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

Approach to determining indirect ownership control powers under the legal definition of a beneficial owner.

What approach to determining the indirect ownership control power under the legal definition of a beneficial owner (“UBO”) as set out in Article 3(6)(a)(i) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing should be applied: (a) Determining the ‘share’ of indirect control of a UBO by multiplying the shares at each level of control and checking whether the result of this multiplication is more than 25% (multiplication test); (b) Examining the chain of control whenever a particular link in the ownership chain exceeds the 25% threshold which may, ultimately, lead to a natural person holding more than 25% of the shares or votes in a given indirect parent entity (rolling test); or (c) Verifying whether there is an entity or person who “controls” the entity having more than 25% of the shares or votes in an entity being evaluated, i.e. holds more than 50% of shares or votes in such entity (dominancy test)?

  • Legal act: Directive (EU) 2015/849 (AMLD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6622
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Information provided to the payee on individual payment transaction

If a framework contract includes a condition on providing all required information to the payee at least once a month, is the payment service provider still obliged to provide the information to the payee after the execution of individual payment transaction? Or providing monthly information is enough and provision of information separately about each individual transaction is not required anymore?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6612
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Determining MREL for entities of a group for which resolution plan provides that liquidation is credible and feasible

Where liquidation is credible and feasible either for the parent entity or for all of the entities of a group what is the legal basis for determining and reaching a joint decision on MREL?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1075 - DR on the content of recovery and resolution plans, financial support, independent valuers, contractual recognition of write down and conversion powers, notices of suspension and resolution colleges
  • ID: 2022_6587
  • Topic: MREL
  • Date of submission:

Meaning of "established in the Union"

Article 18 of the Securitisation Regulation requires that “The originator, sponsor and SSPE involved in a securitisation considered STS shall be established in the Union”: Would this provision deemed to be fulfilled in the case of originators, sponsors and SSPEs established in an EEA country? Would it be deemed to be fulfilled in the case of an originator which is an EU branch of a subsidiary  established in an EEA State pertaining to a banking group established in the EU?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 (SecReg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6539
  • Topic: Simple Transparent and Standardised securitisation
  • Date of submission:

Treatment of multi-seller securitisations in CRR

It is not clear from the provisions of the CRR how to treat multi-seller securitisations.  Multi-seller securitisations are those securitisations where there is more than one originator. That is, the underlying pool of the transaction comes from more than one single entity and the originators retaining the securitisation positions are exposed to the risk of the joined portfolio and not only to the risk of the portfolio they have transferred to the SSPE.  In those cases: Should  each originator be considered as such and consider that the significant credit risk associated with its securitised exposures has been transferred to third parties in accordance with Article 244(1)(a), and therefore originators should treat their retained securitisation positions as a positions subject to the securitisation framework? Or should all the originators be considered as investors in the securitisation due to the fact that the proportion of the assets that each originator has transferred to the SSPE represents a minimum share of the overall portfolio in the SSPE?   Would that treatment also apply in those cases where the originators retain all the asset backed securities issued in the securitisation (liquidity purpose securitisation)?   Would the originators be considered as such for the purpose of the overall cap under Article 268?   Should any dominant entity contributing with a majority of assets in the pool be subject to the general SRT rules and the rest of originators be considered as investors? Which percentage should be considered to trigger such a dominant position?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6494
  • Topic: Securitisation and Covered Bonds
  • Date of submission:

Inclusion of expected loss for equity exposures in calculation of Expected loss amount reducing CET1

Are the expected loss amount for equity exposures calculated in accordance with Article 158(7), (8) or (9) CRR included in the impairment comparison according to Article 159 CRR or not? Shall the expected loss amount for equity exposures be deducted directly from Common Equity Tier 1 capital in row 380 of CA1 (in accordance with Article 36 (1)(d) CRR)? Even if as a consequence validation rule v4811_m would fail?

  • 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: 2022_6466
  • Topic: Model validation
  • Date of submission:

Scope of Prudential consolidation

Which is the applicability of Article 22 CRR for successive subsidiaries of a Significant Institution (SI) in the SSM and rest of EU, when the subsidiary in a third country as referred in Article 22 CRR is held by the subsidiary in the SSM or rest of the EU that is the last in the chain of the successive subsidiaries of the SI?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6454
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:

EMI's application of negative interest rates to its clients

Is an electronic money institution (EMI) allowed to apply negative interest rates to its clients (electronic money holders)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6421
  • Topic: Not applicable
  • Date of submission:

EAD value for CVA calculation

Is the the EADiTotal in paragraph 1 gross of or net of incurred CVA. The definition provided by the regulation states that the effect of the collateral should be included but there is no reference as towards the incurred CVA regognised by the Bank as a write-down which under article 273 par.6 is applied in the calculation of the CCR RWA. "EAD total i = the total counterparty credit risk exposure value of counterparty ‘i’ (summed across its netting sets) including the effect of collateral in accordance with the methods set out in Sections 3 to 6 of Title II, Chapter 6 as applicable to the calculation of the own funds requirements for counterparty credit risk for that counterparty. An institution using one of the methods set out in Sections 3 and 4 of Title II, Chapter 6, may use as the fully adjusted exposure value in accordance with Article 223(5)."

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6404
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Calculation of a Prudent Value in combination with CET1-Deduction according to article 89 and 90 CRR

In case of applying article 89 CRR in combination with article 90 CRR for a risk exposure (asset) is there a requirement of calculating an additional valuation adjustument (AVA) although the calculated amount of CET1-deduction of the risk exposure already lowers CET1?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2016/101 - RTS for prudent valuation under Article 105(14) CRR
  • ID: 2022_6395
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Paper-based postal money orders as defined by the Universal Postal Union

1. Should postal transfers as defined by the Universal Postal Union, which are not made in paper form but by electronic means, be excluded from the scope of PSD2?     2. If postal transfers, as defined by the Universal Postal Union, in both electronic and paper format, are inseparable from the postal operator’s accounting system, should also paper-based postal transfers not fall outside the scope of PSD2?     3. Should such transfers be excluded from the scope of PSD2 in either case, or agree that the payment institution is not entitled to credit those funds to the payment service customers’ funds accounts where the money of the payment service users is kept separate?     4. Can a payment institution that is also a postal service provider simultaneously provide both PSD2 regulated services and services related to payments but outside the scope of PSD2?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6391
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Exposure class for fair value changes of the hedged items in portfolio hedge of interest rate risk

To which exposure class the 'fair value changes of the hedged items in portfolio hedge of interest rate risk' (recorded in the IFRS consolidated financial statements in accordance with (IAS 39.89A(a); IFRS 9.6.5.8) have to be assigned?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6367
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:

Calculation of the CET1 deduction for non-performing exposures (NPEs)

Which date shall be used to determine the applicable factor that is used to calculate the amount determined in Article 47c(1)(a) CRR when the terms and conditions of a non-performing exposure, which was originated prior to 26 April 2019, have been modified by the institution in a way that increased the institution's exposure to the obligor and  the counterparty defaulted before the initial origination of the exposure? The date on which the counterparty initially defaulted or the date on which the exposure was initially originated or the date on which the terms and conditions of the NPE have been modified by the institution in a way that increased the institution's exposure to the obligor?     Additionally, which date is supposed to be considered if the default of the exposure/counterparty occurs after the initial date of origination of the exposure and before an increase in amount of exposure? The date of default or the modification date?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6351
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:

Definition of electronic money

Does the wording “accepted by a natural or legal person other than the electronic money issuer” in the definition of electronic money (article 2.2) imply that a third party (payee) must become the holder of the electronic money as such and thus that there must be a direct contractual arrangement between the e-money issuer and all payees (obligating the payees to accept the issued e-money as a means of payment and granting the payees a right of redemption of the e-money)?  or should the criterion that a third party must “accept the electronically stored monetary value” be considered to be met where a third party payee accepts our customer’s payment with a card that is backed by the customer’s e-money (as per the description above), regardless of the fact that the payee will not become a holder of the issued e-money as such?

  • Legal act: Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6336
  • Topic: Not applicable
  • Date of submission:

Disclosures Relating to Trading and Non-Trading Book Clients

When firms calculate exposure value in line with K-TCD, firms carry it out at client level, taking the replacement cost and PFE for each client and each product.  Firms then net exposures against collateral in line with Article 31 of IFR.   Assuming that an appropriate netting agreement is in place with the client, available collateral is deducted to arrive an exposure value for each client. Where clients have both trading book and non-trading book exposures, and the netting agreement in place provides that the collateral held is fungible i.e. there is no particular collateral assigned to the trading book or non-trading book contracts or transactions, for the above reporting schedules a methodology to apply the collateral between trading book and non-trading book exposures is required.  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2019/2033 (IFR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2021_6319
  • Topic: Supervisory Reporting - IFR Reporting framework
  • Date of submission:

Provision of the "acquiring of payment transactions" payment service in the EU

Please provide your opinion on whether the payment service – acquiring of payment transactions on an EU webshop – can be provided by a payment service provider from a third country. Please refer to EBA Q&A, Question ID 2018_4233

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2021_6283
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Scope of prudential consolidation

Does the answer to Q&A 2019_4711 also apply to those cases where a consolidated requirement is triggered by Regulation (EU) 2019/2033 (IFR)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2021_6274
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:

Application of strong customer authentication (SCA) where Account Information Service users access the Account Information Service Providers’ (AISPs) own channels and the previously retrieved payment account information compiled and stored therein

Are Account Information Service Providers (AISPs) exempt, in respect of their own channels, from the requirements of Article 97(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 and of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2018/389, and therefore allowed: to let users of their Account Information Service, access the AISPs’ own channels and the payment account information compiled and stored therein – previously retrieved by AISPs from the users’ respective Account-Servicing Payment Service Providers (ASPSPs) – without applying any strong customer authentication (SCA) upon that access to AISPs’ own channels, irrespective of whether the conditions of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2018/389 are satisfied – such that AISPs may, in their own channels, allow users of their service to consult, without SCA, previously retrieved payment account information of a broader scope (more than the last 90 days’ worth of data, and potentially the users’ complete transactional history) as compared to the data that ASPSPs may, without SCA, display to the same users in the ASPSPs’ own channels (maximum the last 90 days’ worth of data, and provided that SCA was applied no more than 90 days prior) – and such that AISPs, despite being payment services providers (PSPs), need not afford users of their services the same level of protection that ASPSPs are required to, and can expose said users to the risks of abuses referred to in Article 97(1)(c) of Directive 2015/2366?  

  • 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: 2021_6248
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:

Definition of long/short derivative positions

Which is the intended meaning of long/short positions in the context of Article 273a(3)(b)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2021_6237
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission: