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.

Final Q&As Q&As under review Rejected Q&As Archived Q&As All Q&As

List of Q&A's

Access to national credit databases for all EU creditors for both cross-border and domestic mortgage loan transactions

Considering that Article 19 of Directive (EU) 2023/2225, repealing Directive 2008/48/EC (the ‘Consumer Credit Directive 2’), grants creditors from a Member State other than the one where a credit database is located access to that database only in relation to cross-border credit transactions, does the reference to the framework of Directive 2008/48/EC in Recital 20 of Directive 2014/17/EU (the ‘Mortgage Credit Directive’) imply that Article 21 MCD likewise provides creditors with access to databases solely for cross-border credit transactions?

  • Legal act: Directive 2014/17/EU (MCD)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7588
  • Topic: Creditworthiness assessments
  • Date of submission:

SPV repack transactions (collateral eligibility)

For recognising received financial collateral when calculating the exposure value under the counterparty credit risk (CCR) framework, does Article 207(2) CRR – which requires that the credit quality of the obligor and the value of the collateral shall not have a material positive correlation – apply?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7576
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

SPV repack transactions

Do SPV repackaging transaction on standardised platforms incur counterparty credit risk (CCR) or is the termination scenario considered a contractual feature that only results in market risk? If these transactions are subject to counterparty credit risk, how should the value of the collateral be taken into account?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7575
  • Topic: Market risk
  • Date of submission:

fully and completely secured by mortgages for the purpose of the deduction of non performing exposures

In the context of the CRR3 and the application of the deduction of non-performing exposure from Common Equity Tier 1 as per article 47c, we would like to clarify the requirements of “ fully and completely secured by mortgages” in order to determine the "secured part of a non-performing exposure".

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7503
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:

Payment account definition

Does an account provided by a payment service provider, linked to a payment instrument that can be used to make payment transactions to [certain] third parties (e.g. merchants) from that account, as well as to withdraw cash from that account (e.g. from an ATM) and receive incoming payments in the respective account from the same payment users to which the funds were transferred (i.e, refunds from merchants) fall under the definition of a payment account in accordance with PSD2, even if the respective account cannot receive funds from third parties via credit transfers?  

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7463
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Application of PSD2 provisions to the issuance and redemption of electronic money tokens

1) An EMI is acting solely as an issuer of EMTs ("EMTI") to its customers - crypto asset service providers (CASPs), these then provide the EMTs to their retail customers to be used for cryptoassets trading. EMTI does not maintain any fiat currency payment account for CASPs, nor provide any cryptocurrency services to them within the meaning of Articles 60(4) and 62 of the MICAR. Does the issuance of EMTs lead to a contractual relationship between the EMT holder (CASP, to whom the EMT is issued) and the EMTI within the meaning of PSD2 and EMD2? Is this contract passed on to the subsequent EMT holders who will acquire the EMTs from CASPs? 2) What is the legal nature of the acts of issuance and redemption of the EMTs?3) Which provisions of PSD2, if any, apply to issuance and redemption of the EMTs?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7457
  • Topic: Authorisation of issuers of ARTs and EMTs (MiCAR)
  • Date of submission:

Calculation of the standardised total risk exposure amount or S-TREA under Article 92(25)

Does the calculation of standardised total risk exposure amount, or S-TREA, require Firms to recalculate RWAs for standardised approaches where modelled inputs have been used? Specifically, do CVA RWAs calculated using IMM modelled EADs need to be re-calculated using EADs that have not been derived using a modelled approach?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7429
  • Topic: Own funds
  • Date of submission:

Calculation of COH according to Article 20 vs. Art. 12 (1) Subparagraph 2

How exactly does the calculation of COH, AUM, ASA, DTF, NPR and TCD on the basis of IFR Article 12 (1) Subparagraph 2 differ from the general method for calculation COH in IFR Article 20?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2019/2033 (IFR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2025_7359
  • Topic: Capital requirements
  • Date of submission:

emission allowances

Sentence 2 of paragraph 3 of Annex II CRR refers to point (11) of Section C of Annex I MiFID, i.e. to emission allowances. Does that mean that spot market emission allowances are to be treated as derivative contracts listed in Annex II, even though they are not derivative in character?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7255
  • Topic: Other issues
  • Date of submission:

Application of Instant Payment Regulation (IPR) to Securities Providers

Do you agree on the non-applicability of the obligation to provide instant credit transfers (within a time horizon of 10 seconds), introduced by IPR, to depositaries, custodians, and entities responsible for payments or local facility for foreign CIUs distributed in a Member State, based on the exclusion provided by article 3, paragraph 1, letter i), of directive 2015/2366 (PSD2)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7249
  • Topic: Authorisation and registration
  • Date of submission:

