The Financial Market Authority shall take into account European convergence in respect of supervisory tools and supervisory procedures in the enforcement of the provisions under national and European law.
In this regard the Guidelines and Recommendations and other measures passed by resolution that are issued by the European Banking Authority (EBA) must be applied. In addition the warnings and recommendations passed by the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) must also be complied with.
Against this background, it is necessary to note that the Financial Market Authority takes into account the Guidelines and Recommendations that have been issued since 1 January 2011 by EBA, as the legal successor to CEBS, in its enforcement activities within the corresponding legal framework. These also include the Guidelines and Recommendations issued by CEBS until 31.12.2010 that continue to retain validity.
In accordance with Article 16 (3) of the EBA Regulation, the Guidelines and Recommendations published by EBA are also to be applied by the banking industry. Furthermore, the Financial Market Authority also expects that the Guidelines and Recommendations previously published by CEBS are also taken into account accordingly by the banking industry.
The Financial Market Authority makes all EBA Guidelines published to date available for download in both German and English language versions (as far as available).
The Guidelines and Recommendations issued by EBA and other related measures can also be found on the EBA website in the “Regulation and Policy” menu item for the corresponding topic. In addition all CEBS guidelines can be found on the EBA website in the “CEBS Archive” menu item under publications.
These guidelines specify the criteria relating to simplicity, standardisation and transparency for non-asset-backed commercial paper (non-ABCP) securitisations in accordance with Articles 20, 21 and 22 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017. These guidelines apply in relation to the criteria of simplicity, standardisation and transparency of non-ABCP securitisations. Competent authorities should apply these guidelines in accordance with the scope of application of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 as set out in its Article 1. These guidelines are addressed to the competent authorities referred to in Article 29(1) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 and to the other addressees under the scope of that Regulation.
These guidelines specify the criteria relating to simplicity, standardisation and transparency for asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) securitisations in accordance with Articles 24 and 26 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017. These guidelines apply in relation to the transaction- and programme-level requirements of ABCP securitisations. Competent authorities should apply these guidelines in accordance with the scope of application of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 as set out in its Article 1. These guidelines are addressed to the competent authorities referred to in Article 29(1) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 and to the other addresses under the scope of that Regulation.
These guidelines specify which types of exposures other than those mentioned in Article 128(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 are to be associated with particularly high risk and under which circumstances, as mandated by Article 128(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
In addition, on the EBA’s own initiative, these guidelines specify, for the purposes of the present guidelines only, definitions for the notions of ‘venture capital’ and ‘private equity’, as referenced in points (a) and (c) of Article 128(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
Scope of application: These guidelines clarify the notions of investments in venture capital firms and investments in private equity as mentioned in Article 128(2), points (a) and (c), CRR. The guidelines also specify which types of exposures, other than those mentioned in Article 128(2) CRR, are to be associated with particularly high risk and under which circumstances, in line with the mandate in Article 128(3) CRR.
Addressees: These guidelines are addressed to competent authorities as defined in point (i) of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and to institutions as defined in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1093/2010.
Date of application: from 01.07.2019
These Guidelines specify the conditions, set out in Article 33(6) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389 (the RTS), to exempt the account payment service providers that have opted for a dedicated interface from the obligation to set up the contingency mechanism described in Article 33(4) of the RTS. These Guidelines further provide guidance on how competent authorities should consult the EBA for the purposes of the exemption in accordance with Article 33(6) of the RTS.
These guidelines amend the Guidelines on common procedures and methodologies for the supervisory review and evaluation process of 19 December 2014 (EBA/GL/2014/13, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Guidelines’). Provisions of the Guidelines that are not amended by these guidelines remain in force and continue to apply.
These guidelines aim to provide common organisational requirements, methodologies and processes for the performance of stress testing by institutions, taking into account capital adequacy and risk management, as part of their risk management processes (‘institutions’ stress testing’). Within the context of groups, these guidelines also apply to institutions participating in a particular stress testing exercise in accordance with the perimeter of application of that particular stress testing exercise and the level of application set out in Articles 108 and 109 of Directive 2013/36/EU.
