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

Seniority categories to use when offsetting the gross JTD amounts of short exposures and long exposures within the DRC calculations for non-securitisations 

Which set of seniority categories shall be utilised and how should they be ranked as the basis for offsetting the gross JTD amounts of short exposures and long exposures within the DRC calculations for non-securitisations? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7233
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Vega general interest rate risk and credit spread risk factors

For credit instruments that include issuer-specific optionality, do both general interest rate vega and credit spread vega risk factors need to be considered as part of the SBM? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7232
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Basis of calculation for the DRC for non-securitisations and SBM-CSR for non-securitisations - instruments guaranteed by a guarantor

In the case of instruments guaranteed by a guarantor (such as guaranteed bonds), can that guarantor be used as the basis for calculating the DRC for non-securitisations and the SBM-CSR for non-securitisations? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7231
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Basis of calculation for the DRC for non-securitisations and SBM-CSR for non-securitisations – Individual ‘issuers’/‘obligors’ or ‘group of issuers/obligors’?

Do the calculations of the DRC for non-securitisations and SBM-CSR for non-securitisations have to be based on the individual ‘issuers’/‘obligors’, or could these calculations alternatively be based on the concept of a ‘group of issuers/obligors’ consisting of e.g. a conglomerate (and e.g. represented by an ‘ultimate parent’ corresponding to the ‘head of group’ or ‘parent company’)?  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7230
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Conditions for increasing the margin period of risk (MPOR) used for the exposure value of netting sets with margin agreements.

Article 285 paragraph 3(b) references “OTC derivative that cannot be easily replaced”. By definition “OTC derivative” does not include listed / exchange trades derivatives.  The final sentence of paragraph 3 states “An institution shall consider whether trades or securities it holds as collateral are concentrated in a particular counterparty and if that counterparty exited the market precipitously whether the institution would be able to replace those trades or securities.” Is this is a clarification of 3(b) meaning that the reference to “replace those trades” would be in relation to OTC derivatives? Or alternatively is the reference to “replace those trades” broader than OTC derivatives?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7229
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Reporting of customer portfolios managed on a discretionary basis

According to Annex V, Part 2, paragraph 285 (a) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/451 (ITS): '‘'Asset management’ shall refer to assets belonging directly to the customers, for which the institution is providing management.” Since these assets belong to the customers, they are generally not recognized in the balance sheet of the credit institution. It is not clear however if the cash deposited by customers that the institution manages on a discretionary basis should be recognized as a liability. Additionally, if this account would have a negative balance, an asset might be recognized. 

  • 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)
  • ID: 2024_7224
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:

Passporting procedure for CIs and EMIs issuing tokens under MICAR

Are articles 146 (for credit institutions) and 48(3) (for e-money institutions) to be interpreted as submitting credit institutions and e-money institutions issuing ART/EMT on a crossborder basis to comply with the existing passporting framework set for these categories of establishments respectively by directives 2013/36/EU and 2009/110/EC? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7168
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

Passporting procedure for non-CI ART issuers

Shall NCAs consider that articles 18, 21, 25 and 109 of MICA regulation set a specific passporting framework for “pure” ART issuers where: ART issuers are authorized to market tokens in Member States they declared during the authorization process as soon as they are authorized by home NCAs; within two working days of granting authorization, home NCAs only have to inform host national competent authorities, ESMA, EBA, ECB and competent national central bank of the Member States of the member states where ART issuers intend to market their token ; this information regarding passporting of ART issuers is publicly available on ESMA register? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7167
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

Publication of white papers

Regarding entities exempted from authorisation pursuant to Article 16(2) of MiCAR, they shall notify the white paper to the competent authority of the home Member State, and the NCA is responsible for forwarding on the white paper of these entities to ESMA. However, it is unclear how the white paper is made available to the intended audiences of customers, and other relevant stakeholders and investors. Article 28 on publication of crypto-asset white papers only refers to ‘approved’ white papers (in accordance with Article 17(1) or Article 21(1) of MiCAR), without referring to notified white papers of exempted entities under Article 16(2) of MiCAR. Therefore, does Article 28 on publication of white paper of ART issuers also applies to issuers exempted under Article 16(2) of MiCAR?"

