In the scope of valuation of assets and liabilities, we can read the following under article 75 of the Solvency II directive:

a) assets shall be valued at the amount for which they could be exchanged between knowledgeable willing parties in an arm’s length transaction;

There’s a new column in table S.37.01 dubbed “Insurance policies”. ITS for the column reads: “The total amount of the exposure in the insurance policies (liability limit or sum insured depending which one represents the maximum possible exposure)” Could “maximum possible exposure” referred in the ITS be interpreted as meaning EML (estimated maximum loss), which is less hypothetical exposure than sum insured or liability limit?

According to the FINAL REPORT: REVISED DRAFT ITS ON THE MAPPING OF ECAIS’ CREDIT ASSESSMENTS document the fitch short terming rating F1+ has can credit quality step of 1 and is therefore an equivalent of a AA long term rating. This means that an short term note of, for example, Germany/France/Netherlands a AA rating which is in our opinion quite low. Since the default of those country, especially on an short term is very unlikely? So the question is why does Eiopa consider F1+ as an AA equivalent instead of a AAA equivalent?

To the answer of Q&A No. 2802 arise two additional questions: • According to the LOG file item C0120 (“Amount of Claims Paid”) is defined as “Amount of claims paid, for the relevant product Identification, for claims that have been settled with payment during the reporting year.” This is not consistent to the answer of Q&A No. 2802.

Regarding these new fields what should we refer to: Log Eiopa or the validation rule provided in the xbrl?

New taxonomy 2.8.0 has introduced two new fields: C0010-C0100/R0120 and C0010-C0100/R0130 related to SCR and MCR ratios, but the formula requested by Log Eiopa states division operations while, for the other fields above in those columns,

Could you kindly provide clarification on the C0250 field labeled "Insurance Policies"? Specifically, I would like to understand whether this field pertains to insurance policies held by the company as a client, or if it refers to policies issued by the company. Any additional guidance or examples regarding the appropriate content for this field would be greatly appreciated.

Would EIOPA consider the following to be within the definition of “cyber risks underwritten” as defined in the instructions for completing form S.14.03: a policy for which the primary cover is not cyber and cyber was not bought as a specific add-on, but for which there may be unintended exposure in the case of a cyber-related event.

The question relates to subordinated debt issued by a Turkish insurance company and being purchased by a Greek insurance company. The two entities belong in the same Group of companies (i.e. they have the same insurance parent company). How would the purchase of such a debt be recognized by the Greek insurance company?

Can you please clarify the instructions for item S.36.01/ NC0190? It is saying: "6 months up to the reporting date". In case the template is submitted on an annual basis (1.1.-31.12.), do we only have to report payments from 1.7. until 31.12.?