These guidelines specify:
In order to ensure the adequate protection of consumers, these Guidelines seek to clarify expectations relating to firms’ organisation relating to complaints-handling; provide guidance on the provision of information to complainants; provide guidance on procedures for responding to complaints; harmonise the arrangements of firms for the handling of all complaints they receive; and ensure that firms’ arrangements for complaints-handling are subject to a minimum level of supervisory convergence across the EU.
The Guidelines on complaints-handing for the securities and banking sectors correspond to the 2014 version of the Guidelines in terms of their content. The scope of application was, however, extended to cover new providers in accordance with PSD II and the MCD. The BMDW is competent for the supervision of providers pursuant to the MCD (credit intermediation services).
These Guidelines provide detail on statistical data on fraud related to different means of payment that payment service providers have to report to their competent authorities, as well as on the aggregated data that the competent authorities have to share with the EBA and the ECB, in accordance with Article 96(6) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (PSD2).
Recommendations amending Recommendations EBA/REC/2015/01 on the equivalence of confidentiality regimes
These guidelines specify the requirements for the estimation of probability of default (PD) and loss given default (LGD), including LGD for defaulted exposures (LGD in-default) and best estimate of expected loss (ELBE) in accordance with Part Three, Title II, Chapter 3, Section 6 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, Article 159 of that Regulation and the EBA final draft regulatory technical standards on the IRB assessment methodology EBA/RTS/2016/03 [RTS on IRB assessment methodology] of 21 July 2016.
These recommendations further specify conditions for outsourcing as referred to in the CEBS guidelines on outsourcing of 14 December 2006 and apply to outsourcing by institutions as defined in point (3) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 to cloud service providers.
These Guidelines specify the requirements regarding the suitability of members of the management body of credit institutions, investment firms, financial holding companies and mixed financial holding companies and, in particular, in accordance with Article 91(12) of Directive 2013/36/EU2 Article 9(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU3, the notions of sufficient time commitment; honesty, integrity and independence of mind of a member of the management body; adequate collective knowledge, skills and experience of the management body; and adequate human and financial resources devoted to the induction and training of such members. The notion of diversity to be taken into account for the selection of members of the management body is also specified in accordance with the above mentioned articles. The Guidelines also specify requirements regarding the suitability of the heads of internal control functions and the chief financial officer (CFO) of credit institutions and certain investment firms, where they are not part of the management body, and, where identified on a risk-based approach by those institutions, of other key function holders, as part of the governance arrangements referred to in Articles 74 and 88 of Directive 2013/36/EU and Articles 9(3), 9(6) and 16(2) of Directive 2014/65/EU, and on the related assessment processes, governance policies and practices, including the principle of independence applicable to certain members of the management body in its supervisory function.
Date of application: These Guidelines apply from 30 June 2018.
The EBA Guidelines on the assessment of the suitability of members of the management body and key function holders (EBA GL 2012/06) are repealed with effect from 30 June 2018.
These guidelines specify the internal governance arrangements, processes and mechanismsthat credit institutions and investment firms must implement in accordance with Article 74(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU2 to ensure effective and prudent management of the institution.
Implementation: These guidelines apply from 30 June 2018.
The EBA guidelines on internal governance (GL 44) of 27 September 2011 are repealed with effect from 30 June 2018.
These guidelines specify the approach institutions, as defined under point (3) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, should take when applying the requirement to group two or more clients into a ‘group of connected clients’ because they constitute a single risk in accordance with Article 4(1)(39) of that Regulation. These guidelines are addressed to competent authorities as defined in point (i) of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and to financial institutions as defined in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1093/2010.
These guidelines specify how the consolidating supervisor and the home and host competent authorities should, within the framework of colleges of supervisors established either under Article 116 or under Article 51(3) of Directive 2013/36/EU, cooperate to supervise and coordinate the exercise of their powers referred to in Title V, Chapter 4 and Title VII, Chapters 1 and 3 of the Directive and in Title II, Section 2 of Directive 2014/59/EU in relation to branches of Union institutions established in another Member State.
