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

Net position risk - K-NPR

We understand that rTM measures are for firms that deal on their own account. The relevant K-Factor for position risk, K-NPR falls under rTM, therefore the assumption would be that K-NPR refers only to firms dealing on their own account. However, Article 21(4) sets out that for purpose of calculating the rTM K-factor requirement, firms should also include positions other than trading book positions where it gives rise to foreign exchange or commodity risk.  Does then Article 21(4)  bring firms that do not deal on their own account into the scope of K-NPR or is it an additional requirement only for firms that deal on their own account?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2019/2033 (IFR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7043
  • Topic: K-factor requirements
  • Date of submission:

Assets which are not immediately available for monetisation in C 66.01

In relation to the reporting of the C 66.01 maturity ladder template, how should encumbered assets be reported in terms of maturity buckets and amount, based on the definition of these assets of the Regulation EU/2021/451 on supervisory reporting and which refers to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 and (EU) 2022/786 on LCR?

  • 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_7042
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:

Can a CASP receive / transmit / execute orders for non-EUR denominated EMTs, whose issuers are not authorised as a credit institution or as an electronic money institution?

Article 48 of MiCA states that: “A person shall not make an offer to the public or seek the admission to trading of an e-money token, within the Union, unless that person is the issuer of such e-money token and: (a) is authorised as a credit institution or as an electronic money institution...”.  The cited part of first paragraph of Art 48 of MiCA allows an interpretation in accordance with which a MiCA registered CASP can still either receive and transmit (to a non EU entity) or execute an order (on a non EU trading platform) to buy or sell a non-EUR denominated EMT whose issuer is not MiCA compliant. Namely, it seems that the provision of either of the two mentioned crypto asset services does not fall either under offer to the public nor under admission to trading.  It is quite clear that the provision of the two described crypto asset services does not fall under “seek the admission to trading.”  Nevertheless, an argument can be made that the provision of the two described crypto asset services  does not fall under “offer to public” as well. Namely, MiCA defines offer to the public “a communication (...) in any form presenting (...) sufficient information on the terms of the offer. When a CASP receives and transmits an order or when a CASP executes it, a CASP usually only receives order instructions and does not provide any information on the asset that will be bought. Consequently, it can be argued, that when acting as described, a CASP does not offer an EMT to public. This interpretation is further supported by the Recital 28. This one states that “The mere admission to trading or the publication of bid and offer prices should not, in and of itself, be regarded as an offer to the public of crypto-assets.”. Therefore, one could argue that a CASP can execute orders for non-EUR denominated EMTs, whose issuers are not authorised as a credit institution or as an electronic money institution.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7027
  • Topic: Scope and definitions (MiCAR)
  • Date of submission:

Legal requirement for ASPSPs to provide for cancellation of future dated pay-ments through its dedicated payment initiation services interface

Is there a legal requirement for ASPSPs to allow its PSU to cancel/revoke future dated payments via a payment initiation service provider, using the ASPSPs dedicated payment initiation services interface?

  • 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_7017
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:

Taxonomy 3.2: Is the validation rules v6576_s consistent for fair-value in short position disclosed in the cell C32.03, row 0010, 0020 and 0030, columns 0220 ?

Taxonomy 3.2: Is the validation rule v6576_s consistent for fair-value in short position reported in the cells C 32.02, rows 0010, 0020 and 0030, column 0220 ?

  • 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_7016
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:

Template C90 at consolidated level

Should the threshold template for market risk at the consolidated level, C90, be filled out netting intra-group positions even if one does not have the permission required by Article 325b? Or should it be compiled as the sum of the individual templates in this case?

  • 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_7008
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

Eligibility of funded credit protection received from third parties

Can cash collateral received from third parties via funded credit protection arrangements (i.e. funded guarantees or credit derivatives) qualify as collateral for the purposes of K-TCD and K-CON? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2019/2033 (IFR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_6994
  • Topic: K-factor requirements
  • Date of submission:

Qualification of a branch as originator, designation of Competent Authority and compliance with STS requirements

May a branch of a credit institution be considered as an entity within the meaning of Article 2.3 of the Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 and hence as originator under Article 29(5) thereto?  Should the answer to the above question be affirmative, which Competent Authority (home or host) should be responsible to supervise the STS requirements set out in Articles 18 to 27 of the Regulation (EU) 2017/2402?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 (SecReg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_6984
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Optionality of certain payer information required to accompany transfers of funds

Is Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2015/847 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on information accompanying transfers of funds and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 (‘TFR’) (and the successor provisions found in Articles 4(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on information accompanying transfers of funds and certain crypto-assets and amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 (‘TFCR’) to be read such that the payer’s (as well as, from 30 December 2024, the originator’s) date and place of birth constitute an alternative data point to:                               all preceding data points listed in Article 4(1)(c) of TFR (Articles 4(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) of TFCR as from 30 December 2024), such that transfers may, along with the information required under the other points of Article 4(1) of TFR (Articles 4(1) and 14(1) of TFCR), be accompanied by the payer’s or originator’s date and place of birth alone; or, exclusively, the data point referenced immediately prior in Article 4(1)(c) of TFR (Articles 4(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) of TFCR as from 30 December 2024), i.e., the customer identification number, such that transfers must, along with the information required under the other points of Article 4(1) of TFR (Articles 4(1) and 14(1) of TFCR), always be accompanied by the payer’s or originator’s address and official personal document number, as well as either their customer identification number or their date and place of birth? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) 2015/847 (WTR) (recast)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_6969
  • Topic: Electronic fund transfers
  • Date of submission:

Definition of default for open-end investment funds

Should an open-end investment fund be considered an obligor under Art. 178 (1) CRR, irrespective of whether it has legal personality under a Member States’ regulations on investment funds?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6925
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:

Risk retention

In a situation where an entity: is not considering being itself at any time the legal owner of the securitised receivables, but has made its own decision to invest in the receivables by procuring the purchase thereof by an SSPE directly from the seller, based on its own audit of the portfolio, and has negotiated the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase independently and directly with the seller, is contractually and economically irrevocably committed to: procure the purchase of these receivables by an SSPE directly from the seller, not later than an agreed closing date, under a sale and purchase agreement entered into between such entity and the seller, failing which it would be liable for contractual damages to the seller, in an amount significant enough to evidence that it is in its economic interest to avoid such liability by performing its obligation, arrange and appoint any service providers, for the purposes of the structuring and syndication of a financing of the purchase price in the form of a securitisation of these receivables not later than the closing date, where: it would have a right of active control over the servicing, either by itself or by an appointed third-party servicer, of the securitised assets, that would be determinant for the performance of the portfolio, it would bear at least the first loss risk of the securitised portfolio, in an amount that exceeds the expected loss of the portfolio, by subscribing the first losses tranche, it would expect to receive a remuneration that would be directly dependent on the performance of the portfolio, it would be committed to fund 100% of defaulting or ineligible receivables, can this entity be considered as limb(b) originator under Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 and as such, act as risk retention holder under Article 6(3)(d)? Would the same analysis apply with respect to future receivables that the same entity would contractually irrevocably commit, pursuant to the same sale and purchase agreement, to purchase after the closing date under the same terms and conditions, during a certain period of time, provided that they comply with the same eligibility criteria (both individually and on an aggregate basis) and up to an agreed aggregate amount, by having them assigned by the seller to the same SSPE?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 (SecReg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6911
  • Topic: Provisions applicable to all securitisations
  • Date of submission:

Interpretation of payment instrument

What devices or procedures can be considered as payment instrument as per Art. 4(14) of PSD2?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6910
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Safeguarding with a credit institition in a third country

PSD2 article 10(1)(a) require of Payment Institutions (PIs) that "[funds to be safeguarded] shall be deposited in a separate account in a credit institution". Our question is whether an PI authorised and operating in an EU Member State may use a credit institution based in a third country (e.g. UK)? In researching this question, we have looked at the definition of "credit institution" to see whether this contains any relevantt restrictions, but we cannot find any. We first looked at PSD2, but the text does not explicitly define "credit institution". However, PSD2 article 112(2) amends the definition of "credit institution" in Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 to be "credit institutions as defined in point (1) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013". Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, Article (4)(1)(1) states: "(1) ‘credit institution’ means an undertaking the business of which consists of any of the following: (a) to take deposits or other repayable funds from the public and to grant credits for its own account; (b) to carry out any of the activities referred to in points (3) and (6) of Section A of Annex I to Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 6 ), where one of the following applies, but the undertaking is not a commodity and emission allowance dealer, a collective investment undertaking or an insurance undertaking: (i) the total value of the consolidated assets of the undertaking is equal to or exceeds EUR 30 billion; (ii) the total value of the assets of the undertaking is less than EUR 30 billion, and the undertaking is part of a group in which the total value of the consolidated assets of all undertakings in that group that individually have total assets of less than EUR 30 billion and that carry out any of the activities referred to in points (3) and (6) of Section A of Annex I to Directive 2014/65/EU is equal to or exceeds EUR 30 billion; or (iii) the total value of the assets of the undertaking is less than EUR 30 billion, and the undertaking is part of a group in which the total value of the consolidated assets of all undertakings in the group that carry out any of the activities referred to in points (3) and (6) of Section A of Annex I to Directive 2014/65/EU is equal to or exceeds EUR 30 billion, where the consolidating supervisor, in consultation with the supervisory college, so decides in order to address potential risks of circumvention and potential risks for the financial stability of the Union; for the purposes of points (b)(ii) and (b)(iii), where the undertaking is part of a third‐country group, the total assets of each branch of the third‐country group authorised in the Union shall be included in the combined total value of the assets of all undertakings in the group;" Furthermore, the UK Electronic Money Regulations (2017) have been amended to explicitly allow UK EMIs to safeguard funds with third country credit institutions - c.f.  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/1201/schedule/2/paragraph/7/made  "Regulation 21, paragraph 8: "“approved foreign credit institution” means— ... (b)a credit institution that is supervised by the central bank or other banking regulator of an OECD state" ==> In conclusion, our research leads us to believe that it is permissible for an EU PI to safeguard funds in a third country credit institution.

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2023_6882
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

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: