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

Translation risk when calculating total own fund requirements on consolidated basis using the reporting currency of the consolidated institution

How should the overall own funds requirements be calculated in a consolidated situation for institutions or undertakings, for which Art. 325b(4)(b) CRR applies, i.e. if different institutions or undertakings of the group use different currencies other than the reporting currency of the group?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7194
  • Topic: Market risk
  • 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:

Calculation of the net open position for capital requirements for structural FX risk

In the context of article 352.2, in relation with the consolidated capital calculation for FX risk,  the historical cost at solo basis must be taking into account or not?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2020/09 - Guidelines on the treatment of structural FX under Article 352(2) of CRR
  • ID: 2024_7162
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Offsetting position among all group entities without the permission of 325b

In the context of article 352, when an institution is following a strategy of hedging the consolidated CET1 ratio (as opposed to hedge at solo level) and has been granted the waiver in art 352.2 at a consolidated level but when the permission in article 325b is not granted: It is necessary having the netting permission of 325b granted to take into account shorts open position in a subsidiary to calculate the structural FX position at consolidated level, for the waiver application purposes? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2020/09 - Guidelines on the treatment of structural FX under Article 352(2) of CRR
  • ID: 2024_7160
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Consideration of additional items in the calculation of the net open position or maximum net open position

In the context of art 352 (2) the calculation of the net open position  or maximum net open position in the context of Structural FX framework should take into consideration items affecting the capital ratio but not directly related to assets, liabilities or off-balance items such Additional Value adjustment or minority interests denominated in FX currency? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2020/09 - Guidelines on the treatment of structural FX under Article 352(2) of CRR
  • ID: 2024_7159
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Perfectly matched back-to-back bought and sold options under market risk capital requirement - sensitivities-based method for calculating the own funds requirement.

According to Article 325e of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) all the positions of instruments with optionality (among others: calls, puts, caps, floors, swap options, barrier options and exotic options) shall be subject to the own funds requirements for: a) delta risk b) vega risk c) curvature risk. According to Q&A no 2016_2571 (Question ID: 2016_2571 published in Single Rulebook Q&A on 11th November 2016) perfectly matching options should not be subject to market capital requirements. Does this approach also apply to sensitivities-based method for calculating the own funds requirement for market risk specified in CRR2/CRR3? If yes does it mean that perfectly matched back-to-back bought and sold options can be excluded from calculation capital requirement for market risk under sensitivities-based method  (delta, vega and curvature risk)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7149
  • Topic: Market risk
  • 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:

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:

Loan commitments, financial guarantees and other commitments received in F 9.2

Could you please more precisely clarify what should be presented as “Loan commitments, financial guarantees and other commitments received” in F 9.2?

  • 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
  • ID: 2024_7099
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:

Exemption for Non-EU ICT Intra-group Service Providers

Is it accurate to interpret that an ICT intra-group service provider established outside the EU (non-EU country), providing critical services to an EU-based financial institution (parent undertaking), falls within the exemption outlined in Article 31(8) of DORA, thereby exempting the need for establishing a subsidiary within the EU?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7096
  • Topic: Oversight framework of CTPPs
  • Date of submission:

Article 444f in CRR and ITS on public disclosures are not consistent with the mapping tool for the key metric LCR in KM1

It is clear in article 447f in CRR and in the ITS on public disclosures by institutions under Part Eight of Regulation (EU) N0 575/2013 (annex II) that average LCR should be reported in KM1 (as well as average of liquidity buffer, outflows and inflows). However, in the mapping tool the references to the LCR numbers in KM1 are to LCR numbers in templates C72, C73, C74 and C76, which are the templates where the regular LCR is reported.  The weighted average numbers for LCR are found in template LIQ1. So what is correct and what should be reported in KM1?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/637 - ITS with regard to disclosures of information referred to in Titles II and III of Part Eight CRR
  • ID: 2024_7092
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • Date of submission:

Legal persons to whom the requirement to comply with reporting requirements under Article 54 of the IFR on a consolidated basis applies.

In case Article 7(1) of the IFR applies, does the requirement to comply with the reporting requirements under Article 54 of the IFR rest exclusively on either a Union parent investment firm, Union parent investment holding company or Union parent mixed financial holding company?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2019/2033 (IFR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/2284 - ITS on Reporting
  • ID: 2024_7091
  • Topic: K-factor requirements
  • 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:

Scope of application of recital 54 of MICAR

Question 1: Recital 54 MiCAR seems to presume that the same ART may be issued by EU and third country entity, when speaking of "Issuers of asset-referenced tokens that are marketed both in the Union and in third countries". Does recital 54 mean a technically same fungible token not (externally) attributable to a particular issuer or does this only mean that the token has the same rights attached and is marketed under the same name but is not technically identical and should be attributable to one issuer (in Union or in third countries)? Question 2: Does Recital 54 MiCAR, while referring to ART issuers and their reserve of assets requirements, also apply to EMT issuers (including cases where no reserve requirements under MiCAR apply) and should it be used to interpret prudential requirements for EMT issuers (including Article 54 MiCAR and EMD)? Question 3: if ever recital 54 was to be extended to all EMT issuers, how would this recital have to be interpreted in relation with article 54, which foresees that EMT issuers should safeguard funds received by issuers of e-money tokens in exchange for e-money tokens in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 2009/110/EC? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7069
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

One leg out Multi EMT issuance – legal possibility and related issues

Question 1: Can a technically identical and fully fungible EMT based on a non EU currency be issued by, on one hand, a EU-based entity licensed as an electronic money institution or credit institution (therefore complying with MICAR) and, on the other hand, by an entity based in another non EU jurisdiction and non regulated under EU law?  Question 2: If ever the preceding arrangement was possible under MICAR, then would it be compliant with Article 48(1) MiCAR in case a person on the EU territory was to offer or seek admission to trading on EU markets for tokens issued by the entity not authorised as an electronic money institution or credit institution?  Question 3: [This question is to be read in light of associated QA on scope of recital 54] If ever the preceding arrangement was possible under MICAR, given that this technically identical and fully fungible EMT would freely circulate on the secondary market and would actually be marketed both in the EU and in non EU jurisdictions, should competent authorities apply to this arrangement provisions set by recital 54?  Question 4: [This question is to be read in light of associated QA on scope of recital 54] If ever the preceding arrangement was possible under MICAR and recital 54 could be applied, then would competent authorities have to apply safeguarding requirements for the EU licensed entity based on the volume of tokens this entity issued (as per MICAR article 54) or on the “issuers’ liability towards Union holders”, based on “the share of […] tokens that is expected to be marketed in the Union” (as per MICAR recital 54)? Question 5: In order to mitigate potential regulatory arbitrage and capital flight in the context of a one leg out multi EMT issuance, would it be compliant with MICAR to allow only EU-based residents to present redemption requests to the EU-based entity

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7068
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission: