Search QAs

Based on the definition of DORA Article 3(21), what types of services should be considered ICT services?

Are ancillary insurance intermediaries falling under Article 1(3) of Directive EU 2016/97 on insurance distribution (IDD) within the scope of Article 2(1)(o) DORA?

We receive many questions from insurance intermediaries on how to determine for group structures whether they are in scope of DORA.
It is not defined in DORA how to calculate whether you meet the 250FTE criterium. We found guidance from the EC in 2003/361/EC on how to calculate whether a firm is small/medium/large and how to consider linked entities and parent entities, but we are not sure if this is the guidance to follow. Can you please provide clarity on these matters?

Following on from EIOPA's confirmation in Q&A#2777 that a total LoB row may not be required (if product level row encompases the total of the LoB). In that answer EIOPA talk specifically about one row being reported: "If there are no additional products under the relevant LOB beyond those reported under the relevant product category, EIOPA confirms that only one Row should be filled in

In S.14.02 C0140 Number of insured properties at the end of the year: for products under the line of business 4 and 5 – this would mean for us motor vehicle liability insurance and other motor insurance. However, for motor “insured properties” does not make sense. Is this “insured vehicles” or are maybe the numbers 4 and 5 wrong? “Insured properties” would make sense for fire and other damage to property insurance?

In relation to the population of the new template S.14.02, it would suggest from Q&A#2668, that a 'Total/NA' subcategory is required to be reported for each LoB in addition to any relevant sub-category. This could result in multiple rows being reported for a single LoB. The ‘Total/NA’ product category should represent the total for that LoB,

We have some insurance contracts with line of business 7 - fire and other property insurance, which covers basic risks, but also natural hazards, i.e. one part would have to be shown under 7 and the other part under 7.1. We can separate this for the written premium, but how should the fields number of contracts (C0050) and number of new contracts (C0060) be filled. Should we record a 1 for both 7 and 7.1 for such a contract or only 1 for the more expensive risk?

I am looking for some clarity on the relationship between S.05.01 and S.26.06.

Specifically should all the below equations hold? (S.26.06.01.01 C0020 R0200) = (S.05.01.01.02 C0300 R1510) - (S.05.01.01.02 C0230 R1510) , (S.26.06.01.01 C0020 R0230) = PREVIOUS YEAR((S.05.01.01.02 C0300 R1510) - (S.05.01.01.02 C0230 R1510)), (S.26.06.01.01 C0020 R0220) = (S.05.01.01.01 C0300 R0210) + (S.05.01.01.01 C0300 R0220) + (S.05.01.01.01 C0300 R0230) , (S.26.06.01.01 C0020 R0250) = PREVIOUS YEAR((S.05.01.01.01 C0300 R0210) + (S.05.01.01.01 C0300 R0220) + (S.05.01.01.01 C0300 R0230)), (S.26.06.01.01 C0020 R0330) = (S.05.01.01.02 C0230 R1900)

What is expected to be reported in C0300/R2600 Total technical expenses? (Observe that the row is called differently - C0300/R2600 Total expenses in ITS.) Many reporting entities are interpreting it as a sum of all net expenses and Balance - other technical expenses/income (C0300/R2510). Does this row have any sense, and if yes what should it show?