Search for Q&As Submit a question

List of Q&As

Association of personalised security credentials to the payment service user

Should strong customer authentication (SCA) elements always be issued under control of the Account service Payment Services Provider (ASPSP)?

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

ID: 2021_6141 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 06/08/2021 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Confirmation of Funds (CoF) request by a PISP in case of batch processing system

With respect to confirmation of funds request made by a Payment Initiation Service Provider (PISP), in the event that the Account Servicing Payment Service Providers (ASPSP) makes use of a batch processing system, should the ASPSP take into account batches that are in the queue waiting to be processed at the point when the fund confirmation request is made?

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

ID: 2021_6077 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 06/07/2021 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Payers right to make use of payment initiation service providers for all types of payment transactions

Shall payers be able to make use of payment initiation service providers for transmitting all types of credit-transfer based online payment orders from their payment accounts?

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

ID: 2020_5498 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 11/09/2020 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Alternative strong customer authentication for citizens without mobile

Why does the PSD2 allow banks to deny the access to the electronic financial services to customers without a mobile but with a PC?

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

ID: 2020_5325 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 21/06/2020 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Revocation / Invalidation of SCA proof before execution date

In order for a payment instruction to be regarded as 'authorised', is the Account Servicing Payment Service Provider (ASPSP) obliged to verify the strong customer authentication (SCA) proof immediately prior to the execution of each future dated payment instruction? If the ASPSP fails to re-verify the SCA proof, can the ASPSP hold the payer liable in the event of fraud?

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

ID: 2018_4440 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 28/12/2018 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Home / host cooperation

Should banks notify only National Competent Authorities (NCAs) of the home Member State when they use Strong customer authentication (SCA) exemptions on Secure corporate payment processes and protocols  (Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2018/389 – RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication) and Transaction risk analysis (Article 18 of the Delegated Regulation)?

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

ID: 2018_4170 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 30/07/2018 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Maturity calculation under IRB for exposures that only have contractual cashflows in the form of fees

Does Article 162(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) apply to exposures for which cash flow schedules contractually payable by the obligor are only fee-related (e.g., as in the case of guarantees)?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2021_5773 | Topic: Credit risk | Date of submission: 09/03/2021 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Treatment of cured defaulted exposures

For the treatment of cured defaulted exposures, a probation period of 90 days with no default triggers must apply before the exposure is moved back to a non-defaulted status. According to Article 178(1)(b CRR) default shall be considered to have occurred with regard to a particular obligor when the obligor is more than 90 days past due on any material credit obligation. However, if the material arrears fall below the thresholds, the arrears counter will reset to 0. Should the probation period of 90 days with no default triggers apply before the exposure is moved back to a non-defaulted status?

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

ID: 2021_5754 | Topic: Credit risk | Date of submission: 22/02/2021 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Look-through application under IRB approach

When an institution applies the look-through approach to units or shares of Collective Investment Undertaking (CIU) under the IRB approach and where the institution is allowed to use IRB advanced approach for the underlying credit exposures of the CIU in accordance with Article 148 CRR, can the institution still use the standard approach for those underlying exposures of which obligors are not internally rated and/or for which the information required for own LGD estimation are not available to the institution?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2021_5712 | Topic: Credit risk | Date of submission: 02/02/2021 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Calculation of the collateral value of immovable property considering minimum level of over-collateralisation ratio

Should the haircut due to minimum level of over-collateralisation be reflected in the calculation of collateral value with or without the deducted prior claims? Besides market value or mortgage lending value is there any other value that could be considered for the calculation purposes?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2021_5685 | Topic: Credit risk | Date of submission: 13/01/2021 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Treatment of third country covered bonds under IRB Approach

Which LGD should be applied for third country covered bonds (issued under a dedicated legal framework) which are not eligible for the same LGD as UCITS 52(4)?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2020_5522 | Topic: Credit risk | Date of submission: 30/09/2020 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Applicability of the Guidelines of the Committee of European Banking Supervisors on Article 106(2)(c) and (d) of Directive 2006/48/EC (CRD)

Are the implementation guidelines on Article 106(2)(c) and (d) of Directive 2006/48/EC (CRD) of the Committee of European Banking Supervisors applicable for interpreting Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/876?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2020_5340 | Topic: Large exposures | Date of submission: 30/06/2020 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Use of the “maturity of the tranche” (MT) as defined in Article 257 CRR as the “residual maturity” for purposes of the volatility adjustments for securitisation positions under Table 1 of Article 224(1) CRR.

Where collateral takes the form of securitisation positions meeting the criteria in Article 197(1)(h) CRR, can the institution use the “weighted average maturity” (WAM) as defined in Article 257 CRR as the “residual maturity” for purposes of the volatility adjustments set out in Table 1 of Article 224(1) CRR?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2020_5211 | Topic: Credit risk | Date of submission: 16/04/2020 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Use of short-term credit assessments with Article 120(2) CRR

May short-term issuer or issue ratings be used to assign risk weights in the general preferential treatment for short term exposures of article 120(2) CRR?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2019_4942 | Topic: Credit risk | Date of submission: 10/10/2019 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Synthetic securitisatios

Can ‘vendor financing’ constitute a synthetic securitisation?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 (SecReg)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2020_5454 | Topic: Provisions applicable to all securitisations | Date of submission: 18/08/2020 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Scope of “additional registrations” as obstacles in the sense of Article 32(3) Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389

Is a process that requires Third Party Providers (TPPs) to upload an electronic IDentification, Authentication and trust Services (eIDAS) certificate for receiving additional client credentials before first access to a payment account provided by an Account Servicing Payment Service Provider (ASPSP) to be considered an “additional registration” and therefore an obstacle?

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

ID: 2021_6029 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 04/06/2021 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Definition of participation for the purposes of Article 18(7) CRR

In the context of Article 18(7) CRR, where an institutions holds a participation in another undertaking that is not an institution, financial institution or ancillary services undertaking, shall the default treatment for this participation be the equity method or shall the valuation be affected in accordance with the applicable accounting framework (Article 24(1) CRR), if that would result in a different measurement base?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2020_5590 | Topic: Other issues | Date of submission: 30/10/2020 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

Scope of applicability of the required method of prudential consolidation under the Article 18(7) CRR

Is Article 18(7) CRR applicable for the calculation of prudential requirements at the individual level of that institution?

Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2020_5578 | Topic: Other issues | Date of submission: 22/10/2020 | Date of publication: 17/12/2021

The implementation of commercial agent exclusion for B2C e-commerce platforms

In what situation a business-to-consumer (B2C) e-commerce platform can be subjected to the exclusion foreseen in Article 3 (b) from PSD2?

Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2020_5355 | Topic: Other topics | Date of submission: 06/07/2020 | Date of publication: 06/12/2021

Exclusion from scope - article 3.2 f

1° Can a credit agreement, which relates to the deferred payment of the agreements mentioned in Article 3(1)(b) be excluded from the scope of the Directive - given that it is not secured by a mortgage? Are there any other reasons that justify this exclusion and therefore this difference in treatment? 2° When a mortgage credit agreement secured by a mortgage which relates to a deferred payment, free of charge, is granted, all the pre-contractual obligations mentioned by the Directive, as well as the obligation to carry out a creditworthiness assessment and to provide advice on the annual percentage rate of charge (APRC) must be fulfilled. When an assignee grants a deferred payment, which relates to a mortgage credit agreement secured by a mortgage after the security has been enforced, can you consider that they are granting a deferred payment, which is a consumer credit (excluded from the scope of Directive 2008/48 by Article 2(2)(j)). 3°Should any granted deferred payment which relates to a mortgage credit agreement secured by a mortgage be subject to the provisions of the Directive? Is this correct in all cases in which this deferred payment is granted, whether by an assignee of a debt or by a third party such as a bailiff? Should the bailiff or assignee granting such a deferred payment then comply with all the pre-contractual obligations, the obligations to provide guidance, assess creditworthiness and the ability to repay and apply an APRC? *** FR 1° Pouvons-nous considérer que, l’exclusion du champ d’application de la directive d’un contrat de crédit lié au délai de paiement des contrats visés à l’article 3.1.b), est justifiée en raison de l’absence de la garantie hypothécaire qui l’accompagne ? Est-ce cette seule spécificité qui justifie l’exclusion de ce type contrat de crédit hypothécaire, qui est également un contrat réglementé au même titre qu’un contrat de crédit hypothécaire avec une garantie hypothécaire ? 2° Lorsque le contrat de crédit hypothécaire garanti par une sûreté hypothécaire lié à un délai de paiement, sans frais, est accordé, il doit alors y avoir respect de toutes les obligations précontractuelles visées par la directive ainsi que l’obligation de l’évaluation de la solvabilité, TAEG obligation de conseil … 3° Devons-nous considérer que tout délai de paiement lié à un contrat de crédit hypothécaire garanti par une sureté hypothécaire qui est accordé est soumis aux dispositions de la directive ? Et ce dans tous les cas où ce délai de paiement est accordé, que ce soit par un cessionnaire de la créance ou par un tiers comme un huissier de justice ? L’huissier de justice ou le cessionnaire qui accorde un tel délai de paiement devrait alors respecter toutes les obligations précontractuelles, les obligations de conseil, l’analyse de la solvabilité et de la capacité de remboursement et appliquer un TAEG ?

Legal act: Directive 2014/17/EU (MCD)

COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable

ID: 2020_5480 | Topic: Other topics | Date of submission: 07/09/2020 | Date of publication: 03/12/2021