Search QAs

The updated official Journal of the European Union (log reference C0010–C0020 / R0360) in 2023 states instructions for Insurance and intermediaries receivables amounts for payment by policyholders, insurers and other linked to insurance business that are not included in technical provisions. We note that the wording has changed from previous where a distinction between past-due and not past due is no longer made. We have received professional advice from another party suggesting that this should be interpreted as change to the classification of future premiums within the best estimate where due premium should relate to the date an invoice was issued rather than when the premium is due to be paid or received. This suggestion would mean that a much higher proportion of future premiums would sit in the premium receivables on the balance sheet relative to the previous wording. With the above in mind, can you confirm whether the latest wording should be interpreted as a change in the classification of future premium within the best estimate. As an example, in an instance where a premium invoice had been issued prior to the valuation date but where the premium payment was due to be received after the valuation date, should this now be classified as a premium receivable on the balance sheet or remain as a future premium cashflow in the best estimate?

We would like to clarify the interpretation of Annex III, Part 3, Section 29 which provides that, “where necessary, these amounts may be calculated as the average total annual costs over the term of the PEPP contract. The calculation of the compound effect of the costs shall be based on a 40 years’ …

Taxonomy 2.9.0 no longer says "has no ISIN". Does this field apply to all CIC categories 3 and 4, i.e. not just those intrumens without ISIN? During which period does the new requirement (adjustment) apply, i.e. quarter vs year?

The question relates to the inputs used to construct AUD risk-free rate as of 2026. On the RFR Technical documentation of October 2025, table 5 on page 34 has column for 11 year tenor with AUD marked as input to calculations. Is this intentional, as requesting data for RIC AUDSM6AB11Y= returns empty…

Will EIOPA be publishing a document providing details of the new extrapolation methodology being used to construct your risk-free SII curves in Jan 2027? If so can you please let me know when you expect that to be published and whether you will also be providing some example curves constructed usin…

What type of rolling 3-month type 1 equity put option strategies can receive full risk mitigation (assuming all the criteria in article 209(3) are met)?

Certain investment funds publish official Net Asset Values (NAVs) several weeks after the respective quarter-end date. Due to following processes (NAVs are input for valuation of technical provisions under IFRS17 and Solvency II), we are not able to use such updated prices in a way that ensures full consistency with the IFRS/local GAAP and Solvency II valuation of technical provisions. Could you please confirm that a) in the absence of timely availability of final quarter-end valuations (e.g. for illiquid or infrequently priced investment funds) b) provided that the difference is immaterial for the respective insurance undertaking and c) the approach is consistent with IFRS 13 and documented in the valuation policy the use of previous month-end valuations (NAVs) is compliant and doesn't represent any reporting mistake in S.06.02?

QRT S.06.04 - KPI transition risk R0010: we would like to know if we have to include in the total of investments (ratio denominator) also the loans on policies and loans to individuals (rows R0240 and R0250 of the S.02.01). Our doubt is due to the fact that those positions don't have a NACE code in the LoA (S.06.02 QRT),because it's not applicable as mentioned in the log EIOPA for column C0230. Therefore they are not included in the ratio numerator (only positions with NACE codes A-N are included).

An insurance undertaking has a single policyholder in a third country. The undertaking has no other insured risks in this country. The contract in question thus represents an isolated, single risk in this geographical area. The calculation of catastrophe risk according to the standard formula, as set out in reporting template S.27.01, appears disproportionate and not risk-adequate for a single risk. Question: 1. Is there an obligation to calculate a catastrophe risk position according to S.27.01 for an immaterial singular risk in a new geographical market? 2. If a calculation is not mandatory: Based on what criteria or quantitative thresholds should an undertaking decide when to apply the catastrophe risk module for a specific country?