Search QAs

Regards the new Cyber risk template (S.14.03) in 2.8 taxonomy, and the associate LOG guidance (in the draft business package supporting SII taxonomy 2.8.0). Would the following be an acceptable implementation for checking of correct grouping of products (e.g. in Plausibility tests): C0030+C0050+C0060 must be unique The taxonomy would allow duplicates

Regards the new Cyber risk template (S.14.03) in 2.8 taxonomy, and the associate LOG guidance (in the draft business package supporting SII taxonomy 2.8.0). Would the following be an acceptable implementation for checking of C0100 (e.g. in Plausibility tests): C0100 >=0 and C0100.

Regards the new Cyber risk template (S.14.03) in 2.8 taxonomy, and the associate LOG guidance (in the draft business package supporting SII taxonomy 2.8.0). Would the following be an acceptable implementation for checking of C0120 (e.g. in Plausibility tests): C0080 and C0090 and C0140<>0 On the basis that it would normally be expected

Regards the new Cyber risk template (S.14.03) in 2.8 taxonomy, and the associate LOG guidance (in the draft business package supporting SII taxonomy 2.8.0). Would the following be an acceptable implementation for checking of C0120 (e.g. in Plausibility tests): if c0110>0 then C0120<>0 On the basis that if any claim has been settled with payment during the reporting period then there must always be a non-zero amount in C0120.

Following up on Q&A 2613. It's not clear if the answer fully address our question. We asked 2 separate questions addressing C0050 (LoB) and C0040 (Cyber coverage) separately. The answer from EIOPA was: "For these reasons, scenario mentioned in point 1 and 2 should never happen. In both cases, it is expected filer would split the information by the Line of Business and Cyber Risk Coverage and report it in separate rows" But the reasons are not clear actually.

We have a question regarding item C0090 Premium(s) [Amount of the total premium(s) earned for the reported product Identification]. To prevent misunderstandings, how are the premiums specified? One option would be a specification as in QRT 14.02: „Total amount of gross written premiums as defined in Article 1(11) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35 …“ another option would be a specification as gross earned written premiums as defined in Article 1(12) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35.

We have noted an inconsistency between the instructions for S.12.02 and for E.04.01(new ECB QRT): - S.12.02 is not due when home country represents 100% of the sum of the technical provisions calculated as a whole and gross best estimate; - E.04.01 instructions state:

Regarding the new taxonomy 2.8.0: - QRT:S.30.03- C0390: The instruction related to the fixed commission is not clear. In case, the commission is fixed, we assume that the related fields have to filled out as below: o The column C0390 should be filled out with value(2) and the columns (C0400, C0410) should not be reported(empty) and other related columns(C0420, C0430, C0440) have to be reported with the same values. Could you confirm if our statement is correct?

The QRT for ECB E.04.01 is due for Annual reporting AND Quarterly reporting. As we understand it, it is closely linked with the S.29.02. In the logs and a recent Q&A (2683), it is specified that the part “not attributed to policyholder” is obtained by subtracting the amount attributed to policyholder from S.29.02.01 C0010/R0040&50. In the case of quarterly reporting (Q1 to Q3 mainly), as the S.29.02 is annual, is the part “not attributed to policyholder” still expected to be filled ?