Application of the exemption under Article 10 RTS and EBICS T

Can an Account Servicing Payment Service Provider (ASPSP) consider that it is not applying the Article 10 Exemption under the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389 “at all” where it permits its Payment Services Users (PSUs) to access balances and transactions information through another direct interface (such as Electronic Banking Internet Communication Standard (EBICS) T) with no systematic or daily strong customer authentication (SCA)?

SCA requirements with dynamic linking for mobile initiated credit transfers (MSCTs)

Can mobile initiated credit transfers (MSCT) solutions whereby a proximity technology (e.g. NFC, QR-code, BLE, etc.) is used for the exchange of payer identification data between the payer’s mobile device and the payee’s payment terminal but a mobile network is used (e.g. by a dedicated app) on the payer’s mobile device for the payer authentication, be considered as a proximity payment whereby strong customer authentication (SCA) may apply without requiring dynamic linking?

Treatment of tax accounts

Can a tax account be treated as a level 1 asset according to Article 10(1)(c) Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/16, and be included in the liquidity buffer?

Fulfilment of conditions reported under Article 45(a) CRR for a synthetic holding held in the banking book and with a maturity less than 1 year

Can a Bank calculate the amount of the position subject to FSE thresholds’ mechanism for CET1 capital purposes for a synthetic holding as the net position resulting after offsetting the long position in equity and the short position from the forward sale agreement with a maturity less than 1 year?

Transactions in the banking book where no strike is available

For a put option in the non-trading book, where there is no guaranteed minimum payment and the price will only be determined after the occurrence of specified events i.e. there is no strike price for the put option, how would the notional amount be calculated in accordance with Article 15(f)(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 241/2014? Should the notional be determined based on an equity delta equivalent amount?

Interaction between 45f(3) and 45f(4) BRRD

In case of a “daisy chain” structure involving three entities (resolution entity, intermediate entity which is subsidiary of the resolution entity and subsidiary of the intermediate entity) which are all in the same Member State, how and with respect to which paragraph of Article 45f ofDirective 2014/59/EU (BRRD) should resolution authorities and institutions proceed to assess waiver requests? Is any of the two potentially applicable paragraphs (Article 45f(3) and 45f (4)) required to be privileged/rejected? Should they be combined? Also, in such a situation: a) Could you confirm that the impossibility to meet conditions under one paragraph (for instance, intermediate entity in shortfall or cross-border SPE) does not preclude requesting a waiver and the request being examined based on the other paragraph? b) Regarding condition set out in article 45f (3)(d) and 45f(4)(d) )BRRD, which entity should be the guarantor, the resolution entity or the parent entity? How to interpret/ apply these two options in case there is no MREL target set at the parent level but only at resolution entity level? c) In case the interpretation is that in order for an indirect subsidiary of a resolution entity to be granted a waiver from the application of internal MREL, its direct parent must comply with a sub-consolidated MREL target in the same MS (Article 45f(4) BRRD/12h(2) SRMR), can you clarify if the condition set out in Article 45f(4)(b) BRRD/12h(2)(b) SRMR requiring the (direct) parent undertaking to comply with the sub-consolidated MREL requirement referred to in Article 45a(1) BRRD/12a(1) SRMR is met if such parent undertaking is in shortfall but has been granted a MREL waiver? A final related question in case of entities subject to BRRD is whether, when assessing the condition under paragraphs 45f (3)(f) and 45f (4)(f) BRRD on ownership of 50% of voting rights in the subsidiary, such ownership should be assessed both directly and indirectly (direct/ indirect control).

Contributions to the financing arrangements from ceased banks

Do institutions that cease to exist or to be supervised in a given year prior to the determination or raising of the annual contributions still have to contribute to the financing arrangements?

Clarification on EBA Final Q&A 2015_2469 / Exemption from bail-in of liabilities to institutions in order to avoid risk of systemic contagion

The answer to Q&A 2015_2469 clarifies that the exception to bail-in in Article 44(2)(e) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) captures inter-bank unsecured liabilities with an original maturity of less than seven days. Does this exception apply to all inter-institutional unsecured liabilities with an original maturity of less than seven days? In other words, does this exception also capture the liabilities of investment firms that are defined as institutions in Article 2(1)(23) BRRD, alongside the liabilities of other banks or credit institutions?

Estimation of default probability and loss given default under the internal default risk model for a trading book position, where those estimates are not available at trade date under an approved IRB approach

Should an institution that has been granted permission to estimate own default probabilities or own default probabilities and losses given default in accordance with Section 1 of Chapter 3 of Title II of the CRR, be required to use such methodology for calculating default probability or loss given default under the internal default risk model for a trading book position, where the default probability or loss given default estimates are not available at trade date under such methodology for the corresponding obligor or facility?