Search QAs

In template S.04.03, C0010 "Underwriting entity code" there shall be used a specific code for EEA branches, which do not have a distinct LEI. This specific code shall be unique and shall not overlap with any other code of the undertaking. How does this specific code exactly shall look like?

In Q&A #2664 the answer is slightly ambiguous because our suggested approach was that a total LoB line was always required in addition to a product line but we asked confirmation on that and the answer was: "If the only product in the LOB is the one reported under the product category, no additional row is required. So the proposed approach is correct.​" Could EIOPA please confirm if an additional LoB line is required that if the only product in the LoB is the one reported under the product category? We note that the answer to Q&A#2668 implies that a

The interpretation of field C0060 seems to be ambiguous. The guideline says: 'Number of new contracts during reporting year (this is for all new contracts including those that are renewed).' And additional: 'New contract refer to contract written during the year with respect to other ongoing contracts written in previous years.' The question is what is 'renewed'?

Regarding S.03.01, the amendments applying from 01/01/24 (Taxonomy 2.8.0) asked to add a separate table with two sections indicating whether the company has provided/received unlimited guarantees: - R0510/C0050: Unlimited guarantees – received - R0520/C0050: Unlimited guarantees – provided The possible values for column C0050 are : 0 - no unlimited guarantees provided/received 1

Following up on QA 2531, could you confirm us that templates S.04.03.01, S.04.04.01 and S.04.05.01 are not due if the home country represents 100% of "activity"? Furthermore, in this case the template S.04.05.21 (Annual Solvency II public disclosure Solo) is not due as well, are we right?

Regarding CIC classification please confirm that inflation linked bonds issued by governments (as to Annex IV asset category 1) should have a CIC code 1x and not 5x.

This is a question regarding the Notional Amount of the derivative reported in the S.08.01 QRT. As specified in the 2.8 Taxonomy log, this field is "The amount covered or exposed to the derivative, reported in the original currency.". Since the log now expressly states that the Notional amount has to be reported in the original currency and it's equal to Contract size * Number of contracts * Trigger value, should these factors be counter-valued or kept in their original currency?

Some insurers define a reference portfolio that matches the liabilities to determine their investment expenses that are projected in the best estimate. This reference portfolio is not the same as the actual investment portfolio of the insurer but meets the characteristics of the contracts.

Do private members of a peer-to-peer insurance network without any insurance company participating have to fulfil regulatory requirements when they insure themselves amongst each other?