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

Annex I Template C101.00 - Sovereigns

Clarifications around which entities to include for those identified by a bloomberg ticker referencing a Sovereign

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions (for benchmarking the internal approaches)
  • ID: 2017_3197
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/07/2019

Supervisory Benchmarking Exercise, Annex II, C 102, columns 070 and 080 Counterparty types

What counterparty types should be included in the Low Default Portfolio exercise?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions (for benchmarking the internal approaches)
  • ID: 2017_3191
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Supervisory Benchmarking
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/07/2019

Synthetic securitisation of undrawn revolving credit facilities

In a synthetic securitisation of undrawn revolving credit facilities (“RCF”), which is compliant with Article 245 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2017/2401, what is the EAD that should be considered inside the securitisation (which will subject to the risk weighting according to the securitisation framework) and what is the EAD that should be considered outside the securitisation (which will continue to be risk weighted according to the approved IRB model for such exposures)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2018_4025
  • Topic: Securitisation and Covered Bonds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 19/07/2019

Interaction between Articles 473a and 127 of the CRR (risk weight factor for exposures in default under the standardised approach)

Do banks in order to calculate the thresholds of Article 127 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) have to consider all IFRS 9 provisions (without applying any scaling factor) or the amount of IFRS 9 provisions reduced by applying the scaling factor as per Article 473a?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2018_3931
  • Topic: Accounting and auditing
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 19/07/2019

Asset denominated in one currency and funded in a different currency subject to a FX Swap exchanging those two currencies

For the purpose of the credit risk standard risk-weight attribution, can we consider that 1) an asset denominated in one currency and funded in a different currency subject to a FX Swap exchanging those two currencies is equivalent to 2) an asset denominated and funded in the same currency?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2018_3832
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 19/07/2019

Liability for fraud when SCA exemption used

Who is liable for fraud on Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) exempted transactions? Which payment service provider (PSP) is liable (payer’s or payee’s) when both PSPs choose to trigger an exemption to SCA?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2018_4042
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 19/07/2019

Confidentiality of offline PIN

Should the PIN transmitted offline from a terminal to an Europay, MasterCard and Visa (EMV) card always be enciphered? 

  • 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_4055
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 19/07/2019

Responsibility for comprehensive assessment according to Article 95(2) PSD2

It is not clear, whether comprehensive assessment of the operational and security risks relating to the payment services has to be carried out by the payment service providers (PSP), or it can be delegated / outsourced to a third entity (e.g. external audit firm). In case this is a responsibility of the PSP, it is not clear, whether it has to be carried by the independent internal audit department, or it has to be carried out by the department responsible for the risk function in the PSP.

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2019/04 – Guidelines on ICT and security risk management - repealing EBA/GL/2017/17
  • ID: 2018_4231
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 19/07/2019

COREP C06.01 template - Consistency of the EBA taxonomy control v6288_m

Is the control v6288_m consistent with the COREP ITS?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4537
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/07/2019

Development Banks in the template C 33.00 General Government Exposure

Are development banks included in the definition of general government exposures (paragraph 42 (b) of Annex V ITS no. 680/2014) and should be reported in the template C33.00 General Government 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_4276
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/07/2019

C 17 template

Is it possible to include the positive impacts of operational risk errors in template C 17.00?

  • 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: 2018_4208
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/07/2019

Adjustments due to IFRS 9 transitional arrangements included in RWAs and interaction with validation rule v3689_s in template C5.01.

In template C5.01 validation rule v3689_s states that R010 C040 cannot be negative, should R010 C040 be excluded from this validation rule?

  • 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_4189
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/07/2019

FINREP: COUNTERPARTY BREAKDOWN: HOUSEHOLDS

Can Personal Investment Companies (PIC) be seen as households in the Finrep counterparty breakdown? Personal investment company (PIC) means an undertaking or a trust whose owner or beneficial owner, respectively, is a natural person or a group of closely related natural persons, which was set up with the sole purpose of managing the wealth of the owners and which does not carry out any other commerical, industrial or professional activity.

  • 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: 2015_2368
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/07/2019

MREL requirement if resolution strategy is liquidation (no bail-in tool used)

Question 1:Should the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) requirement be set for a bank if its resolution strategy is liquidation and there is no plan to use a bail-in tool?Question 2:What is the legal basis and the rationale for setting the MREL for the bank if its resolution strategy is liquidation and there is no plan to use a bail-in tool?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2018_4253
  • Topic: MREL
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 28/06/2019

Calculation of institution-specific countercyclical capital buffer rates

Should the calculation of the institutions-specific countercyclical buffer rate include capital requirements arising from measures taken in accordance with Article 458 in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2018_4220
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 21/06/2019

Scope of the corporate SCA exemption.

Does the corporate SCA exemption apply only if the payer initiates (and transmits) payments directly to their ASPSP and not for payments transmitted via a 3rd party service provider (i.e. a PISP)?

  • 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_4693
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 14/06/2019

"Authorisation number" in eIDAS certificates

There are two possible interpretations of the Regulation (EU) 2018/389 (RTS) Article 34 paragraph (2) in the case of payment service providers registered in Member State “A”:1) The authorisation number is the number of the resolution of the NCA (or its predecessor in title) authorising the provision of payment services for the specific PSP, which is not the same as the Registration number appearing in the NCA’s public register.2) The authorisation number is the Registration number appearing in the NCA’s public register (which is a reference number formed based on the VAT number).Please clarify whether interpretation 2) above is in line with the requirements of the RTS? Please clarify whether the 8-digit Registration number (based on the VAT number) appearing in the NCA’s public register, and appearing as “National Identification Number” in the EBA PSD2 register or as “National Reference” in the EBA credit institution register can be used as the “authorisation number” in eIDAS certificates?

  • 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_4679
  • Topic: Central register of the EBA
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 14/06/2019

Requirement on the use of a Qualified Certificate for Electronic Seals (QSealC) for integrity and authenticity

Please clarify  whether in the EBA’s Opinion on the use of eIDAS under the RTS on SCA and CSC, under Paragraph 11, Qualified Electronic Seals employing a Qualified Seal creation Device are required to provide integrity and authenticity through the reference to Article 35(2) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014?

  • 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_4586
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 14/06/2019

Qualified certificate under eIDAS for ASPSP

Is it required for an Account Servicing Payment Service Provider (ASPSP) to use qualified certificates under eIDAS to identify itself to a Third Party Provider (TPP)?

  • 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_4413
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 14/06/2019

Secure corporate payment processes and protocols

Are USB drives (containing a certificate) used only by corporate clients compatible with RTS requirements?Can USB drives be considered as payment processes exempted from strong customer authentication ?

  • 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_4400
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 14/06/2019