List of Q&As

Compensation in Article 60(2)(c)

How should the use of the wording “compensation” in Article 60(2)(c) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) be interpreted?

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

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

ID: 2016_3016 | Topic: Write-down and conversion of capital instruments | Date of submission: 23/11/2016 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

Clarification on Article 36(6)(a)

How should the term "updated” referred to in Article 36(6)(a) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) be interpreted?

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

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

ID: 2016_2564 | Topic: Valuation | Date of submission: 13/01/2016 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

Special manager as insolvency manager

Must national courts adhere to the resolution authority’s decision that a special manager should also be insolvency manager?

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

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

ID: 2015_2523 | Topic: Special management | Date of submission: 11/12/2015 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

References to shareholders in Article 34 (and 44)

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

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

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

ID: 2015_2521 | Topic: Resolution tools and powers | Date of submission: 11/12/2015 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

Difference in treatment of viable subsidiaries for the application of write down and conversion of capital instruments and resolution tools and powers

Can the power of write down or conversion of capital instruments be exercised in relation to instruments issued by a still viable subsidiary belonging to a failing group?

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

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

ID: 2016_2957 | Topic: Write-down and conversion of capital instruments | Date of submission: 19/10/2016 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

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?

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: 2015_2507 | Topic: Resolution financing arrangements | Date of submission: 07/12/2015 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

Composition of resolution college

For the purpose of Article 88(2)(g)) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD), should “the authority that is responsible for the deposit guarantee scheme of a member state” be the “designated authority” in accordance to Article 2(1)(18) of Directive 2014/49/EU (DGSD)?

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

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

ID: 2015_2457 | Topic: Other topics | Date of submission: 03/11/2015 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

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?

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

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

ID: 2015_2455 | Topic: Resolution plans | Date of submission: 03/11/2015 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

Variable component of the remuneration of material risk takers

What types of liabilities are excluded from the exemption under Article 44(2)(g)(i)is by the reference to Article 92(2) of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD) in the second subparagraph of Article 44(2) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)?

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

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

ID: 2015_2432 | Topic: Resolution tools and powers | Date of submission: 20/10/2015 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

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)?

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

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

ID: 2015_2360 | Topic: Resolution tools and powers | Date of submission: 30/09/2015 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

Payment of consideration in shares of a bridge institution

Is it possible to pay the consideration mentioned in Article 40 (4) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) in shares of a bridge institution? Is the same possible in case the asset separation tool has been applied?

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

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

ID: 2015_2343 | Topic: Resolution tools and powers | Date of submission: 30/09/2015 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

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?

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

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

ID: 2018_4096 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 10/07/2018 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

Strong customer authentication requirement on pay-by-invoice payment transactions

Does Article 97(1)(b) PSD2 apply for pay-by-invoice when the payer's funds are covered by a credit line extended by a payment service provider?

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

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

ID: 2019_4484 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 24/01/2019 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

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?

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

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

ID: 2020_5496 | Topic: Large exposures | Date of submission: 11/09/2020 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

Irrevocability of a payment order initiated by a PISP

The EBA Opinion on the implementation of the RTS on SCA and CSC (EBA-Op-2018-04) contains a Table entitled “Main requirements for dedicated interfaces and API initiatives” and Row 9 refers to the possibility of “cancelling an initiated transaction in accordance with PSD2, including recurring transactions”. Please clarify that these requirements will not apply to single payment transactions initiated by Payment Initiation Service Providers (PISPs) for immediate execution?

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

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

ID: 2018_4095 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 10/07/2018 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

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)?

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

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

ID: 2018_4380 | Topic: Market risk | Date of submission: 20/11/2018 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

Definition of an electronic remote payment transaction

What are the demarcation criteria of the term „remote payment transaction“, which is an essential term in the RTS on SCA and CSC?

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: 2019_4594 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 04/03/2019 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

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?

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

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

ID: 2015_2341 | Topic: Resolution tools and powers | Date of submission: 30/09/2015 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

Scope - Limited network exclusion

Is there a geographical limitation with regard to a limited network of service providers?

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

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

ID: 2019_4604 | Topic: Authorisation and registration | Date of submission: 12/03/2019 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022

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.

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

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

ID: 2019_4776 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 13/06/2019 | Date of publication: 21/01/2022