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

Should collateral received via securities financing transaction that is subsequently sold short be reported as encumbered in F32.02? Follow-up question on 2014_946 related to short positions in Asset Encumbrance

As clarified in Q&A 946 “Selling collateral received (short sale) does not give rise to encumbrance”. Two scenarios are addressed under this Q&A and further clarity is sought on scenario one and the reporting of collateral received in template F 32.02 where such collateral is subsequently sold short. Is it the intended view that within F 32.02 where an institution receives collateral, against cash, and then uses that collateral received to cover a short position, that the received collateral should be reported as unencumbered in F 32.02, column 040?  If so, can you please provide supporting rationale that selling collateral received (short sale) does not give rise to encumbrance given that once the collateral is sold short, it is not available for re-use by the institution?

  • 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
  • ID: 2023_6800
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Asset Encumbrance
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 06/10/2023

Clarification of scope of population for Corporate Bonds

In accordance with the instructions for row 0060 of template C 34.08 in Annex II of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/451, there is no specific definition of what the scope of corporate bonds should include. Could you, therefore, please confirm if this should include all bonds issued by Institutions and Corporate entities and if it would also include securitisation bonds issued by these entities as well or not or, alternatively, would only non-securitisation instruments issued by entities which would qualify for the corporates credit risk exposure class under Article 112(g) of the CRR be included? We would also request clarification on securitisation bonds, whether those issued by government agencies e.g., Fannie Mae should be reported in row 0050.

  • 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
  • ID: 2023_6755
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 06/10/2023

COREP Large exposure, validation rule v_1678 related to POCI assets

In case of purchased or originated credit-impaired financial assets (POCI), it is possible that the value for positive 'value adjustments and provisions' exceeds the 'value of total original exposure' can be reported in COREP Large reports. However, DPM validation rule v_1678_m does not allow reporting of such cases.  Since it is possible to have positive impairments that exceed the total original exposure for the POCI assets, could the validation rule or its severity be modified in this respect?

  • 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
  • ID: 2023_6721
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Large Exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 06/10/2023

Trusted Beneficiaries

Please clarify whether under Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication (hereinafter: RTS on SCA & CSC) is it allowed to use the same SCA element to authorize a payment and at the same time (using the same session ID) approve (technically using by a checkbox) the payee as a trusted beneficiary? If it is allowed, the payment service user (hereinafter: PSU) shall be informed (prior to authorisation) by an approval SCA element (SMS) about the payment execution and about modifying the list of the trusted beneficiaries as well?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication
  • ID: 2023_6827
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/09/2023

Exemption from strong customer authentication

Do the revisions to Art.10 set out in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2360 of 3 August 2022 amending the regulatory technical standards laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389 as regards the 90-day exemption for account access mean that a payment service user or account information service provider is now limited to accessing only the account balance OR the transaction details for the last 90 days when availing of the revised exemption?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication
  • ID: 2023_6820
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/09/2023

App to app redirection with biometrics for PIS

Are ASPSPs required to offer redirected authentication with biometrics to users accessing their payment accounts through an AISP or initiating a payment through a PISP, if they offer redirected authentication with biometrics to users accessing accounts or initiating payments directly via the ASPSP?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication
  • ID: 2023_6767
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/09/2023

Service Downtime

The question refers to the case that an incident with a duration of two hours that disrupts transaction processing occurs around the daily cut off time of same-day transactions processing. Thus, the incident may be of a short duration, but as a result, transactions are booked one day later. Considering this example, what service downtime should the payment service provider (PSP) indicate in the PSD2 notification? Just the net time of the failure or the total time any payment service users are affected by delayed transactions, i.e. one day?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2021/03 - Guidelines on major incident reporting under PSD2 - repealing EBA/GL/2017/10
  • ID: 2023_6744
  • Topic: Major incidents reporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/09/2023

Period to be covered by statistics pursuant to Article 32(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389

Which period should the statistics to be published by ASPSPs under Article 32(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389 cover in total?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication
  • ID: 2023_6687
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/09/2023

Evidences / Records to be stored by account servicing payment service providers (ASPSP) for payment initiation service (PIS) and account information service (AIS) requests

Shall ASPSP keep record of PIS requests received through a PISP and evidences on the authenticity and execution of these payment transactions when SCA is managed by ASPSP ?  Shall ASPSP keep record of the consent of the PSU and also of the AIS requests received through an AISP ? For both evidences is there any specific retention period ?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6526
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/09/2023

Reading of the term "means of payment"

What are the 'means of payment' in the LNE Guidelines (guidelines 1.6 and 1.7)? Does the term refer to the technological level of a physical device or a digital carrier, which may accommodate several payment instruments, such as plastic card (chip or magnetic stripe), a mobile phone, a wallet, an app, a wearable, a tablet, a PC or even a specific storage location on an external server? Please provide examples of 'other means of payment' that are relevant in practice from the EBA's perspective. How is the definition of payment instrument according to Article 4(14) PSD2 to be read in the context of the LNE Guidelines? Is the interpretation of the adjective “card-based” (in combination with means of payment) in line with the same adjective in combination with payment instruments according to Article 2(20) of Regulation (EU) 2015/751 (“IFR”)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2022/02 - Guidelines on the limited network exclusion
  • ID: 2022_6481
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/09/2023

C43.00 (LR4) – Reporting of RWA for positions in CIUs

What value for RWA shall institutions report for positions in CIU considering that the look-through approach shall not be used for Leverage Ratio purposes?

  • 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
  • ID: 2023_6692
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Leverage ratio
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/09/2023

Permission to reduce own funds or eligible liabilities and deduction rules in the context of a liability management exercise (exchange offer, tender offer or issuance of a replacement instrument concurrent with a tender offer on the existing instrument)

Should deductions from own funds and eligible liabilities with regards to a permission to reduce own funds or eligible liabilities in accordance with Article 77 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) in the context of a liability management exercise (exchange offer, tender offer or issuance of a replacement instrument concurrent with a tender offer on the existing instrument), rather than upon the exercise of a call option,  be made right after the permission from the competent authority / resolution authority is granted or could it be later at the time of the institution’s public announcement of the liability management exercise in accordance with Article 28(2) of the RTS on Own Funds? In that context, how should the concept of ‘sufficient certainty’ of Article 28(2) RTS be applied?

  • 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
  • ID: 2023_6791
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/09/2023

IFR reporting

What would be an example of how firms should read Article 20(1) IFR for reporting purposes in template I 06.07 and I 06.08 of annex I to Regulation (EU) 2021/2284?  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2019/2033 (IFR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/2284 - ITS on Reporting
  • ID: 2022_6384
  • Topic: Supervisory Reporting (IFR)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 25/08/2023

ESG P3 - Templates 6, 7 and 8 - Scope of application as of 31.12.2023 and institutions’ exemption from EU taxonomy reporting until mandatory CSRD reporting as of 31.12.2024

Is the institution obliged to disclose Pillar III ESG templates 6, 7 and 8 as of 31.12.2023 despite its current exemption from EU taxonomy reporting until mandatory CSRD reporting as of 31.12.2024?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2023_6695
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 25/08/2023

ESG P3 - Reg 2453/22 - Scope of application

What is the scope of application of Regulation (EU) 2022/2453? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2023_6708
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 25/08/2023

ESG P3 - Template 7 Decision tree KPI GAR for Households

In which row/group of rows from template 7 should be disclosed Households not included in the of which populated on the template (loans collateralised by residential immovable property, building renovation loans, motor vehicle loans)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2023_6780
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 25/08/2023

The risk-weighted exposure amount of the CIU’s exposures in mandate based approach

Could the institution use the information from the CIU management company about the notional amount of derivative positions of CIU to assess the value of those derivatives in calculating risk-weighted exposure amount of CIU when using the mandate based approach in accordance with Article 132a(2) CRR? In particular, is the institution allowed to use the information from the CIU management company, that CIU doesn’t have derivatives in their portfolio and assess the value of those derivatives as zero in calculating risk-weighted exposure amount of CIU when using the mandate based approach in accordance with Article 132a(2) CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6670
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 04/08/2023

Reporting of deposits subject to a notice period for C 69.00 and C 70.00 purpose

Following Q&A Q&A 4574 (C 70.00) and Q&A 5794, some clarifications are needed concerning the amount to be reported in the C 69.00 for a deposit subject to a notice period. In our proposed answer, we use the terms of the Q&As and we specify the amounts we assume are expected for the 2 reports C 69.00 and C 70.00. Please, could you confirm if our interpretations are correct.

  • 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
  • ID: 2022_6663
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 28/07/2023