero. According to the profit and loss transfer agreement the minority shareholders of the credit institution receive a fixed yearly compensation payment from the majority-shareholder but they do not receive any other payments. The question is, whether a compensation payment between the majority-shareholder of a credit institution and the credit institution is permissible under Art 28 para 1 point (h) (i) CRR? In more general terms, can capital instruments qualify as Common Equity Tier 1 instruments under Art 28 CRR where the instruments are supplemented by a profit and loss transfer agreement?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2013_540| Topic: Own funds| Date of submission: 19/11/2013

EBA register file

Can EBA provide a complete documentation of the register structure and formatting rules and particularly: 1. the way PSD authorization nr as provided in QWAC certificates (format PSD+NCA+national id) can be match with the EBA register entities for the different national authorities 2. some entityCode seem to be wrongly formatted (no ! as separator). Examples: LT_LT_LT_LB_305007941, PSD_EX_EMI_LB_LB_BL_304431143, AT_FMA_PSD_PI_42665, SD_EX_EMI_LT_LT_BL_302552395 3. the register can be updated twice a day: are update times fixed (e.g. 8:00 and 16:00 BST) ?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2019/411 - RTS on EBA register under PSD2

ID: 2019_4692| Topic: Central register of the EBA| Date of submission: 02/05/2019

Possible error in the wording of Article 35(4) of Regulation (EU) 2018/389

Article 35(4) of Regulation (EU) 2018/389 provides that: "4. Account information service providers, payment initiation service providers and payment service providers issuing card-based payment instruments with the account servicing payment service provider shall contain unambiguous references to each of the following items: […]" There appear to be some words missing from this provision. Please could this be clarified?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication

ID: 2019_4690| Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)| Date of submission: 30/04/2019

Customer request to stop sharing data with AISP

Is the Bank (ASPSP) prohibited under PSD2 from acting on the following unsolicited customer instruction: - Customer advises the Bank that he/she no longer wishes to provide an AISP with access to their payment account and asks the Bank to stop sharing their account data with an AISP. In this scenario, is the Bank prohibited from acting on this request from their customer? Is access only withdrawn, where (a) the customer contacts the AISP directly and withdraws consent to access their account or (b) the customer waits until the end of the 90 day period, after which the AISP will not be able to access the account without the application of SCA by the customer? Are there any circumstances where the ASPSP can accept an instruction from their customer to revoke access to their account e.g. if the customer is in dispute with the AISP and wants the bank to withdraw access to their account immediately?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4497| Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)| Date of submission: 31/01/2019

Application of the low-value contactless exemption – Calculation of limits at PAN/account level or at the level of each instance of the payment instrument separately.

May the limits (transactions and amounts) for the application of the low-value contactless exemption be calculated at the level of each instance of the payment instrument separately (i.e. physical card, mobile device, wearable, etc.?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication

ID: 2018_4402| Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)| Date of submission: 04/12/2018

Hotel payment processing

The currently drafted guidelines provide significant structural payment challenges for the hotel industry. The Hotel Electronic Distribution Network Association (HEDNA - hedna.org) is requesting additional exemptions to allow for continued facilitations for hotel payments. How might the industry work with the EU to address this?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication

ID: 2018_4376| Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)| Date of submission: 19/11/2018

PSIC qualification for an Innovative Data Portability Service /Qualification de PSIC pour un service de portabilité de données innovant

EN:   This question concerns the inaccuracies and shortcomings of PSD2, taking into account new activities relating to the data market, and in particular to the banking data market. These new activities may not be covered by European legislation, since it is unclear if they are strictly covered by the status of PSIC. Thus:Consider that a computer company X specialises in the data market covering the whole of the European market.The core activity of X is to provide a data portability service, allowing the end user to securely transfer his or her personal data from one organisation to another (the source organisation as well as the receiving organisation, which may be a bank or any other body - telecommunications, energy or other operator).The service provided is transactional and does not involve any consolidation or aggregation operation.This company operates a hybrid business model, a minority of which (approximately 20% in volume) relates to data held by banks, with the majority of its activity being data from other sources.As regards the data held by banks, the activity of X is as follows: Company X is instructed by the holder of a bank account to collect data held by his bank, for example: surname and first name of the holder, postal address of the holder, IBAN of each current account of the holder. After collecting the data, company X invites the user to share the data with the target organisation.Company X wishes to carry out the data collection operation through the use of application programming interfaces (APIs) made available by the bank, where applicable (APIs made available under PSD2 or another framework).Where this is not applicable (no API, or APIs that do not allow access to the relevant data for the bank or country concerned *), X then wishes to carry this out through programmatic access to the online banking proxy (a backup mechanism using technologies known as “web scraping”).Example: IBAN is already available in German DSP2 APIs, but will not be available in France in September 2019.Is it necessary for such a service provider to obtain authorisation from the national regulatory authority in order to carry out its activities? If so, is this the PSIC authorisation as it exists today?***FR:  La présente question est relative aux imprécisions et aux insuffisances de la DSP2 pour prendre en compte de nouvelles activités liées au marché de la donnée, et notamment au marché des données bancaires, nouvelles activités dont il n'est pas certain qu'elles soient actuellement prises en compte par la législation européenne, car il n'est pas clair qu'elles soient strictement couvertes par le statut de PSIC. Ainsi : Considérons un entreprise d'informatique X spécialisée dans le marché de la donnée et s’adressant à l’ensemble du marché européen. L’activité principale de X consiste à fournir un service de portabilité de données, permettant à un utilisateur final de transférer de façon sécurisée ses données personnelles d'un organisme à un autre (l'organisme source, tout comme l'organisme destinataire, pouvant être une banque ou tout autre organisme - opérateur de télécommunications, d'énergie ou autre). Le service fourni est transactionnel, et ne réalise aucune opération de consolidation ou d’agrégation. Cette entreprise exerce une activité hybride, dont une partie minoritaire (environ 20% en volume) concerne des données détenues par des banques, la majeure partie de son activité concernant des données d'autres sources. Concernant les données détenues par des banques, l'activité de X est la suivante. L'entreprise X est mandaté par le titulaire d'un compte bancaire afin de collecter des données détenues par sa banque, par exemple : nom et prénom du titulaire, adresse postale du titulaire, IBAN de chaque compte courant du titulaire. Après avoir collecté les données, l'entreprise X propose à l'utilisateur de les partager vers l'organisme cible ; l'opération de portabilité est alors achevée. L'entreprise X souhaite réaliser l'opération de collecte des données par l’utilisation d’interfaces de programmation applicatives (API) mises à disposition par la banque, lorsque cela est applicable (API mises à disposition dans le cadre de la DSP2 ou dans un autre cadre). Lorsque cela n’est pas applicable (pas d’API, ou des API ne permettant pas d’accéder aux données concernées pour la banque ou le pays considéré*), X souhaite alors réaliser cette opération par un accès programmatique à la banque en ligne du mandataire (mécanisme de secours faisant appel aux technologies dites de "web scraping"). *Exemple : l'IBAN est une donnée déjà disponible dans les API DSP2 allemandes, mais ne sera pas disponible en France en septembre 2019. Est-il requis d'un tel prestataire qu'il obtienne un agrément auprès de l'autorité de régulation nationale afin de pouvoir exercer son activité? Si oui, s'agit-il de l'agrément PSIC tel qu’il existe aujourd’hui?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4845| Topic: Authorisation and registration| Date of submission: 27/07/2019

TRA exemption

Please clarify whether in order to apply the transaction risk analysis (TRA) exemption both the payer and the payee's PSPs must have fraud rates below the reference fraud rate detailed in the Annex. To this extent, please confirm whether a payers Payment Services Provider (PSP) with a fraud rate above the reference rates can rest on the TRA of the Payee´s PSP to avoid the application of SCA.

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication

ID: 2019_4813| Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)| Date of submission: 02/07/2019

Obligations of Schemes, issuers, and acquirers

Authentication requirement documents have not been published by each scheme, issuer, and acquirer. Will a phased implementation approach be utilised to first enforce the definition of these requirements, implementation by software and service providers, and finally by merchants?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication

ID: 2019_4799| Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)| Date of submission: 19/06/2019

Transfer of SCA between Merchant IDs

Will the SCA authentication token be transferable and have to be transferred from third parties such as OTA/hotelbrand.com Merchant ID to the hotel Merchant ID?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication

ID: 2019_4798| Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)| Date of submission: 19/06/2019

Innovation

Despite innovation being a central theme of the PSD2 per pre-amble 2, the card schemes have not allowed for any form of SCA to be integrated into the Authorisation process/message, other than 3D Secure V2.0. Will the EBA and/ or the ECB require the schemes to accomodate innovation by requiring them to insert an "Other SCA" field into the ISO8583 Authorisation message?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication

ID: 2019_4761| Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)| Date of submission: 04/06/2019

Question is aimed on differentiation between physical "plastic" card and its digital copy (token).

Should we consider a digital copy (token) of the card and its physical plastic card a single payment instrument with respect to the Article 11 Paragraph b)?

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication

ID: 2018_4224| Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)| Date of submission: 05/09/2018

PDF