Search QAs

Is a parent company that is not a financial entity itself required to maintain the information register?

Are credit agencies that transmit credit or rating informations generally seen as ICT third-party service providers? Is there a statement that we can refer to?

Could a same Function Identifier in field B_06.01.0010 be linked to multiple options/values (including the value ‘support functions’) in field B_06.01.0020?
What is the meaning of ‘linked’ in the instruction of the field B_06.01.0020?

Is BV374 to be deleted or changed as loans on policies will get further CI codes (87, 88) due to delegation 2023/894?

Could you provide some concrete examples in which the criterion listed in Article 2, paragraph 1, 1) of IDD according to which the customer is able to directly or indirectly conclude an insurance contract using a website or other media, as part of the definition of insurance distribution, should be applied in practice?

Considering the classification of (re)insurance contracts into Lines of Business (LoB) needs to be carried out based on the nature of the underlying risks and not the form of the contracts the (re)insurance products are based on: - Should the Technical Provisions (TPs) of a proportional reinsurance treaty where 100% of the original insurance contract premiums and claims are passed on to the reinsurer (with a commission being paid to the insurer), be classified under one of the "insurance" LoBs

Our question relates to the swap market data utilized to construct the risk-free rate curve. According to the documentation available at https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/document/download/71e6f092-d03d-482c-8242-8…, Refinitiv is currently the provider listed, with the following caveat: “EIOPA has no evidence of the superiority of a concrete market data provider.

In 2023 there was a change incorporated in the delegated act relating to the treatment of Insurance and Intermediaries as well as Reinsurance Receivables and Payables. For the balance sheet QRT SE 02.01 it is now explicitly stated that, for reinsurance segment, all (due and overdue) receivables and payables are to be shown in rows R370 and R830. For rows R360 and R820, this is not the case.

We have a question regarding NACE-Code "Other". With the taxonomy 2.8.2, the NACE code-list in XBRL data dictionary has been expanded to option “Other”. Based on the current “Know Issues” (provided with taxonomy 2.8.2) in our understanding, the NACE “Other” is only applicable for the QRT S.37.02. Accordingly, the NACE “Other” should not be used for the QRT S.06.02, S.11.01 and S.37.01. Do you agree with this view?