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

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:

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:

Template 8 – GAR (%)

In "Annex XL - Instructions for disclosure of ESG risk", the denominator of column "Proportion of new assets funding taxonomy relevant sectors" in Template 8 - GAR (%) "shall be the gross carrying amount of new covered assets from those assets, as defined in the instructions corresponding to column ‘a’ of Template 7". But in the document "Annex I - KPIs for credit institutions (Article 8 Taxonomy)" from EBA advises the Commission on KPIs for transparency on institutions’ environmentally sustainable activities, including a green asset ratio | European Banking Authority (europa.eu), the column "Proportion of new assets funding taxonomy relevant sectors" (sheet "4. GAR KPIs flow") has formulas with a difference of stocks in the denominator. What should be considered in the denominator? The gross carrying amount of new covered assets or the difference between gross carrying amount in current disclosure period (t) and previous disclosure period (t-1)? If it is "new covered assets", what exactly does it mean? Are these the exposures considered in current disclosure period (t), but not in previous disclosure period (t-1)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures
  • ID: 2024_7082
  • Topic: Transparency and Pillar 3
  • 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:

Validation rules in Reporting Framework 3.4

The question concerns the EBA Reporting Framework 3.4, Validation Rules (March 22, 2024), rule v22161_m. This rule applies to the calculation of 'Net interest rate position with derivatives', {r0560}, in the context of 'ITS on Supervisory Reporting with Regard to IRRBB', Annex 28, form J02.00. It defines {r0560} to be {r0560} = {r0010} + {r0190} + {r0200} + {r0520} + {r0530}, the sum of 'Total Assets', 'Off-balance sheet assets: contingent assets', 'Total liabilities', 'Off-balance sheet liabilities: Contingent liabilities', and 'Other derivatives (Net asset/liability)'. Are the signs in front of {r0200} and {r0520} correct in this formulation? We would appreciate affirmation by EBA. Similar observations may also apply to rules v22159_m and v22160_m.

  • Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions (for benchmarking the internal approaches)
  • ID: 2024_7077
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - IRRBB
  • 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:

Powers of MiCAR authority to obtain the information needed to assess recovery and redemption plans and possible mechanism for exchange of information with the prudential authority

In cases where the MiCAR authority differs from the prudential authority under CRD, respectively the competent authority for recovery plans under BRRD, does the Regulation ensure that the MiCAR authority is provided with the powers to gather from the supervised entities (in the course of the ongoing supervision) all information that is necessary in order to duly assess the recovery and redemption plans of banks and investment firms? If there is a risk of insufficiency of information at the disposal of the MiCAR authority, what will be the mechanisms ensuring proper access of information by the MiCAR authority to the information available within the prudential authority on the financial indicators and other key metrics for the purposes of assessment of the recovery and redemption plans, as well as whether Member States are expected to implement special measures to ensure the protection of sensitive information? How the flow of information towards the CRD competent authority from the MICAR supervisors should be assured in order for CRD authority to be able to perform on their tasks? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7067
  • Topic: Recovery plans (MiCAR)
  • Date of submission:

Liabilities related to the reserve of assets managed by issuers of asset-referenced tokens in case of resolution of the issuer

Please clarify whether liabilities related to the reserve of assets under Article 36 (2) MiCAR have to be treated as secured liabilities and therefore cannot be subject to write-down and conversion or bail-in in case of resolution in the meaning of the BRRD.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7066
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

Provision of external payroll accounting services to an employer

Does the activity of external payroll processing for an employer constitute a payment service under PSD2, if it consists of receiving funds for wages and related deductions (taxes, health and social insurance) in the payroll processor’s payment account from the employer, and transferring these to employees, tax authorities, insurance companies etc.? Would the answer change depending on whether the payroll processor  maintains an account separately for each employer?   

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7065
  • Topic: Authorisation and registration
  • Date of submission:

Credit

Does this credit qualify as consumer credit, exclusively available to individual consumers? Or can it also be extended to legal entities?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7056
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Capital requirements and Investment policy - Articles 47 and 46 of CSDR

Taking into account the applicable legal provisions of Article 46(4) and 47(1) of CSDR and RTS (EU) 2017/390 and the need to ensure a reasonable level playing field between banking and non-banking CSDs, how should the provision of the RTS on Prudential Requirements for CSDs (RTS (EU) 2017/390) apply to the treatment of investments in tangible assets for non-banking CSDs that are not considered eligible to cover a CSD's capital requirements, and are therefore filtered out?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 (CSDR) - only RTS 2017/390
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2017/390 - RTS on prudential requirements of CSDs (CSDR-related)
  • ID: 2024_7054
  • Topic: Market infrastructures
  • Date of submission:

Interest flows

Interest flows for retail on sight accounts (without contractual maturity)

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7052
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:

Duplicate ICT Incident Reporting

Is duplicate incident reporting via the ECB SSM Cyber Incident Reporting Framework required, alongside DORA incident reporting under Article 19?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7050
  • Topic: ICT-related incidents (management / classification / reporting)
  • Date of submission:

Critical Services Affected

Article 6 of the Delegated Act on the Classification of Major Incidents states that: "For the purpose of determining the criticality of the services affected as referred to in Article 18(1), point (e), of Regulation (EU) 2022/2554, financial entities shall assess whether the incident:(a) affects or has affected ICT services or network and information systems that support critical or important functions of the financial entity;(b) affects or has affected financial services provided by the financial entity that require authorisation, registration or that are supervised by competent authorities;(c) constitutes or has constituted a successful, malicious and unauthorised access to the network and information systems of the financial entity." Can you confirm please that ALL three of the components are cumulatively required to trigger the criteria on Critical Services Affected?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7047
  • Topic: ICT-related incidents (management / classification / reporting)
  • Date of submission: