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

Eligibility of minority interests

When it comes to subsidiaries which are institutions or investments firms established in third countries, are minority interests eligible for the purpose of their recognition in prudential own funds as per Article 81 (for CET1) or Article 82 (for AT1 and T2)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2021_5711
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/12/2021

Revocation of future dated Payment Initiation Services (PIS) payments

Is the Bank (an ‘Account Servicing Payment Service Provider’(ASPSP)) prohibited under PSD2 from acting on the following unsolicited customer instruction:- Customer asks their Bank to cancel a future-dated payment, or a series of recurring future-dated payments - where the original consent for the payment(s) was given by the customer to a Payment Initiation Services Provider (PISP).In this scenario, is the Bank required to advise the customer that the Bank cannot accept the customer’s instruction to revoke these future payments; and that only a revocation instruction received via the PISP can be accepted by the Bank?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4496
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/12/2021

Relevance of third country capital requirements for the calculation of minority interests amounts of a subsidiary to be included at the consolidated leve

When applying Article 84(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) in respect of subsidiary institutions in third countries, should the excess capital attributable to minorities be determined by applying, namely in subparagraph (i), the provisions and requirements of CRR, together with any additional local requirements, to the extent these have to be met with CET1 capital?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4775
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/12/2021

The implementation of commercial agent exclusion for e-commerce platforms

Should the settlement of the debt by an e-commerce platform be considered a sufficient reason to exclude the e-commerce platform from the scope of PSD2 or an indispensable requirement for a commercial agent mandate?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5354
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/12/2021

Consumer explicit consent to the PISP for processing of personal data

Can the presentation by the consumer of its identification data to the merchant (e.g. CustomerID and IBAN through a QR code read by the Point of Interaction (POI)) be interpreted as the consumer providing explicit consent via the merchant to the usage of this data by a Payment Initiation Service Provider (PISP) that has a contractual relationship with the merchant (but not with the consumer) for the processing of data that will enable the initiation of a single (instant) credit transfer with the consumer’s Account Servicing Payment Service Provider (ASPSP), subject to sufficient information about this PISP made available beforehand to the consumer (in accordance with Articles 44 and 45 of PSD2)? Or is the explicit consent of the consumer to the PISP required by way of contract, as mentioned in section 3.2.1 of the EDPB Guidelines 06/2020 on the interplay of Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2) and the GDPR?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5570
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/12/2021

Information to be provided by the PISP to the payer prior to the initiation of the transaction

Is it sufficient that the merchant makes available upon request by the payer (consumer) the information about the Payment Initiation Service Provider (PISP) in the Point of Interaction (POI) environment before the consumer presents their data (e.g., via a QR code) to meet the requirements of Articles 44 and 45, (2), PSD2?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2020_5573
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/12/2021

Application of the leverage ratio exemption related to the passing-through of promotional loans to other credit institutions

Can the leverage ratio exemption related to the passing-through of promotional loans to other credit institutions (Article 429a(1)(e) CRR) be applied if an institution which is not a public development credit institution (Article 429a(2) CRR) but an entity set up by the central government, regional government or local authority of a Member State would issue promotional loans (Article 429a(3) CRR) through credit institutions and match these exposures by covered bonds on the liability side, under the same terms and conditions?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2021_5811
  • Topic: Leverage ratio
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 03/12/2021

FINREP template F44.03 Share based payments

In template 44.3 Staff expenses by type of benefits, in row 0020 Share based payments are requested. For the whole template the following validation rule applies: v3988_s: {F 44.03} >= 0 (for all rows and with severity level error). This is suggesting share based payments can never be a negative amount, which we believe is not always the case (as a result of changes in the fair value of the liability recognised). Can you please amend the Validation rule by excluding row 0020 from this rule?

  • 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: 2021_5831
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/11/2021

Reporting of residential mortgage loans on C80.00 - NSFR - Required Stable Funding

Can EBA confirm that a single residential mortgage loan with LTV > 80% should be split between rows 760 and 810 of the C80.00 based on the portion of the loan that a 35% risk weight would be applied to under the standardised approach to credit risk? The portion up to 80% LTV being reported in row 760 and the portion >80% LTV being reported in row 810. Can EBA also confirm that where mortgage loans are risk weighted using the internal ratings based approach, those loans are to be assigned to rows 760 and 810 as if standardised approach applied i.e. based on LTV ratio?

  • 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: 2021_5830
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/11/2021

Reporting of a net reverse repo when the collateral leg has a higher RSF factor

How should we report a net reverse repo (resulting from the netting of SFTs) when the collateral leg has a higher RSF factor?

  • 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: 2021_5752
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/11/2021

Valuation rule 3684 - no negative amounts on row360

Due to impairments or shorter useful life under the applicable accounting framework compared to the tax base, it is possible that the carrying amount of other intangible assets is lower than the tax base. In that case a DTA is booked on that intangible assets. Is it, in that case, allowed to report a negative amount on row 360 Deferred tax liabilities associated to other intangible assets?

