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.

List of Q&A's

Validation rules taxonomy V4.0 C07.00

The EBA Validation rules taxonomy v23005_m seems not relevant

  • 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

C13.01 Securitisation Template & Instructions - Incorrect References

In the final EBA CRR 3 policy paper it seems like the below text (465(7)) has moved to para 465(13) concerning the derogation from Article 92(5). Reporting instructions should be updated to change the reference in the COREP instructions and C13.01 template from para 7 to 13.

  • 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Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)

P3 Frequency of disclosure (Transparency and Pillar 3 | European Banking Authority) for reporting date 30-06-2025

When checking the P3 Frequency of disclosure table (Transparency and Pillar 3 | European Banking Authority) for reporting date 30-06-2025 we noticed that according to P3 Frequency of disclosure table (excel row 145_Disclosures on MREL/TLAC - Templates_with relevant article 15 with regard to the public disclosure of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilitie and point (a) of Article 437a, in accordance with 434a of CRR) bank "ABC" as "Large institutions (Listed and No GSII)" should publish P3-disclosure related to point (a) of Article 437a, in accordance with 434a of CRR on a semi-annual basis. However, according to the article 15 of ITS with regard to the public disclosure of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities only institutions, that are G-SIIs or part of a G-SII and entities that are material subsidiaries of non- EU G-SIIs and that are not themselves resolution entities (subject to article to CRR Article 92a or 92b) shall make the disclosures set out in point (a) of Article 437a. So, we are experiencing some inconsistency between these 2 sources:  P3 Frequency of disclosure table (Transparency and Pillar 3 | European Banking Authority) vs article 15 of ITS with regard to the public disclosure of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities.  As mentioned above, bank "ABC" is identified as “Large institutions (Listed and no G-SII)” and does not meet the above-mentioned requirement of article 15 of ITS with regard to the public disclosure of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities only institutions and CRR article 437a as the bank is a ‘No G-SII’ entity. So, our initial conclusion is that bank "ABC" does not need to disclose information as set out in point (a) of Article 437a, in accordance with 434a of CRR on a semi-annual basis.  But in the above-mentioned P3 Frequency of disclosure table (Transparency and Pillar 3 | European Banking Authority) it does indicate that LARGE INSTITUTIONS (LISTED AND NO GSII), which bank "ABC" is, should provide information as set out in point (a) of Article 437a, in accordance with 434a of CRR on a semi-annual basis. Now, this caused us a little bit confusion and we are trying to find supporting regulations to verify the obligation for “Large institutions (Listed and no G-SII)” to provide information as set out in point (a) of Article 437a, in accordance with 434a of CRR on a semi-annual basis. Based on item 5a of article 9 ITS with regard to the public disclosure of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities only institutions we noticed that large institutions (so applicable for bank "ABC") are required to provide disclosures as referred to in Article 15, while Article 15 also describes that only entities that are subject to  Article 92a or 92b shall disclose information as set out in point (a) of Article 437a, in accordance with 434a of CRR on a semi-annual basis. So, our questions are: Should we read “Disclosures referred to in Article 15’ as mentioned in item 5a of article 9 ITS with regard to the public disclosure of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities only institutions as “Disclosure of main features of own funds and eligible liabilities” and ignore the remaining part as this is not meant as “disclosure”? Is dVB as LARGE INSTITUTIONS (LISTED AND NO GSII) obliged to provide information as set out in point (a) of Article 437a, in accordance with 434a of CRR on a semi-annual basis as prescribed in EBA’s template “Frequency of disclosures”? If bank "ABC" is obliged to disclose this on semi-annual basis, do we a have the choice to either disclose this qualitatively or quantitively by voluntarily providing both templates TLAC1 and TLAC3b, which are not required for LARGE INSTITUTIONS (LISTED AND NO GSII) on semi-annual basis, as the information as set out in point (a) of Article 437a, in accordance with 434a of CRR are already captured and included in these 2 existing templates? In EBA’s template “Frequency of disclosures” it is not precisely described how banks should disclose that. It does only mention that bank should provide information as set out in point (a) of Article 437a.     

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/763 – ITS with regard to the supervisory reporting and public disclosure of MREL

SOLVENCY TREATMENT: SECURITISATION POSITIONS SUBJECT TO OWN FUNDS REQUIREMENTS C14.00 Col 0060 – reporting requirement is inconsistent between the ITS and the latest version of the EBA Annotated Tables and EBA P3 mappings for templates EU-SEC1 and EU-SEC3

ANNEX II INSTRUCTIONS FOR REPORTING ON OWN FUNDS AND OWN FUNDS REQUIREMENTS C14.00 Col 0060 states the following: “Originators, only, shall report one of the following:  - Not subject to own funds requirements. - Banking book; - Trading book; - Partially in banking and trading book.” Question 1. The latest version of the EBA Annotated Tables for C14.00 col 0060 references the Role in the securitisation process = Originator, Sponsor.  This is inconsistent with the ITS, which refers to Originator securitisation exposures only.   Can we clarify whether EBA has expanded the scope of reporting for col 0060 to also include exposures where the Role in the securitisation process = Sponsor?  This is not a change that has been noted as part of CRR3 uplift requirements work. The associated EBA mapping logic for Template EU-SEC1, sections h to k, where Institution acts as sponsor for example (noted below) - the conditions are mutually exclusive, as within the current reporting process, C14.00, col 0060 is only populated in instances where the Role in the securitisation process = Originator. if(and({C 14.00, c0061} = N, {C 14.00, c0080}=A or D), {C 14.00, c0140}*{C 14.00, c0090}, if({C 14.00, c0061} ≠ N, {C 14.01, c0411})), where  {C 14.00, c0060} = Banking book,  {C 14.00, c0110} = Sponsor   Question 2. The reportable values noted above are consistent between the EBA annotated tables and the ITS, however the EBA mappings for Template EU-SEC1 and Template EU-SEC3 is limited to instances where C 14.00, c0060 = Banking book only.  Is it an intention of the EBA to only capture the banking book securitisations in these templates?  This is not in line with the scope of production P3 disclosures, which also considers values other than Banking Book.  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions

Disclosure on more periods in one template

In some reports of the Pillar 3 reporting obligations some cells are specifically asking for the amount of the previous periods to be declared : For instance  : Report K6000 - EU OV1 – Overview of total risk exposure amounts : Column 0020 T-1 On those reports we are having some different interpreations with some of our clients regarding what is expected to be fed in column T-1. Some of our client think that column T-1 should always refer to the end of the previous financial year, meaning that when reporting figures for Q2/Q3/Q4 2025 the figures reported in column 0020 should of report K6000 should remain unchanged and should always report the data of Q4/2024.   In our intepretation of the ITS, we understand that in case : The Entity has to report a table on a quarterly frequency in this case the T-1 figures should always reflect the figures of the previous quarter, so for closing date Q2/2025 column 020 of K6000 should be populated with figures coming from Q1 2025, so for closing date Q3/2025 column 020 of K6000 should be populated with figures coming from Q2 2025, so for closing date Q4/2025 column 020 of K6000 should be populated with figures coming from Q3 2025, The Entity has to report a table on a Yearly frequency in this case the T-1 figures should always reflect the figures of the previous year, so for closing date Q4/2025 column 020 of K6000 should be populated with figures coming from Q4 2024 Can you please indicate the correct expectation of EBA ?  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 650/2014 - ITS on disclosure by competent authorities

Quality Control ID EGDQ_0764 for Annex I, INSTRUCTIONS FOR REPORTING ON SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR MARKET RISK, Template ({C90.00,r0010,c0080})

Should Total Assets reported in FRTB ({C90.00,r0010,c0080}) correspond to the amount reported in FINREP ({F01.01,r0380,c0010}) as required by Data Quality ID EGDQ_0764?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/453 - ITS with regard to the specific reporting requirements for market risk

Template C34.01 and C90.00: Using absolute values of individual long (short) positions to calculate aggregated long (short) position

For reporting in templates C 34.01 and C90.00, which of the below approach is required to be used for the calculation of the absolute value of the aggregated long (short) position:Option 1: Use absolute values of individual long (short) positions as per the reporting instructions for C 34.01 Columns 0010, 0020, 0040, 0050, 0070 and 0080; or Option 2: Absolute the netted values of individual long (short) positions given individual positions may have either positive or negative market values within long (short) allocation in accordance with EBA/RTS/2025/19 and as per the EU CRR 3 text which only specifies absoluting the overall aggregated long (short) position?

