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

Classification of payment systems providers in Resol2 Z_09.01 template.

How it’s possible to classify FMI Providers for Payment systems in template Z_09.01?

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

Inconsistency between ITS and Taxonomy

In the Annex II of the ITS for report Z0600, Column 0030 - DGS , the ITS clearly states that the value other can be reported :"If the officially recognised DGS of which the entity is member is not listed above, ‘oter shall be reported".   But the DPM 4.2 as a restriction fur such column based on subcateogy EN3 which does not allow any "other" value and just nammed the principal DGS to be used. In the previous version of the DPM, the DGS column was technically binded by another enumeration that was allowing an other value : x128 - Other deposit guarantee scheme.   Can you explain us : if it's normal that the DPM 4.2 is now excluding the Other value even if the ITS seems to say that it's a valid option if it's correct for a client for which some CI may used some DGS not listed in the subcateroy EN3, to let this column empty?  

  • 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 Z 01.02 Resolution Planning – Uniqueness Requirement for Column 0020

In template Z01.02 in column 0020 the unique identifier of the legal entity or investor referred in column 0010 should be reported. In our ownership structure, several investors hold participations in multiple investee entities, meaning the same investor appears in multiple rows of Template Z 01.02. Because the identifier in Column 0020 must consistently represent the same legal entity, it must be repeated across those rows. This, however, conflicts with the requirement that Column 0020 contain a unique value for each row. 

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

Mapping of Critical Services to Critical Functions Z08.04

We need additional guidance in Z08.04 on how to report a critical service linked to multiple critical functions

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

FMI Reporting

In defining field 0040 (System type) in the latest hotfix to EBA DPM 4.2 (January 14th), EBA did not include value eba_qMA:qx2046 Payment Systems in the list of accepted values in the Annotated Template Layout

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

Z 09.01 FMI 1 - System type enumerated property

A clarification is needed regarding which option in the enumerated list used in the DPM for column 0040 of Z 09.01 should be selected to report the system type ‘Payment systems

  • 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 Templates and DPM 4.2 Annotated Table Layouts for RESOL 1/2

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

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

EBA RESOLUTION TEMPLATE Z09.02 ON FINANCIAL MARKETS INFRASTRUCTURES

We need additional guidance in Z0902 on how to report FMIs related to Core Business Lines only, or FMIs related to more than a single Core Business Line. We kindly ask your guidance on how to report the following use cases: A purely Essential FMI, that is an FMI not linked to any Critical Economic Function (hence, with 0060 set to empty), but linked to one Core Business Line; An FMI that needs to be linked to more than one Core Business Line (hence, where we would need to insert several distinct values in 0060)

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

Z 01.02 - Ownership structure (ORG 2)

The template require to report all the shareholders (or equivalent) of the group’s entities with more than 2% of share capital (or equivalent) or voting rights, and all the shareholdings (or equivalent) held by entities of the group. In the annotated table for the Z_01.02, the key value is represented only by the column 0020 “Code”. In the event that the same investor holds shares in multiple entities of the Group, it is not possible to report all the shares as an investor can only be reported once.

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

Net liquidity outflows over a 30 calendar day stress period

If a facility agreement includes a condition that causes a committed revolving facility to become non‑revolving during a period of stress for the credit institution, should the net liquidity outflow for LCR purposes then be calculated based on the maturity date of each individual drawing rather than the overall facility maturity date?

  • 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

Incorporation of historical data from integrated entities when historical information is not representative of current underwriting standards

Should an institution incorporate historical default data from acquired or merged entities into its IRB model estimates for PD, LGD, and CCF when calculating RWA for the acquiring institution’s exposures originated before and after the merger? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2017/16 - Guidelines on PD estimation, LGD estimation and the treatment of defaulted exposures

Counterparty treatment of Debt Management Offices (DMOs)

How should Debt Management Offices (DMO) be treated in liquidity reporting for counterparty classification purposes?

  • 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

Liquid assets - CIUs

For the purposes of Article 43 (1) (b) of the IFR should CIUs that hold short-term unencumbered deposits at a credit institution or financial instruments referred to in article 43 (1) (c) of the IFR be considered to fulfil the condition set out in Article 15 (1) (b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61?