  • 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: 2021_5679
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/11/2021

In template C 34.02, the field "Exposures" aims to report separately all CCR exposures and all CCR exposures excluding exposures to central counterparties (CCPs). In the DPM taxonomy 3.0 and the related annotated template, this exclusion seems to refer to QCCPs only.

Shall we exclude all exposures to CCPs from Template C 34.02 or only exposures to QCCPs ? The annotated template C 34.02(0002) is currently referring to the "Counterparty" member value (CT:x81) Non-QCCPs, which makes no sense with the exclusion required in Annex II.

  • 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: 2020_5674
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/11/2021

Prudential consolidation of special funds

Strictly following the instructions for presenting fully owned CIUs in FINREP leads to possibly unwanted outcomes as compared to IFRS accounts. Can competent authorities allow for fully owned CIUs to be consolidated in order to allow for the use of a look-through approach for FINREP?

  • 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: 2020_5668
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/11/2021

Include all entities which belong to a group of connected clients in Large exposure templates

Should credit institution report all entities which belong to a group of connected clients in their C 29.00 template, including those which do not have any direct or indirect exposure with this credit institution?

  • 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: 2019_4525
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - Large Exposures
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/11/2021

EAD for over-collateralised securities financing transactions under the Financial Collateral Comprehensive Method

For SFTs which are over-collateralised (the collateral received exceeds the exposure thus generating an EAD of zero), how should they be represented in the C07 template, if at all?

  • 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: 2015_2010
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/11/2021

Elements of possession (SIM card) and knowledge (knowledge-based responses to challenges or questions)

1. Can evidence of possession (SIM card) can also be verified by reading and identifying the phone number used for the phone call? 2. Can a knowledge element be based on a) transaction history of the customer; b) contact information of the customer?

  • 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: 2020_5215
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/11/2021

Merchant IDs and SCA

In the situation where Strong Consumer Authentication (SCA) was completed at the time of completing a hotel booking by an Online Travel Agent (OTA) or hotelbrand.com under their Merchant ID but the actual payment will take place at the time of arrival: will the SCA authentication token remain valid for the hotel (merchant) making the charges and its respective Merchant ID?

  • 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: 2019_4797
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 05/11/2021

Updated: Operational Risk - Gross Losses & Rapidly recovered loss events

A credit institution recently changed the scope of the gross losses for operational risk reported in COREP. The credit institution explained that they do not automatically report some types of incidents in the ‘gross losses’ for operational risk in COREP (C17.01a) when the amount is recovered after 5 days. We refer here to transfer of cash involving e.g. a human input error whereby a cash amount is transferred for a far greater size than intended, at the wrong price, or with any number of other input errors, or to the wrong counterparty. The credit institution explained that gross losses for operational risk should be reported in COREP only if there is a P&L movement in the financial statements. Therefore, if the credit institution considers that there is a high probability to recover the amount linked to the operational risk event, even if they recover the money after more than 5 days, they will not increment any amount in the financial statements, they do not consider it as loss, and therefore they will not report the amount in the COREP ‘gross losses’ for operational risk. According to us, the competent authorities, this interpretation seems to be incorrect. Our interpretation is that the gross losses for operational risk in COREP should not be dependent on the decision of the credit institution to book losses in its financial statements for this operational risk event. Therefore, if there is an operational risk event, the amount should be reported in COREP in the ‘gross losses’ for operational risk. The only exception is if the losses are recovered within 5 days, in which case it is considered as a “rapidly recovered loss events” and can be deducted from the reported gross losses in COREp (C17.01a) Could you please clarify which interpretation is correct?

  • 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: 2020_5261
  • Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 15/10/2021

Leasing - Contagion du défaut aux paiements minimaux - Default contagion for minimum payments

En méthode standard, dans le cadre de contrat de crédit-bail mobilier (leasing véhicule), si plus de trois mois de loyers sont impayés, le déclassement "en défaut" doit-il s'appliquer à ces seuls loyers échus impayés ou une contagion du défaut doit-elle impérativement s'appliquer à l'ensemble des loyers prévisionnels non encore échus (paiements minimaux prévus au contrat de crédit-bail : cf. article 134-7 CRR) ? Under the standardised method, in the context of equipment leasing (vehicle lease), if more than three months of the lease are unpaid, must the default definition be applied to these due and unpaid payments of the lease only, or is it essential that a default contagion be applied to all projected lease payments which are not yet due (minimum payments provided for in the lease: see Article 134(7) CRR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2016/07 - Guidelines on the application of the definition of default under Article 178 CRR
  • ID: 2020_5357
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 01/10/2021

Commitment received to upgrade collateral from Level 2B to Level 1

If a credit institution received a unilateral commitment from another credit institution to trade in 2 business days a collateral upgrade from Level 2B assets to Level 1 assets which last more than 35 business days, could this trade be considered as an inflow?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 - DR with regard to liquidity coverage requirement
  • ID: 2019_4971
  • Topic: Liquidity risk
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/09/2021