OpenLobby.EU
Explore

European Banking Federation

EBF

The European Banking Federation is the primary body representing national banking associations from 45 countries.

Lobbying Activity

European Banking Federation urges simplification of EU Taxonomy rules

5 Dec 2025
Topic — The Commission is reviewing technical criteria for identifying environmentally sustainable economic activities in the EU.
Message — The federation proposes exempting retail loans from environmental and social safeguard assessments to simplify reporting. They want the legal liability for data accuracy to rest with clients rather than banks. They also suggest that taxonomy alignment should persist for the entire duration of a financial instrument.123
Why — These changes would lower costs and limit legal risks for banks reporting on green activities.45
Read full response

Meeting with Maria Luís Albuquerque (Commissioner) and

4 Dec 2025 · Policy developments concerning the banking sector

Meeting with Luděk Niedermayer (Member of the European Parliament)

12 Nov 2025 · Banking competitiveness

Banking Federation Calls for Financial Incentives to Scale Circularity

6 Nov 2025
Topic — EU regulation to enhance circular economy, secondary materials supply, and recycling demand.
Message — The organization requests economic incentives and public-private financing mechanisms to make circular products competitive with virgin materials. They propose creating a Circular Economy Bank offering off-take guarantees and integrating circular principles into EU financing instruments. They emphasize that circular products are currently more expensive than alternatives, requiring policy intervention.123
Why — This would reduce financing risks for banks and create profitable opportunities for circular lending.45
Impact — Virgin material producers lose market share as recycled content requirements reduce virgin extraction demand.6
Read full response

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

27 Oct 2025 · Payment Services Proposals

Meeting with Almoro Rubin De Cervin (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and Société Générale and

14 Oct 2025 · Prudential treatment of banks’ exposures to crypto-assets

European Banking Federation seeks exemption from cyber rules and AI clarity

13 Oct 2025
Topic — EU initiative to simplify digital regulations including data sharing, cybersecurity and AI rules.
Message — Banks want exemption from the Cyber Resilience Act, arguing their sector-specific DORA regulation already covers cybersecurity comprehensively. They seek clarity on AI definitions to exclude basic statistical models like logistic regression. They request withdrawing or reassessing the Financial Data Access regulation, calling for voluntary market-driven data sharing instead.123
Why — This would reduce duplicative compliance obligations and free resources from regulatory compliance tasks.456
Impact — Consumers may face weaker protections if cross-sectoral data sharing remains voluntary without mandatory safeguards.7
Read full response

Meeting with Eric Ducoulombier (Acting Director Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

10 Oct 2025 · Commission’s priorities and potential initiatives in the area of retail financial services.

Meeting with Eric Ducoulombier (Acting Director Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and European Association of Co-operative Banks and

9 Oct 2025 · Implementation of two obligations for payment service providers under the Instant Payments Regulation

Meeting with Ton Diepeveen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

8 Oct 2025 · Overleg

Meeting with Ralf Seekatz (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

8 Oct 2025 · Verbriefung

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

7 Oct 2025 · Banking and digital matters

Meeting with Katarina Koszeghy (Cabinet of Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra) and Fédération bancaire française

4 Sept 2025 · FASTER Directive

Meeting with Henna Virkkunen (Executive Vice-President) and

14 Jul 2025 · Digital policy and simplification

Meeting with Elena Arveras (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

10 Jul 2025 · ESG risk management by banks

Meeting with Katarina Koszeghy (Cabinet of Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra)

30 Jun 2025 · Taxation of EU’s financial sector

Meeting with Almoro Rubin De Cervin (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

26 Jun 2025 · Banking policy

Meeting with Fernando Navarrete Rojas (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

23 Jun 2025 · Euro Digital

Banking Federation Seeks Clarification on Business Wallet Framework

12 Jun 2025
Topic — European wallets for business to streamline administrative tasks and cross-border operations.
Message — The organization requests clarification on how the Business Wallet relates to existing identity wallets and sectoral legislation. They emphasize the need to focus on digital credentials with a robust trust framework, prioritize public sector participation, and ensure flexibility for innovation. They want harmonized identification requirements to reduce fragmented national reporting obligations.1234
Why — This would reduce compliance costs and eliminate fragmented national reporting requirements across borders.567
Impact — National authorities lose control over setting their own identification and reporting standards.8
Read full response

European Banking Federation Urges Simpler Sustainable Finance Rules

28 May 2025
Topic — Review of EU sustainable finance disclosure rules to simplify the framework and prevent greenwashing.
Message — The organization requests deleting the annual entity-level principal adverse impact statement because it is overly complex and not useful for stakeholders. They advocate for a revamped product-level disclosure system that focuses on short, clear templates and meaningful indicators for retail investors. Additionally, they propose removing portfolio management services from the scope to reduce reporting burdens on bespoke products.123
Why — The proposed changes would significantly lower compliance costs and reduce legal and reputational risks for banks.45
Impact — The public and competitors gain less insight into the specific sustainability impacts and portfolio compositions of financial firms.67
Read full response

Meeting with Almoro Rubin De Cervin (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

23 May 2025 · Banking issues

Meeting with Enikő Győri (Member of the European Parliament)

19 May 2025 · capital requirements

European Banking Federation Seeks Implementation Delay for Digital Identity Rules

13 May 2025
Topic — EU regulation on verification standards for qualified digital certificates and identity wallets.
Message — The banking associations request additional implementation time to make necessary technical adjustments. They argue the updated security standards and specific requirements for automated operations and document validation will require significant system updates.12
Why — This would reduce their compliance costs and allow more time to adapt technical infrastructure.3
Read full response

European Banking Federation Seeks Clarity on Remote Identity Verification

13 May 2025
Topic — EU regulation on remote qualified electronic signature and seal creation devices.
Message — The banking sector requests clarification on how remote identity verification providers currently operating can continue under the new framework. They seek a robust and harmonised certification framework for European Digital Identity Wallets.12
Why — This would allow banks' existing identity verification systems to remain operational.3
Read full response

European Banking Federation Seeks Clarity on Digital Identity Standards

13 May 2025
Topic — EU regulation on reference standards for qualified electronic signatures and seals.
Message — The banking sector requests clarification on how Remote Identity Verification Providers can continue operations under the new framework. They also recommend disallowing obsolete cryptographic algorithms like DSA without ECC for EU wallet use.12
Why — This would preserve existing business models for identity verification services without EUDI Wallets.3
Impact — The push for universal EUDI Wallet adoption could be weakened by carve-outs.
Read full response

European Banking Federation Seeks Stronger Cryptography Standards for Digital Identity

13 May 2025
Topic — EU rules on validating electronic signatures and seals for digital identity wallets.
Message — The banking sector wants obsolete cryptographic algorithms banned from EU digital identity wallets and post-quantum cryptography integrated into technical standards. They argue current standards reference discontinued algorithms that don't meet wallet security requirements.12
Why — This would protect banks from security vulnerabilities in outdated encryption systems.34
Read full response

European Banking Federation Seeks Clarity on Remote Identity Verification Rules

13 May 2025
Topic — New EU regulation on qualified validation services for electronic signatures and seals.
Message — The organization requests clarification on how remote identity verification providers currently operating for qualified electronic signatures can continue under the new framework. They want the issue carefully considered to create a robust certification framework for digital identity wallets.12
Why — This would allow banks to maintain existing identity verification services without disruptive changes.3
Read full response

European Banking Federation Seeks QTSP Exemption from Outsourcing Rules

13 May 2025
Topic — EU regulation on notification procedures for qualified trust services under eIDAS 2.0.
Message — The banking sector requests that Qualified Trust Service Providers not be classified as traditional outsourcers under ICT outsourcing and DORA rules. They argue QTSPs provide specialized services, undergo formal qualification, and face dedicated supervision.1234
Why — This would exempt banks from applying standard outsourcing compliance requirements to QTSP relationships.5
Impact — Financial regulators lose oversight tools for managing third-party technology risks in digital identity.
Read full response

European Banking Federation Seeks Clarity on Time-Stamp Requirements

13 May 2025
Topic — EU regulation on qualified electronic time stamps for digital identity wallets.
Message — The federation requests more detailed specification of when qualified electronic time stamping must be used in digital identity wallets. They want this addressed to create a robust and harmonised certification framework.12
Why — This would reduce uncertainty and compliance costs for banks implementing digital identity systems.3
Read full response

Banking Industry Urges Stricter Controls on eID Peer Reviews

13 May 2025
Topic — EU regulation on procedural arrangements for peer reviews of electronic identification schemes.
Message — The associations request stricter oversight of peer review processes to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure transparency. They want decisions to refuse reviewers or withhold information to require clear justification and scrutiny by the Cooperation Group.12
Why — This would prevent regulatory arbitrage and forum shopping by providers and relying parties.3
Impact — Member states lose flexibility to protect sensitive national security or business information.4
Read full response

European Banking Federation Seeks Transparency in Digital Wallet Supervision

13 May 2025
Topic — Annual reporting requirements for supervisors of European Digital Identity Wallets.
Message — The organization requests public disclosure of key supervisory information including security breaches, non-compliance actions, and fraudulent wallet use. They emphasize the need for harmonized reporting to prevent forum shopping by providers.12
Why — This would create a level playing field and consistent supervision across Member States.34
Impact — Wallet providers lose ability to exploit regulatory arbitrage between Member States.5
Read full response

Meeting with Arba Kokalari (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Deutsche Bank AG and

30 Apr 2025 · AI in Financial Services

Meeting with Martin Merlin (Director Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and BNP PARIBAS

28 Apr 2025 · Exchange of views on the Savings and Investments Union package and other topics

Meeting with Nicolo Brignoli (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis) and Insurance Europe and

22 Apr 2025 · FIDA

Meeting with Jennifer Robertson (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

15 Apr 2025 · Third-country CCP equivalence regime

Meeting with Kerstin Jorna (Director-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs) and

10 Apr 2025 · Impact of US tariffs

Meeting with Stéphane Séjourné (Executive Vice-President) and

10 Apr 2025 · Impact of US tariffs

Meeting with Jörgen Warborn (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and DIGITALEUROPE

9 Apr 2025 · Omnibus

Meeting with Leonie Bell (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

31 Mar 2025 · Reporting

European Banking Federation demands suspension of green reporting rules

26 Mar 2025
Topic — EU consultation on simplifying sustainability disclosure requirements for the financial sector.
Message — The EBF requests suspending Green Asset Ratio reporting until a final review is completed. The group also seeks to eliminate duplicate disclosures and simplify requirements for retail lending.123
Why — This would prevent banks from funding multiple technical upgrades for temporary regulations.45
Impact — Investors and environmental groups lose access to standardized data on bank sustainability.67
Read full response

European Banking Federation calls for bottom-up approach to capital markets

7 Mar 2025
Topic — EU consultation on Savings and Investments Union to mobilize financing for growth.
Message — Banks urge Member States to adopt a 'Capital Markets Mindset' - developing domestic markets through tax incentives and pension reforms rather than EU-wide regulatory solutions. They reject proposals for a new common EU savings product, calling it unnecessary when diverse products already exist. They want simplified disclosure rules, easier securitization, and reduced capital requirements to unlock bank lending capacity.1234
Why — This would reduce banks' capital requirements and compliance costs while preserving their flexibility.567
Impact — Retail investors lose potential protections from simpler, standardized products with clearer disclosures.89
Read full response

European Banking Federation urges permanent repo market rules

6 Mar 2025
Topic — EU regulation on net stable funding ratio treatment for securities financing transactions.
Message — The federation requests making permanent the current treatment of short-term reverse repos and unsecured funding with financial customers before the June 2025 deadline. They warn that reverting to Basel standards would reduce repo market size and undermine government bond market making.12
Why — This preserves their profitable repo operations and maintains liquidity sources for banks.34
Impact — EU member states face higher financing costs and difficulties rolling over sovereign debt.5
Read full response

Meeting with Gheorghe Piperea (Member of the European Parliament)

6 Mar 2025 · Insolvency law

Meeting with Arba Kokalari (Member of the European Parliament) and Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs

5 Mar 2025 · Savings and Investments Union

Meeting with Maria Raffaella Assetta (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and Insurance Europe and

4 Mar 2025 · EU financial services industry associations debrief on EU-UK Financial Regulatory Forum

Meeting with Maria Luís Albuquerque (Commissioner) and

3 Mar 2025 · Exchange with the European Banking Federation on regulatory developments

Meeting with Maria Raffaella Assetta (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

27 Feb 2025 · Participation at the 23rd meeting of EBF International Affairs Steering Group to present the priorities of the EC in relation to, US, UK, India and China.

Meeting with Ton Diepeveen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

18 Feb 2025 · Kennismakingsgesprek

Meeting with Fernando Navarrete Rojas (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

6 Feb 2025 · Euro Digital

Meeting with Larisa Dragomir (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

5 Feb 2025 · Exchange with EBF - European Banking Federation on banking related aspects

Meeting with Didier Millerot (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA

16 Jan 2025 · Commission’s priorities for the upcoming mandate

Meeting with Elena Arveras (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

16 Jan 2025 · Exchange of views on the simplification policy.

Meeting with Nicolo Brignoli (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis)

16 Jan 2025 · Exchange of views on the simplification policy

Meeting with Emil Radev (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

14 Jan 2025 · Harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law

Meeting with Maria Raffaella Assetta (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and Insurance Europe and

9 Jan 2025 · EU-UK Financial Regulatory Forum

Meeting with Anouk Van Brug (Member of the European Parliament)

10 Dec 2024 · General meeting introduction

Meeting with Gilles Boyer (Member of the European Parliament) and Insurance Europe and

3 Dec 2024 · CMU

Meeting with Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Member of the European Parliament) and Insurance Europe and

3 Dec 2024 · Savings and Investments Union

Meeting with Jonás Fernández (Member of the European Parliament)

17 Oct 2024 · Priorities current term

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament) and ACCIS

17 Oct 2024 · Conference - European Court of Justice - Access to requests for preliminary ruling for interested third parties

Meeting with Michalis Hadjipantela (Member of the European Parliament)

2 Oct 2024 · Introductory Meeting with European Banking Federation

Meeting with Nikos Papandreou (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

25 Sept 2024 · Digital euro

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner) and

10 Sept 2024 · High-level executive roundtable: preventing the circumvention of EU sanctions on sensitive goods.

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Executive Vice-President) and BUSINESSEUROPE and

10 Sept 2024 · Preventing the circumvention of EU sanctions on sensitive goods

European Banking Federation seeks ATAD-Pillar Two harmonization to reduce burden

9 Sept 2024
Topic — Evaluation of EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive and its interaction with new rules.
Message — The organization requests harmonization of ATAD rules with Pillar Two framework to eliminate regulatory overlap. They argue both directives share the same policy objective but create excessive administrative burdens. They specifically request exemption from CFC rules when Pillar Two applies and exclusion of financial undertakings from interest limitation rules.1234
Why — This would reduce compliance costs from managing two overlapping tax regimes simultaneously.56
Impact — Tax authorities lose dual safeguards against profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions.7
Read full response

European Banking Federation seeks flexibility in GDPR enforcement

8 Feb 2024
Topic — Review of the General Data Protection Regulation six years after implementation.
Message — The federation requests uniform GDPR interpretation across member states, better coordination between data protection and sectoral financial regulations, and preservation of the regulation's risk-based approach. They argue current guidelines are too prescriptive and undermine banks' ability to implement compliance autonomously.123
Why — This would reduce operational complexity and give banks more autonomy in compliance decisions.45
Impact — Consumers may face weaker data access rights if request timelines are extended.6
Read full response

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner)

25 Jan 2024 · Retail Investment Strategy Roundtable.

Response to Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT)

24 Jan 2024

The European Banking Federation (EBF) welcomes the opportunity to provide additional input on the Commissions proposal for Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT). EBF is supportive, in principle, of the idea of comprehensive and uniform European tax regulation, particularly one that aims to address cross-border obstacles in the corporate tax field. However, EBF believes that the BEFIT proposal in its current form is unlikely to achieve the goal of unifying taxation. Rather, it instead increases uncertainty and regulatory complexity. In EBFs view, the primary objective of the proposal should be the alleviation of the compliance workload for corporate taxpayers across the EU. BEFIT must be as simple as possible to administrate. EBF believes that, according to the current proposal, the simplification objective will not be met as multinational groups in scope of the proposal will be confronted with an additional layer of compliance that will come on top of existing compliance. This will mean that the potential benefits of a harmonised consolidated EU Corporate Income Tax (CIT) regime for multinational groups will not be achieved.
Read full response

Meeting with Tove Ernst (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and Insurance Europe and European Mortgage Federation - European Covered Bond Council

10 Jan 2024 · Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan; quality of life”

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

13 Dec 2023 · code of conduct cancer survivors

Meeting with Ville Niinistö (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

13 Dec 2023 · Financial Data Access

Response to Rationalisation of reporting requirements

1 Dec 2023

The European Banking Federation (EBF) welcomes the opportunity to put forward our comments on the European Commissions call for evidence on its initiative for the rationalisation of reporting requirements. The EBF is very supportive of all efforts for rationalizing and simplifying reporting requirements not only to improve the system but also helping to increase the competitiveness of EU businesses. The EBF response to the consultation represents the consolidated view from all EBF members i.e., 33 national banking associations from across Europe representing in total about 3,500 banks. While we appreciate that the scope of the call for evidence concerns the whole spectrum of sectors, the EBF enclosed response focuses on the banking sector.
Read full response

Meeting with Maroš Šefčovič (Executive Vice-President) and

30 Nov 2023 · Clean Transition Dialogue on Energy Intensive Industries

Meeting with Frances Fitzgerald (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

6 Nov 2023 · Insolvency law

European Banking Federation urges gradual approach to financial data sharing

31 Oct 2023
Topic — EU regulation extending customer data access rights across financial sectors beyond payments.
Message — The federation requests a 48-month implementation timeline instead of 18 months, a gradual staged approach starting with limited data sets, and clear exclusion of derived and inferred data from mandatory sharing. They emphasize that reasonable compensation should cover investments in data infrastructure, not just direct sharing costs.1234
Why — This would protect their proprietary assessment methods and give them compensation for data infrastructure investments.56
Impact — Financial technology companies lose quick access to bank customer data for innovation purposes.7
Read full response

Meeting with Aurore Lalucq (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

16 Oct 2023 · ESG ratings

Meeting with Rasmus Andresen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Insurance Europe and

12 Oct 2023 · ESG

Meeting with Marek Belka (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

25 Sept 2023 · Payment Services Regulation (APA on behalf of MEP)

Meeting with Alin Mituța (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

21 Sept 2023 · European Digital Identity Framework (eID)

Banking federation urges optional withholding tax relief scheme

18 Sept 2023
Topic — EU proposal to streamline withholding tax relief procedures for cross-border investments.
Message — The EBF requests that participation as a Certified Financial Intermediary remain optional rather than mandatory, with simplified due diligence requirements and longer reporting timelines. They argue the proposed obligations are "even more burdensome than those currently in application" and want CFIs to be "free to decide for which countries they want to offer this tax relief service."1234
Why — This would reduce their administrative burden and compliance costs significantly.56
Impact — Cross-border investors lose faster access to withholding tax refunds and relief.7
Read full response

European Banking Federation Opposes Value-for-Money Rules and Inducement Ban

28 Aug 2023
Topic — EU proposal to strengthen retail investor protection in financial product distribution.
Message — Banks want the EU to abandon quantitative value-for-money benchmarks that overlook qualitative aspects of advice. They oppose the partial ban on inducements for execution-only services, arguing it resembles a full commission ban. They seek to preserve existing investor protection rules rather than adopt the proposed best-interest principle.123
Why — This would preserve commission-based revenue models and avoid costly compliance systems.45
Impact — Retail investors lose protections against high-cost products and conflicted advice.6
Read full response

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner) and

18 Jul 2023 · Distribution of Retail financial products

EBF Urges Mandatory Disclosures to Ensure Banking Sector Compliance

7 Jul 2023
Topic — This consultation concerns the first set of European Sustainability Reporting Standards for companies.
Message — The federation requests that climate and social data points be made mandatory for all companies regardless of their own importance assessments. They argue that banks need this specific data from clients to meet their own legal transparency requirements.12
Why — Universal mandatory reporting by clients would save banks from the high cost of collecting data individually.3
Impact — Banks lose if clients omit data, creating legal inconsistencies and making regulatory compliance impossible.4
Read full response

Meeting with Simon Genevaz (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

13 Jun 2023 · digital euro

Meeting with Alfred Sant (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Afore Consulting

6 Jun 2023 · Listing Act

Meeting with Tommy De Temmerman (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

23 May 2023 · Preparation of Commissioner McGuinness’s speech at the EBF conference of 1 June 2023

European Banking Federation demands taxonomy reporting delays and template fixes

3 May 2023
Topic — EU regulation establishing classification system for environmentally sustainable economic activities across four objectives.
Message — The federation requests a one-year delay for financial institutions' eligibility reporting until 2025, and at least one year phase-in for alignment reporting on amended climate activities. They demand corrections to contradictory timing provisions and templates that lack necessary formulas and rows.1234
Why — This would allow banks to base calculations on actual counterparty disclosures rather than problematic estimates.56
Impact — Investors and policymakers lose timely transparency on banks' sustainable finance activities and progress.
Read full response

Meeting with Aurore Lalucq (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Fédération bancaire française

3 May 2023 · EMIR

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness), Patricia Reilly (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

3 May 2023 · open finance

Response to Strengthening existing rules and expanding exchange of information framework in the field of taxation (DAC8)

30 Mar 2023

The European Banking Federation (EBF) is in favour of a level playing field for all types of assets and financial service providers, including Crypto-Assets, however this should not unproportionally increase the compliance burden on financial institutions (FIs). Unlike the OECD CARF, the definition of Crypto-Assets under DAC8 is built on an EU regulatory classification under MiCA which defines the scope of Crypto-Assets under regulation. It is not clear how Crypto-Asset service providers (CASPs) under DAC8 may adequately determine whether a Crypto-Asset cannot be used for payment or investment purposes if it is not specified under MiCA or any other EU regulation. Unlike the OECD framework, which only includes in the scope of reporting CASPs those offering Crypto-Asset exchange services, DAC8 includes those that perform a Crypto-Asset Service as defined under MiCA permitting to complete an Exchange transaction. Hence, the scope of entities subject to reporting obligations will be much broader within the EU than under the CARF. Rules to enforce the collection and verification requirements under DAC8 are raising legal issues insofar as nothing is said about the lawfulness of blocking transactions and how this may be implemented. DAC8 requires non-EU RCASPs providing a crypto service to EU taxpayers to register with an EU member state and meet CARF due diligence and reporting requirements of that member state. While RCASPs resident in jurisdictions that have adopted rules equivalent to DAC8 are excused from this obligation, fundamentally this creates extraterritorial due diligence and reporting obligations for entities located outside of the EU. Such extra-territorial obligations can create a conflict of law that gives rise to privacy and secrecy issues where an entity is established in a jurisdiction that places restrictions on the collection of personal information without valid, local legal obligations to do so and/or reporting of personal information to other countries. Incremental reporting requirements under Annex I, Section I.A.2 may be difficult to implement by FIs notably because the requested information is not necessarily stored in an electronically retrievable/searchable way. Further clarification and guidance are required in order to enable FIs to implement these additional reporting requirements. It seems unclear how the required collection of taxpayer identification number (TINs) for pre-existing accounts in Article 27c would work in relation to the provisions in Annex I, Section I.C ("Reasonable efforts to obtain a TIN regarding Pre-existing Accounts") and Annex I, Section I.D ("TIN is not issued by the Member State"). It is simply not possible to obtain a TIN from all reportable persons (individuals and entities alike) in all cases. An obligation to report a TIN for all reportable persons (irrespective of the circumstances) could force FIs to close financial accounts of account holders who do not disclose the necessary TIN information. Further guidance is also needed on the appropriate actions for an FI that has received the confirmation that the TIN is invalid and that is unable to obtain a valid TIN. The Commission should fundamentally reevaluate the new penalties regime. Among others, there is no clear definition of non-compliance, which could lead to potential issues with fundamental legal principles. We are concerned that the use of information collected under DAC is widely extended and may infringe personal data protection rules and/or court decisions. Making changes to run-the-bank processes and systems is difficult and thus requires time for both budgeting, technology development and deployment of changes to systems. We would therefore recommend that sufficient lead-time be given to enable FIs to adapt their systems and procedures.
Read full response

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner) and

28 Mar 2023 · Round-Table on Digital Euro (with EVP Dombrovskis and DG FISMA)

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner) and

22 Mar 2023 · Current economic conditions, banking package, crisis management, clearing, retail investment strategy, digital Euro

Response to EMIR Targeted review

21 Mar 2023

In keeping with the Capital Markets Unions objective to foster well-functioning and internationally competitive EU capital markets, the European Banking Federation (EBF) fully supports the development of a better integrated and more attractive clearing landscape in the EU, and thus welcomes the legislative package set forth by the European Commission on December 7th, 2022. As the voice of the European banking industry, the EBF firmly underscores the key role of well-calibrated EU regulatory action to support the growth of deeper, more cohesive, and resilient EU capital markets underpinned by strong, globally competitive European financial institutions. Against this background, the EBF emphasizes the following key concern: On exposure reduction planning and target setting obligation for institutions Art. 76 (2) CRD/Art. 29 (1) IFD and corresponding new supervisory exposure reduction enforcement power Art. 104 (1) (n) CRD/Art. 39 (2) (b) IFD: EBF Members emphasize that the obligation to develop specific plans and set targets for a reduction of the concentration risk towards third-country CCPs in systemically relevant derivatives categories, together with a new supervisory power to actively enforce an exposure reduction by requiring an institution to realign or reduce their positions where deemed an excessive concentration risk, is a disproportionate tool which can result in significant interference with core business activities of institutions, their client relations/client needs and the business model, as well as general competitiveness. Against this background and especially in view of the fact that the explanatory memorandum for the proposal of the Amending Directive states that competent supervisors already possess powers to adequately address excessive concentration risks under the existing CRD-framework (see page 8), European banks are of the opinion that the introduction of such new far-reaching and intrusive obligations and powers should be reconsidered. In line with previous responses to stakeholder consultations, EBF Members further emphasize that punitive capital charges will not produce inflow of non-EU liquidity, but will rather significantly weaken the attractiveness and competitiveness of EU clearing members. EBF Members also understand that as the obligations and powers in questions are intended to reduce concentration risks - institutions would also be entitled to address and reduce any excessive concentration identified by the supervisory authority by spreading their exposure across various CCPs, including other third-country CCPs. Should the powers be established despite such serious concerns, close coordination between the supervisory authorities will be strongly needed with regard to a synchronized/coordinated application of these powers in conjunction with the active account requirements, should those also be implemented, in order to avoid duplication and inconsistencies.
Read full response

European Banking Federation seeks secured creditor protections in insolvency reform

14 Mar 2023
Topic — Proposed EU directive harmonizing national insolvency laws to support Capital Markets Union.
Message — The federation demands protections for secured creditors in pre-pack sales and avoidance actions. They want exemptions for financial contracts from stay provisions and termination restrictions. The proposal should clarify that secured creditors must approve asset sales and maintain priority claims.123
Why — This would protect their loan recovery rates and reduce legal uncertainty in cross-border lending.45
Impact — Unsecured creditors and employees would face lower recovery rates as secured banks maintain priority.6
Read full response

Meeting with Marek Belka (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

27 Feb 2023 · Instant Payments

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and Banco Santander, S.A. and

1 Feb 2023 · retail investment strategy

Meeting with Agnieszka Drzewoska (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and Banco Santander, S.A. and

1 Feb 2023 · Retail Investment Strategy

Meeting with Ivars Ijabs (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Deutsche Bank AG

31 Jan 2023 · Instant payment regulation

European Banking Federation Seeks Market-Driven Approach to Instant Payments

21 Dec 2022
Topic — EU regulation mandating instant euro credit transfers across all payment service providers.
Message — The federation opposes mandatory instant payment offerings through all channels, arguing banks should maintain freedom to determine their product offerings. They request legal requirements be limited to mandating sending for single payments through online channels and mandating reachability. They strongly object to price regulation, arguing instant payments have higher costs than regular transfers and competition should determine pricing.1234
Why — Banks could avoid mandatory 24/7 infrastructure investments and recover higher operational costs through differentiated pricing.56
Impact — Consumers and small businesses lose guaranteed access to instant payments at affordable prices.7
Read full response

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

16 Dec 2022 · energy crisis, Market Correction Mechamism, EMIR review, CCPs

Meeting with Hanna Jahns (Cabinet of Commissioner Johannes Hahn)

14 Dec 2022 · EU banking regulatory and supervisory framework

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

23 Nov 2022 · Digital euro, EU Sustainability Standards

Meeting with Frances Fitzgerald (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

15 Nov 2022 · European Single Access Points

Meeting with Anthony Agotha (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

9 Nov 2022 · Green Deal/COP27 presentation

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and EUROPEAN TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION and

7 Nov 2022 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

Meeting with Valeria Miceli (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

21 Oct 2022 · EBF presented banking sector's main concerns on digital euro and in particular impacts on financial stability, payment systems, AML/privacy issues.

Meeting with Karen Melchior (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

21 Oct 2022 · Data Act

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and Associazione Bancaria Italiana and BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA

21 Oct 2022 · Digital Euro

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and Associazione Bancaria Italiana and

21 Oct 2022 · digital euro

Meeting with Katherine Power (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

13 Oct 2022 · Sustainable Finance

Meeting with Alfred Sant (Member of the European Parliament)

12 Oct 2022 · Banking package

Meeting with Valeria Miceli (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen) and BNP PARIBAS

21 Sept 2022 · BNP Paribas views on potential price caps and liquidity measures in the context of the energy crisis

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness), Katherine Power (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and BNP PARIBAS

21 Sept 2022 · Energy market liquidity measures

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and BNP PARIBAS

21 Sept 2022 · energy market liquidity measures

Meeting with Dārta Tentere (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

6 Sept 2022 · Sustainable finance

Banking Federation Urges Voluntary Open Finance Framework

2 Aug 2022
Topic — EU proposal to extend data sharing beyond payments to wider financial sectors.
Message — The federation requests a voluntary data-sharing framework based on market needs rather than mandatory access rights. They want provisions covering consumer protection, liability, compensation, and technical standards developed through market-driven initiatives. They argue no new mandatory data access rights should be introduced until other economic sectors have comparable frameworks.123
Why — This would prevent them bearing infrastructure costs without compensation while competitors access their data.456
Impact — Third-party fintech providers lose mandated free access to bank-held customer data.7
Read full response

Banking Federation Seeks Removal of Withdrawal Button from Distance-Selling Rules

8 Jul 2022
Topic — EU reform of consumer protection rules for financial services sold remotely.
Message — The EBF requests removal of the mandatory withdrawal button, elimination of the one-day interval before contract conclusion, and clarification of how the directive interacts with product-specific legislation. They want to limit pre-contractual information to essential elements only.1234
Why — This would avoid high IT costs and operational changes for banks.56
Impact — Consumers lose clearer access to withdrawal rights and additional safeguards for distance purchases.7
Read full response

Meeting with Valeria Miceli (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen) and Banco Santander, S.A. and

7 Jul 2022 · Topic: Polish loans in foreign currency (CHF) and the UCTD Directive. Eu Commission made it clear that we do not interfere in cases before the ECJ and with the SJ work in this regard.

Meeting with Alin Mituța (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Google and EuroCommerce

6 Jul 2022 · Data Act

Meeting with Joachim Schuster (Member of the European Parliament)

28 Jun 2022 · Banking package

Meeting with Gilles Boyer (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Fédération bancaire française and Société Générale

15 Jun 2022 · CRR

European Banking Federation urges uniform EU digital consumer rules

13 Jun 2022
Topic — This consultation assesses whether current EU consumer laws ensure fairness online.
Message — The EBF calls for full harmonisation of consumer laws to prevent member states from creating diverging national rules. They argue that financial sector regulations should prevail over general consumer laws to protect the uniqueness of banking products. Additionally, they propose a tiered information system to prevent consumer information overload.123
Why — Banks would avoid the complexity and cost of navigating different national rules.4
Impact — Tech startups would lose their advantage from currently having lighter regulatory requirements.5
Read full response

European Banking Federation urges penalties over buy-ins for settlement discipline

26 May 2022
Topic — EU review of Central Securities Depositories Regulation on settlement efficiency and cross-border services.
Message — The federation supports prioritizing cash penalties over mandatory buy-ins to reduce settlement failures. They request clearer definitions of 'trading party', a centralized ESMA database for reference data, and ensuring buy-in obligations rest with trading parties rather than intermediaries. They emphasize mandatory buy-ins are disproportionate tools that risk reducing market liquidity and increasing costs.1234
Why — This would reduce operational complexity and avoid undue financial risks on intermediaries for trading outcomes beyond their control.56
Impact — Buyers lose stronger protections against settlement failures if buy-in mechanisms are weakened or delayed.7
Read full response

European banks seek clarity on due diligence scope

20 May 2022
Topic — EU directive on corporate sustainability due diligence across value chains.
Message — The banking federation requests clearer definitions of value chain obligations, exemption of subsidiaries, and alignment with existing UN and OECD standards. They want due diligence requirements limited to credit and lending services, excluding other financial products. They strongly oppose civil liability provisions.1234
Why — This would reduce legal uncertainty and avoid retrospective obligations on existing contracts.56
Impact — Affected communities lose strong remedies as banks avoid liability for client impacts.7
Read full response

Meeting with Danuta Maria Hübner (Member of the European Parliament)

10 May 2022 · Digital Euro

Meeting with Jonás Fernández (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

10 May 2022 · EU Banking Package 2021

European Banking Federation Questions Need for New Shell Entity Rules

6 Apr 2022
Topic — EU directive targeting misuse of shell entities for tax avoidance purposes.
Message — The federation questions whether new rules are needed given existing anti-tax avoidance measures. They request broader exclusions for banking groups and their subsidiaries to avoid unnecessary compliance costs. They want harmonized EU-wide interpretation to prevent chaotic application across member states.123
Why — This would allow banks to avoid substantial compliance costs already imposed by recent reporting rules.45
Impact — Tax authorities lose stronger tools to identify and prevent cross-border tax avoidance schemes.
Read full response

Response to Amendments to certain Directives regulating public financial and non-financial disclosure in order to establish the ESAP

29 Mar 2022

With respect to the Directives amended by the proposal COM(2021) 724, EBF members emphasize: A) Directive 2004/109/EC: The European Singe Electronic Format (ESEF) has so far scarcely contributed to greater comparability and easier access. In particular, the application of the standardized IFRS taxonomy in the annual financial statements of banks has not led to any additional value in the information provided to financial statements’ users. The balance sheets and P&L accounts of banks have a different rationale to those of industrial companies. The compulsory application of a taxonomy designed for the real economy means that the special features of banking cannot be adequately represented. This problem is overcome in the ESEF with the option of using extensions. However, this does not make the reports any more comparable. There have also been technical problems with ESEF reporting. As far as we are aware, there are currently no software solutions on the market that can properly meet the ESEF. From the point of view of the software developers, the problems mainly concern the XHTML and not the iXBRL publication. Therefore, it must be technically possible to implement the specifications. B) Directive 2013/34/EU: We refer to our remarks above on Directive 2004/109/EC. If a taxonomy is to be used at all, we believe it is of the utmost importance that it should be appropriate. The problems with a taxonomy which is not appropriate will almost certainly get worse. From the 2023 financial year onwards, not only the core parts but also the disclosures in the notes to the financial statements will also need to be drawn up in the ESEF. It is currently unclear how this would work in practice for preparers and auditors. The procedure for introducing the ESEF has imposed a considerable burden on banks, which has not been offset by any benefit. EBF Members remain skeptical about rolling out this approach on a larger scale. C) Directive 2014/65/EU: Article 27(6) and the associated RTS 28 require investment firms to publish annual information on the quality of the execution of client orders (quality report) and on the top five execution venues for each class of financial instrument (Annex to MiFID II) and for securities financing transactions (SFTs) with clients. These reports are currently published on the website of the investment firm, using a specified template for information on the top five execution venues and SFTs. The ESAP Regulation will require investment firms to submit additional reports to ESMA (it should be clarified what these "additional reports" are about? On the quality of execution of clients' orders?). A duplication of disclosure requirements, and of the time and resources on a type of report that the Commission itself declared to be “very rarely read by clients” (back in text of the Public Consultation on “A possible review of the MiFID2” run in Feb-May 2020). Such duplication effort involved should definitely be avoided. As to the data format requirements, please see our general remarks. Given the lack of public interest of the public in the report on the quality of the execution report and in on the information on the top five execution venues on the websites of investment firms, firms, in our opinion the level 1 requirement in Article 27(6) of MiFID II should also be deleted/repealed. D) Directive (EU) 2019/2162: EBF Members do not support including the required cover pool reports into ESAP. E) CSRD Proposal (COM (2021) 189): EBF Members support the introduction of sustainability information as defined in the upcoming CSRD in the ESAP, including giving undertakings not in scope of CSRD the possibility to give voluntary information in order to facilitate the availability of standardized information for investors that might comply to legislative obligations such as the ones defined by the EU Taxonomy Regulation (Delegated Act to Art. 8)”.
Read full response

Response to Amendments to certain Regulations regulating public financial & non-financial disclosure in order to establish the ESA

29 Mar 2022

With respect to the Regulations amended by the proposal COM(2021) 725, EBF members emphasize: A) Reg. (EU) No 648/2012 The information to be provided by clearing members concerning the level of protection and the costs associated with client clearing pursuant to Article 39(7) can be substantial and complex. In addition, such information is directly related to the information disclosed by CCPs pursuant to Article 38. Therefore, its inclusion in ESAP would not serve the intended purpose and should be dropped. B) Reg. (EU) No 575/2013 This amendment provides for Pillar III prudential reporting to be made accessible in ESAP from 1 January 2026. The format to be used is to be specified by the EBA in the form of an ITS. At the same time, as part of the current CRR review, there is a proposal to centralize Pillar III reports in a single access point at the EBA. We consider it key that the content and timing of both proposals are consistent. We would like to emphasize once again the importance of having an implementation period of at least two years. In preparation of the ITS, the opportunity to clarify procedural questions in dialogue with industry and EBA should be given. C) Reg. (EU) No 596/2014 As the mechanisms already in place for the public disclosure of inside information are well established, the information requirements for ESAP accessibility should be based on current market best-practices, which comply with the general principles set out in article 2 of the Commission IR (EU) 2016/1055. D) Reg. (EU) No 909/2014 It is an open question whether the specific information provided by CSDs and required by ESAP will be sufficiently anonymized and fit to contribute to investment decisions made by investors, such as information on CSDs or participants which are not issuers, since it relate to the settlement of trades and the supervision of CSDs. Moreover, EBF Members emphasize that further consideration should be given on the possibility to update ESAP with the appropriate frequency, including when a CSD temporary suspension ends. E) Reg. (EU) No 1286/2014: The relevant NCA should also be in charge of submitting the relevant public information on sanctions and measures. This should not fall under the PRIIPs manufacturer’s responsibility. Moreover, EBF Members also emphasize: • Some KIDs are not disseminated to the public as the placement of securities benefits is an exempted offer. PRIIPs manufacturers should continue to benefit from this practice. • The collecting body should be prepared to receive a significant and frequent amount of data if updates of outstanding KIDs are to be included. • A unique collecting body should be designated for all public KIDs. where manufacturers must transmit the KID to local NCA, then NCA should oversee transmitting the KID to ESAP. • The PRIIPs manufacturers should be able to delegate the submission of the KIDs to external vendors or platforms. • It should be clarified if the submission to ESAP will be triggered by local transposition of PRIIPs regulation, considering that the transmission to NCA has to be decided by the local regulator. F) Reg. (EU) 2017/1129 ESAP requires information under Article 21(2), currently made public via websites, to be reported to ESMA as well. The ESAP Regulation provides that the information shall be prepared in a data extractable or a machine-readable format. Given that prospectuses (including final terms and supplements, if any) are text-based documents, these documents are not suitable for the submission in a data machine-readable or similar data format. Inefficient duplication of disclosure requirements, and unnecessary conversions of text documents should be avoided. G) Reg. (EU) 2019/2088 Information disclosed by financial market participants and financial advisers on their websites according to Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (SFDR) requirements could be collected within ESAP. This should not imply a duplication of disclosures for financial market participants.
Read full response

Banking Federation Urges Phased EU Data Platform Rollout

29 Mar 2022
Topic — EU proposal to create a single access point for company financial and sustainability data.
Message — The federation requests a gradual implementation prioritizing sustainability data over a comprehensive launch. They want at least one year between technical standards publication and reporting requirements. They emphasize maintaining the 'file only once' principle to avoid duplicating existing reporting obligations.123
Why — This would reduce the substantial operational costs and technical work needed for data standardization.45
Impact — Investors and consumers lose immediate access to comprehensive comparable financial data across all sectors.6
Read full response

Meeting with Luis Garicano (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

29 Mar 2022 · Conference on anti-money laundering with stakeholders

Meeting with Jonás Fernández (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

15 Mar 2022 · EU Banking Package 2021 (EBF breakfast workshop)

Meeting with Paul Tang (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

15 Mar 2022 · Meeting on Anti-Money Laundering Package

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

10 Mar 2022 · Banking package, Banking union, CMU

Meeting with Petar Vitanov (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe

9 Mar 2022 · AI Act

Meeting with Gilles Boyer (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Association Française des Entreprises Privées / French Association of Large Companies

9 Mar 2022 · EUGB (staff)

Meeting with Alin Mituța (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

4 Mar 2022 · European Digital Identity proposal (eID)

Meeting with Nicolo Brignoli (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

22 Feb 2022 · Instant Payments.

Meeting with Pedro Marques (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

11 Feb 2022 · AMLA

Meeting with Billy Kelleher (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

11 Feb 2022 · DORA

Meeting with Jonás Fernández (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

1 Feb 2022 · EU Banking Package 2021

Meeting with Lucia Bonova (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager), Werner Stengg (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

1 Feb 2022 · Data Act

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

28 Jan 2022 · data economy, digital finance

European Banking Federation Opposes New Capital Deduction Rules

20 Jan 2022
Topic — Implementation of Basel III prudential standards and resolution requirements for banks.
Message — The EBF requests limiting deductions to eligible liabilities only, excluding own funds until a full impact assessment is conducted. They want adequate implementation time to avoid breaching MREL requirements. They argue the current proposal contradicts existing capital requirements and lacks proper impact assessment.1234
Why — This would prevent intermediate parent entities from breaching requirements and maintain lending capacity.567
Impact — Regulators lose stricter capital buffers designed to ensure bank resolvability during crises.89
Read full response

European Banking Federation warns Basel III impact understated

17 Jan 2022
Topic — Implementation of Basel III banking standards in EU capital requirements regulation.
Message — The federation argues the true capital impact is significantly higher than the Commission's 6-8% estimate, requesting the output floor be applied only at consolidated level and permanent solutions for unrated corporates and real estate exposures. They want numerous technical standards clearly framed to prevent scope creep beyond Basel Committee intent.123
Why — This would preserve their current capital buffers and lending capacity without raising additional capital.45
Impact — Financial system stability loses if banks maintain lower capital buffers than intended by Basel standards.
Read full response

Banking Federation Backs Crypto AML Rules, Seeks Implementation Delay

29 Nov 2021
Topic — New EU regulation extending anti-money laundering rules to crypto-asset transfers.
Message — The organization supports extending AML rules to crypto providers to achieve a level playing field. However, they request a longer implementation period and clearer guidance on technical compliance, particularly for interactions with unhosted wallets and decentralized systems.123
Why — This would give banks and crypto providers more time to develop compatible technical solutions.45
Impact — Financial crime enforcement loses immediate compliance from crypto providers operating in decentralized systems.6
Read full response

Banking Federation Calls for Risk-Based AML Authority Selection

29 Nov 2021
Topic — New EU regulation establishing an Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Authority.
Message — The organization wants AMLA to select supervised entities based on actual risk rather than size or geographic spread. They request extending AMLA's scope to non-financial sectors and avoiding duplicated supervision and fees between AMLA and national authorities.1234
Why — This would prevent large banks from automatic selection while smaller high-risk entities escape scrutiny.56
Impact — Smaller non-bank financial firms and non-financial sectors face lighter supervision under current proposal.7
Read full response

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Executive Vice-President)

26 Nov 2021 · Basel III implementation, sustainable finance, digital finance

Banking Federation Seeks Intelligence-Led AML Approach Over Tick-Box Compliance

18 Nov 2021
Topic — EU directive on preventing money laundering and terrorist financing through the financial system.
Message — The EBF calls for a paradigm shift away from bureaucratic tick-box compliance that generates irrelevant data. They want clearer risk assessment criteria, strengthened beneficial owner registers with verified data, and enhanced information sharing leveraging new technologies. They also seek more frequent feedback from Financial Intelligence Units on suspicious activity reports.1234
Why — This would reduce compliance workload and allow banks to focus resources on genuine high-risk cases.56
Impact — Financial Intelligence Units lose the massive data flows they currently receive from defensive over-reporting.7
Read full response

European Banking Federation urges shift from tick-box AML compliance

18 Nov 2021
Topic — New EU regulation on preventing money laundering and terrorist financing.
Message — The federation requests moving away from rigid, prescriptive rules toward a flexible, intelligence-led approach. They want less standardization that allows Member States to add requirements, arguing this reintroduces fragmentation. They seek permission to apply enhanced due diligence only for high-risk cases, not increased-risk ones, and want flexibility in governance structures rather than mandatory two-tier compliance systems.1234
Why — This would reduce compliance burdens and allow banks to focus resources on detecting actual criminal activity.5
Impact — Financial intelligence units lose standardized data flows needed to identify criminal patterns across jurisdictions.6
Read full response

Meeting with Tommy De Temmerman (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

30 Sept 2021 · Basel III

European Banking Federation Demands 12-Month PRIIPs Implementation Period

9 Sept 2021
Topic — New EU rules on packaged retail investment product disclosure and investor communication.
Message — The organization requests a 12-month implementation period from adoption of new technical standards, instead of the proposed shortened timeline. They argue the current timeline cuts implementation by over 2 months and is insufficient for complex changes involving multiple departments, IT systems, data gathering, and coordination across the investment value chain.123
Why — This avoids substantial compliance burden and prevents forced suspension of product distribution.45
Impact — Consumers face delayed access to improved, clearer investment product information and disclosures.
Read full response

European Banking Federation Opposes Consumer Credit Directive Expansion

2 Sept 2021
Topic — Review of EU consumer credit rules covering scope, information requirements and creditworthiness assessment.
Message — Banks want proportional rules that don't extend burdensome requirements to all loan sizes, oppose interest rate caps, seek simplified digital-age information requirements, and want limits on creditworthiness assessment safeguards. They argue the proposal creates administrative burden without increasing consumer protection.1234
Why — Banks would avoid unreasonable administrative costs for small loans and maintain pricing flexibility.56
Impact — Consumers needing small loans lose access as banks stop offering uneconomical products.78
Read full response

Banking Federation Backs Swift CHF LIBOR Replacement Implementation

31 Aug 2021
Topic — Commission regulation designating statutory replacement rates for CHF LIBOR benchmark settings.
Message — The EBF urges immediate adoption of the statutory replacement regulation to prevent market disruption. They request the 6-month and 12-month tenors use 3-month SARON rates instead of longer observation periods. They also want information requirements limited to consumers only, with flexible timing and formats.1234
Why — This avoids hedging mismatches and accounting challenges while providing flexibility on client communications.56
Impact — Non-consumer clients lose statutory notification rights about benchmark changes affecting their contracts.7
Read full response

European Banking Federation Backs Statutory EONIA Replacement Rate

31 Aug 2021
Topic — Designation of statutory replacements for EONIA benchmark ceasing publication January 2022.
Message — The organization fully supports designating a statutory replacement rate for EONIA to provide legal certainty. They request clarifications that the tool won't displace existing bilateral agreements and suggest replacing 'Credit Support Annexes' with 'Collateral Agreements' for broader clarity.123
Why — This eliminates legal uncertainty for banks whose clients failed to renegotiate contracts before deadline.456
Read full response

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

22 Jul 2021 · Exchange about the NPL Advisory Panel

Meeting with Katherine Power (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

15 Jul 2021 · Sustainable Finance Introductory meeting

Response to Revision of Non-Financial Reporting Directive

14 Jul 2021

The European Banking Federation welcomes the opportunity to submit preliminary views from the European banking sector concerning the proposal for a Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. Please refer to the attached document for our views.
Read full response

Meeting with Tommy De Temmerman (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

6 Jul 2021 · COVID 19 response

European Banking Federation urges cross-sectoral data portability expansion

25 Jun 2021
Topic — EU regulation on data access, use, and fairness in the data economy.
Message — The organization requests that enhanced data portability rights extend beyond IoT devices to all sectors including telecommunications, utilities, e-commerce, and mobility services. They argue the current narrow scope creates market asymmetries and barriers.123
Why — This would allow banks to leverage existing PSD2 interfaces and expand services like green financing and personalized financial advice.45
Impact — Other sectors excluded from standard-setting would face technical barriers and competitive disadvantages in data sharing.6
Read full response

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and Copenhagen Economics

28 May 2021 · Basel III implementation

Banking Federation Seeks Market-Led Approach to EU Instant Payments

7 Apr 2021
Topic — EU initiative to assess legislative and non-legislative measures for pan-European instant payments adoption.
Message — The federation urges a market-driven approach to instant payments adoption rather than mandatory regulation. They request sufficient implementation time if adherence is mandated, and call for a stable regulatory environment supporting value-added products. They oppose price regulation for instant payments.123
Why — This would avoid mandatory compliance costs and preserve banks' ability to charge market rates for instant payments.456
Impact — Consumers and merchants lose potential cost savings from regulated instant payment pricing and mandatory adoption.7
Read full response

European Banking Federation Demands CSDR Buy-In Rules Be Made Optional

3 Apr 2021
Topic — EU review of central securities depositories rules and cross-border settlement services.
Message — Banks want mandatory buy-in requirements for non-CCP transactions changed to optional rights. They seek clarification that buy-in obligations don't apply to retail clients and want adequate implementation time for system changes.123
Why — This would avoid operational disruption and maintain European market access for international investors.4
Impact — Market participants facing settlement failures lose automatic enforcement mechanisms for timely delivery.
Read full response

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner)

22 Mar 2021 · Introductory Meeting, Covid Recovery, Basel 111

Meeting with Tommy De Temmerman (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

23 Feb 2021 · Introductory Call - Stakeholders' Roundtable

Banking Federation Seeks Delay and Flexibility in Digital Resilience Rules

15 Feb 2021
Topic — New EU regulation on digital operational resilience for financial sector institutions.
Message — The organization requests DORA adopt a risk-based approach with proportionality principles, harmonize ICT incident reporting, and provide flexible implementation timelines. They argue the current one-year implementation period is unrealistic while regulatory technical standards will take 1-3 years to develop. The federation calls for alignment with existing EBA guidelines rather than creating new requirements.12345
Why — This would reduce compliance costs and avoid duplicating existing risk management processes already implemented under EBA guidelines.678
Impact — Innovation suffers as banks lose access to non-EU critical technology providers and state-of-the-art solutions.91011
Read full response

Response to Digital Levy

11 Feb 2021

The problems of the initiative for an EU Digital Levy aims to tackle are the same that are at the basis of the work performed in the context of OECD BEPS action 1 and the latest OECD pillar 1 blueprint and of the EU DST proposal that was first issued in March 2018. The situation of banks and other regulated service providers has meanwhile extensively been examined in the context of OECD pillar 1 discussions and, based on the current status of the blueprint, has led to the conclusion by OECD, the Members of the Inclusive Framework and EU member states that banks are to be excluded from the new nexus rule proposed under pillar 1. A new proposal for an EU Digital Levy should therefore fully align with OECD and Inclusive Framework findings that there are clear policy and technical reasons for excluding banking industry services from the scope of the new taxing right for automated digitized services and consumer facing business which is developed under pillar 1. Strong consideration should be given in this respect to • banks’ specificities and regulations which ensure that banks set up a physical presence and hence have a taxable nexus where they face retail customers as well as the high-level compliance of banks under the current rules. • the fact that any proposal should be based on international consensus and agreement to avoid the potential of unintended tax consequences and disputes between jurisdictions. An EU Digital levy proposal should consistently reflect this and provide for an equal carve-out for banking services as is provided for in the pillar 1 blueprint. The carve-out of the banking industry should apply to any type of entity that is conducting regulated banking activities. One should consider in this respect the exclusion of regulated financial services provided by regulated financial service providers that already had been laid down in the latest draft directive proposal on the introduction of an EU DST (dd. 28/11/2018). Finally, we would like to refer to the critical role banks will have to play in the recovery and that it is essential that tax measures produce results consistent with and support the regulation of banks as they do this.
Read full response

Banking Federation Calls for Broader Data Access Rights

1 Feb 2021
Topic — EU framework for data governance, data sharing intermediaries, and common European data spaces.
Message — The organization requests stronger measures to increase cross-sectoral data access in the upcoming Data Act, enhanced data portability rights, and permanent industry participation in the European Data Innovation Board. They want data intermediaries to remain optional rather than mandatory for data sharing.1234
Why — This would give banks direct access to customer data without mandatory intermediaries.56
Impact — Data intermediaries lose their potential role as gatekeepers for personal data flows.7
Read full response

European Banking Federation seeks level playing field in crypto regulation

11 Jan 2021
Topic — New EU regulation establishing requirements for crypto-asset issuance and service provision.
Message — The federation requests clearer definitions of crypto-asset categories, consistent supervision frameworks, and alignment with existing financial services rules. They want clarification on outsourcing requirements, liability rules, and transitional periods to avoid regulatory fragmentation.12345
Why — This would allow banks to offer new crypto services under familiar rules.67
Read full response

European Banking Federation Urges Crypto Tax Rules Align with Existing Framework

20 Dec 2020
Topic — EU proposal to extend tax information exchange rules to cover crypto-assets and e-money.
Message — The federation wants crypto-asset tax reporting built on the existing DAC 2 framework using definitions from the Markets in Crypto-assets regulation. They advocate applying the principle 'same services, same risks, same rules' and request that reporting be based on readily available objective data using simple valuation methods.1234
Why — This would allow banks to use existing systems rather than building new infrastructure.56
Impact — Tax authorities lose comprehensive coverage as cold wallet holdings escape reporting requirements.78
Read full response

Response to Enhancing the convergence of insolvency laws

9 Dec 2020

Please find our feedback in the attached statement.
Read full response

Response to Banking Union: Review of the bank crisis management and deposit insurance framework (SRMR review)

8 Dec 2020

The EBF supports the completion of the Banking Union. To this end, the BRRD/SRMR/DGSD framework should be amended to address the issues identified in this Roadmap. In addition to a shared, strong and well-balanced system to protect depositors, we also urge the Commission to add building blocks which the last years have shown are still missing. We welcome the upcoming in-depth consultation process and the announcement of a thorough impact assessment. We appreciate the Commission’s active engagement with different stakeholders, including our industry. Issues identified by the European Commission The Commission rightly observes that a priori effective solutions in the current legislation have not been applied for all categories of banks. It should be firmly recalled that “burden-sharing through bail-in” is the rule in the case of any bank undergoing resolution. We also invite a further streamlining of the application of the public interest assessment to a) provide greater clarity on the future of banks that become unviable, b) maintain a healthy banking sector and c) address competition concerns. We would welcome a shared approach to managing a value-preserving insolvency of FOLTF banks that do not fall into the SRB’s remit but are yet too large to be left to liquidation according to a very diverse set of national insolvency rules. Any solution would need to be predictable, avoid a recourse to tax-payer money and protect depositors and financial stability. Market integration remains insufficient, impacting both on profitability and overall sector resilience. The Banking Union seems to not yet have created full confidence amongst Member States. As a result, the potential for integration is not fully realised and capital and liquidity cannot flow freely within banking groups; national buffer requirements may accumulate in an excessive manner. These dynamics should be urgently addressed. The aim should be a fair, balanced and workable solution safeguarding a level-playing field within the Banking Union. A review of the DGSD should provide clarity on the policy for contributions after the target has been met. Additional problems identified by the industry The Banking Union’s crisis management capacity lacks important elements: First, despite its capacity to resolve even a significant bank in an orderly manner, the current framework provides no assurance that immediately post-resolution the “new” bank can access the liquidity needed to survive until market confidence is re-established. This is a widely shared concern – yet we are still waiting for a credible and robust public liquidity backstop solution to materialise. This was one of the FSB’s key recommendations and has long been put in place in other jurisdictions. Second, the regulatory and supervisory reform process – and great efforts made by the banking sector itself – have made the financial sector very resilient. That said, during a wider economic crisis, e.g. the current Covid19 crisis, the use of the bail-in tool should be carefully assessed. Also, the current capital requirements legislation disincentivises the use of capital buffers due to the automatic penalties in the form of maximum distributable amounts (MDA). This is a lesson learnt in the Covid-19 crisis which proved that the distance to MDA is the actual measure of creditworthiness in the market. The buffer mechanism should therefore be reviewed. Looking forward, a completed Banking Union should provide tools to protect financial stability in a wider reaching crisis. Third, we propose that the Commission uses this opportunity to provide greater certainty on the target level of the Single Resolution Fund (SRF), which risks becoming inflated by the surge in covered deposits resulting from the ECB’s ongoing efforts to stabilise the economy. Either the SRF should be capped at EUR 55bn reflecting law makers’ original expectations, or the target setting formula should be amended accordingly.
Read full response

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner)

20 Nov 2020 · Basel 3 Covid Response in Banking.

Meeting with Andrea Nahles (Cabinet of Commissioner Nicolas Schmit) and EuroCommerce and

19 Oct 2020 · Social dialogue

Banking Federation Seeks Broad Scope for Benchmark Replacement Rules

29 Sept 2020
Topic — EU regulation on replacing financial benchmarks that cease to exist or become unreliable.
Message — The federation wants the broadest possible scope for statutory replacement rates, covering all agreements referencing affected benchmarks. They request that bilateral agreements between parties take precedence over statutory replacements. They also want all foreign exchange spot rates exempted from regulation.123
Why — This protects banks' existing bilateral agreements and avoids forcing discontinuation of foreign exchange transactions.4
Impact — Regulatory oversight is weakened when bilateral agreements override statutory protections for market stability.
Read full response

Response to Capital markets – research on small and mid-sized companies and fixed income (updated rules in light of the COVID-19 pandemic)

11 Sept 2020

EBF welcomes the EU Commission proposal to amend MiFID II delegated Directive (EU) 2017/593 aiming at easing the funding of researche unbundling regime for the of execution services and investment research regarding small and midcap issuers and fixed income instruments. However, we consider the current proposal as a first step towards a more in deep revision of the unbundling regime regarding any types of investment research. The scope of application of the proposal is today too limited. It would be appropriate to provide for the extension of this proposal to all companies irrespective of their market capitalisation value, not only small and midcap companies. In this direction, EBF urges the EU Commission to put forward a wider proposal to review the investment research regime under MiFID and to introduce any initiative aimed at preventing investment research coverage decline, in particular on SMEs, taking stock of the results of the public consultation on MiFID II/MiFIR closed in May 2020. Having said that, we provide below our comments on the proposal under consultation. Pursuant to the amendments proposed, the option to jointly pay for the provision of execution services and the provision of research is allowed provided that three conditions are met. We consider that such conditions to be met are too burdensome and will impose new requirements, in addition to the current ones already in place, and are in some cases too complicated to be applied in practice or even unclear. The new requirements will need to set up complicated and burdensome ad hoc procedures to differentiate and allocate payments regarding execution services on small and mid-cap and fixed income research separately from the payments related to execution services concerning other types of investment research. We would also highlight that such new procedures will add on to the procedures already in place, thus creating a sort of duplication. This acquires even more relevant if you consider the very narrow scope of the proposal (only SME/MidCap and fixed income research). Furthermore, some of the conditions are not clear: i) in case of small and mid-cap research, who has to calculate the market capitalisation during the period of 12 months preceding the provision of the research? Moreover, it is not clear how to calculate market capitalization in practice e.g. which metrics to use and which exchanges to consider. Moreover, referring to the 12 months preceding the provision of research risks being problematic and due to the “dynamic” nature of this requirement a margin of error – although unintentional – in calculations cannot be ruled out. ii) which kind of obligations (if any) investment firms should comply in terms of record-keeping and adaption of their internal systems (e.g. a requirement to keep stock of their agreements)? iii) What is in the scope of «fixed income instruments»: does it cover rate, credit and loan but also economics, FX and commodities? What about equity derivatives? We would also invite the EC to clarify whether any obligation shall arise for investment firms in their written policies under Article 13 paragraph 8, to specify that, they are entitled to make use of the “optional exemption” provided for by the paragraphs 10 and 11 of Article 13. As far as the fixed income research framework is concerned, changes should be carefully assessed and envisaged only if they will not add more complexity to the financial industry. In conclusion, we believe that the proposal goes in the right direction by introducing an optional bundling regime for small and mid-cap investment research. However, we believe that the scope of the proposal should be extended to all companies and such proposal should be simplified, lowering the conditions to which such regime is subject, in order to make it easier to use by investment firms.
Read full response

European Banking Federation opposes new AI-specific legislation

10 Sept 2020
Topic — EU proposal to regulate artificial intelligence systems and ensure trustworthy AI uptake.
Message — The federation opposes new AI-specific legislation, preferring guidance from authorities on applying existing rules. They warn that prescriptive regulation could harm competitiveness and recommend technology-neutral approaches that avoid duplication with current financial sector regulation.123
Why — This would avoid additional compliance burdens and preserve banks' ability to innovate with AI.45
Impact — Consumers lose stronger safeguards against AI systems not covered by existing financial regulation.
Read full response

Response to Commission Delegated Regulation on taxonomy-alignment of undertakings reporting non-financial information

8 Sept 2020

• It is key that Article 8 disclosures by banks are meaningful, as banks are able to assess their climate exposures and these disclosures reveal banks' role in financing the transition to a low carbon economy. • Banks will have to rely on the willingness and the ability of clients to deliver relevant information. There is a need for a single and well-defined framework so that the metrics can be comparable. Financial institutions should only be required to report sustainability-related information on their portfolios/activities, if sufficient and reliable information is available, supported by mandatory taxonomy aligned disclosures from non-financial entities. The Article 8 of the Taxonomy Regulation should therefore align the reporting obligations with the NFRD and the Disclosure Regulation, considering that businesses must first meet these requirements before financial institutions are able to report. It might be possible to introduce a phase in approach, so that KPIs are to be reported by the financial institutions with a time-lapse. • Banks should not be responsible for collecting information that can be collected by authorities. Data collection should be harmonized, based on a common reporting standard and common nomenclature to enable automatization, via a central data repository to ensure efficiency. • Availability of data is essential, therefore initially a limited number of concrete key datasets should be agreed. We have identified the information need of banks and proposing initial taxonomy related KPIs. We are proposing corporates self-assesment of compliance with thresholds and metrics of the EU Taxonomy and development of a simplified reporting for SMEs. • To align in the best way the disclosure by corporates, asset managers, insurers and banks, we are also proposing to develop a set of kPIs that should be common with other regulations covering ESG disclosures (i) GHG emissions, ii) disclosure of material information enabling the assessment of physical risk, transition risk or other specific categories of ESG risk, ii)the management of environmental- and social-related risks and opportunities). However the relevance of the Scope 3 emissions in the banking sector should be further discussed, reviewed and probably replaced by a more relevant metric. • The ‘green asset ratio’ proposed by Article 8 should in our view be a proportion of the volume of Eligible Financial Assets (EFA) that are EU taxonomy-aligned /on Total Eligible Financial Assets, with EFA defined as all asset classes for which the EU taxonomy is relevant and can be applied. This would result in the following banking products included in the scope of the EFA, taking further into account the data availability (initial focus on EU counterparties within the scope of the NFRD) and distinguishing between existing and new exposures: - Corporate loans and/or project finance facilities with specified use of proceeds aligned with EU taxonomy - General purpose loans to companies undertaking taxonomy compliant activities - Performance bonds to support a taxonomy aligned activities - Financial guarantees to support the payment obligations arising from financing a taxonomy-aligned activity • Transition requires more flexible and different sustainable goals to be set. What really matters is not so much the current compliance with the taxonomy but the strategy of the company to adapt to 2ºC or even below 2ºC” scenarios. A classification of clients/ companies based on their transition journey, rather than a binary green/non green, would provide a dynamic key information and provide a better view on whether/how public and private strategies align and on the contribution of the bank to the transition efforts. To increase participation in this market, it is fundamental to develop a standard in terms of transparency and the main characteristics to be respected by the issuers (and in terms of KPIs for the measurements of the achieved result.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the NIS Directive

10 Aug 2020

The European Banking Federation (EBF) shares the European Commission’s opinion that the different approaches of Member States in implementing the NIS Directive have led to significant inconsistencies and fragmentation in the regulatory landscape, which are in turn undermining the level playing field for some operators and leading to further fragmentation of the Single Market. EBF members observed in particular that the most significant difference in the local transposition of the NIS Directive across Member States concerns the identification criteria for operators of essential services (OESs), whose definitions and thresholds are often diverging from one EU country to another. According to EBF members’ findings, in fact, the measures imposed by each Member State on OESs have different scope and requirements and, therefore, cannot be considered the same everywhere. For instance, some national jurisdictions require that definitions and implementation of security policy of information system should necessarily comply with specific messaging protocols (e.g. ISO 27001) or impose additional and more demanding security requirements, comparable to the ones for critical payment infrastructures such as PCI-DSS or Swift Client Security Program. In addition, when identified as OESs in more than one Member State, banks that are operating cross-border are also bearing the burden of complying with different, and sometimes incompatible, rules. Such a situation of “over-transposition” and regulatory burdens negatively affects the activities of banks in several European countries. In light of all this, the EBF believes that the best policy option to address the above-mentioned issues is the introduction of targeted changes to the current NIS Directive with a view to clarifying certain provisions and improving harmonisation of the current rules. In particular, the EBF recommends the following measure to be taken by regulators when considering a review of the current Directive: • A clear identification of essential services, valid for both the EU and Member States; • An adequate calibration of security requirements for all services by taking into account the challenges represented by each specific service – e.g. the security of public transport infrastructure or payment systems can reasonably be considered more critical than other sectors or services. • The provision of periodical (quarterly or more frequent) threat intelligence briefings by national regulators to OESs on the sectoral local threat landscape. • The simplification of regulatory requirements and a clarification of the purpose of the cyber incident declarations. • Particularly in the view of financial institutions, the Lex specialis principle should be clarified to ensure consistency across all Member States. The revision of the NIS Directive should also (1) set objectives, without imposing technical implementation processes; (2) provide gradual security objectives, depending on the systems involved, since, for instance, security objectives are not the same for payment platforms than for computer stations; (3) adequately involve industry stakeholders and experts in information system security, especially during the preliminary phase of drafting of a possible ‘new’ NIS Directive. Finally, the EBF also wishes to acknowledge the Commission’s statements regarding the potential for further harmonisation of incident reporting. We welcome the intention to align with work currently underway through DG FISMA’s Digital Operational Resilience workstream. We would like to reiterate our support for efforts to harmonise requirements across the EU.
Read full response

Banking Federation Demands Cross-Sector Data Sharing in EU Data Spaces

30 Jul 2020
Topic — EU legislative framework for governance of common European data spaces and public data sharing.
Message — The federation requests that data spaces enable cross-sector data sharing, not just within sectors. They want voluntary participation in consent forms and involvement in any governance structure. They emphasize standardization should leverage existing industry mechanisms.123
Why — This would let banks access customer data from other sectors for faster credit assessments.4
Impact — Platform users and consumers lose control as banks gain easier access to their commercial data.5
Read full response