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7166
  • Topic: Authorisation of issuers of ARTs and EMTs (MiCAR)
  • Date of submission:

Compliance of non-bank PSPs with the safeguarding requirements in PSD2

Where PIs and EMIs (referred to as non-bank PSPs) have direct access to central bank operated payment systems for settling payment transactions, would keeping a balance on a settlement account with the central bank/payment system, without the central bank maintaining a safeguarding account for the non-bank PSP, be compliant with the safeguarding requirements under Article 10 of PSD2?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7165
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Transactions executed via electronic mail (email)

Do transactions ordered by email and executed by an employee of the payment service provider, e.g., credit transfers orders sent from the e-mail address of the payer to the e-mail address of the payment service provider and executed accordingly qualify as transactions executed through a remote channel, at-distance channel or a payment instrument which may imply a risk of payment fraud or other abuses, pursuant to Article 69, Article 70, Article 72 and Article 97(1)(c) PSD2?

  • 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: 2024_7150
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:

Exclusion of cash withdrawal services from PSD2

Is it a prerequisite for an ATM operator,to qualify for the exemption of article 3(o), to co-operate with a Payment Service Provider (authorised within the EEA or with a relative passport where necessasry) offering payment service number 2 of the Annex 1 of the PSD2?  

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7136
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Collateral requirements for the ‚another credit protection‘ alternative in the form of cash on deposit held with a third-party credit institution

Does Article 26e (10) (b) of the Amended Securitisation Regulation allow cash collateral to be provided also in the form of a guarantee or letter of credit given by a qualifying third-party credit institution?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 (SecReg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7127
  • Topic: Simple Transparent and Standardised securitisation
  • Date of submission:

Exposure to credit institutions in the form of derivative contracts

Should "exposure" also consider and include cash collateral held by the covered bond issuer from its swap counterparty? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7124
  • Topic: Securitisation and Covered Bonds
  • Date of submission:

Application of article 378 for free delivery transactions

Given the requirements of article 378 and 379 CRR II, shall the institution apply the article 378 also in case of free deliveries (disciplined by article 379) or should it be applied only to DVP transactions?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7119
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Providing payment service via Internet banking (web-application)

Is providing payment service via Internet banking (web-application) payment initiation channel considered to be issuing of payment instruments? 

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2017/09 - Guidelines on authorisation and registration under PSD2
  • ID: 2024_7115
  • Topic: Authorisation and registration
  • Date of submission:

Operational risk – gross loss in tax related events in accordance with REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards requirements for credit risk, credit valuation adjustment risk, operational risk, market risk and the output floor, Article 318.

How should an institution calculate gross loss based on the regulatory changes stipulated in Article 318. of the Regulation amending Regulation 575/2013 in the following examples? Case 1 – Delayed tax payment, penalty interest payment, and system repairment expenses Case 2 – Delayed tax payment, no penalty interest payment, system repairment expenses.  Case 3 – Tax to be paid for this year and previous years, no penalty interest, or fine, financial reports for previous year to be revised and re-published.  Case 4 – Tax to be paid for this year and previous years, no penalty interest or fine, no changes to financial reports for previous year.  Case 5 – Tax to be paid for this year and previous years, penalty interest and fine, financial reports for previous year to be revised and re-published Case 6 – Tax to be paid for this year and previous years, penalty interest and fine, no changes to financial reports for previous year   

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7107
  • Topic: Operational risk
  • Date of submission:

Temporary unavailable (blocked) deposits

Could you please clarify how temporary unavailable (blocked) deposits should be presented?

  • 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: 2024_7088
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:

Issuers of EMTs and scope of application AML requirements

To what extent should electronic money institutions (EMIs) that issue e-money tokens (EMTs) under MiCAR comply with the obligations in relation to anti-money laundering and terrorist financing under Directive 2015/849/EU (as amended, AMLD5)? More specifically, should holders of EMTs be considered as clients of the EMI within the meaning of AMLD5, so that the relevant KYC requirements apply on an ongoing basis in respect of holders of EMTs (not only at the time of issuing but also following trading on the secondary market)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7078
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission: