Question ID: 2700
Regulation Reference: (EU) 2023/894 - ITS with regard to the templates for the submission of information necessary for supervision
Topic: Reporting Templates
Article: N/A
Template: S.12.01, S.12.02, S.17.01
Status: Final
Date of submission: 15 Jun 2023
Question
Regards the changes to reporting the non-life geographical breakdown of gross BE and TPCAW in 2.8 taxonomy, and the pre-existing requirements (continued under 2.8 taxonomy) for life geographical breakdown of gross BE and TPCAW. Regards S.17.01 and S.17.03. Previously S.17.02 was direct only, now s.17.03 is direct plus reinsurance – so in general amounts should match (like they do for s.12.01 and S.12.02 and enforced via blocking validation BV835) There is such validations reconciling S.17.01 with S.17.03 (eg BV2010 for non-prop health) but these are Warning severity. Is that because you anticipate there can be reasons for that relationship not to hold (or just caution during first year’s implementation)? Regards S.12.01 and S.12.02. Can EIOPA confirm that for the columns not covered by BV835 (being the LoB’s where in S.12.01 there are some rows where the split of contract with and without options and guarantees), a relationship can be found between S.12.01 and S.12.02. For example, for Index-linked and unit-linked insurance: S.12.02.01 C0030 R0010 = SUM(S.12.01.01!_C0030_R0010,S.12.01.01!_C0040_R0030,S.12.01.01!_C0050_R0030,S.12.01.01!_C0030_R0110,S.12.01.01!_C0040_R0120,S.12.01.01!_C0050_R0120)-SUM('S.12.02.01'!_C0030_R0020,'S.12.02.01'!_C0030_R0030,SUM(S.12.02.01[C0030])) There would be equivalent checks for S12.02 C0060 and C0160.
EIOPA answer
First question: Currently EIOPA has not identified any scenario where the validations between S.17.01 and S.17.03 would not hold. In general, EIOPA introduces new validations with a warning severity, error (blocking) is introduced for only the most significant ones. If both the data and the feedback received, confirm the value of the new validation, EIOPA could consider raise its severity level to error.
Second question: S.12.02 C0030, C0060 and C0160 could have similar validations to BV835-1, although they should be adjusted to the level of granularity of the information available in S.12.01. For example, for unit and index-linked contracts (S.12.02, C0030), the following relation should hold true: {t: S.12.02.01.01, c: C0030, r: R0010} + {t: S.12.02.01.01, c: C0030, r: R0020} + {t: S.12.02.01.01, c: C0030, r: R0030} + sum({t: S.12.02.01.02, c: C0030, r: R0040}) = {t: S.12.01.01.01, c: C0030, r: R0010} + {t: S.12.01.01.01, c: C0040, r: R0030} + {t: S.12.01.01.01, c: C0050, r: R0030} + {t: S.12.01.01.01, c: C0030, r: R0110} + {t: S.12.01.01.01, c: C0040, r: R0120} + {t: S.12.01.01.01, c: C0050, r: R0120}. EIOPA will consider adding the relevant validations for S.12.02 C0030, C0060 and C0160 in the future.