Search for Q&As

Enquirers can use various factors to search for a Q&A:

These include searching by the Q&A ID; legal reference, date submitted, technical standard / guideline, or by keyword if known.
Searches can be extended to more than one legal act, topic, technical standard or guidelines by making multiple selections (i.e. pressing 'Ctrl' on your keyboard, and selecting the relevant ones from the drop-down lists by left mouse-click).

Disclaimer:

Q&As refer to the provisions in force on the day of their publication. The EBA does not systematically review published Q&As following the amendment of legislative acts. Users of the Q&A tool should therefore check the date of publication of the Q&A and whether the provisions referred to in the answer remain the same.

Please note that the Q&As related to the supervisory benchmarking exercises have been moved to the dedicated handbook page. You can submit Q&As on this topic here.

Legal act

Topic

Article

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations

Answer prepared by

Period posted start

Period posted end

Publication start

Publication end

Keywords

Question ID

Final Q&As Q&As under review Rejected Q&As Archived Q&As All Q&As

Export options

Select / deselect all results on this page

List of Q&A's

Spot instrument on unallocated Gold are subject to counterparty risk

Are spot instrument on unallocated Gold subject to counterparty risk?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Instrument on unallocated Gold according to alternative standardised approach for market risk

Should the gold sensitivities of instruments related to unallocated gold, as calculated under the alternative standardized approach for market risk, be included in commodity risk or foreign exchange risk?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Collateral haircuts for third-country equivalent PSE-RGLA’s

For the purposes of Article 197(2)(a) and (b) CRR, should the references to PSEs and RGLAs in Articles 115(2) and 116(4) CRR be interpreted as encompassing the third-country equivalent entities referred to in Articles 115(4) and 116(5) CRR, such that debt securities issued by those entities qualify for the treatment provided under Article 197(1)(b) CRR? 

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Applicability of the prior permission requirement under Article 26(3) CRR to investment firms subject to Regulation (EU) 2019/2033 (IFR)

Article 26(3) CRR provides that institutions shall classify issuances of capital instruments as Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) instruments only with the prior permission of the competent authorities. Article 2(5) CRR requires competent authorities to treat as "institutions", for the purposes of the CRR, only those investment firms to which Article 1(2) or 1(5) IFR applies (Class 1 firms). Investment firms subject to the IFR (Class 2 and Class 3 firms) apply the definition of CET1 capital by virtue of Article 9(1)(i) IFR, which refers to Part Two, Title I, Chapter 2 of the CRR. Do Class 2 and Class 3 investment firms require prior permission from their competent authority under Article 26(3) CRR in order to classify issuances of capital instruments as CET1 instruments?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2019/2033 (IFR)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Use of the EBA’s aggregated loss data for “All national markets outside the Union” for the purposes of Articles 125 and 126 CRR.

Does the row “All national markets outside the Union” in the EBA publication Immovable-property loss data, Q4 2025 constitute a publication of loss-rate data that may be relied upon, in respect of immovable property situated in Switzerland, for the purposes of the loss-rate requirements referred to in Article 125(3), second subparagraph, and Article 126(3), second subparagraph, CRR? In particular, may an institution use the losses and exposure amounts reported in that aggregated row to assess whether the applicable loss-rate thresholds are met for exposures secured by residential or commercial immovable property situated in Switzerland, notwithstanding that Switzerland is not presented as a separate national immovable property market?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Treatment of the secured portion of defaulted IPRE exposures under the Standardised Approach

Under the Standardised Approach for credit risk, Article 127(3) CRR states that: "The exposure value remaining after specific credit risk adjustments of non-IPRE exposures secured by residential property or commercial immovable property in accordance with Articles 125 and 126, respectively, shall be assigned a risk weight of 100 % if a default has occurred in accordance with Article 178." Articles 125(2) and 126(2) establish dedicated treatments for income-producing real estate (IPRE) exposures through ETV-based risk-weight buckets. Following the CRR3 amendments, Article 127(3) explicitly refers only to non-IPRE exposures and does not specify the treatment of the secured portion of IPRE exposures after default.  Could the EBA clarify the prudential treatment of a defaulted IPRE exposure that satisfies all requirements of Article 124 and is secured by residential property or commercial immovable property? In particular: Should the secured portion of a defaulted IPRE exposure continue to be risk weighted according to the ETV buckets in Article 125(2) or Article 126(2), as applicable? Alternatively, should the secured portion of a defaulted IPRE exposure be reported in the exposure class "Exposures in default" and be assigned a risk weight of 100%, analogously to the treatment laid down in Article 127(3) for non-IPRE exposures, despite IPRE exposures not being explicitly referred to in that provision   If neither of the above approaches is correct, what is the appropriate risk-weight treatment and COREP reporting treatment for the secured portion of defaulted IPRE exposures under the Standardised Approach? 

