Search for Q&As Submit a question

List of Q&As

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

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

Tied credit intermediary that represents a number of creditors or groups which does not represent the majority of the market

What type of criteria should a tied credit intermediary abide to in order not to go beyond the legal limit of “the majority of the market” when establishing relationships with creditors? How should this majority be calculated and how many times do intermediaries need to update this information in order to remain compliant?

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

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

ID: 2019_5002 | Topic: Passporting of mortgage credit intermediaries | Date of submission: 14/11/2019

Eligibility of minority interests

When it comes to subsidiaries which are institutions or investments firms established in third countries, are minority interests eligible for the purpose of their recognition in prudential own funds as per Article 81 (for CET1) or Article 82 (for AT1 and T2)?

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

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

ID: 2021_5711 | Topic: Own funds | Date of submission: 02/02/2021

Revocation of future dated Payment Initiation Services (PIS) payments

Is the Bank (an ‘Account Servicing Payment Service Provider’(ASPSP)) prohibited under PSD2 from acting on the following unsolicited customer instruction:- Customer asks their Bank to cancel a future-dated payment, or a series of recurring future-dated payments - where the original consent for the payment(s) was given by the customer to a Payment Initiation Services Provider (PISP).In this scenario, is the Bank required to advise the customer that the Bank cannot accept the customer’s instruction to revoke these future payments; and that only a revocation instruction received via the PISP can be accepted by the Bank?

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

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

ID: 2019_4496 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 31/01/2019

Relevance of third country capital requirements for the calculation of minority interests amounts of a subsidiary to be included at the consolidated leve

When applying Article 84(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) in respect of subsidiary institutions in third countries, should the excess capital attributable to minorities be determined by applying, namely in subparagraph (i), the provisions and requirements of CRR, together with any additional local requirements, to the extent these have to be met with CET1 capital?

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

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

ID: 2019_4775 | Topic: Own funds | Date of submission: 12/06/2019

The implementation of commercial agent exclusion for e-commerce platforms

Should the settlement of the debt by an e-commerce platform be considered a sufficient reason to exclude the e-commerce platform from the scope of PSD2 or an indispensable requirement for a commercial agent mandate?

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

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

ID: 2020_5354 | Topic: Other topics | Date of submission: 06/07/2020

Consumer explicit consent to the PISP for processing of personal data

Can the presentation by the consumer of its identification data to the merchant (e.g. CustomerID and IBAN through a QR code read by the Point of Interaction (POI)) be interpreted as the consumer providing explicit consent via the merchant to the usage of this data by a Payment Initiation Service Provider (PISP) that has a contractual relationship with the merchant (but not with the consumer) for the processing of data that will enable the initiation of a single (instant) credit transfer with the consumer’s Account Servicing Payment Service Provider (ASPSP), subject to sufficient information about this PISP made available beforehand to the consumer (in accordance with Articles 44 and 45 of PSD2)? Or is the explicit consent of the consumer to the PISP required by way of contract, as mentioned in section 3.2.1 of the EDPB Guidelines 06/2020 on the interplay of Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2) and the GDPR?

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

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

ID: 2020_5570 | Topic: Other topics | Date of submission: 20/10/2020

Information to be provided by the PISP to the payer prior to the initiation of the transaction

Is it sufficient that the merchant makes available upon request by the payer (consumer) the information about the Payment Initiation Service Provider (PISP) in the Point of Interaction (POI) environment before the consumer presents their data (e.g., via a QR code) to meet the requirements of Articles 44 and 45, (2), PSD2?

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

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

ID: 2020_5573 | Topic: Other topics | Date of submission: 20/10/2020

Application of the leverage ratio exemption related to the passing-through of promotional loans to other credit institutions

Can the leverage ratio exemption related to the passing-through of promotional loans to other credit institutions (Article 429a(1)(e) CRR) be applied if an institution which is not a public development credit institution (Article 429a(2) CRR) but an entity set up by the central government, regional government or local authority of a Member State would issue promotional loans (Article 429a(3) CRR) through credit institutions and match these exposures by covered bonds on the liability side, under the same terms and conditions?

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

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

ID: 2021_5811 | Topic: Leverage ratio | Date of submission: 12/04/2021

FINREP template F44.03 Share based payments

In template 44.3 Staff expenses by type of benefits, in row 0020 Share based payments are requested. For the whole template the following validation rule applies: v3988_s: {F 44.03} >= 0 (for all rows and with severity level error). This is suggesting share based payments can never be a negative amount, which we believe is not always the case (as a result of changes in the fair value of the liability recognised). Can you please amend the Validation rule by excluding row 0020 from this rule?

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

ID: 2021_5831 | Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE) | Date of submission: 29/04/2021

Reporting of residential mortgage loans on C80.00 - NSFR - Required Stable Funding

Can EBA confirm that a single residential mortgage loan with LTV > 80% should be split between rows 760 and 810 of the C80.00 based on the portion of the loan that a 35% risk weight would be applied to under the standardised approach to credit risk? The portion up to 80% LTV being reported in row 760 and the portion >80% LTV being reported in row 810. Can EBA also confirm that where mortgage loans are risk weighted using the internal ratings based approach, those loans are to be assigned to rows 760 and 810 as if standardised approach applied i.e. based on LTV ratio?

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

ID: 2021_5830 | Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM) | Date of submission: 28/04/2021

Reporting of a net reverse repo when the collateral leg has a higher RSF factor

How should we report a net reverse repo (resulting from the netting of SFTs) when the collateral leg has a higher RSF factor?

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

ID: 2021_5752 | Topic: Supervisory reporting - Liquidity (LCR, NSFR, AMM) | Date of submission: 22/02/2021

Valuation rule 3684 - no negative amounts on row360

Due to impairments or shorter useful life under the applicable accounting framework compared to the tax base, it is possible that the carrying amount of other intangible assets is lower than the tax base. In that case a DTA is booked on that intangible assets. Is it, in that case, allowed to report a negative amount on row 360 Deferred tax liabilities associated to other intangible assets?

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

ID: 2021_5679 | Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses) | Date of submission: 08/01/2021

In template C 34.02, the field "Exposures" aims to report separately all CCR exposures and all CCR exposures excluding exposures to central counterparties (CCPs). In the DPM taxonomy 3.0 and the related annotated template, this exclusion seems to refer to QCCPs only.

Shall we exclude all exposures to CCPs from Template C 34.02 or only exposures to QCCPs ? The annotated template C 34.02(0002) is currently referring to the "Counterparty" member value (CT:x81) Non-QCCPs, which makes no sense with the exclusion required in Annex II.

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

ID: 2020_5674 | Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses) | Date of submission: 29/12/2020

Prudential consolidation of special funds

Strictly following the instructions for presenting fully owned CIUs in FINREP leads to possibly unwanted outcomes as compared to IFRS accounts. Can competent authorities allow for fully owned CIUs to be consolidated in order to allow for the use of a look-through approach for FINREP?

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

ID: 2020_5668 | Topic: Supervisory reporting - FINREP (incl. FB&NPE) | Date of submission: 21/12/2020

Include all entities which belong to a group of connected clients in Large exposure templates

Should credit institution report all entities which belong to a group of connected clients in their C 29.00 template, including those which do not have any direct or indirect exposure with this credit institution?

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

ID: 2019_4525 | Topic: Supervisory reporting - Large Exposures | Date of submission: 07/02/2019

EAD for over-collateralised securities financing transactions under the Financial Collateral Comprehensive Method

For SFTs which are over-collateralised (the collateral received exceeds the exposure thus generating an EAD of zero), how should they be represented in the C07 template, if at all?

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

ID: 2015_2010 | Topic: Supervisory reporting - COREP (incl. IP Losses) | Date of submission: 15/05/2015

Elements of possession (SIM card) and knowledge (knowledge-based responses to challenges or questions)

1. Can evidence of possession (SIM card) can also be verified by reading and identifying the phone number used for the phone call? 2. Can a knowledge element be based on a) transaction history of the customer; b) contact information of the customer?

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_5215 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 21/04/2020

Merchant IDs and SCA

In the situation where Strong Consumer Authentication (SCA) was completed at the time of completing a hotel booking by an Online Travel Agent (OTA) or hotelbrand.com under their Merchant ID but the actual payment will take place at the time of arrival: will the SCA authentication token remain valid for the hotel (merchant) making the charges and its respective Merchant ID?

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: 2019_4797 | Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access) | Date of submission: 19/06/2019