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

Validation rules taxonomy V4.0 C_17.01

The formulae v23510_h seems not relevant

  • 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

Validation rules taxonomy V4.0 C_17.01

The formula of control v23509_h seems not relevant

  • 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

C 73.00 validation rules v7585_m and v7630_m (outflows secured with level 2B assets)

What should be the limit for validation rules v7585_m and v7630_m, considering that some of the items reported in row 1090 of C73.00 Outflows get 25% outflow rate?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2021/451 – ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)

Appropriate CR SA sub-exposure class categorisation (line items reported within C02.00, C07.00 and C09.01, where applicable) of the portion of an exposure “secured by mortgages on immovable property” which is also secured by cash or subject to other form of credit protection such as eligible guarantees.

Some of the exposures “secured by mortgages on immovable property” existing on an institution’s loan book are also secured by other forms of credit protection, such as cash or eligible guarantees. For such exposures, it is not clear as to which sub-exposure class such portion of the exposure (e.g. the cash-secured portion) shall be attributed.   For example, assume that an institution has a non-IPRE exposure (loan to natural person) secured by residential immovable property, which is also partially secured by cash. To which of the following sub-exposure classes will the portion of the exposure that is secured by cash collateral be classified?  (i)    Secured by mortgages on residential immovable property - non-IPRE (secured) - C09.01, r0091; C02.00, r0151(ii)   Secured by mortgages on residential immovable property - non-IPRE (unsecured) - C09.01, r0092; C02.00, r0152(iii)  Secured by mortgages on residential immovable property - Other - non-IPRE - C09.01, r0093; C02.00, r0153  NB: Please also affirm that in the referenced example (i.e. retail counterparty), the Original exposure pre-conversion factors related to such cash-secured portion shall be equivalent to a risk weight of 75% in line with Art 124(1)(a), which is subsequently reduced to 0% through the reporting of CRM techniques with substitution effect via the “Other Items” exposure class (under the financial collateral simple method), in line with the principle applied in EBA Q&A 2016_2693.   In the quoted example, we understand that such portion shall be reported as “Secured by mortgages on residential immovable property - Other - non-IPRE”.

  • 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

Can a receivable be identified as IPRE if a mortgage exists, but the securing property is not recognised as collateral?

Art. 124 para. 1 stipulates that banks receive a risk weight of 150% for IPRE receivables that do not fulfil all the conditions set out in para. 3. The question is what constellation of conditions must be met for this case to realistically materialise. An institution should normally be able to fulfil subsections a to d in para. 3. Paragraph 3 contains a reference to Article 208 and paragraph 1 of Article 229 in sub-item e. Article 229 paragraph 1 describes the property valuation and will not generally present institutions with insurmountable problems either. Article 208 begins with the statement that a property is only recognised as collateral if the following paragraphs 2 to 5 are fulfilled. One hurdle could possibly be the monitoring of the property value in accordance with paragraph 3. However, it is also conceivable that an institution will generally refrain from recognising real estate collateral due to an insignificant share in the portfolio. Can a receivable that is effectively secured by a mortgage be identified as an IRPE risk position without recognised real estate collateral, resulting in an RW of 150% under Art. 124 para. 1? Or does non-recognition also mean that the exposure is not to be regarded as collateralised (by a property) for the calculation of own funds and consequently receives the risk weight of an unsecured exposure?

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

Identificación entidad financiera responsable del reporte DORA - Identification of the financial entity responsible for the DORA reporting

  ¿Si nuestra empresa no dispone de LEI, debemos informarla mediante el código europeo? ¿Qué diferencia existe entre las celdas B_01.01_0010 y B_01.02_0010 ? If our company doesn't have an LEI, should we report it using the European code? What's the difference between cells B_01.01_0010 and B_01.02_0010?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA Reg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Can a CASP receive / transmit / execute orders for non-EUR denominated EMTs, whose issuers are not authorised as a credit institution or as an electronic money institution?

Article 48 of MiCA states that: “A person shall not make an offer to the public or seek the admission to trading of an e-money token, within the Union, unless that person is the issuer of such e-money token and: (a) is authorised as a credit institution or as an electronic money institution...”.  The cited part of first paragraph of Art 48 of MiCA allows an interpretation in accordance with which a MiCA registered CASP can still either receive and transmit (to a non EU entity) or execute an order (on a non EU trading platform) to buy or sell a non-EUR denominated EMT whose issuer is not MiCA compliant. Namely, it seems that the provision of either of the two mentioned crypto asset services does not fall either under offer to the public nor under admission to trading.  It is quite clear that the provision of the two described crypto asset services does not fall under “seek the admission to trading.”  Nevertheless, an argument can be made that the provision of the two described crypto asset services  does not fall under “offer to public” as well. Namely, MiCA defines offer to the public “a communication (...) in any form presenting (...) sufficient information on the terms of the offer. When a CASP receives and transmits an order or when a CASP executes it, a CASP usually only receives order instructions and does not provide any information on the asset that will be bought. Consequently, it can be argued, that when acting as described, a CASP does not offer an EMT to public. This interpretation is further supported by the Recital 28. This one states that “The mere admission to trading or the publication of bid and offer prices should not, in and of itself, be regarded as an offer to the public of crypto-assets.”. Therefore, one could argue that a CASP can execute orders for non-EUR denominated EMTs, whose issuers are not authorised as a credit institution or as an electronic money institution.