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Clarification on the use of external credit assessments when determining HQLA eligibility of assets representing a claim on a third-country central government

We seek clarification on the use of external credit assessments when determining HQLA eligibility under the provision of Article 10(c)(ii).  Specifically, where an asset representing a claim on a third-country central government has a residual maturity of less than one year: Can a short-term credit assessment from a nominated ECAI corresponding to Credit Quality Step 1 (CQS 1) be used for the purpose of determining eligibility as a Level 1 asset? Where both long-term and short-term credit assessments are available, which assessment should be used for the purposes of the HQLA eligibility assessment? More generally, we would be grateful for any guidance on the circumstances in which short-term external credit assessments may be used when assessing eligibility of assets for inclusion in the HQLA buffer under the LCR framework.

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 - DR with regard to liquidity coverage requirement

Application of the SME supporting factor to exposures financing private purposes following CRR III

Following the amendments introduced by Regulation (EU) 2024/1623 (CRR III), Article 501(2)(b) CRR defines an SME by reference to Article 5, point (9), CRR rather than to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC. Where the obligor is a natural person who carries out an economic activity and meets the turnover criterion in Article 5, point (9), should SME status be determined once at obligor level — so that the adjustment under Article 501(1) applies to all non-defaulted exposures to that obligor meeting Article 501(2)(a) — or should it continue to be assessed exposure by exposure by reference to the purpose of the individual financing, as set out in EBA Q&A 2021_6301?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

National competent authorities power to increase the quantity of ARTs and EMTS issuers' own funds or reserve assets in relation to Article 45(4)

Does Article 45(4) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) confer on national competent authorities or the EBA the power to require an ART or EMT issuer to increase the quantity of its own funds or reserve assets beyond the 1:1 backing established under Articles 36–38 of MiCA, or is the scope of Article 45(4) confined to requiring improvements to the composition, maturity and liquidity profile of reserve assets? More broadly, are the reserve and capital requirements that may be imposed on ART and EMT issuers under MiCA Level 1 capped by the mechanisms expressly provided for therein — in particular the bounded own-funds add-on mechanism of Article 35(5) following stress tests — such that national competent authorities or the EBA do not have discretion under Article 45(4) to impose open-ended or permanent structural overcollateralization or additional capital requirements beyond what MiCA Level 1 has expressly foreseen?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

CVA exemptions: marginal impact of reintegration

Annex II of the ITS requires to show the marginal impact of reintegration of CVA exemptions, separately for each exemption. it defines the marginal impact as "the difference, expressed in absolute amount, between the relevant metric for the scope of transactions referred to in row 0010 after reintegrating the exemption, and the relevant metric for the scope of transactions referred to in row 0010".  This statement may in our opinion be interpreted in two different ways: For each of the 7 exemptions and for the whole portfolio including the exemptions, institutions are required to calculate the cva risk charge for the non-exempted portfolio + the relevant exemption separately and report the difference to the cva risk charge calculated for the non-exempted portfolio. This requires 8 separate calculations and the marginal impact of individual exemptions will be accurate. However, the marginal impact for the individual exemptions will not add up to the marginal impact for the whole portfolio. Institutions are required to calculate the difference of the cva risk charge calculated for the whole portfolio to the cva risk charge calculated for the non-exempted portfolio. This difference will be split up for the 7 exemptions using the contributions on counterparty level already calculated for the whole portfolio. This requires 1 separate calculation and the marginal impact for individual exemptions will add up to the marginal impact for the whole portfolio. However, the marginal impact of each individual exemption will be only approximate (i.e. scaled by counterparty contributions). Question: are institution allowed to use method (2)?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/3117 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions

Classification of spread components of floating-rate instruments for contractual repricing reports

How should institutions classify the fixed spread component of a floating-rate instrument when reporting IRRBB repricing cash flows? Article 7 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/857 requires institutions to allocate the spread components of floating-rate instruments "up to the final contractual maturity, irrespective of any repricing of the non-amortised principal". However, Annex V, Section 3, states that the distinction between fixed-rate and floating-rate instruments is to be applied at instrument level. Under this definition, an instrument whose interest payments are contractually linked to an external benchmark is classified as a floating-rate instrument. In practice, two alternative interpretations have emerged: Cash-flow level interpretation: the fixed spread component of a floating-rate instrument is treated as a fixed-rate cash flow extending until contractual maturity and therefore reported within the fixed-rate section of the repricing templates. Instrument level interpretation: the spread component remains associated with the floating-rate instrument and is therefore reported within the floating-rate section, even though Article 7(c) requires the spread cash flows to be allocated up to final maturity. Should institutions report the spread components of floating-rate instruments in the fixed-rate section because they are allocated until final contractual maturity under Article 7(c), or should they remain in the floating-rate section because the fixed/floating classification applies at instrument level according to Annex V?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2016/2070 - ITS on Supervisory Reporting (for benchmarking the internal approaches) (as amended)

Treatment of bank guarantees posted by clearing members as initial margin for the purpose of NICA in the CCP hypothetical capital (KCCP) calculation under Article 50a of EMIR

When a CCP calculates the hypothetical capital requirement (KCCP) pursuant to Articles 50a-50b of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/876, applying the SA-CCR methodology set out in Part Three, Title II, Chapter 6, Section 3 of CRR, can bank guarantees provided by that clearing member be recognised as part of the collateral in the NICA term, provided that they are contractually pledged to the CCP and can be drawn upon in the event of the clearing member’s default? If the answer to Question 1 is negative and Article 276(1)(a) and (b) of CRR should be applied in full such that the only collateral eligible for inclusion in the NICA is that which qualifies as eligible financial collateral under Article 197 CRR (and Article 299 CRR for netting sets belonging entirely to the trading book), should a CCP assign a value of zero to bank guarantees posted by clearing members as initial margin when computing the Replacement Cost and the PFE multiplier? Or is there an alternative treatment available under the SA-CCR framework that would allow a CCP to partially or fully reflect the risk-mitigating effect of such guarantees in the EAD calculation?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Methodology for calculating the scenarios referred to in Article 25(2), (3), and (4), as well as point 5(a), (b), and (c) of the Annex to the Regulation.

Our Bank as another non-listed institution, as part of the CRR Regulation, is required to apply the "standardized approach" for interest rate risk, as defined in Regulation 2024/857. Banks subject to the simplified standardized methodology apply, by way of derogation from Article 8(9), the pass-through rate specified in point 5(a), 5(b), and 5(c) of the Annex. Our Bank, as another non-listed institution, should independently calculate the pass-through rate, taking into account the Bank's historical data for the base scenario and scenarios predicting a decrease and an increase in short-term interest rates. Currently, the Bank applies the pass-through rate from points 5a, 5b, and 5c of the Annex to the Regulation. Since the UKNF has issued a recommendation that the Bank independently determine the pass-through rate, please provide the methodology for calculating the scenarios referred to in Article 25(2), (3), and (4), as well as point 5(a), (b), and (c) of the Annex to the Regulation.

Legal act: Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/857 - RTS on the IRRBB standardised approach

Completion of the Z08.02 Template

In Z_08.02, are we expected to map operational assets to external services or only to intra-entity services?  If we are expected to map operational assets to external services, for external services which relate to support we receive on IT systems, should columns 0030, 0080, 0040 and 0050 be populated with data related to the respective IT system or should they be left blank? Additionally, if we report a service related to physical transportation of cash, should columns 0030, 0080, 0040 and 0050 be left blank considering that we don't need any asset to receive the service from the external provider?    

Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2025/2303 - ITS on Resolution Planning Reporting

Template Z08.02: Reporting of applications owned and operated by affiliated service providers

Where a reporting entity receives services from an affiliated entity and relies on applications that are owned, managed and operated by that affiliated service provider, should those applications be reported in template Z08.02 by the receiving entity?Alternatively, should template Z08.02 be limited to operational assets that are owned, managed or directly controlled by the reporting entity, with dependencies on affiliate-owned applications being reflected through the relevant service provider and outsourcing/inter-affiliate reporting templates?

Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2025/2303 - ITS on Resolution Planning Reporting

Risk weights assignment to IPRE exposures secured by many properties

Articles 125 and 126 paragraph 2 Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) specify the rules for risk weights assignment to IPRE exposures, respectively secured by residential and commercial properties. However, these regulations don’t clarify how risk weights should be assigned to IPRE exposure when it’s secured by both residential and commercial property – especially when one property is IPRE (income producing property) and the second one is non-IPRE (the residential property, let’s assume that this is the flat of a counterparty). 

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Clarification of ETV calculation for mortgages securing more than one exposure

Article 124 paragraph 6 Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) specifies the calculation of ETV for IPRE exposures. In order to calculate ETV, the gross value of an exposure should be divided by the value of property. Additionally, this article clarifies that: “For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (a), where an institution has more than one exposure secured by the same immovable property and those exposures are secured by liens on that immovable property that are sequential in ranking order without any lien held by a third party ranking in-between, the exposures shall be treated as a single combined exposure and the gross exposure amounts for the individual exposures shall be summed up to calculate the gross exposure amount for the single combined exposure.” Our question refers to calculation ETV for joint mortgages – so the mortgage which secures more than one exposures and additionally these exposures may have other mortgages assigned. Based on the above, it’s clear that numerator should include the gross value of all exposures secured by this joint mortgage. Nevertheless, it’s unclear which value should be used in the denominator of ETV in the real life example described below.

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Definition of "main business" under CRR

How are banks to interpret the concept of "main business" in Article 411(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR), read in conjunction with Annex I of Directive 2013/36/EU and Article 3(9) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61? In particular: can an entity be considered to perform Annex I CRD activities as its "main business" within the meaning of Article 411(1) CRR if: there is an absence of any third-party commercial activity i.e. entity does not offer financial services to any external party for commercial consideration nature of the entity’s operations is ancillary to the group and it exists solely as an instrument of the group's non-financial operations with no independent commercial purpose

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 - DR with regard to liquidity coverage requirement

Reporting obligations under Article 3 of the CIR

Whether, and to what extent, will the reporting obligations concerning Relevant Legal Entities (RLEs) under Article 3 of the CIR also apply where a recently acquired RLE is expected, with a high degree of certainty, to cease to exist as a legal entity prior to the adoption of the resolution plan as a result of a legal merger. Additionally, how should this acquired entity be treated for the purposes of resolution planning and related reporting obligations during the interim period between its acquisition and its absorption through merger? We wonder if resolution authorities (RAs) may waive the reporting obligations for this acquired entity for the first reporting cycle after acquisition. Against this background, does the framework require or allow a reclassification of the acquired entity (which used to be a Liquidation entity before acquisition with no reporting obligations) as an RLE immediately upon acquisition, implying inclusion in the group’s resolution plan and submission of the applicable reporting templates? Alternatively, may the acquired entity continue to be treated as a liquidation entity until the legal merger is completed, with its status and standalone reporting obligations remaining unchanged during the interim period? Clarification is sought on whether, in the context of M&A transactions, resolution authorities are expected to adjust the entity’s classification upon acquisition, or whether they may maintain the pre-acquisition status until legal integration is finalised.

Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2025/2303 - ITS on Resolution Planning Reporting

Definition of “Substitutability” of CCPs and the connected reporting of “Alternative Providers” for the purpose of the template Z 09.04 (RESOL II).

Should the concept of substitutability of CCPs, and consequently the identification of alternative providers to be reported in template Z 09.04, be interpreted restrictively, i.e. limited to CCPs or intermediaries that are capable of providing an equivalent clearing service for the same trading venue and/or market(s)? Or should a broader interpretation of substitutability be applied, focusing on the economic function, business and regulatory objectives as well as the post-trade nature of the clearing service, under which a CCP might be substitutable not only by a concurrent CCP active on the same market, but also by: the substitution of the entire trade value chain (e.g. trading venue – CCP – CSD or trading venue – CSD); or the use of an intermediary/broker capable of rerouting either the trading and clearing activity or the transactions executed on behalf of the reporting institution through alternative FMIs, provided that such arrangements achieve a comparable economic and functional outcome for the reporting institution.

Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2025/2303 - ITS on Resolution Planning Reporting

Organisation and governance

Legal and policy framework

Careers

Supervisory convergence

Direct supervision and oversight

Information for consumers

Ad hoc activities

Risk analysis

Pillar 3 data hub

Reporting

Data

Publications

Media centre