EBA Q&A · 2013_607
Template 5 - Missing Validation Rule
Final Q&Afiled under Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 - ITS on supervisory reporting of institutions (repealed) (repealed)Submitted 02/12/2013 · published 27/06/2014
Question · verbatim
German Question (Deutsche Frage): Während die nun verbal formulierte Zuordnung der “balances receivable on demand classified as cash balances at central banks“ zu Tabelle 5 (alt 9) in den alten Validation Rules ausdrücklich als Formelbezug angegeben war (F 09.00, r010, c010 = F 01.01, r030, c010), ist diese Verbindung in den aktuellen Validation Rules nicht mehr angegeben. Wie ist dies zu interpretieren? English Question: Whereas the now verbally formulated assignment of the ‘balances receivable on demand classified as cash balances at central banks’ to table 5 (prev. 9) was given expressly as a formula in the old validation rules (F 09.00, r010, c010 = F 01.01, r030, c010), this connection is no longer given in the current validation rules. How should this be interpreted?
Background provided by the submitter · verbatim
Validation Rule Interpretation.
Answer · verbatim
German Answer (Deutsche Antwort):
Der Entfall der Validation Rule die ({F 01.01, r 030, c010} mit {F 05.00, r010, c010} vergleicht war nicht beabsichtigt, da beide Zellen exakt den selben Betrag abfragen.
English Answer:
The exclusion of the validation rule that links ({F 01.01, r 030, c010} = {F 05.00, r010, c010} was not intended as both cells ask exactly the same amounts.
Source: EBA Single Rulebook Q&A 2013_607 · text as published, not rephrased · collected on 2026-10-08