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.

List of Q&A's

PILLAR 3 - form EU CMS2 mapping for row EU 7d: Categorised as subordinated debt exposures in SA

According to official mapping for row EU 7d: Categorised as subordinated debt exposures in SA, column "d" and "EU d" include form c07-qx2062 that refers to CRE IPRE OTHER. Is intention to see CRE IPRE OTHER , or maping should be changed and include subordinated debt exposures?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2014/14 - Guidelines on materiality, proprietary, confidentiality and disclosure frequency under Pillar 3

PILLAR 3 - form EU CMS2 mapping for columns d and EU d

According to mapping, column “d” and “EU d” refers to c07 and c10. Some of cells in column “d” and “EU d” refers only to c10. Please, could you explain the reason to exclude c07 from some cells in column “d” and “EU d”?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2014/14 - Guidelines on materiality, proprietary, confidentiality and disclosure frequency under Pillar 3

Definition of "official export credit agency" for the calculation of deduction for non-performing exposures

Article 47c(4a) of the CRR exempts the part of a non‑performing exposure guaranteed or insured by an “official export credit agency” (ECA) from the deduction requirements laid down in Article 47c. However, the CRR does not define the term “official export credit agency”. In this context, what are the criteria for qualifying as an “official export credit agency” and how can it be determined whether an export credit agency and the guarantee or insurance provided meets the criteria for applying the derogation as provided in CRR Article 47c(4a)?

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

Execution of an authorized payment instruction made conditional on manual user redirection

If an Account Servicing Payment Service Provider (ASPSP) makes the execution of a payment instruction, already successfully authorized via Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) in its app, conditional on the Payment Service User (PSU) subsequently manually returning from the ASPSP's authentication app back to the Third Party Provider's (TPP) environment, does this condition constitute an obstacle under Article 32(3) of the RTS?

  • 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

Obstacle assessment of requiring multiple manual checkboxes for a single AIS consent

Does the practice of an ASPSP requiring a PSU to manually tick multiple, separate checkboxes for different categories of account data in order to grant a single consent for an Account Information Service (AIS) constitute an obstacle under Article 32(3) of the RTS, by adding unnecessary steps and friction to the user journey?

  • 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

Obstacle assessment of requiring an additional SCA for PIS within an existing authenticated AIS session

If a Payment Service User (PSU) initiates a payment (PIS) immediately after establishing a session for an Account Information Service (AIS) (for which SCA has already been performed), does the ASPSP's requirement for an additional, separate SCA—such as the need to fully log in to the mobile banking app before the payment confirmation screen is displayed—solely to access the payment function (and preceding the dynamic linking SCA) constitute an obstacle under Article 32(3) of the RTS?

  • 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

Obstacle assessment of an ASPSP offering only web redirection to TPPs while a superior native app authentication method exists for its direct users

Does an Account Servicing Payment Service Provider's (ASPSP) decision to offer only a web-based redirection for Third Party Provider (TPP) initiated journeys constitute an obstacle under Article 32(3) of the RTS, if that ASPSP also makes available a more convenient, direct authentication procedure in its native mobile application for its Payment Service Users (PSUs) when they access their accounts directly?

  • 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

Definition of ‘another financial entity’

What types of entities should be regarded as ‘another financial entity’ for the purposes of article 17 (2) of the IFR?

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

Consideration of the row 0610 of the NSFR template C 80.00 in Disclosure template EU LIQ2 following published EBA Mapping tool

In the Mapping tool published according to the EBA Reporting framework 4.1, for determining the Pillar 3 Disclosure template EU LIQ2 - Net Stable Funding Ratio, row 0610 (non-HQLA securities encumbered for a residual maturity of one year or more in a cover pool) of the template C 80.00 - NSFR - REQUIRED STABLE FUNDING  is assigned twice. The assignment is made to the EU LIQ2 template row EU-15a (Assets encumbered for a residual maturity of one year or more in a cover pool) and indirectly to row 24 (Other loans and securities that are not in default and do not qualify as HQLA, including exchange-traded equities and trade finance on-balance sheet products) through the assignment of the summary row 0560 of the NSFR template C 80.00. We would kindly ask you for the confirmation of such representation. 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/637 - ITS with regard to disclosures of information referred to in Titles II and III of Part Eight CRR

Supervisory obligations of NCAs under Article 32(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389

Article 32(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389 states that competent authorities shall monitor the interfaces, the indicators and subject them to stress testing. We are seeking clarification on the interpretation of this provision. In particular, we would appreciate guidance on the EBA’s expectations regarding the scope and nature of NCAs’ monitoring of these interfaces, including the assessment of their operational performance and reliability, as well as the conduct of stress tests, to ensure that the requirements of Article 32(1),that dedicated interfaces shall maintain the same level of availability and performance as the ASPSP’s own online channels, are effectively met.