Prudential treatment for exposures in leasing real estate under construction

Should exposures in "real estate under construction instrumental leasing" fall within the definition of ADC exposure of Article 4(78a) of Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013 as amended by Regulation (EU) No. 1623/2024, or instead be treated applying the RW provided for unsecured exposures towards the lessee?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7226
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:

Definition of ADC exposures

Should ADC exposures include exposures related to financing land acquisition for development and construction purposes or the development and construction of residential or commercial property for borrower’s own use?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7201
  • Topic: Credit risk
  • Date of submission:

Payment service user - both payer and payee

Can a payment service user be both payer and payee on a money remittance service?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7184
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Transactions executed via electronic mail (email)

Do transactions ordered by email and executed by an employee of the payment service provider, e.g., credit transfers orders sent from the e-mail address of the payer to the e-mail address of the payment service provider and executed accordingly qualify as transactions executed through a remote channel, at-distance channel or a payment instrument which may imply a risk of payment fraud or other abuses, pursuant to Article 69, Article 70, Article 72 and Article 97(1)(c) PSD2?

  • 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: 2024_7150
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:

Exclusion of cash withdrawal services from PSD2

Is it a prerequisite for an ATM operator,to qualify for the exemption of article 3(o), to co-operate with a Payment Service Provider (authorised within the EEA or with a relative passport where necessasry) offering payment service number 2 of the Annex 1 of the PSD2?  

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7136
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:

Providing payment service via Internet banking (web-application)

Is providing payment service via Internet banking (web-application) payment initiation channel considered to be issuing of payment instruments? 

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2017/09 - Guidelines on authorisation and registration under PSD2
  • ID: 2024_7115
  • Topic: Authorisation and registration
  • Date of submission:

Issuers of EMTs and scope of application AML requirements

To what extent should electronic money institutions (EMIs) that issue e-money tokens (EMTs) under MiCAR comply with the obligations in relation to anti-money laundering and terrorist financing under Directive 2015/849/EU (as amended, AMLD5)? More specifically, should holders of EMTs be considered as clients of the EMI within the meaning of AMLD5, so that the relevant KYC requirements apply on an ongoing basis in respect of holders of EMTs (not only at the time of issuing but also following trading on the secondary market)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7078
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

Scope of application of recital 54 of MICAR

Question 1: Recital 54 MiCAR seems to presume that the same ART may be issued by EU and third country entity, when speaking of "Issuers of asset-referenced tokens that are marketed both in the Union and in third countries". Does recital 54 mean a technically same fungible token not (externally) attributable to a particular issuer or does this only mean that the token has the same rights attached and is marketed under the same name but is not technically identical and should be attributable to one issuer (in Union or in third countries)? Question 2: Does Recital 54 MiCAR, while referring to ART issuers and their reserve of assets requirements, also apply to EMT issuers (including cases where no reserve requirements under MiCAR apply) and should it be used to interpret prudential requirements for EMT issuers (including Article 54 MiCAR and EMD)? Question 3: if ever recital 54 was to be extended to all EMT issuers, how would this recital have to be interpreted in relation with article 54, which foresees that EMT issuers should safeguard funds received by issuers of e-money tokens in exchange for e-money tokens in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 2009/110/EC? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7069
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

One leg out Multi EMT issuance – legal possibility and related issues

Question 1: Can a technically identical and fully fungible EMT based on a non EU currency be issued by, on one hand, a EU-based entity licensed as an electronic money institution or credit institution (therefore complying with MICAR) and, on the other hand, by an entity based in another non EU jurisdiction and non regulated under EU law?  Question 2: If ever the preceding arrangement was possible under MICAR, then would it be compliant with Article 48(1) MiCAR in case a person on the EU territory was to offer or seek admission to trading on EU markets for tokens issued by the entity not authorised as an electronic money institution or credit institution?  Question 3: [This question is to be read in light of associated QA on scope of recital 54] If ever the preceding arrangement was possible under MICAR, given that this technically identical and fully fungible EMT would freely circulate on the secondary market and would actually be marketed both in the EU and in non EU jurisdictions, should competent authorities apply to this arrangement provisions set by recital 54?  Question 4: [This question is to be read in light of associated QA on scope of recital 54] If ever the preceding arrangement was possible under MICAR and recital 54 could be applied, then would competent authorities have to apply safeguarding requirements for the EU licensed entity based on the volume of tokens this entity issued (as per MICAR article 54) or on the “issuers’ liability towards Union holders”, based on “the share of […] tokens that is expected to be marketed in the Union” (as per MICAR recital 54)? Question 5: In order to mitigate potential regulatory arbitrage and capital flight in the context of a one leg out multi EMT issuance, would it be compliant with MICAR to allow only EU-based residents to present redemption requests to the EU-based entity

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7068
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission: