Question ID
2026_7720
Legal act
Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
Topic
BRRD Reporting
Article
11
Paragraph
1
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations
Regulation (EU) 2025/2303 - ITS on Resolution Planning Reporting
Article/Paragraph
Art. 3
Type of submitter
Credit institution
Subject matter
Inconsistencies Between ITS Templates and DPM 4.2 Annotated Table Layouts for RESOL 1/2
Question

When inconsistencies exist between the ITS templates and the DPM 4.2 Annotated Table Layouts, which source should be considered authoritative for reporting purposes?

Background on the question

We have identified inconsistencies between the ITS templates published in the "Annex for IT solutions instructions disclaimer" and the "Annotated Table Layout RES 4.2 RESOL1/2" available in the DPM 4.2, and would appreciate clarification on the correct approach to follow.

These inconsistencies have been identified in RESOL 1 and are expected to affect RESOL 2 as well. Specific examples of discrepancies include:

• Country/Currency codes: The ITS templates require ISO codes (e.g., ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 for countries), while the DPM specifies full names.

• Boolean values: The ITS templates specify YES/NO, while the DPM requires TRUE/FALSE.

• Formatting requirements: The DPM validations contain additional spacing and naming conventions that differ from the ITS specifications.

Submission date
Rejected publishing date
Rationale for rejection

This question has been rejected because EBA guidance or clarification is not needed. This can be the case where harmonisation of practices through the Q&A process is not considered necessary; or that the issue is not material, for example because it is considered to be relevant only to a limited set of institutions or other stakeholders.

Status
Rejected question