Question ID: 3597
Regulation Reference: (EU) 2023/894 - ITS with regard to the templates for the submission of information necessary for supervision
Topic: Reporting Templates
Template: S.27.02, S.27.03
Status: Final
Date of submission: 17 Jun 2026
Question
Could you please clarify the granularity of columns C0080 and C0090 in the newly proposed template S.27.02.01 (Taxonomy 2.10.0)? Should they be reported at the Peril–Year–Zone ID–Asset type level (as implied by the business package accompanying Taxonomy 2.10.0), or only at the Year–Peril level (i.e. without any split by Zone or Asset type)?
I have a similar question regarding columns C0170, C0180, C0190, and C0200 in the newly proposed template S.27.03.01 (Taxonomy 2.10.0). Could you clarify whether these columns should be reported per Peril (as suggested by the Annotated Templates under Taxonomy 2.10.0 (PWD 2)), or whether they should be further split into Peril–Zone ID, as implied by the business package accompanying Taxonomy 2.10.0?
EIOPA answer
We acknowledge that certain inconsistencies between the main text and the text relating to the variables exist.
Columns C0080 and C0090 in the proposed QRT S.27.02.01 should be reported at peril and year level, whereas columns C0170, C0180, C0190, and C0200 in the proposed QRT S.27.03.01 only at peril level.
The statements “The reporting granularity is per peril, zone, asset type and year” and “The reporting granularity is per peril, zone and asset type” in the accompanying documentation refer to the maximum level of granularity for the proposed QRT S.27.02.01 and QRT S.27.03.01 respectively. This granularity may vary depending on the reporting table.