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

Breakdown of exposures by residual maturity

In the template C 33.00 breakdown of total exposures by residual maturity is required (rows 170 - 230). However from instructions it is not clear into which time bucket following exposures should be classified: - exposures at default - exposures without residual maturity - past due exposures.

  • 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Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)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: 2018_4164
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 10/05/2019

Validation rule v0682_m - DPM 2.7.0.1

Is the validation rule v0682_m correct?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions
  • ID: 2018_3992
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 10/05/2019

Definition of a qualifying holding

In order to identify a qualifying holding in an undertaking, for the purposes of the definition laid down in Article 4(1)(36) CRR, has the possibility to exercise a significant influence over the management of an undertaking to be accompanied, as a necessary precondition, by an even minimum level of holding in that undertaking (as suggested by the English or Italian language version of CRR)? Or, conversely, can the definition of qualifying holding in Article 4(1)(36) CRR be met, in cases where the possibility for a person to exercise a significant influence in an undertaking is established, even in the absence of a minimum level of holding in the undertaking by that person?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2018_3762
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/05/2019

Application of the Low Value Transaction Limits

Should the limits according the Article 16 RTS be applied to the account itself (account holder and authorized persons together) or should they be applied to the account holder (owner) and each authorized person (i.e. proxy of account holder) separately? Subsequently should the limits be applied to all remote payment transactions together or should e.g. card transactions and credit transfers be counted separately. Also should the limit be applied to all cards belonging to one person together or should the limit be applied to each card separately?

  • 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: 2018_4429
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/04/2019

Wide usage portability between Member States

Could three months’ data, showing wide usage of the dedicated interface, produced in one Member State by a regulated entity (ASPSP) belonging to an ASPSP Group, be used as evidence to support the ‘widely used’ condition in a further Member State for a separate regulated entity (ASPSP) belonging to the same ASPSP Group, on the condition that both entities employ the same dedicated interface?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2018/07 - Guidelines on the exemption from the contingency mechanism under Regulation (EU) 2018/389
  • ID: 2019_4638
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/04/2019

Applicability of Article 34 (eIDAS certificates) prior to application date of Regulation (EU) 2018/389

Is the use of eIDAS certificates mandatory for accessing payment accounts via dedicated interfaces (APIs) already prior to the application date of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389, i.e. 14 September 2019?

  • 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_4630
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/04/2019

Content of eIDAS certificates if agents or outsource providers are involved

Who shall be the Subject Distinguished Name (DN) in the situation described in EBA Opinion on eIDAS (EBA-Op-2018-7) item 21? Does information on agents or outsource providers has to show up in the certificates? 

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4507
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/04/2019

Passporting and eIDAS certificates

Do account servicing payment service providers (ASPSPs) have to check that third party providers (TPPs) are authorised to operate in their Member State via freedom to deliver services passporting? If so, how shall this be done?

  • 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: 2018_4432
  • Topic: Passporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/04/2019

Interpretation of the concept of senior management laid down in Article 3(1)(9) of CRD IV

Does the concept of “senior management” foreseen in Article 3(1)(9) of CRD IV refer to members of the management body in executive functions or does it refer to persons at an hierarchical level immediately below that of the management body in executive functions (i.e., the so-called MB-1 level), as far as these persons are involved in the day-to-day management of the institution?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2018_4286
  • Topic: Internal governance
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/04/2019

Fraud rate calculation for TRA exemption – country dimension

Could – or should – the fraud rate for the TRA exemption be calculated per member state where a PSP provides payment services (one legal entity with branches in different countries), or should the fraud rate be aggregated as one for the whole legal entity?

  • 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: 2018_4439
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/04/2019

Fall back exemption

Article 33, § 6 of the RTS for strong customer authentication and common and secure open standards of communication (the “RTS”) provides that “Competent authorities, after consulting EBA to ensure a consistent application of the following conditions, shall exempt the account servicing payment service providers that have opted for a dedicated interface from the obligation to set up the contingency mechanism […]” (the “fall back exemption”). a) Which authority - the home authority or the host authority ?- is the compentent authority under article 33, § 6 of the RTS, when the “fall back exemption request” concerns the dedicated interface used in a Member state where a branch of the ASPSP is located? b) Does the answer differ if the same dedicated interface is used in the home member state and in the host member state where a branch is located?

  • 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: 2018_4163
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/04/2019

Calculation of the number of directorships held (privileged counting of mandates).

How should the mandates be counted in a situation where one person is an active board member in several connected (through IPS, group or qualified holdings) credit institutions and the privileged counting of mandates shows different results depending on the perspective from which the mandates are counted? Especially how the mandates should be counted where there is more than one notifying institution, in particular where the institutions are connected through qualified holdings? How should such a situation be resolved in cases where different competent authorities (in more than one Member State and / or the ECB) are involved?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2018_4158
  • Topic: Internal governance
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/04/2019

Is a gradual reduction of the overdraft facility with a current account a forborne measure?

Should an exceeded overdraft facility, which is gradually reduced by the bank as stipulated in terms and conditions, be classified as forborne exposure even if the customer does not meet any criteria for default?

  • 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: 2018_4346
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/04/2019

Validation rule on C_17.01 template - v5839_m

Is validation rule v5839_m correct?

  • 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: 2018_4259
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/04/2019

Validation rule on C_05.01 template - v4889_m

Is validation rule v4889_m correct?

  • 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: 2018_4258
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/04/2019

Is the validation rule for Finrep (DPM 2.7) v5510_m, correct?

Is validation rule v5510_m correct?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2018_3975
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/04/2019

Pillar III templates aligned with the new supervisory reporting package, DPM 2.7

Should we adjust template EU CR2-A in order to facilitate the implementation of the EBA Guidelines on disclosure?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2016/11 - Guidelines on disclosure requirements under Part Eight of CRR
  • ID: 2018_3941
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Other
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/04/2019

Validation rules v5434_m to v5447_m in DPM 2.7.0

Are validation rules v5434_m to v5447_m correct?

  • 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: 2018_3898
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Other
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/04/2019

Exposures in the form of covered bonds

Would the preferential treatment set out in Articles 129(4) and (5) and in Article 161(1)(d) be applicable to derivative instruments entered into in relation to covered bonds exposures, provided that the counterparty’s claims are secured by the same pool of assets as the covered bonds’ and rank pari passu with the claims of the covered bonds holders?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2018_4328
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/03/2019

Identification and access for testing purposes of entities that are not authorised third party providers (TPPs)

How would account servicing payment service providers (ASPSPs) identify entities that have applied for authorisation as a TPP?Should ASPSPs offer access to their testing facility to entities that are not (i) authorised payment service providers or (ii) entities that have applied for authorisation as a TPP (e.g. technical service providers)? If the answer is ‘yes’, should ASPSPs offer the same level of service to the referred entities?

  • 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_4609
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/03/2019