These guidelines are addressed to competent authorities as defined in point (i) of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
This recommendation specifies how legal entities and branches (entities or group entities) should be covered in the group recovery plan, drawn up and submitted in accordance with Articles 5 to 9 of Directive 2014/59/EU, Articles 3 to 21 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2016/1075, EBA/GL/2015/02 on recovery plan indicators and EBA/GL/2014/06 on the range of recovery plan scenarios.
Full title: Joint Guidelines under Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2015/847 on the measures payment service providers should take to detect missing or incomplete information on the payer or the payee, and the procedures they should put in place to manage a transfer of funds lacking the required information
Subject matter and scope
1. These guidelines are addressed to:
a) payment service providers (PSPs) as defined in point (5) of Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/847 where they act as the PSP of the payee, and intermediary payment service providers (IPSPs) as defined in point (6) of Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/847; and
b) competent authorities responsible for supervising PSPs and IPSPs for compliance with their obligations under Regulation (EU) 2015/847.
2. These guidelines:
a) set out the factors PSPs and IPSPs should consider when establishing and implementing procedures to detect and manage transfers of funds that lack required information on the payer and/or the payee to ensure that these procedures are effective; and
b) specify what PSPs and IPSPs should do to manage the risk of money laundering (ML) or terrorist financing (TF) where the required information on the payer and/or the payee is missing or incomplete.
3. Competent authorities should use these guidelines when assessing the adequacy of the procedures and measures adopted by PSPs and IPSPs to comply with Articles 7, 8, 11 and 12 of Regulation (EU) 2015/847.
4. PSPs, IPSPs and competent authorities should also use these guidelines to ensure compliance with Articles 9 and 13 of Regulation (EU) 2015/847.
5. The factors and measures described in these guidelines are not exhaustive. PSPs and IPSPs should consider other factors and measures as appropriate.
6. These guidelines do not apply to restrictive measures imposed by regulations based on Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, such as Regulations (EC) No 2580/2001, (EC) No 881/2002 and (EU) No 356/2010 (‘the European sanctions regime').
These guidelines specify the uniform disclosure format in accordance with which the disclosures required under Article 473a of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the ‘CRR’) should be made. These guidelines apply to institutions referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 473a of the CRR that are subject to all or part of the disclosure requirements specified in Part Eight of the CRR in accordance with Articles 6, 10 and 13 of the CRR. These guidelines apply during the transitional period referred to in paragraph 6 of Article 473a of the CRR.
These Guidelines derive from the mandate given to the EBA in Article 95(3) of Directive (EU) 2015/23662 (PSD2). These Guidelines specify requirements for the establishment, implementation and monitoring of the security measures that PSPs must take, in accordance with Article 95(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, to manage the operational and security risks relating to the payment services they provide.
Full title: Joint Guidelines under Articles 17 and 18(4) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 on simplified and enhanced customer due diligence and the factors credit and financial institutions should consider when assessing the money laundering and terrorist financing risk associated with individual business relationships and occasional transactions (The Risk Factors Guidelines)
These guidelines set out factors firms should consider when assessing the money laundering and terrorist financing (ML/TF) risk associated with a business relationship or occasional transaction. They also set out how firms should adjust the extent of their customer due diligence (CDD) measures in a way that is commensurate to the ML/TF risk they have identified.
These guidelines focus on risk assessments of individual business relationships and occasional transactions, but firms may use these guidelines mutatis mutandis when assessing ML/TF risk across their business in line with Article 8 of Directive (EU) 2015/849.
The factors and measures described in these guidelines are not exhaustive and firms should consider other factors and measures as appropriate.
These Guidelines derive from the mandate given to the EBA in Article 96(3) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (PSD2).
In particular, these Guidelines specify the criteria for the classification of major operational or security incidents by payment service providers as well as the format and procedures they should follow to communicate, as laid down in Article 96(1) of the above-mentioned directive, such incidents to the competent authority in the home Member State.
In addition, these Guidelines deal with the way these competent authorities should assess the relevance of the incident and the details of the incident reports that, according to Article 96(2) of the said directive, they shall share with other domestic authorities.
Moreover these Guidelines also deal with the sharing with the EBA and the ECB of the relevant details of the incidents reported, for the purposes of promoting a common and consistent approach.
Annex I to EBA/GL/2017/10
These Guidelines address the requirement for the EBA to issue Guidelines under Article 100(6) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market. These Guidelines apply to complaints submitted to competent authorities with regard to payment service providers’ alleged infringements of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 as laid down in Article 99(1) of the Directive. These complaints are to be taken into consideration by competent authorities to ensure and monitor effective compliance with Directive (EU) 2015/2366, as referred to in Article 100(6) of the Directive. These complaints may be submitted by payment service users and other interested parties, including payment service providers that are affected by the situation(s) that gave rise to the complaint and consumer associations (‘complainants’).
These guidelines set out the information to be provided to the competent authorities in the application for the authorisation of payment institutions, in the application for registration of account information service providers and in the application for authorisation of electronic money institutions.
These guidelines apply in relation to: (a) applications for authorisation as a payment institution in accordance with Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366; (b) registration as an account information service provider, in accordance with Article 5 and Article 33 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366; and (c) applications for authorisation as an electronic money institution, by virtue of the application mutatis mutandis of Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 to electronic money institutions, in accordance with Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/110/EC.
These guidelines specify sound credit risk management practices for credit institutions associated with the implementation and ongoing application of expected credit loss (‘ECL’) accounting frameworks. These guidelines also provide competent authorities with guidance on evaluating the effectiveness of an institution’s credit risk management practices, policies, processes and procedures that affect allowance levels.
These guidelines specify criteria and indicators on how to stipulate the minimum monetary amount of the professional indemnity insurance (PII) or other comparable guarantee to be held by undertakings that apply for:
i. authorisation to provide payment services under point (7) of Annex I (payment initiation services, PIS) in accordance with Article 5(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market (PSD2);
ii. registration to provide payment services under point (8) of Annex I (account information services, AIS) in accordance with Article 5(3) of PSD2;
iii. authorisation to provide both payment services under point (7) and (8) of Annex I to PSD2.
These Guidelines, drawn up pursuant to Article 107(3) of Directive 2013/36/EU aim to ensure the convergence of supervisory practices in the assessment of the information and communication technology (ICT) risk under the supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP) referred to in Article 97 of Directive 2013/36/EU and further specified in the EBA Guidelines on common procedures and methodologies for the supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP). In particular these Guidelines specify the assessment criteria that competent authorities should apply in the supervisory assessment of institutions’ governance and strategy on ICT and the supervisory assessment of institutions’ ICT risk exposures and controls. These Guidelines form an integral part of the EBA SREP Guidelines.
These guidelines specify the disclosure requirements in Part Eight of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the CRR). These specifications take the form of guidance regarding information that institutions have to disclose in the application of the relevant articles within Part Eight, as well as regarding the presentation of information to be disclosed. However, these guidelines do not alter specifications of disclosure requirements that have already been introduced by implementing or delegated regulation for specific articles in Part Eight of said regulation.
The specifications introduced by these guidelines take into consideration the ongoing review of the Pillar 3 framework by the BCBS. These guidelines especially consider the RPF published by the BCBS in January 2015.
Pursuant to Article 47(6) of Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, BRRD), these guidelines set out the circumstances in which it would be appropriate, when applying the bail-in tool set out in Article 43 or the writedown or conversion of capital instruments set out in Article 59, to take one or both of the following actions:
(a) cancel existing shares or other instruments of ownership or transfer them to bailed-in creditors;
(b) dilute existing shareholders and holders of other instruments of ownership as a result of the conversion of:
(i) relevant capital instruments issued by the institution pursuant to the power referred to in Article 59(2) of the BRRD; or
(ii) eligible liabilities into shares or other instruments of ownership issued by the institution under resolution pursuant to the power referred to in Article 63(1)(f) of the BRRD.
These guidelines, which have been prepared pursuant to Article 50(4) of Directive 2014/59/EU (the BRRD), are on the setting of conversion rates of debt to equity in bail-in. They are also relevant to the conversion of relevant capital instruments at the point of non-viability, because Article 60(3)(d) makes compliance with Article 50, including the EBA guidelines, a condition for converting the relevant capital instruments.
Pursuant to Article 48(6) of Directive 2014/59/EU, these guidelines address the interrelationship between Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36/EU with Directive 2014/59/EU for the purposes of the sequence of writedown and conversion. The guidelines clarify this interrelationship for the purposes of Article 48 of Directive 2014/59/EU, which governs the sequence of writedown and conversion when the bail-in tool is applied. They are also relevant to Article 60 of Directive 2014/59/EU regarding the sequence of writedown and conversion of capital instruments at the point of non-viability (PONV). ‘Capital instruments’ for the purpose of these guidelines is taken to mean instruments which qualify as CET1, AT1 or T2 instruments for the purposes of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
These guidelines specify the general disclosure framework of risk management under Article 435 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 in relation to liquidity risk by providing a harmonised structure for the disclosure of information required under Article 435(1) of that Regulation. In particular, and consistently with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61, these guidelines specify and explain which information on the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) is required to be disclosed within the key ratios and figures for the purpose of Article 435(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
Amending Recommendation EBA/REC/2015/01 on the equivalence of confidentiality regimes
These guidelines set out the characteristics of a risk-based approach to anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) supervision and the steps competent authorities should take when conducting supervision on a risk-sensitive basis as required by Article 48(10) of Directive (EU) 2015/849.
These Guidelines are aimed at clarifying the procedural rules and the assessment criteria to be applied by competent authorities for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increases of qualifying holdings in the financial sector. These Guidelines apply to competent authorities in the prudential assessment of acquisitions or increases of qualifying holdings in target undertakings.
These Guidelines aim to ensure convergence of supervisory practices for the assessment of
institutions’ internal capital adequacy assessment process (ICAAP) and internal liquidity
adequacy assessment process (ILAAP) under the supervisory review and evaluation process
(SREP) in accordance with the EBA Guidelines on common procedures and methodologies for
SREP (SREP Guidelines). In particular, these Guidelines specify what information, regarding
ICAAP and ILAAP, competent authorities should collect from institutions in order to perform
their assessments following the criteria specified in the SREP Guidelines.
These guidelines specify the requirements on the application of Article 178 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 on the definition of default, in accordance with the mandate conferred to the EBA in Article 178(7) of that Regulation.
These guidelines specify how to apply corrections to the calculation of the modified duration to reflect prepayment risk, in accordance with the mandate conferred to the EBA in the last subparagraph of Article 340(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
These Guidelines specify requirements for the design and implementation of remuneration policies and practices, in relation to the offering or provision of banking products and services to consumers by institutions as defined in paragraph 17, with a view to protecting consumers from undesirable detriment arising from the remuneration of sales staff.
These guidelines specify what constitutes arm’s length conditions and when a transaction is not structured to provide support, according to Article 248 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. The guidelines also elaborate further on the notification and documentation requirements of Article 248(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
These guidelines specify, in accordance with Article 12(2) of Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, the requirements for the establishment of effective dialogue between competent authorities supervising credit institutions, on the one hand, and statutory auditor(s) and audit firm(s) carrying out the statutory audit of those institutions, on the other hand.
These guidelines specify the minimum principles and content of stress tests that deposit guarantee schemes (‘DGSs’) must perform pursuant to Article 4 (10) of Directive 2014/49/EU.
These guidelines specify how information should be provided in summary or collective form for the purposes of Article 84(3) of Directive 2014/59/EU, pursuant to the mandate conferred on the EBA in Article 84(7) of that Directive.
Institutions have to apply sound remuneration policies to all staff and specific requirements for the variable remuneration of staff whose professional activities have a material impact on the institutions’ risk profile (identified staff). Articles 74 and 75 of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD) mandate the EBA to develop guidelines on both remuneration policies for all staff as part of institutions’ internal governance arrangements and remuneration policies for identified staff.
These guidelines specify the objectives and minimum content of cooperation agreements between DGSs or, where appropriate, designated authorities, required to have such cooperation agreements in place in accordance with Article 14(5) of Directive 2014/49/EU.
These guidelines specify the methodology that should be used by institutions, as part of their internal processes and policies, for addressing and managing concentration risk arising from exposures to shadow banking entities. In particular, these guidelines specify criteria for setting an appropriate aggregate limit on exposures to shadow banking entities which carry out banking activities outside a regulated framework, as well as individual limits on exposures to such entities.
These guidelines specify the minimum criteria that a business reorganisation plan is to fulfil for approval by the resolution authority pursuant to Article 52(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU.
The Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1222/2014 and the amending draft RTS on the methodology for the identification of G-SIIs set out a list of indicators to be used for identifying G-SIIs. The further specification is left to the relevant authorities and is to be updated every year in accordance with international standards. To ensure convergent practice and uniform underlying values, the further specification of the indicators is harmonised in these guidelines.
These guidelines specify the conditions set out in points (b), (d), (f), (g) and (h) of Article 23(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU.
These guidelines deal with the requirement for competent authorities of the home Member States to notify the competent authorities of host Member States in relation to credit intermediaries intending to carry out business in another Member State (‘passport notification’) as laid down in Article 32 of Directive 2014/17/EU. These guidelines also specify requirements to update the public register for credit intermediaries related to the passport notification.
These Guidelines specify the criteria by setting out a list of mandatory indicators against which institutions should be assessed when determining whether it is appropriate for simplified obligations to be applied to the institution.
The Guidelines focus on expectations towards institutions regarding the appropriate identification and mitigation of IRRBB risks. The document introduces changes to the high-level ‘Principles' laid down in the CEBS Guidelines in order to clarify expectations towards institutions, extend the scope to internal governance, and specify the calculation of the supervisory ‘standard shock' that should be performed in accordance with Article 98(5) of CRD IV. They also provide more detailed guidance on certain aspects of managing IRRBB.
These guidelines specify methods for calculating contributions to DGSs. They specify the objectives and principles governing DGS contribution schemes.
Article 10(3), subparagraph 2, of Directive 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on deposit guarantee schemes mandates the EBA with the task of issuing guidelines on payment commitments. For this purpose, these guidelines provide terms to be included in the contractual or statutory arrangements under which a credit institution provides payment commitments to a DGS, as well as the criteria for eligibility and management of the collateral.
These guidelines provide further detail on requirements set out in Articles 18 and 20 (1) of Directive 2014/17/EU2 to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness in respect of credit agreements which fall under the scope of Article 3 of Directive 2014/17/EU.
Addressees of these Guidelines
The guidelines are addressed to: a. competent authorities as defined in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (EBA authority) which are also competent authorities as defined in point (22) of Article 4 of Directive 2014/17/EU. They apply to the extent that those authorities have been designated as competent for ensuring the application and enforcement of those provisions of Directive 2014/17/EU to which these guidelines relate; and are also addressed to financial institutions as defined in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 which are creditors as defined in point (2) of Article 4 of Directive 2014/17/EU.
Addressees of information requirements
Irrespective of whether or not an EBA authority is addressed, where a Member State has designated more than one authority in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2014/17/EU and one of them is not an EBA authority, the EBA authority designated under that Article should, without prejudice to national arrangements adopted under Article 5 (3) MCD:
Guidelines on the determination of when the liquidation of assets or liabilities under normal insolvency proceedings could have an adverse effect on one or more financial markets under Article 42(14) of Directive 2014/59/EU.
The guidelines promote the convergence of supervisory and resolution practices regarding the determination of when the liquidation of the assets or liabilities under normal insolvency proceeding could have an adverse effect on one or more financial markets. When evaluating a potential adverse effect on one or more financial markets, the resolution authorities should at least take the described elements within the guidelines into account.
Guidelines on factual circumstances amounting to a material threat to financial stability and on the elements related to the effectiveness of the sale of business tool under Article 39(4) of Directive 2014/59/EU.
