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

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

Resolution Reporting on FMI

With reference to Resolution Reporting on FMI Services, we would like to bring to your attention some questions regarding the scope and data reported, particularly in cases where the Bank participates indirectly in certain FMIs. With reference to item "Z 09.03 - Financial Market Infrastructure Services (FMI) - Key Metrics (FMI 3)", we would therefore like to know whether, for FMIs to which we participate indirectly, it is possible to report intermediary data instead of individual FMI data, and, if so, how to complete the individual items. The question specifically concerns the following reporting fields: • Z 09.03/60-70 Value of positions on proprietary and client accounts • Z 09.03/80 Number of clients covered by omnibus accounts • Z 09.03/90 Number of clients covered by segregated accounts • Z 09.03/100-110 Number of transactions on proprietary and client accounts • Z 09.03/120-130 Value of transactions on proprietary and client accounts This requirement arises from the fact that, since we use an intermediary, we do not have internal evidence of the final FMIs on which it relies. In fact, our systems only map the intermediary's reference, while the references of the final FMIs are not tracked. As an example, we can cite Intesa San Paolo, which acts as an intermediary for Banca Mediolanum on all CSDs and most trading venues. In our systems, Intesa San Paolo is matched to all securities transactions, without specifying the final CSD. We currently report that we are still providing the above-mentioned information by requesting detailed data from our intermediaries. In this regard, we also note that our intermediaries will include our data in their reporting for individual FMIs, reporting us as their clients in these contexts.   Finally, we would like to take this opportunity to request clarification regarding some new items introduced starting this year, specifically: • Z 09.01/80 Operator of the FMI - is it correct to indicate the contractual contact person of the FMI/Intermediary? • Z 09.04/20 Product Type - Is it possible to include a description of the service provided by the FMI/intermediary, consistent with that indicated in item Z 09.01/220 - Services provided by FMI/intermediary, possibly with greater detail? • Z 09.04/30 Substitutability - Should the substitutability analysis be performed for all FMIs, considering as alternative FMIs/intermediaries only those with which a contract at the conglomerate level is already in place?  

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

Z02.00_r0334 sum of net liability positions taking into account prudential netting rules

In accordance with Articles 429 and 295 of the CRR, only netting agreements that are legally recognised are eligible for consideration under prudential netting rules. With regard to standalone derivative positions that represent liabilities and are not subject to any netting agreement, is it correct to report these in r0334, even though they cannot be netted under the prudential netting framework?

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

Z08.01 & Z08.02: Resolution resilience reporting

Should the explicit inclusion of clauses referred to in data points c0150 to c0170 of Z08.01-Template and c0100 to c0120 of Z08.02-Template be required only for contracts governed by third-country law, considering that contracts governed by EU law are deemed resolution-resilient by virtue of the implementation of BRRD requirements in the national legislation of Member States?

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

Assigning risk-weight to a credit facility where the drawdown is contingent on non-credit risk related conditions that are required to be met by the obligor prior to any initial or subsequent drawdown and where the conditions for the drawdown are not met.

What risk-weight should be assigned to a credit facility where the drawdown is contingent on non-credit risk related conditions that are required to be met by the obligor prior to any initial or subsequent drawdown and where the conditions for the drawdowns are not met per the reporting date?

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

Treasury subsidiaries of non-financial corporates and “financial customer” definition

How should banks consider the “purpose” of treasury subsidiaries of non-financial corporates, when assessing whether the customer performs one or more of the CRD Annex I activities as its “main business”?

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

Definition of Default (CRR Article 178) – Application of contagion and the 20% “significant part” threshold in the presence of joint credit obligations where default is applied at facility level

When the Definition of Default for retail exposures is applied at facility level, how should institutions apply the contagion and pulling effects set out in Article 178 CRR and EBA/GL/2016/07 in the presence of joint credit obligations, given that paragraphs 96–99 are articulated for obligor level default, while Article 178 CRR allows default recognition at facility level. In particular: Should a joint obligor (i.e. a specific set of obligors jointly liable) be treated as a separate obligor for the purposes of assessing contagion and the “significant part” (20%) threshold? How should contagion be assessed between:  joint credit obligations of the same set of obligors, individual exposures of the obligors participating in the joint obligation, and other joint credit obligations of those individual obligors with different counterparties, where default is recognised at facility level (including defaults identified through indications of unlikeliness to pay)? How should this be applied in practice for the 3 illustrative examples given?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2016/07 - Guidelines on the application of the definition of default under Article 178 CRR

Submiting Z06.00 on an individual basis in a separate template for every relevant legal entities (RLEs) in a resolution group

Why every single RLE  in a resolution group should report a separate Z06.00 “Deposit Insurance” template (LIAB 6) at individual level?

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

Résolution 1 - Alimentation des cellules du Z03.01

We want to confirm how to fill the template Z03.01already reported by the entity in FINREP or COREP

  • 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 the report DPM table layout and data point categorization 4.2 and EBA Annex II Instructions.

'- In the DPM 4,2 file in tab Z_07.01.3 a and c, the fields 0100 (Number of transactions) and 0110 (Number of clients) are the components of the Cross Border Activities section. In the Annex II Instructions, the fields 0100 and 0110 are not subject to the Cross Border Activities section but they concern the number of clients and transactions of the total economic function. - In the DPM 4,2 file in tab Z_07.01.4, the fields 0090 (Number of counterparties) and 0100 (Number of transactions) are the components of the Cross Border Values section. In the Annex II Instructions, the fields 0100 and 0110 are not subject to the Cross Border Values section but they concern the total numbers of the total economic function.  Could you please confirm that the breakdowns in the tabs: Z_07.01.3a for the column 0100, Z_07.01.3c for the column 0110, Z_07.01.4  for the columns 0090 and 0100 are not included in the Cross Border section? 

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

Discrepancies between taxonomy packages

Can you please provide clarity on whether or not the identified differences between ECB's SFRDP taxonomy 5.2 and EBA's FINREP9_DP in DPM 4.2 will be addressed /aligned in a future DPM publication, or if these are intentional and will remain as they are in DPM 4.2? If they will be aligned, please indicate when this can be expected.

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

Validation rule v5702_s (F 31.01)

We request a change in the status of validation rule number v5702_s from 'Error' to 'Warning' in the consolidated FINREP ITS report. 

  • 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

Reporting of the penalty fees in J07.00 Repricing cash flows (behavioural template)

How should the penalty fees be treated in J07.00 Repricing cash flows (behavioural) template? At this point, the inclusion of penalty fees will break the validation rule v22322_m.

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

Dropdown lists are invalid

Dear Sir/Madam  We have noticed that in the templates published by the EBA, the name manager reference for templates containing dropdown fields shows a #REF! error, causing the dropdown lists to be invalid. If possible, could you please provide us with the correct version of the template?  Kind Regards

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

Deduction of goodwill included in the valuation of significant investments in entities included in prudential consolidation

For the purposes of calculating own funds on an individual basis and a sub-consolidated basis, are institutions subject to supervision on a consolidated basis required to deduct goodwill included in the valuation of significant investments of the institution, for holdings in such entities that are included in the scope of consolidated supervision?

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

Clarification on the application of Article 215.2(b) of the CRR

Can guarantees issued by a central government for residential mortgages, that covers losses resulting from the non-payment of interest and other types of payments which the borrower is obliged to make, be used for unfunded credit protection if the final guarantee value is determined based on the residual value between an executive sale of underlying residential mortgage collateral and a max guaranteed amount?

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

Request for Clarification on the Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting, and Decision of the European Central Bank of 16 September 2010 on the authenticity and fitness checking and recirculation of euro banknotes (ECB/2010/14) (2010/597/EU)

we request clarification regarding the interpretation and applicability of Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting. 1. Application of Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 «Article 6(1) — Obligations of institutions involved in the processing and delivery of banknotes and coins to the public 1. Credit institutions and other payment service providers when making payments, as well as entrepreneurs involved in the processing and delivery of banknotes and coins to the public, including: — institutions whose activities involve the exchange of banknotes and coins of different currencies, such as money exchange offices, — cash carriers, — other operators, such as merchants and casinos, should also be required to check this when, among other things, they process banknotes and deliver them to the public using automated teller machines (ATMs) (banknote dispensing machines), but this obligation would only apply to such additional activities, are obliged to ensure the authenticity of euro banknotes and coins that they have received and intend to re-circulate, and to detect counterfeit banknotes and coins» The term “received banknotes” is not explicitly defined in either Regulation 1338/2001, its amendments, or ECB Decision 2010/14. In view of the above, we kindly request clarification on the following points: Can such a banknote be considered as “received” within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001?  Can a banknote rejected by the device be considered as “received”? Which specific European Union legislative act provides a legal definition or authoritative interpretation of the term “received banknotes”, as used in the context of the handling, processing, and authenticity verification of euro banknotes under the EU legal framework?

  • Legal act: Other
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

CoRep Template - C13.01 - Guidance regarding the treatment of the 'Before Cap' column (Column 0890)

As per the CRR Article, the final RWA is required to be derived after applying additional risk weight due to non compliance of due diligence requirement as defined in Article 270a and maturity mismatch for synthetic securitization as per Article 252. However, this additional risk weight RWA is applied on the RWA only after application of the Cap as per Article 267, 268 and 269a. Hence the Final RWA can be higher than the Before CAP RWA due to application of additional risk weight due to Article 270a or Article 252.As per COREP instruction, the "Before Cap" (column 0890) RWA requires us to report all RWA before applying Cap and the difference between the Before Cap and After Cap Final RWA is only driven by impact of Cap. This creates a conflict to the actual CRR articles and hence requires further clarification.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed)

v22914_m_0

Is v22914_m_0 correct. In our it includes incorrect parameters that needs to be replaced.

  • 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

COREP Template C.08.05 and Pillar 3 EU CR9

In the latest update of the instructions for completing the COREP reports, a change has been introduced in report C.08.05 regarding the PD range, by which the substitution effect due to the application of credit risk mitigation (CRM) techniques shall be considered, unlike previous versions. On the other hand, the Pillar III instructions keep the previous criterion of reporting the PD range corresponding to clients before applying substitution. This leads to a contradiction in the EBA mapping tool, according to which table CR-9 derives its values from COREP C08.05. With the latests modifications, hence, PD range reported in C.08.05 does not match table CR-9. Is it possible that the previous criterion, as shown in the Pilar III instructions, should still be applicable for the C08.05 template, and the word "without" in the COREP instructions was inadvertently deleted?

  • 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