EBA E-mail alert March 22, 2024

Question no 1:

Do art. 30(1), art. 31 and art. 33 of the Commision Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389 of 27 November 2017 supplementing Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards for strong customer authentication and common and secure open standards of communication (”RTS”) should be interpreted in that manner, that in scenario, where account servicing payment service provider (”ASPSP”) has introduced a so-called dedicated interface within a meaning of art. 31 RTS, which meets requirements provided for in art. 32 and 33 RTS, than ASPSP has a right and it is up to ASPSP’s sole discretion, whether, for purposes of communication with account information service providers (”AISPs”), to:

1. make available to AISPs, in parallel, two access interfaces, as referred to in art. 31 RTS (i.e. dedicated interface and interface made available to the payment service users for the authentication and communication with their ASPSPs); or
2. make available to AISPs only dedicated interface (without prejudice to, among others, contingency measures set forth in art. 33 RTS)?

Question no 2:

If answer to question no 1 is that in scenario of introduction by ASPSP of dedicated interface, ASPSP has a right and it is up to ASPSP’s sole discretion to make available to AISPs, in parallel, two access interfaces, as referred to in art. 31 RTS (i.e. dedicated interface and interface made available to the payment service users for the authentication and communication with their ASPSPs), does this mean that AISPs, with observation of further requirements set forth in art. 30, art. 34 and art. 35 RTS, might communicate with this ASPSP, in parallel, throughout both access interfaces?

Question no 3:

If answer to question no 1 is that in scenario of introduction by ASPSP of dedicated interface, ASPSP has no right and it is not up to ASPSP’s sole discretion to make available to AISPs, in parallel, two access interfaces, as referred to in art. 31 RTS, i.e. a contrario ASPSP is allowed to make available to AISPs only dedicated interface (without prejudice to, among others, contingency measures set forth in art. 33 RTS), does ASPSP is under obligement to engange necessary and proportional measures, including technical measures, for AISPs to communicate with ASPSP only via dedicated interface, i.e. with exclusion of interface made available to the payment service users for the authentication and communication with their ASPSPs?

Question no 4:

If answer to question no 1 is that in scenario of introduction by ASPSP of dedicated interface, ASPSP has no right and it is not up to ASPSP’s sole discretion to make available to AISPs, in parallel, two access interfaces, as referred to in art. 31 RTS, i.e. a contrario ASPSP is allowed to make available to AISPs only dedicated interface (without prejudice to, among others, contingency measures as set forth in art. 33 RTS) but nevertheless ASPSP has not engange necessary and proportional measures, including technical measures, for AISPs to communicate with ASPSP only via dedicated interface, i.e. with exclusion of interface made available to the payment service users for the authentication and communication with their ASPSPs, does this fact in any measure reflects AISPs right to communicate with this ASPSP throughout both access interfaces, or whether AISPs should undertake any additional actions, and if yes, what kind of actions?

Should, according to Article 5(1)(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, intragroup liabilities be deducted from the contribution base when one side of the transaction is an institution established in a country being a member of the EEA and EFTA (e.g. Norway)? If so, from which date such deductions shall be applied?

For exposures classified as non-performing prior to 26 April 2019 and not exempt from the deductions from CET1 items for non-performing exposures acc. to Art. 36 (1)(m) applying the second subparagraph of Art. 469a CRR, which date should be considered when allocating those exposures into the vintage buckets of the “NPL-backstop” in COREP template C 35.01 to C 35.03 in order to determine the applicable amount of insufficient coverage for non-performing exposures acc. Art. 36 (1)(m) in conjunction with Art. 47c CRR:

• Is it the date on which the exposures were originally classified as non- performing, as it is with purchased non-performing exposures (see EBA ITS regarding C 35.01 c0010 - c0100) – in the example above a date prior to 26 April 2019?
• Or is it the date on which the criteria of the second subparagraph Art. 469a CRR (terms and conditions of the exposure - originated prior to 26 April 2019 - were modified by the institution in a way that increases the institution’s exposure to the obligor) were fulfilled and therefore the exposure shall be considered as having been originated on the date when the modification applies?

In case a default occurred on a debt obligation originated before 26 April 2019, and if the originating bank grants the defaulted obligor a forbearance measure in the form of a partial refinancing of a debt obligation to cover past due payments on the original debt obligation and thus effectively increases the bank’s total exposure towards the obligor, will the original debt obligation, which has not been increased, cease to be subject to the derogation provided for in Article 469a(1) CRR?

We have interpreted column a in Template 2 to be filled in with the gross carrying amount of the loan collateralized with commercial and residential immovable property and of repossessed real estate collaterals. What if the collateral value is less than the gross carrying amount of the loan? Should we in this case fill in the gross carrying amount of the loan or use the amount of the loan that is actually collateralized with commercial/residential immovable property in Template 2? 

Under Article 274(5) and 273 there are circumstances where transactions may have a zero exposure value e.g. netting sets made up entirely of written options or certain CDS transactions. Should these be reported in the C34.02 with values in columns 0020-0140 and then have c0150 onwards set to 0 (or c0170 onwards?) or should they be disregarded from population of values in any columns as there is no requirement to calculate exposure for these transactions. Similarly should they be included in the same C34.03 columns?

The instructions state “Institutions shall disclose the gross carrying amount, referred to in Part 1 of Annex V to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/451, of those exposures towards non-financial corporates, including loans and advances, debt securities and equity instruments, classified in the accounting portfolios in the banking book in accordance with that Implementing Regulation, excluding financial assets held for trading or held for sale assets”.

In this case, should the definition of equity instruments also include investments in subsidiaries, joint ventures and associates, or should entities consider the definition of accounting portfolios of financial instruments provided by Annex V of FINREP, which specifically excludes investments in subsidiaries, joint ventures and associates?

Should the sum of NACE sub-sectors for GHG financed emissions in columns i and j of Template 1 be equal to the total GHG financed emissions for that NACE sector?

1.           Should the year of reference column refer to the year for which the latest emission intensities are available for a specific sector included in the template?

2.           Could you please confirm if alignment metrics should be calculated based on actual gross carrying amount (column c) in combination with the latest emission intensity information that is available for the specific sector?