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

Correct classification of services related to the 'reselling' of software provided in SaaS mode

With reference to the correct identification of the type of ICT services, taking into account the types contained in ANNEX III of Regulation (EU) 2024/2956, how should services related to the 'reselling' of software provided in SaaS mode be classified?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA Reg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/2956 - ITS on the register of information

Justification to consider a ‘significant penalty’ and to be excluded from the outflows

Pursuant to article 25(4)(b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61, does the cumulative loss of accrued interest, representing more than 50% of the total contractual interest income upon early withdrawal of term deposits (specifically those which have been active for more than 50% of their contractual term, have an original maturity longer than 30 days, and a residual maturity exceeding 30 days), constitute sufficient justification to consider this as a ‘significant penalty’ under article 25(4)paragraph (b), with the purpose of discouraging early withdrawal, and therefore allow such retail deposits (for which more  than 50% of contractual term has passed)  to be excluded from the outflows?

  • 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

Exposures to EU exchanges

Should exposures to EU exchanges be treated as exposures to institutions, under articles 119, 120 and 121?

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

Loans collateralized by immovable property in F 05.01 and F 13.01

Do loans collateralized by immovable property in templates FINREP 05.01 and FINREP 13.01 need to comply with Articles 124 - 126 of the CRR?

  • 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

Submission Error related to FC.06/L0600 “Label: Duplicate fact, not same value"

Could you please check if this duplicate ERROR is incorrect and needs to be corrected?When we try to submit the FICO IGT & RC report via local FSA Portal we get an ERROR regarding template FC.06/L0600 “Label: Duplicate fact, not same value”. It seems like the validation rule creates an ERROR if an “Identification code of the external counterparty” (column 0020) is included on more than one row. According to EU 2022/2454 Article 7.2 instruction for column 0080 it needs to be allowed to include the same ID code for the counterparty if there are more than one entity of the conglomerate involved,   I.E. two rows with the same Counterparty but two different entities of Consolidation (e.g. A & B), which get the following ERROR: Error in cell: sheet L0600, row 1, column J, with a value of A, Error in cell: sheet L0600, row 2, column J, with a value of B,. 

  • Legal act: Directive 2002/87/EC (FiCOD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2454 – ITS on the reporting of intra-group transactions and risk concentration for financial conglomerates

CET1 buyback - sufficient certainty

Should CET1 buybacks be deducted from the CET1 capital from the moment the permission from the competent authority has been granted or from the moment the transaction has been announced?

  • 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

Risk Weights for International Organisations under the Standardised Approach

Is it permissible that exposures to NATO Communication and Information Agency are assigned a 0 % risk weight under Article 118(f) CRR?

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

Template 2: location of the collateral

Is it intentional to show the location of counterparty rather than the physical location of the property in question for Template 2 ?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures

List of IEA Sectors in Column a vs List of IEA Sectors in the EBA3.3 Annotated Table Layout for ESG

The sector named "Chemicals" is listed in the Template 3: Banking book - Climate change transition risk: Alignment metrics, but is missing from the List of NACE sectors to be considered. There is therefore no indication of the NACE codes to consider for Chemicals. The answer to question 2024_7085 confirms that institutions shall also present IEA sector Chemicals as one of the rows for Template 3, but doesn´t tell which NACE sectors are to be used. Which NACE codes should be considered for the sector of Chemicals?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2022/2453 - ITS on ESG disclosures

BTAR voluntary disclose and DPM templates

Regarding the generation of DPM templates containing ESG pillar 3 disclosure, included in reporting framework 3.3 for the ad-hoc collection, according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2453, template 9 – Mitigating actions: BTAR- was required for December 24 submission only on a voluntary basis.  In case a bank has decided not to publish BTAR template in the Pillar 3 disclosure for December 2024, our understanding is that there is no obligation to deliver, for December 2024, these templates (D 09.01, D 09.02.a, D 09.02.b, D 09.02.c, D 09.02.d, D 09.03.a, D 09.03.b) included in reporting framework 3.3 to keep both reports aligned (Pillar 3 disclosure, made public in February 2025, and the reporting framework 3.3 templates). Please confirm that our view on this subject is correct.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Draft ITS on Supervisory Reporting of Institutions

Definition of ICT service

If a supplier must provide an ICT Service to fall under DORA, how should we determine what qualifies? Should we rely on the DORA regulation’s definition of an ICT Service, or should we use the Annex 3 list (S01-S19) from the ITS Register of Information?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA Reg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/2956 - ITS on the register of information

Dora agreements - ICT service supports a CIF

When an ICT Service supports a Critical and Important Function (CIF) within a financial entity, providers must sign DORA agreements with their suppliers if the supplier: a)     Provides an ICT Service (as per the DORA definition). b)     Critically underpins the ICT Service, meaning its disruption could affect security or continuity (based on ITS on Register of Information, Article 3(2)(b)). Is this interpretation correct? Or must DORA agreements be signed with all critical suppliers, even those that do not provide ICT Services?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA Reg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/2956 - ITS on the register of information

Register of ICT Services

Are these listed listed types of ICT-services (e.g., S07, S11, S12) covered under DORA’s definition of ICT Services? If not, can, e.g., facilities or infrastructure that do not include data or digital elements be excluded from this definition?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2022/2554 (DORA Reg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2024/2956 - ITS on the register of information