The resolution authority may apply the instrument sale of business tool without complying with the requirement to market, if the following conditions are met
- a material threat to financial stability arising from or aggravated by the failure or likely of the institution under resolution, and
- compliance with those requirements would be likely to undermine the effectiveness of the sale of business tool
These guidelines specify the factual circumstances amounting to a material threat to financial stability arising from or aggravated by the failure or likely failure of an institution under resolution.
EBA Guidelines on the minimum list of services or facilities that are necessary to enable a recipient to operate a business transferred to it under Article 65(5) of Directive 2014/59/EU.
To ensure the effectiveness of the partial transfer of the business of an institution or group, Directive 2014/59/EU establishes a number of powers ancillary to the resolution tools, including the power to require continuity of essential services from other parts of a group or, where the residual part of the institution is liquidated following the partial transfer of the business, to require services to enable the purchaser, bridge institution or asset management vehicle to carry out the activities or services transferred to it.
The guidelines specify a core list that resolution authorities should consider requiring as a minimum and taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.
These Guidelines identify the minimum qualitative and quantitative indicators that institutions should include in their recovery plans.
These Guidelines aim at promoting convergence of supervisory practices in relation to the application of early intervention measures as provided for in the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD). The Guidelines establish a link between the on-going supervision conducted by the Competent Authorities according to the Capital Requirement Directive (CRD) and the early intervention powers set out in the BRRD.
These guidelines apply to the sound application of the criteria specified in Article 3(2) of Directive 2014/92/EU to be used by competent authorities when establishing a provisional list of the most representative services linked to a payment account and subject to a fee.
These Guidelines complement the EBA technical standards on resolution planning and resolvability assessment by setting out the circumstances under which resolution authorities can impose measures to overcome obstacles to resolvability identified by the assessment.
The Guidelines for common procedures and methodologies for the supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP) will be applied in the supervision of all institutions across the Union and represent a major step forward in forging a consistent supervisory culture across the single market. These Guidelines provide a common framework for the work of supervisors in their assessment of risks to banks’ business models’, their solvency and liquidity.
These Guidelines set the minimum security requirements that Payment Services Providers in the EU will be expected to implement by 1 August 2015.
These Guidelines determine general criteria for the Assessment of O-SIIs, with the intention of creating a level playing field in Europe on the one hand, and on the other hand also taking into consideration national specificities of the sectors.
These Guidelines specify the types of tests, reviews and exercises and provide details of the main features of such measures. They are part of the EBA’s work to promote the consistent and coherent approach to bank resolution across the European Union.
ESMA and the EBA are proposing to develop complaint handling guidelines for the investment and banking sectors that are identical to the existing EIOPA guidelines for the insurance sector. The objective is to provide EU consumers with a single set of complaints handling arrangements, irrespective of the type of product or service and of the geographical location of the firm in question. This will also allow firms to streamline and standardise their complaints handling arrangements and national regulators to supervise the same requirements across all sectors of financial services.
These Guidelines aim to set out the calculation of the discount rate for variable remuneration and clarify how the discount factor should be applied.
This Recommendation on the use of the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) requires all entities for which information is required under EU reporting obligations to obtain a pre-Legal Entity Identifier (pre-LEI) code for reporting purposes.
These Guidelines on capital measures for foreign currency lending (FX lending) aimed at providing guidance to national competent authorities on how to deal with the specific risk of FX lending to unhedged borrowers as part of the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP). [These Guidelines will cease to be in force on 31.12.2015]
The EBA adopted a formal Recommendation to ensure that major EU cross-border banks develop group recovery plans by the end of 2013. The plans shall be submitted to the respective competent authorities and discussed within colleges of supervisors. The aim of the Recommendation is to spur the development of recovery plans and to foster convergence on the highest standards across the Union.
These Recommendations addressed to national supervisory authorities aim at setting consistent supervisory practices for the oversight of the Euribor submission process. They focus on strengthening the panel banks’ internal governance arrangements, including a code of conduct. The aim of this Recommendation is to improve the identification and management of conflicts of interest and of internal control arrangements, including audits, record keeping and comparison with actual transactions.