Search QAs

Is it possible to hold multiple PEPP contracts with different providers?

The question is about annuities relating to non-life insurance and how the cashflows should be reported in S.26.03 ja S.26.04. In this contects we have defined a contract to mean the insurer's responsibility to pay annuity to beneficiary. The contract includes two different cashflows: cashflow of annuity payments to the beneficiary and cashflow of loss adjustment expenses. What should be reported as liabilities sensitive to risk before and after expense shock in reports S.26.03 and S.26.04 R0500/C0030 and R0500/C0050? The sum of both cashflows of the contract (annyity payments and loss adjustment expenses) or only cashflow of loss adjustment expenses? In both cases result(scr) is the same

For C0293 Bail-in rules in S.06.02, can you clarify under what circumstances the option "9 - not applicable" should be used.

We would like to ask about presentation for movements in subordinated liabilities in the group form S.23.03.04 in the case where an insurance parent company acquires during the period a subsidiary insurance company which has in its portfolio subordinated bonds issued by an insurance parent company.

1) Regarding covered bonds referenced in Article 44(2)(b) BRRD, should bonds with CIC codes 16, 17, 26, and 27, issued by a qualified issuer (as defined in points (b), (c), or (d) of Article 1) BRRD, be reported as “No” or “Not applicable”? 2) Similarly, assuming the bonds with a capital guarantee that have been issued by a qualified issuer (as defined in points (b), (c), or (d) of Article 1 BRRD), should these bonds be reported as “No” or “Not applicable”?

As a follow up to Q&A number 3429: For us it is clear that we shall always report derivatives which are still in place and were not closed during the reporting period. Our question was more specifically about swap inflow and outflow amounts to be reported in C0200 and S0210. To be more clear in the example: We have a swap in place since Q1 and are now reporting Q2 figures. In Q1, there was a swap outflow amount of 100. In Q2, there was another swap outflow amount of 200. The question is: What has to be reported in Q2 as swap outflow amount? Is it 300 (Q1 + Q2) or only 200 (Q2 standalone)?

In the case of a bond where the (re)insurance undertaking's Solvency ratio is used to determine the CQS, the article regarding the spread risk calculation (art 180(4) in delegated acts) is clear, but it remains uncertain how this should be reported in template S.06.02. In such a situation, the Solvency ratio serves as the rating, and based on it, a CQS can be derived - often falling between two CQS levels. Since there is no ECAI, it is assumed that fields C0320 and C0330 should remain empty. However, how should C0340 and C0350 be completed in this case? Should the CQS simply be set to 9 (no rating available) and the internal rating left blank?

We request clarification as to whether EIOPA has previously taken a position on the following 11 questions:

1. Question: Where the competent authority designated by a Member State has determined that a self-governing institution carries on insurance business, must the first and second conditions laid down in Article 17(2) of the Solvency II Directive be regarded as satisfied?

2. Question: Where the supervisory authority designated by a Member State has determined that a self-governing institution carries on insurance business within the meaning of Article 17(2) of the Solvency II Directive, is the pursuit of that activity subject to prior authorization under Article 14 and to compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 18 thereof? If not, must the Solvency II Directive be interpreted as permitting and requiring the supervisory authority of the Member State to grant an exemption from those requirements before the lawful commencement of insurance business?

3. Question: Must the requirement of prior authorisation in Article 14 of the Solvency II Directive be interpreted as meaning that an authorisation granted by the supervisory authority designated by a Member State may have retroactive effect?

4. Question: Must the final condition laid down in Article 17(2) of the Solvency II Directive — namely, that that activity is carried on "under conditions equivalent to those under" — be interpreted as meaning that a self-governing institution governed by public law and set up by the Member State must comply with the same conditions as those applicable to undertakings governed by private law?

5. Question: Must Member States ensure - under the Solvency II Directive, including Chapter III thereof -the ongoing supervision of the pursuit of insurance business by a self-governing institution governed by public law pursuant to Article 17(2), including supervision of compliance with the requirement that such business be carried on under the same conditions as those applicable to private-law undertakings?

6. Question: Must Articles 102 and 106 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a statutory insurance scheme such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a specific group of policyholders is required to take out insurance with Byggeskadefonden, constitutes an undertaking within the meaning of those provisions?

7. Question: Do Articles 106 and 102 TFEU preclude national legislation which requires a specific group of policyholders to take out insurance with a particular undertaking, where the insurance service is also offered by other market operators, given that insurance cover is compulsory for all newly constructed residential buildings?

8. Question: Must Member States, within the meaning of Article 17(2) of the Solvency II Directive and Articles 102 and 106 TFEU, lay down the same conditions for access to judicial review of commitments to provide cover and recourse claims in respect of insurance undertakings governed by public law and those governed by private law, including as regards the review of legality and procedural errors?

9. Question: Is it compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for non-arbitrable objections against a public-law insurance undertaking — including objections relating to legal basis, administrative practice and procedure — to be excluded from judicial review, other than by annulment proceedings against final arbitral awards which are nevertheless enforceable, including by enforcement through public authorities and the right of set-off?

10. Question: Are Member States, including a self-governing institution established by a Member State as referred to in Article 17(2) of the Solvency II Directive, obliged to ensure the repayment of amounts collected from a private party if one or more of Questions 1 to 8 are answered in the affirmative?

11. Question: Are Member States, including a self-governing institution established by a Member State as referred to in Article 17(2) of the Solvency II Directive, obliged to ensure the repayment of amounts collected from a private party if Question 9 is answered in the affirmative and such objections have in fact been raised but barred by the arbitral award?

We would like to follow up on the EIOPA response provided on 26/3/24 for Question ID 2953 where EIOPA stated that: "Please note that there seems to be a mistake and the BE triangles are to be reported including (and not excluding) any expenses. This will be clarified in the next ITS amendments. (The instructions should actually read “net of salvage and subrogation and including any expenses")." We have looked at the latest ITS amendments - ITS (EU) 2023/894 issued 4/4/23 - which still refers to "excluding expenses". Can we please clarify whether the BE triangles should be reported including/excluding 1) any expenses; 2) future premiums for FY25?