Search QAs

Where can insured persons covered under a group insurance contract governed by the law of a host Member State but - and whose habitual residence can be in a different country – file a complaint against the insurer/intermediary under the contract? What complaints mechanism is available to those insured persons? Will it be the local complaints mechanism/Ombudsman in the home country or the host Member State of the insurer/intermediary?

It seems that the rules EV75-2 and EV52- are incompatible:
EV75-2: Issuer sector according to ESA 2010 should be reported for non-ISIN securities only.
--> BUSINESS(en) - [EV75-2];[isNull((t: SE.06.02.16.02, c: EC0231, z: Z0001, filter: matches([s2c_dim:UI], "^((ISIN/.*)|(CAU/ISIN/.*))")) reported as {$v1})]|
This states that the Issuer sector is not required if the asset identification is an official ISIN (no mention of CIC).

Can we get clarification on the completeness check that could be performed between entities reported in S.36.01 through S.36.07 vs S.32.01. For example, entities reported in S.36.01 C0030 (Identification code for investor/ lender) and C0060 (Identification code for issuer / borrower) should (given then should both be entities within the group as the template is reported intra-group transactions) both be included in S.32.01 C0020 (Identification code of the undertaking).

Should the C0010 "Legal name of reinsured undertaking" be filled regardless of group consolidation method used?

Having in consideration the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part, published on 14.01.2017 in Official Journal, the insurance companies licensed in Canada to provide insurance services, can based on FOS or FOE from IDD to provide such services also in EU countries?

Applying the look-through approach as in Scheme S.06.03.04, we do not have information on the sector to which the corporate-type constituents belong (“Underlying Asset Category” = 2). With reference to Sections F.10.4 and F.13.4 of the RFR Technical Documentation, should I consider these exposures as corporate exposures, even though the sector is not specified? And, if so, should I exclude them from allocation to the sector by distributing the respective share between the “financial” and “non-financial” asset categories, as with the credit quality steps (F.14.2)?

My question is in relation to the reporting of the s.06.04. Prior guidelines have explicitly stated that the QRT does not apply to Unit-linked funds. We were just wondering why unit-linked funds were omitted from this QRT?

We are wondering if there is any additional information regarding the classification according to NACE. Previously, NACE 2.0 was the standard from 2008 to 2024, but as of 2025, the EU has updated to the new version, NACE 2.1 (Eurostat). We would like to know whether the reporting of PF Quarterly ECB individual follows the previous standard (NACE 2.0) or if it has been adapted to the new one (NACE 2.1).

The look-through in S0603 should identify at least 90% of the total value of the funds less CIC 8 and 9 with regards to countries and 90% of the total value of funds with regards to currencies. Therefore, we have two questions: 1) Which country should be applied for CIC 0 assets, e.g. physical commodities (gold), crypto currencies (bitcoin) or artworks (paintings)? 2) Which currency should be applied for such assets?