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

DORA Regulation & Applicability to Third-Country Branches

Is Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 (DORA) applicable to third-country branches that are licensed in our country (EU country) as Credit Institutions?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6876
  • Topic: Other DORA topics
  • Date of submission:

PISP payment order cancellation due to fraud prevention reasons

Due to fraud prevention reasons, could an ASPSP block a payment order initiated through a PISP despite having informed the PISP immediately upon authentication, that the payment was going to be executed (i.e., after having provided the PISP with the code ACSC under the Berlin Group Standard)? In that scenario who should bear the liability if the payment is not executed but, nonetheless, the payee delivered the good or service promptly after being informed by the PISP of the successful initiation of the payment?  Would the answer be different if the ASPSP had simply confirmed the sufficiency of funds as stated in the EBA Opinion on the implementation of the RTS on SCA and CSC (EBA-Op-2018-04)   

  • 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: 2023_6873
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:

CVA treatment of exposures arising from centrally cleared transactions - indirect clearing flows

Does an institution which is a client of a clearing member or a lower-level client in a multi-level client structure (institution > intermediary/higher-level client > clearing member > central counterparty) need to verify that Art. 305 (2) or (3) conditions are met at every level of the structure to exclude the transaction from the own funds requirements for CVA risk in accordance with Art. 382 (3) CRR? Guidance is sought on 4 possible clearing flows: Indirect clearing flows (clients’ transactions and institution’s own transactions) Client > institution > clearing member > CCP Institution > clearing member > CCP Multi-level indirect clearing flows (clients’ transactions and institution’s own transactions) Client > institution > intermediary/higher-level client > clearing member > CCP Institution > intermediary/higher-level client > clearing member > CCP Moreover, would the determination around the exemption from the CVA risk charge change under a scenario where the clearing member (indirect clearing flow) or the intermediary/higher-level client (multi-level client clearing flow) are intragroup entities established in a third country which has not been deemed equivalent under Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012? This question has been submitted jointly with Q&A 2023_6839

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6840
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Multi-licensed entity capital requirement

Whether a payment institution that also has a crowdfunding license must meet the capital requirements of both authorizations in aggregate?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6790
  • Topic: Authorisation and registration
  • Date of submission:

Exchange rate mark-ups part of 'all charges payable'/'currency conversion charges'

Is an exchange rate mark-up (the difference between the interbank rate and the exchange rate offered by the PSP to its PSUs) to be considered as part of ‘all charges payable’ as per PSD2 and the ‘currency conversion charges’ as per CBPR2 prior to the initiation of the payment? How should PSPs disclose this in the payment flow? Article 45 of the PSD2 sets out the information and conditions that payment service providers (PSPs) need to provide to the payment service users (PSUs). Notably, Article 45 (1)(c) and (d) states that ‘all charges payable by the payment service user to the payment service providers and, where applicable, a breakdown of those charges’ as well as ‘the actual or reference exchange rate to be applied to the payment transaction’ should be shown to the PSUs.  The CBPR2 builds upon the requirements set out by PSD2, adding an additional layer of disclosures for cross-border payments within the EU.  Concretely, Article 5(1) of the CBPR2 refers to the provisions within Article 45(1) of PSD2 -  "When a currency conversion service is offered by the payer’s payment service provider in relation to a credit transfer, as defined in point (24) of Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, that is initiated online directly, using the website or the mobile banking application of the payment service provider, the payment service provider, with regard to Article 45(1) and Article 52, point (3), of that Directive, shall inform the payer prior to the initiation of the payment transaction, in a clear, neutral and comprehensible manner, of the estimated charges for currency conversion services applicable to the credit transfer. Furthermore, Article 5(2) of CBPR2 further explains the necessary charges that need to be shown to the payer -  “Prior to the initiation of a payment transaction, the PSP shall communicate to the payer, in a clear, neutral and comprehensible manner, the estimated total amount of the credit transfer in the currency of the payer’s account, including any transaction fee and any currency conversion charges. The payment service provider shall also communicate the estimated amount to be transferred to the payee in the currency used by the payee.”    

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6777
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Scope of Article 22(1) CRR

Do undertakings subject to Article 22(1) CRR Sub-consolidation in case of entities in third countries have to comply with Part Two of the CRR in full or shall they only comply with Articles 89, 90 and 91 of Part Two?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6765
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:

Interplay between Articles 49(3) and 72e(5) of the CRR

Does the exemption from the requirement to deduct holdings of own funds instruments under Article 49(3) of the CRR also apply with regard to the deductions set out in Article 72e(5)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6763
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:

Back-to-Back in regulatory threshold

How should back-to-back trades that net off perfectly when calculating the size of their on- and off-balance-sheet business that is subject to market risk be accounted for? Should both positions be considered in absolute value, both the short and the long position, or should they not be included as the positions perfectly offset each other and do not generate capital requirements for market risk?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6745
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Retention obligations

An alternative investment fund (“AIF”) managed by an alternative investment fund manager (“AIFM”) pursuant to Directive (EU) 61/2011, is set up to disburse loans to be subsequently securitised. According to Regulation (EU) 2402/2017 (hereinafter, the “Securitisation Regulation”), we believe that the AIFM and the AIF could fall within the definitions of, respectively, “originator” and “original lender”. According to Article 6(1) of the Securitisation Regulation the retention obligation can be fulfilled by either the originator, the original lender or the sponsor (if there is one) of a securitisation: in the above mentioned securitisation, can the retention obligation be therefore assumed alternatively by (i) the AIF as original lender, using the funds made available to it by investors or (ii) the AIFM as originator, using its own funds (i.e. not those of the AIF it manages)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 (SecReg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6741
  • Topic: Provisions applicable to all securitisations
  • Date of submission:

Identify when EMD2 needs to be applied to vouchers/gift cards issued by an electronic money institution.

Do vouchers/gift cards issued by an electronic money institution (EMI) to top-up an e-money account (managed by the EMI itself) in order to purchase on an e-commerce platform: i) goods and services sold directly by companies belonging to the same corporate group of the EMI (thus falling out of the scope of PSD2, encompassing the exemption provided for intra-group transactions in Article 3(1)(n) of the PSD2); ii) goods and services of third-party merchants,  have to be qualified as e-money at the time of issuing (i.e.sale) or - given the possible indefinite use of the funds - they acquire that status only at the moment they are used to purchase goods and services from third-party merchants on the e-commerce platform? 

  • Legal act: Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6736
  • Topic: Not applicable
  • Date of submission:

Consideration of own funds requirements as a comparable guarantee to the PII

Would it be acceptable to consider, has a possible comparable guarantee, an increase of own funds’ requirements, in an amount corresponding to the minimum monetary amount calculated in accordance with the EBA’s tool, while ensuring that this amount would be fulfilled with highly liquid assets?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6675
  • Topic: Monetary amount of the professional indemnity insurance
  • Date of submission:

SRT test in securitisations

When is necessary to make de SRT test in securitisations: at initial assessment only or ongoing monitoring?  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6674
  • Topic: Securitisation and Covered Bonds
  • Date of submission:

Exemption of exposures to public sector entities

In accordance with Article 429a (1) (j) (iii) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR), as modified by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/62, exposures to public sector entities (PSE), treated in accordance with Art. 116 (4) CRR and arising from deposits that the institution is legally obliged to transfer to this PSE for the purpose of funding general interest investment, shall be excluded from the denominator calculation of the institution´s leverage ratio.  Is there any limitation in the type of deposit assets to apply for such exclusion, particularly as regards cash-assimilated instruments (Article 4 (1)(60) CRR), which include certain categories of bonds? What is meant by “legal obligation” and what creates such obligation? Would contractual or statutory obligation qualify as such? Is there furthermore an example for “general interest investment”?  

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/62 - DR with regard to the leverage ratio
  • ID: 2022_6624
  • Topic: Leverage ratio
  • Date of submission:

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:

Payment account

What is the difference between payment account, e-money account and a bank account (account held at the credit institution) in terms of allowed transactions? Is it possible to hold funds on a payment account to make future payment transactions? Is it possible to receive the salary on a payment account, if this account is not an e-money account or an account held by credit intuition, which constitute a deposit or other repayable fund?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2022_6611
  • 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: