List of Q&As

Definition of short position

1. Can a put option which is subject to certain conditions qualify as a short position for the purposes of Article 45 CRR provided that (i) the fulfilment of the conditions depends only on the holder of the put and (ii) all the other conditions mentioned in Article 45 are met?2. In case a bank has on its banking book a holding of CET1 instruments in a financial sector entity and it buys an unconditional put option with the same underlying, which amount should be netted, either the notional value (strike price multiplied by the number of underlying instruments of the option) or the market value of the put, provided that all the other conditions mentioned in Article 45 CRR are met?3. In case the answer to question 2 is the notional value, if a put option does qualify as short position for the purposes of Article 45 CRR, how should this short position be treated for the purposes of credit risk requirements?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4675 | Topic: Own funds | Date of submission: 16/04/2019 | Date of publication: 01/04/2022

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?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 - RTS for Own Funds requirements for institutions

ID: 2019_4517 | Topic: Own funds | Date of submission: 05/02/2019 | Date of publication: 01/04/2022

Client servicing in the definition of the trading book

According to Article 4(1)(85) and (86) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 CRR, are all proprietary positions and all positions arising from client servicing and market making trading book positions, irrespective if they are held for short term or not?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2015_2054 | Topic: Market risk | Date of submission: 18/06/2015 | Date of publication: 01/04/2022

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).

Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2020_5582 | Topic: MREL | Date of submission: 23/10/2020 | Date of publication: 18/03/2022

Treatment of covered deposits when determining the contribution base of Investment Firms

Can the liabilities that arise by virtue of holding clients' money with investment firms, and that are then deposited by investment firms with a credit institution, be considered as deposits that are deducted from the Contribution Base when determining the ex-ante contribution of those investment firms to a resolution financing arrangement?

Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 - DR on ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements

ID: 2017_3579 | Topic: Resolution financing arrangements | Date of submission: 01/11/2017 | Date of publication: 18/03/2022

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?

Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 - DR on ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements

ID: 2016_2872 | Topic: Resolution financing arrangements | Date of submission: 16/08/2016 | Date of publication: 18/03/2022

Definition of "total liabilities"

Does the reference to ‘total liabilities’ in Article 3(11) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 mean liabilities and capital, or only liabilities?

Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 - DR on ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements

ID: 2016_2869 | Topic: Resolution financing arrangements | Date of submission: 12/08/2016 | Date of publication: 18/03/2022

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?

Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2016_2814 | Topic: Write-down and conversion of capital instruments | Date of submission: 04/07/2016 | Date of publication: 18/03/2022

Application of the provisions described in paragraphs 10 to 12 of Article 133 (systemic risk buffer, SyRB)

How do the provisions described in paragraphs 10 to 12 of Article 133 of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD) apply when a Member State (MS) sets a domestic systemic risk buffer (SyRB) rate on all or some of the relevant exposures of that MS and, additionally, wants to recognize a SyRB rate activated by another MS, which applies to the same exposures (or some of them)?

Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2021_5801 | Topic: Other issues | Date of submission: 05/04/2021 | Date of publication: 18/03/2022

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?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2021_5856 | Topic: Market risk | Date of submission: 17/05/2021 | Date of publication: 18/03/2022

Individual's name to return in AISP/PISP calls

Is the name returned in an Account Information Service Provider (AISP) / Payment Initiation Service Provider (PISP) call expected to be that of the Payment Service User (PSU) who has initiated the transaction with the Third Party Provide (TPP), or of the actual account owner/holder?

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_5165 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 09/03/2020 | Date of publication: 18/03/2022

Acquisition and money remittance payment service

Can a payment institution (PI) which provides a payment service of acquiring of payment transactions for its users can provide this service without holding payment account.

Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2020_5181 | Topic: Authorisation and registration | Date of submission: 20/03/2020 | Date of publication: 18/03/2022

Money Remittance

Where an entity accepts payment on behalf of a payee (such as a debt collector and the debt due to the payee is extinguished upon receipt of payment by the debt collector), is it correct to say that this does not constitute Money Remittance? (i.e. there is no need to rely on the commercial agency exemption since there is no payment service being provided). In addition, if there is no Money Remittance in this situation, can the same be said if the entity receives money into one account then pays these monies to a second account in its name,before transferring the money to the relevant payee? If this is Money Remittance, can the commercial agency exemption be relied on where an entity receives monies but then transfers them to another account held by it before then transferring to the relevant payee?

Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2020_5216 | Topic: Authorisation and registration | Date of submission: 21/04/2020 | Date of publication: 18/03/2022

Access to account for FinTech Solutions that incorporate regulated services

Do FinTech companies offer payment accounts by their use of regulated services as part of their offering and are they therefore required to provide access to accounts to Third Party Providers (TPPs)?

Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2020_5249 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 13/05/2020 | Date of publication: 18/03/2022

Fees on issuing eletronic money

Is charging fees on issuing of the e-money, in compliance with Article 11(1) of the Directive 2009/110/EC (E-money directive – EMD)?

Legal act: Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2020_5494 | Topic: Not applicable | Date of submission: 11/09/2020 | Date of publication: 18/03/2022

Topping-up e-money accounts with voucher-based products

If an e-money institution (EMI) sells, through an external network of points of sale, pre-paid non-reloadable vouchers of a fixed value that can only be used to top-up e-money accounts opened with such EMIs, shall the sale of such vouchers be considered as distribution of e-money for the purposes of Directive 2009/11/EC (EMD2)?

Legal act: Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2020_5566 | Topic: Not applicable | Date of submission: 19/10/2020 | Date of publication: 18/03/2022

Subcontractor of electronic money distributor

Does Article 3, paragraph 4 of Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD) mean that that a legal person acting as an electronic money distributor on behalf of an electronic money institution may enter into a contract with another legal person (subcontractor) for the execution of distribution and redeeming of electronic money? Or on the contrary, an electronic money distributor may not use subcontractors to distribute electronic money in the name of the electronic money institution under EU law?

Legal act: Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2020_5624 | Topic: Not applicable | Date of submission: 17/11/2020 | Date of publication: 18/03/2022

AISPs and scope of application AML requirements

1. To what extend do AISPs need to comply with the obligations in relation to anti-money laundering and terrorist financing under Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament? 2. Is a requirement for AISPs on the basis of national law and national supervisory practices to submit to the competent supervisor a description of the internal control mechanisms with regard to AML regulations compliant with PSD2 and EBA’s Guidelines on Guidelines on authorisation and registration under PSD2?

Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4712 | Topic: Authorisation and registration | Date of submission: 14/05/2019 | Date of publication: 11/03/2022

Mount unattended contactless device on general goods vending machines

With the limits described in Articles 11 and 16 of the Regulatory Technical Standards on strong customer authentication and secure communication under Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2), could a vendor mount an unattended "contactless only" device without pinpad on a general goods vending machine?

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_5288 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 03/06/2020 | Date of publication: 11/03/2022

Range of application of the LGD regulatory floor for the calculation of own funds requirements at individual and consolidated levels

Shall the LGD regulatory floor be applied at the territory level of the Member state to exposures secured by property located in the territory of that Member state (Article 164(7) CRR) for the calculation of own funds requirements at any level, i.e. individual and/or consolidated level?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4859 | Topic: Credit risk | Date of submission: 07/08/2019 | Date of publication: 18/02/2022