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

Commitment received to upgrade collateral from Level 2B to Level 1

If a credit institution received a unilateral commitment from another credit institution to trade in 2 business days a collateral upgrade from Level 2B assets to Level 1 assets which last more than 35 business days, could this trade be considered as an inflow?

  • 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
  • ID: 2019_4971
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Partially collateralised loans: CCF - collateral simple method approach

How is the RWA is calculated for the undrawn amount of a partially collateralised loan?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4986
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

LCR treatment of settled-to-market derivatives

Should settlement payments (or receipts) made in the context of derivatives structured as "settled-to-market" (or "STM") be considered under Article 2(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/208?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2017/208 - RTS for additional liquidity outflows corresponding to collateral needs resulting from the impact of an adverse market scenario on an institution's derivatives transactions
  • ID: 2019_5020
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Is a financial counter-incentive which is triggered in case of a default of a borrower on certain specific contractual obligations considered as an incentive to redeem?

Would a subordinated loan agreement clause, under the terms of which contractual penalties or other similar financial counter-incentives are triggered in case of a default of a borrower on certain specific contractual obligations be considered a provision, which includes an incentive for the principal amount of the subordinated loan to be repaid prior to its maturity?

  • 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: 2020_5202
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Territorial scope of the Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements in relation to supervisory cooperation requirements for credit institutions

1. Is it correct to conclude that the cooperation requirements under paragraph 63 of the Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements should be complied with in regard to EU establishments only, considering the distribution of responsibilities between competent supervisors set out in relevant EU law? 2. If a service provider is part of a third-country group but is located in an EU Member State as a separate legal entity, should it be considered outside of the scope of paragraph63 of the GLs?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5245
  • Topic: Internal governance
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Risk weight for the credit risk of third countries with supervisory and regulatory arrangements at least equivalent to those applied in the Union according to Article 114(7) CRR

If an institution has an exposure to a third country which has supervisory and regulatory arrangements at least equivalent to those applied in the Union (such as Turkey) but do not have fully corresponding liabilities denominated in that currency to cover the entire exposure, what risk weight for the credit risk should assigned to the exposure of this country?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5294
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Allocation of direct costs associated with the realisation of funded credit protection in case of partial coverage of an exposure by unfunded credit protection

Does paragraph 38(c) of the EBA/GL/2020/05 require the allocation of direct costs associated with the realisation of the funded credit protection to the part of the exposure that is covered by the funded credit protection?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2020/05 - Guidelines on credit risk mitigation for institutions applying the IRB approach with own estimates of LGDs
  • ID: 2021_5677
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Interpreting the definitions of "client activity" and "unexpected" in modern financial services market in the context of CRR

Are “top ups” a “client activity” as defined in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (herein ‘CRR')? How “unexpected” should they be interpreted in the modern payments environment?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5341
  • Topic: Large exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Counterparties referred to in Article 428h (1) (c) CRR

Does Article 428h (1) (c) of regulation 2019/876, amending Regulation No 575/2013, imply that the counterparty necessarily must be a bank? More specifically, would this condition also be met if the counterparty is a private limited liabilities company, which according to Regulation 575/2013 is not required to apply the NSFR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5253
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Requirements towards SCA if association is done based on phone call

Does the requirement to apply Strong customer authentication (SCA) under Article 24 paragraph 2 b of Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication apply when customer is served using telephone call? Or is the only possibility to associate authentication credentials with the customer not having active credentials at hand, only possible having customer present?

  • 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: 2020_5650
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Delegation of 2-Factor Authentication (2FA) to PISP, AISP or other third party

Where a Payment Service Provider (PSP) is providing financial services via a third party application - either through a Payment Initiation Services Provider (PISP), Account Information Service Provider (AISP) or by providing embedded financial products or banking as a service solutions (i.e. financial services via an Application Programming Interface (API)) - is it permitted for the PSP to delegate the application of 2-Factor Authentication (2FA) to the third party?

  • 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: 2020_5643
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Association with the payment service user by means of a remote channel

Is it sufficient to use a company level knowledge element, in combination with a peronal posession element to associate a user of a business application with personalised security credentials such as authentication software or a knowledge element?

  • 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: 2020_5626
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Clarification on level of protection required for the processing of the IBAN outside the inter-PSP environment

Can the IBAN of the payer or payee be handled in cleartext outside the inter Payment Service Provider (PSP) environment? For instance could a payer’s IBAN be contained in cleartext in a payer-presented QR-code provided by the payer’s device to the merchant’s point of interaction for the initiation of an (instant) credit transfer? Or could a merchant’s IBAN be contained in cleartext in a merchant-presented QR-code at the merchant’s point of interaction to be read by the payer’s device for the initiation of an (instant) credit transfer?

  • 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: 2020_5477
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Clarification on the qualification and protection requirements of a CustomerID when included in a payer-presented QR-code for the initiation of (instant) credit transfers at the point of interaction (POI)

Is the CustomerID (i.e. ID issued by an Account Servicing Payment Service Providers (ASPSP) to its Payment Services User (PSU) for accessing the on-line banking system and usually required by PSD2 Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to identify the PSU) to be qualified as “personalised security credentials of the PSU” within the meaning and for the purposes of Article 66 (3) b), PSD2, and Article 35 (5), RTS, and therefore be treated as “sensitive payment data” within the definition of Article 4 (32), PSD2? Accordingly, can said CustomerID be included in cleartext in the payer-presented QR-code for the initiation of (instant) credit transfers at the point of interaction (e.g. POS, vending machine) without any protection during the QR-code life-cycle, including the generation of the QR-code, storage of the QR-code on the payer’s device, transmission from the payer device to the payee’s point of interaction and in the payee’s (e.g. merchant) point of interaction?

  • 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: 2020_5476
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Intermediaries and Merchant-ID

In the hotel industry, given that when a customer reserves a room, a payment is often not taken at this time, should an entity (intermediary, online travel agent or brand/hotel group) that collects payment details from a customer also facilitate strong customer authentication (SCA), regardless of when or by whom the actual payment transaction may be processed? If yes, should the customer be explicitly informed of the entities involved in order for their consent to be valid?

  • 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: 2019_4796
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Validity of SCA

If  Strong customer suthentication (SCA) is required at the time of booking which is more than 90 days before the guest’s arrival, will hotels be able to process the payment at location with an expired authentication token? If not, can an SCA be renewed and who would be responsible for doing so?

  • 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: 2019_4795
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021

Application of national decisions pursuant to Article 124(2) CRR

Is it mandatory pursuant to Article 124(5) CRR for an institution in another member state to apply national decisions, which purport to be released pursuant to Article 124(2) CRR, but are not published on the EBA website under Rules and Guidance?Furthermore, if such national decisions are not published under Rules and Guidance, but e.g. under Options and national discretions only, is it mandatory that institutions from other member states apply such decision pursuant to Article 124(5) CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4600
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 17/09/2021

Inclusion of Held for sale in Other adjustments in template F 12.01

Where shall the changes in allowances for financial assets, which have been reclassified as held for sale prior to a disposal, be reported in FINREP template F 12.01?

  • 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: 2021_5840
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 10/09/2021

Inclusion of central bank exposures in template C 33.00

Shall exposures to central banks be included in the COREP template C 33.00?

  • 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: 2021_5825
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 10/09/2021

Allocation of non-performing interdependent assets for NSFR purposes

How should non-performing interdependent assets be allocated in the NSFR template for required stable funding?

  • 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: 2021_5822
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 10/09/2021