References to shareholders in Article 34 (and 44)

Are holders of Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) only to be considered shareholders?

Definition of the target level for national resolution systems since 2016

How should national resolution authorities continue calculating the ex-ante contributions of investment firms that do not fall in the scope of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63?

Resolution plan for an institution without any critical economic functions

Is the resolution authority under the obligation to elaborate resolution plans even for institutions without critical functions for which the waiver under Article 4(8) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) is not available? Must the resolution authority elaborate resolution plans for groups that do not have any critical functions?

Interaction of shares transfer with the resolution process

Is there a difference in process between the transfer effected under the sale of business tool and the transfer effected under the bridge institution tool, whereby the resolution entity’s shares are, first, transferred to a bridge institution and, later, to a third entity, pursuant to Article 40(6)(b) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)?

API functionality

Does Article 64(2) of PSD2 limit the ability of Payment Initiation Service Providers (PISPs) to initiate a single payment transaction for immediate execution only?

Mandatory substitution approach according to Article 403 CRR when applying either the Financial Collateral Comprehensive Method (FCCM) or, in the case of securities financing transactions (SFTs) the Internal Model Method (IMM) or master netting agreements to calculate the exposure value.

Question 1: Has the mandatory substitution approach according to Article 403 CRR to be applied when an institution uses the FCCM? If yes, what is the amount that the institution shall assign to the protection provider/collateral issuer? Question 2: In the case of exposures arising from SFTs referred to in Article 401(2) second paragraph CRR, has the mandatory substitution approach according to Article 403 CRR to be applied when an institution applies master netting agreements, together with either the FCCM or IMM as referred to in Articles 220 CRR and 221 CRR? If yes, what is the exposure amount that shall be assigned to the collateral issuer? Question 3: Also regarding exposures arising from SFTs, has the mandatory substitution approach according to Article 403 CRR to be applied when an institution applies IMM as referred to in Section 6 of Chapter 6 of Title II of Part Three CRR? If yes, what is the exposure amount that shall be assigned to the collateral issuer? Question 4: Does an institution have to use a credit risk mitigation technique for large exposure purposes when it has used it for calculating own funds requirements, or can an institution renounce, for large exposure purposes, applying a credit risk mitigation that it has used for calculating own funds requirements? Question 5: Does an institution also have to apply the substitution approach, for large exposure purposes, in those cases where the collateral is not taken into account for calculating own funds requirements?

Treatment of CIUs in internal model for market risk – own funds requirement (add-on)

Has the add-on for specific risk for CIUs according to Art. 364 (2) lit. a) in any case to be calculated for CIUs which are included in an internal model for market risk using a different approach than those described in Art. 350 (1) or 350 (2) (e.g. based on the liquid price of the CIU)?

Wholly or partially owned by a public authority requirement and bail-in

Article 40 of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) requires that the bridge institution is wholly or partially owned by public authorities (including the resolution fund) and that it is controlled by the resolution authority. How is this ownership requirement compatible with Article 43(2)(b)(ii) BRRD?

More than one transaction from a single consumer initiated transaction

When a consumer elects to add an additional item to their purchase at the time of checkout (a cross sale) they are making two purchases from two different merchants in a single session. Is SCA required for both of these transactions? This would make the user experience very clumsy and awkward as the consumer would have to go through SCA twice in a row during a single checkout.