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

Treatment of Payment Institution and Electronic Money Institution safeguarding accounts in LCR C73.00 reporting

How should the safeguarding accounts of Payment Institutions (PIs) and Electronic Money Institutions (EMIs) be treated in the LCR C73.00 template? According to the legal requirements (e.g. PSD2 and EMD2), PI/EMI funds must be segregated from own funds and held separately in safeguarding accounts with credit institutions or invested in secure assets. It is unclear whether such safeguarded funds should be considered as deposits of financial institutions and therefore reported in row 230 of LCR C73.00, or whether they may be treated as other customer deposits and reported in row 240.

  • 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 ‘sole purpose test’ with respect to the criterion predominant source of revenues.

Art. 2 (7) (a) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2023/2175 stipulates the following Revenue Test: “the entity has a strategy and the capacity to meet payment obligations consistent with a broader business model that involves material support from capital, assets, fees or other sources of income, by virtue of which the entity does not rely on the exposures to be securitised, on any interests retained or proposed to be retained in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402, or on any corresponding income from such exposures and interests, as its sole or predominant source of revenue”. The ESA report (JC 2025 14) from March 2025 in particular in the context of Collateralised Loan Obligation (CLO) securitisations as they relate to third party origination CLO vehicles, reiterates this guidance and clarifies that the word “predominant” translates into a 50% threshold: “[…] According to the RTS, this means that the entity’s revenues should correspond to no more than 50% on the exposures to be securitised, risk retained assets or proposed to be retained in accordance with Article 6 of the SECR, or any corresponding income from such exposures and risk retained assets. […]”.  It is also acknowledged that the JC of the ESAs seek to invite the European Commission to confirm this interpretation and if needed to consider some legislative adjustments to clarify the term “sole purpose” in the Level 1 text. The Submitter would like to confirm that in situations where such aforementioned originator invests in securitization tranches in excess of the minimum risk retention in accordance with Art. 6 of the Securitisation Regulation, the Revenue Test is met if: X / Y ≤ 0.5  where X means the sum of gross revenues based on exposures to be securitized and gross revenues of tranches mandatorily held to fulfil the minimum risk retention, and  Y means all gross revenues. The gross revenues of tranches voluntarily held in excess of the minimum risk retention should therefore only be included in Y.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 (SecReg)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2023/2175 - RTS on the risk retention requirements for originators, sponsors, original lenders, and servicers

Discrepancies between taxonomy packages

The Partial Taxonomy Packages published and still available from contain potentially outdated information and most likely it cannot be used as is. The current major concerns are the differences found between the 3.2 Partial Taxonomy Packages and the 3.2 Full Taxonomy Package. Here we have identified differences that in the DataPoint Ids. (meaning that certain cells must be delivered differently into XBRL-CSV) It seems that there are further differences in the latest 4.1 EBA Full Taxonomy Package compared to the 3.2 Full Taxonomy Package, however these differences should not modify the output. (meaning no difference in the instance generated)

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

EBA mapping file for Pillar 3 template EU CMS2

The mapping file for EU CMS2 template seems to contain multiple issues: 1) The Naming of the row EU 7a does not conform to the regulation 2024/3172 (ITS). In the ITS, the row is not an ‘of which’ row, but an independent row. 2) The row 6.2 (Of which: Retail - Secured by residential real estate) appears to be redundant. Following the ITS instructions for this section, “Where the IRB exposures would have been allocated in a different exposure class in the standardised approach (SA), the IRB exposures shall be excluded from their IRB exposure classes and they shall be disclosed   in one of the following exposure classes of the Standardised approach”. All exposures (partially) secured by real estate must be disclosed on row EU 7a or EU 7c , no exposure can be disclosed on row 6.2, which is an ‘of which’ category of row 6 (Retail). The mapping to COREP C10 row 0170 appears incorrect as it conflicts with the ITS instruction to reclass the exposures.  

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

Clarification on the term “fully and completely secured by mortgages” in Article 47c(1) in the context of Non-Performing Exposures (NPEs).

Within the context of Article 47c(1), how should the “secured” part of a non-performing exposure be interpreted, given that the term “fully and completely secured by mortgages” is no longer defined in Title II of Part Three?

  • 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

Z 09.01 – FMI Services – providers and users (RESOL2)

We ask confirmation that the column “0140-Resolution resilient contract” applies only in the case of indirect access to FMIs and that for FMIs with direct access, the value “Yes” should be reported

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