  • 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

Subcontracting

Should a vendor be identified as a "subcontractor" simply because the ICT intra-group service provider to whom it provides services is part of a European financial group, even though the ICT services provided by the vendor are not connected to the ICT services provided by the intra-group service provider to FEs in their group.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA Reg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/2956 - ITS on the register of information

ALMM total funding – payables

Should liabilities arising from the following payables be considered sources of funding and included in templates C 67.00 and C 68.00 if they are included as financial liabilities in FINREP? Should they also be in scope for templates C 69.00 and C 70.00? Amounts payable in respect of future settlements of transactions in securities, such as trade date payables  Payables in relation to securities fails to receive  Other payables such as brokerage payables (e.g. margin deposits made under derivative contracts, as defined under Regulation (EU) 2021/379, which may not be freely available for on-lending)

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/451 – ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)

Formula of v22914_m

Could you please confirm that the formula of control v22914_m need to be corrected ?

  • 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

Structural Differences Between Annotated Table Layout and Taxonomy in GSIIDISPILLAR3 under DPM 4.1

Which representation (annotated table or taxonomy/XBRL) should be considered authoritative for defining the expected scope of data points for reporting? Should institutions follow the taxonomy-enabled structure and report values in cells that are greyed out in the annotated table, as shown in the sample XBRL file?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 1030/2014 - ITS on disclosure of values used to identify global systemically important institutions (as amended)

Inconsistency between Annotated table CODIS Pillar III and Mapping_tool_including_step_2_tc (incl equity) + Rev 4.1 review_tc

How should we interpret and implement the differences between the Annotated table and the Mapping Tool referring to template CCR4 - K04.00?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/637 - ITS with regard to disclosures of information referred to in Titles II and III of Part Eight CRR

Is the EBA mapping file for Pillar 3 template EU CMS1 correct?

Is the EBA mapping file for Pillar 3 template EU CMS1 correct disallowing amounts to be reported on column a/row 8 and requiring items that could relate to IRB approach to be reported in column b (SA)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/637 - ITS with regard to disclosures of information referred to in Titles II and III of Part Eight CRR

Credit Conversion Factor Treatment - Loan Participation Agreements in Unconditionally Cancellable Facilities

For loan participation arrangements where Bank A (the issuing bank) originates loans classified as unconditionally cancellable and applies 0% Credit Conversion Factor (CCF) under CRR Article 111, what is the appropriate CCF treatment for Bank B as the participating bank?Specifically, should Bank B apply:- a 0% CCF - consistent with the unconditionally cancellable nature of the underlying loans issued by Bank A- Standard CCF rates (20% or higher) - based on the participation agreement structure, where Bank B cannot directly exercise the unconditional cancellation rights?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 - RTS for Own Funds requirements for institutions

EBA Funding Plan return - Annex 1 - 2.3.1 (P01.02) and 9.1 (P05.00)

Guidance is needed on why there is a specific AT1 issuance/maturity section under debt securities/liabilities in P01.02,r191,c010 & P05.00, r0030 & r0040, c10-40 whereas under IFRS and therefore FINREP they are included in equity. This is leading to a validation error with FINREP which we would like the EBA to consider on the most appropriate way to resolve for the completion of the Funding Plan return.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2019/05 – Guidelines on harmonised definitions and templates for funding plans of credit institutions under Recommendation A4 of ESRB/2012/2 - repealing EBA/GL/2014/04

Treatment of factoring in LCR and NSFR

For the purpose of Liquidity Coverage Ratio, shall factoring be treated as trade finance (this means to consider a 100% weighted inflow at row 180)?

  • 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

Definition and Scope of DORA

Does the definition of 3.19 include all service providers - no matter the relevance of their service for the digital resilience of the financial service e.g. providers of an employee survey tool or a recruitment tool, where the absence of their services would no have no impact on the resilience security of network and information systems supporting the business processes of financial entities. If in the affirmative, does this mean that any ICT third-party service provider falls within the scope of DORA ( see Article 2.1(u). As a consequence a service a digital employee exercise app provider will fall within the scope of DORA if they sell their services to a financial service provider? If in the affirmative, is this proportionate with regard to the impact that this has on ICT third-party service providers whose services have no impact on the security of network and information systems supporting the business processes of financial entities. If in the affirmative, do the financial authorities now have competence over all ICT third-party service providers, regardless of what kind of services they provide as long as they are providing services to a financial entity? * financial entity = or any other entity besides an ICT service provider