  • 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

Requirement for ASPSPs to comply with standardized communication protocols under Article 30(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389

Under Article 30(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389, ASPSPs are required to follow communication standards issued by international or European standardisation organisations.In this context, we seek clarification on whether, when an ASPSP has chosen to adopt a recognized communication standard issued by a European or international standardisation body (such as ISO 20022) for its PSD2 interfaces, the standard is expected to be applied consistently and in accordance with its specifications across all such interfaces, regardless of internal documentation or subsequent clarifications issued by the ASPSP, which may reflect internal implementation approaches rather than the standard itself.

  • 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

Introduction of additional mandatory steps or redirections in PISP payment initiation flows

In accordance with Article 32(3) of the RTS on SCA and CSC, may an ASPSP impose mandatory additional steps or redirections (pre-step) in a redirection-based payment initiation flow through a PISP, where such steps or redirections do not form part of the payment initiation process experienced by the PSU when using the ASPSP’s own mobile or online channels?

  • 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

Treating lease exposures as collateralised under the F-IRB approach

Is a permission of the competent authority under Article 199(6) of the CRR required for treating lease exposures as collateralised under the F-IRB approach if the lease object corresponds to other physical collateral?

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

Application of Article 199(6)(d) for low default portfolios

In cases where institutions do not have a sufficient internal track record of default and liquidation events due to the low-default nature of certain portfolios, is there an alternative approach, such as the use of relevant external data, market evidence, or a combination of internal and external information, that could be considered acceptable to demonstrate compliance with Article 199(6)(d) for eligible physical collateral?

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

Pillar 3 Transparency - Risk weight missing in Template CCR3

Values with risk weight 30% are not allocated (according to the EBA Mapping Tool) to template CCR3, although these values appear in Row 185 of template COROFC C07.00. Is it intended to exclude values with 30% risk weight from template CCR3 (if yes, please provide the reasons for that) or is this a bug in die EBA mapping tool?

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

Proportional application of K-ASA under Article 19 IFR in non-discretionary custody models linked to the operation of an MTF

Under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2019/2033, is there any scope for a more proportionate or risk-sensitive application of K-ASA where an investment firm: operates an MTF as its core activity; safeguards assets strictly on behalf of clients as direct participant in a CSD; does not exercise discretion over those assets; does not assume balance-sheet risk in relation to them; is prohibited from trading on own account or lending client securities; does not exercise voting rights, represent clients at meetings, or administer decisions regarding the underlying instruments; and has demonstrably reduced operational risk through technological investment and streamlined post-trade processes? More specifically: can competent authorities take into account the specific characteristics of such a business model when assessing the prudential effect of K-ASA, or is the calculation strictly volume-based in all cases regardless of the underlying risk profile; and is there any scope to differentiate K-ASA treatment depending on the type of instruments safeguarded, in particular between equity and debt instruments, or depending on whether the custody client is itself a regulated financial institution such as an investment firm or a bank?

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

Inconsistencies between ITS on resolution planning reporting versus Annotated Table Layout DPM 4.2, RESOL1 and RESOL2

Could you please align the technical requirements stated in the Annotated Table Layout in the DPM 4.2 module (20260106 Annotated Table Layout RES 4.2 RESOL1RES 4.2.xls) with the requirements as stated in the ITS (Annex II: Instructions) on Z11.00, column 0060 Governing Law (as well in Z12.00 column 0070, Z13.00 column 005, Z14.00 column 0070, Z15.00 column 0100, Z08.01 column 0140, Z08.02 column 0090, Z09.01 column 0130)? 

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

Inconsistencies between ITS on resolution planning reporting versus Annotated Table Layout DPM 4.2, RESOL1 and RESOL2

Could you please align the technical requirements stated in the Annotated Table Layout in the DPM 4.2 module (20260106 Annotated Table Layout RES 4.2 RESOL1RES 4.2.xls) with the requirements as stated in the ITS (Annex II: Instructions) on Z11.00, column 0100 Currency (as well in Z12.00 column 0090, Z13.00 column 0060, Z14.00 column 0120, Z17.00 column 0100, Z09.01 columns 0150-0200)? 

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

Inconsistencies between ITS on resolution planning reporting versus Annotated Table Layout DPM 4.2, RESOL1 and RESOL2

Could you please align the technical requirements stated in the Annotated Table Layout in the DPM 4.2 module (20260106 Annotated Table Layout RES 4.2 RESOL1RES 4.2.xls) with the requirements as stated in the ITS (Annex II: Instructions) on Z05.01/Z05.02, column 0040 Country? 

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

Inconsistencies between ITS on resolution planning reporting versus Annotated Table Layout DPM 4.2, RESOL1 and RESOL2

Could you please align the technical requirements stated in the Annotated Table Layout in the DPM 4.2 module (20260106 Annotated Table Layout RES 4.2 RESOL1RES 4.2.xls) with the requirements as stated in the ITS (Annex II: Instructions) on Z01.01, column 0070 Article 7 CRR Waiver (and all other cells where ITS states the selection options Yes/No and the Annotated Table Layout states TRUE/FALSE instead)? 

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