News & Press
The EBA reaches another important milestone in enhancing supervisory efficiency with its revised SREP Guidelines
The European Banking Authority (EBA) today published its final revised Guidelines on common procedures and methodologies for the supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP) and supervisory stress testing, marking another key milestone in its efforts to enhance the efficiency, coherence and effectiveness of EU banking supervision. The revised Guidelines are a core deliverable of the EBA’s efficiency and simplification agenda. They build on the EBA Report on the efficiency of the regulatory and supervisory framework (October 2025) and follow the Report on simplifying the stacking orders of the EU prudential and resolution framework. The revised SREP Guidelines pave the way for a more risk-focused, efficient, proportionate and forward-looking framework for supervisors across the EU.
The EBA updates validation rules for supervisory reporting
The European Banking Authority (EBA) today published an updated list of validation rules defined in its reporting frameworks, as part of its regular quarterly review process. The revised package identifies rules that have (i) been deactivated due to inaccuracies or IT-related issues, (ii) been reactivated, or (iii) undergone a change in severity status.
The European Banking Authority consults on a draft methodology for setting fines under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA)
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published today a Consultation Paper with a draft methodology for setting fines in its role as supervisor under MiCA. The objective is to ensure that fines imposed on issuers of significant crypto-assets are consistent, proportionate and transparent, and effectively support compliance with the regulatory framework.
Consultations
Consultation on methodology for setting fines under MiCA
Final Q&As
Question ID: 2026_7733
We need additional guidance in Z08.02 on how to report the field Governing Law (0090) when the field 0070 is reported as owned.
Question ID: 2026_7745
In the P3DH Common Disclosure “CODIS” module technical package (taxonomy applied from Reporting framework 4.1 and 4.2), the following data points appear to be modelled as the same underlying data point (they share the same data point identifier within the module):
- template EU LI2, (table K_64_03_a, column a, rows 10, 20);
- template EU LI1, (table K_64_01_b, column b, row 10 and table K_64_01_d, column b, row 10);
- template EU CC2 (table K_66_02_b, column b, row 10, table K_66_02_d, column b, row 10)
Therefore, the platform rejects XBRL/CSV submissions where different values are reported for these locations (e.g., “duplicate facts”).
- How should institutions proceed for the purposes of the structured submission (XBRL/CSV) in this situation?
- How should any resulting differences between the information prepared in accordance with the ITS disclosure instructions and the EU LI2 be addressed? (i.e. the figures disclosed in the published PDF: for example, where EU LI1 column g is populated (being different from zero) and EU LI2 is expected to exclude exposures not subject to RW / subject to capital deductions).
Question ID: 2026_7752
Could you please check instructions for Z13.00 column "Currency" with prescribed drop down list in DPM model?
Question ID: 2026_7771
In which row of the Z02.00 template of the ‘Resolution Planning’ reporting, and in which granular template (Z13.00 or Z16.00), should deposits fully secured by collateral with a value of zero be reported? It should be noted that these exposures are not eligible for bail-in.
Question ID: 2026_7777
In a particular case of an atypical structure of credit institutions permanently affiliated to a central body when:
a) none of them is a resolution entity and the central body is a liquidation entity
b) the cohort of institutions does not formally qualify as a group nor as a resolution group due to their atypical association
c) the cohort is prudentially supervised individually at the level of the central body and in aggregate at the cohort level (our regulations use the term aggregate level, not the consolidated level)
d) in case that the central body is liquidated, the whole cohort can no longer function and has to be dissolved, thus, for resolution purposes, the whole construction can be treated as a single liquidation entity.
In this case, is it correct, to read art. 2.2 in conjunction with recital no. 4 and ask the central body to report the templates on an individual basis and by that understand the aggregate level of the whole cohort?
Question ID: 2026_7781
In column 0035 of template Z.07.01, where the amount of uncovered deposits must be reported, should the amount provided be the portion exceeding €100,000 per deposit, or the portion exceeding €100,000 per depositor?
Question ID: 2026_7784
We kindly ask for clarification on the intragroup transactions reporting in the context of the criticality assessment of economic functions. Should the intragroup transactions be included or excluded from the data provided in templates Z 07.01.1, Z 07.01.2, Z 07.01.3, Z 07.01.4 and Z 07.01.5 ?
Question ID: 2026_7801
Could you please clarify, with regard to completing template Z 07.03 (FUNC 3), whether core business lines not included in the predefined list should be reported under “Other” with an appropriate description or mapped to the closest predefined category?
Question ID: 2026_7802
According to "Annex II: Instructions" for (EU) 2025/2303, the currency designation in, for example, c0120 of Template Z14.00 - Other Financial Liabilities (not included in other tabs, excluding intragroup) should follow ISO 4217. In the currency selection list of the Annotated Table Layout, there are no specifications for precious metals such as gold. Which value has to be chosen from the list of currencies in such cases ?
Question ID: 2026_7805
Annex II - Instructions refers to the ISO-4217 codes for the currencies selectable in the templates. Upon comparing the Annotated Table Layout with the ISO-4217 contents, we noticed the absence of the entries for XAF (Central African CFA Franc) and XOF (West African CFA Franc). Which currency code should be reported in such cases?