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA Reg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Annual Report to the Competent Authorities on new Arrangements for the use of ICT services

Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter V, Section I, Article 28, Paragraph 3, of the DORA Regulation, which states “Financial entities shall report at least yearly to the competent authorities on the number of new arrangements on the use of ICT services, the categories of ICT third-party service providers, the type of contractual arrangements and the ICT services and functions which are being provided.,” we kindly request clarification on whether this provision requires a separate and specific communication in addition to the Register of Information, or whether the communication of such data is already fulfilled through the annual submission of the same Register, constituting a single compliance obligation. In the event that a separate communication is required in addition to the annual submission of the Register of Information, we kindly request clarification on the meaning of the term "categories of third-party ICT service providers" as mentioned in Article 28, Paragraph 3 of the DORA Regulation.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA Reg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ANNUAL REPORT ON NEW ARRANGEMENTS ON THE USE OF ICT SERVICES

Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter V, Section I, Article 28, Paragraph 3, of the DORA Regulation, which states: “Financial entities shall report at least yearly to the competent authorities on the number of new arrangements on the use of ICT services, the categories of ICT third-party service providers, the type of contractual arrangements and the ICT services and functions which are being provided.,” we kindly request clarification on whether this provision requires a separate and specific communication in addition to the Register of Information, or whether the communication of such data is already fulfilled through the annual submission of the same Register, constituting a single compliance obligation. In the event that a separate communication is required in addition to the annual submission of the Register of Information, we kindly request clarification on the meaning of the term "categories of third-party ICT service providers" as mentioned in Chapter V, Section I, Article 28, Paragraph 3 of the DORA Regulation.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA Reg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

DPM 3.5 - Diversity Benchmarking - v22547_a & v22587_m

One of our client is having some trouble reporting the diversity benchmarking for two reasons : a_ Validation v22547_a  The validation v22547 only allows the value (ZZ:x784) Yes & (ZZ:x785) No to be entered on the row r0020 of report R1900 where the annotated templates allows additionaly the value Not applicable. Our client thinks it's incorrect as the value Not applicable should be possible. "We can see that the cells provide a dropdown menu with 3 options, and it is specified that we have [The regions where the institution or investment firm is active (subsidiary/branch/cross-border basis with material business activities) should be selected (Yes/No). For the categories of executive or non-executive directors it should be indicated (yes/no/non-applicable) if at least one director has one of their geographical provenances, that spans at least a period of three years, from the corresponding region. Non applicable should only be selected, where there are no non-executive directors in the case of investment firms or employee representatives. Where the actual location a member gained geographical provenance is in more than one of the specified regions, the member should be allocated to the most relevant regions on a best effort basis (e.g. a Member that lived in Istanbul may select Europe, Asia or both regions) ] Can you help us answering the client on the fact that the value "Not applicable" should or not be used on the row 0020.   b_ Validation v22587_m On report R22.02 our client has only define a target for Non executive director, so it as has filled : Report R2202 the following way :     Executive directors Non-executive directors     0010 0020 Target  % set in percentage (two digits e.g. 33.33%) in the diversity policy, including in cases where this is applicable under national law  0010   40,0000 Target expressed as minimum headcount in the diversity policy (number of members) 0020     Compliance with internal policy: Has the target been met at the reference date? 0030   Yes And as set in the report R2201 that the "Targets set only for the management body in the supervisory function (non-executive directors)" SCOPE: For which scope of members of the management body are gender diversity targets set? (please select from drop down menu) 0130 Targets set only for the management body in the supervisory function (non-executive directors) By filling the report like this it triggers the validation V22587 indeed this validation will always be trigered where Report R2201 and R2202 are filled and when value in R0022.020 in R0010 C0010 is different that R0022.020 in R0010 C0020 and when the value in R2201 R0130 <> Different targets set for the management and supervisory function of the management body As in our case the target has only be set for the Non exucitive director we think it 's correct to use the value "Targets set only for the management body in the supervisory function (non-executive directors)" in report R2201, and to fill only the column 0020 in report R2202 but by doing that we will have a different value between R0022.020 in R0010 C0010 is different that R0022.020 in R0010 C0020 causing an unexpected anomaly. Can you please investigate if the the control is correct?      

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2023/08 - Guidelines on the benchmarking of diversity practices, including diversity policies and gender pay gap