Banking Federation Seeks Delay for ESG Investment Rules

6 Jul 2020
Topic — Integration of sustainability preferences into investment firm requirements under MiFID II.
Message — The federation requests extended implementation deadlines and clarification of regulatory definitions. They argue sustainability preferences should reference only Articles 8 and 9 of existing regulations without additional criteria. They want explicit confirmation that existing contracts don't require reassessment.123
Why — This would reduce implementation costs and give banks more time to update IT systems.45
Impact — Investors seeking sustainable options lose immediate access to clear ESG product information.6
Read full response

European Banking Federation Seeks Delay for Sustainability Rules

6 Jul 2020
Topic — EU rules integrating sustainability factors into MiFID II investment advice and product governance.
Message — The federation requests more implementation time and clearer definitions of sustainability preferences. They argue current timelines are insufficient given material uncertainties and the need to adapt IT infrastructure. They want flexibility to distribute non-ESG products to clients with ESG preferences for portfolio diversification.1234
Why — This would reduce compliance costs and give banks more time to update internal procedures and systems.56
Impact — Sustainable investment advocates lose faster implementation of transparency rules for ESG products.7
Read full response

European Banking Federation demands data portability from Big Tech platforms

30 Jun 2020
Topic — EU regulation targeting large online platforms acting as gatekeepers in digital markets.
Message — The federation wants mandatory data portability obligations for large platforms, allowing users to transfer their data to competing firms through standardized interfaces. They seek ex-ante rules addressing platforms' gatekeeping control over data and technical infrastructure like mobile payment systems.12
Why — This would let banks compete with BigTech firms entering financial services using customer data.34
Impact — Large platforms lose exclusive control over user data and technical infrastructure advantages.56
Read full response

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Executive Vice-President) and

28 May 2020 · COVID-19 relief measures

Response to Action Plan on anti-money laundering

11 Mar 2020

Dear Sir/Madam, Please find enclosed a word (light) version of "LIFTING THE SPELL OF DIRTY MONEY", EBF BLUEPRINT FOR AN EFFECTIVE EU FRAMEWORK TO FIGHT MONEY LAUNDERING A full pdf version is available at: https://www.ebf.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EBF-Blueprint-for-an-effective-EU-framework-to-fight-money-laundering-Lifting-the-Spell-of-Dirty-Money-.pdf Best regards, Roger Kaiser
Read full response

Response to Revision of Non-Financial Reporting Directive

27 Feb 2020

The NFRD should take th form of a Regulation, to ensure harmonization and efficiency. EU should start the work of standardizing the format and the structuring of companies’ ESG reporting, building on the existing market tested models and practices. An EU minimum reporting standard on the key data points and KPIs that are necessary to apply the taxonomy and the sustainability disclosures regulation, and more specifically to demonstrate the investment’s environmental impact should be developed . The EU should open up its databases that collect environmental reporting data and make those re-usable for finance providers. Data should be collected in a central EU repository and made available digitally to ensure that data are widely accessible across MS in an open source format. The EU Commission should put in place or support infrastructures to collect periodically, with the help of new reading technologies, existing climate change mitigation and adaptation data of companies that published non-financial statements under the NFRD and other available relevant information. Taking into account the new provisions for non-financial reporting under article 4 delta of the Taxonomy regulation, the legal act should: 1) Modify the scope in a proportionate way, to add certain categories of companies not currently covered by the NFRD as follows A) the EU rules on non-financial reporting should apply to all listed companies given the application of the taxonomy to all financial investments in the capital/financial market. B) Companies from sectors with a high transition risk (for example mining, carbon, smaller utilities, ...), should also comply with reporting obligations for material risks (e.g. climate only), regardless of the size of the company. Information on climate risk is essential for TCFD reporting as integrated into the EU Non-financial reporting guidelines. C) A simplified minimum reporting framework or Guidelines could be considered for the remaining companies taking into account materiality, proportionality and possible gradual implementation. Inclusion of SMEs, whose lack of data poses a problem for banks should be considered based on a minimum and possibly simplified set of information that could be provided by SMEs in a structured manner consistent with EU standards, given due considerations to proportionality and materiality. This will further facilitate bank’s support to businesses and development of new sustainable products and services. In a first stage, only SMEs from sectors with a high transition risk. Broadening of the scope may require a gradual approach and a development of training schemes at European level on criteria and norms on which sustainability activities thresholds for mitigation are defined and that could help specific financial actors and non- financial enterprises to build a common understanding of the taxonomy and disclosure requirements. Local authorities and public sector could also provide tools to calculate the carbon footprint etc. 2) Specify in more detail what non-financial information companies should report, namely a common minimum set of key performance indicators; these KPIs must be aligned with the • The list of Taxonomy-compliant activities and products they produce. Companies could follow the reference to metrics in the taxonomy and indicate where they stand compared to the threshold. • The environmental characteristics of the respective activities and products (including process and product certifications, environmental product claims or declarations – EPD - and life cycle analysis declarations - LCA) or the products’ environmental applications, and • Gradually, companies should be requested to report the associated revenues and expenses of eligible products or activities (as a percentage of the total) and the associated sustainable assets (as a percentage of the total). For more details, please see the enclosed EBF response.
Read full response

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Executive Vice-President) and

19 Feb 2020 · Basel III, Banking Union, Anti-money laundering, Payments

Meeting with Paulina Dejmek Hack (Cabinet of President Jean-Claude Juncker)

14 Mar 2019 · Speech on Capital Markets Union at EBF Steering Committee for Financing Growth

Meeting with Elina Melngaile (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis), Jan Ceyssens (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

14 Jan 2019 · Sustainable Finance

Response to Evaluation of the Distance Marketing of Financial Services Directive

3 Jan 2019

The European Banking Federation (EBF) welcomes the opportunity to express its views on the Roadmap on the Evaluation of the Distance Marketing of Financial Services Directive. We acknowledge that the distance marketing of financial services has deeply changed in the past years in light of the digital revolution and the increased use of mobile devices to access or manage financial products. The landscape of the products offered also has changed dramatically with the appearance of new banking products such as: account aggregators, mobile wallets, etc. Therefore, we believe this review would provide an important opportunity to update the current legislation to ensure that digitalisation is not stifled by outdated legal requirements, while consumer protection and financial stability are equally ensured by all types of financial services providers. We see with growing concerns loopholes in legislation, and therefore, consumers are not equally protect depending on the provider of the service/product. In light of the above, we would like to express our views on the priorities identified in the Roadmap: •Scope of the services covered: Digital transformation is a reality, and the ecosystem of financial providers is getting more and more diverse: the same financial activities are provided by players of different nature, regulated and supervised differently, while also many new products emerge. Many of these new banking products are only partially covered by consumer protection rules (E.g. peer to peer lending). Consumers and the stability of the system should be equally protected regardless the provider and the framework this is subject to. •Information disclosure: the current framework for information disclosure presents a strong sector-specific regulation. However, in the context of digitalisation, the disclosure mechanisms should be adapted to the digital reality. Alternative solutions should be proposed to ensure information is available in an easy-friendly and readable way on new channels. It would be useful to look at the existing tools already developed in certain Member States to make sure that consumers do understand and pay adequate attention to the key terms and conditions. •Interplay with product-specific legislation in the field of retail financial services and horizontal consumer protection rules: we think it is key that the Directive does take into consideration product-specific legislation to prevent overlaps or double regimes. However, as mentioned in our earlier comment, also for the sector-specific legislation we see the need for updates in the rules on disclosure mechanisms to adapt to the digital reality. Regarding the horizontal consumer protection rules we believe it is worth also keeping in mind the changes brought by the GDPR. In addition to the priorities identified by the European Commission, we would also like to raise the following issues: •New sales channels: Regulation, often conceived for an analogical world, may create barriers for banks to provide an end-to-end digital journey. New technologies provide new opportunities for banks to improve, for example, onboarding and KYC processes at a distance. Selling of financial products via mobile will be increasingly frequent in EU, but providers are hindered due to complex infrastructure or regulation constrains. In this context, standardisation and harmonisation of rules are key ingredients in achieving a commercially attractive digital single market for financial services. •Recognition of enforceability of distance contracts: Another barrier to the digitalisation of financial services contracts (notably for consumer credit distance contracts) is a lack of harmonisation on the legal recognition of the executory nature of electronic contracts. As such, fast and simple enforcement procedures may not be available to creditors in some EU Member-States, therefore limiting the ability of operators to offer full digital distance consumer credit at cross-border
Read full response

Meeting with Günther Oettinger (Commissioner)

21 Sept 2018 · Economic situation and outlook in Greece

Meeting with Andrus Ansip (Vice-President) and

20 Sept 2018 · GDPR, privacy shield, e-privacy

Response to Evaluation of the Consumer Credit Directive

26 Jul 2018

The EBF welcomes the possibility to express its views on the European Commission’s Roadmap for the evaluation of the Consumer Credit Directive (CCD). Given our extensive experience on the issue, we stand ready to support the Commission to achieve the best outcome for lenders and consumers alike. We believe an effective review aimed at creating a strong market shall consider all factors at play in the consumer credit market, including the consumers’ motivations and how credits support them in satisfying their needs. Many changes have occurred since the adoption of the CCD, with regards to the digitalization of services as well as from a legislative point of view. We recommend the Commission to take into consideration the broad picture when approaching the CCD review. From a regulatory perspective, firms are required to meet the standards set by many EU regulations which have progressively built on the original framework set by the CCD (e.g. Product Governance and Oversight rules) which all have a direct impact on the area of personal credit. Extensive changes have also been introduced at national level in the context of the ‘responsible lending’ agenda which includes requirements developed on the basis of the specificities of national markets. From a lender perspective, we acknowledge the benefits of implementing a responsible lender model, particularly to ensure that the costs of over indebtedness and any resulting nonpayment of loans are minimised. We also want to stress the importance of considering financial education for consumers. Today, consumers buy goods online without cash and sometimes on easy available credit. This could lead the consumer to the impression that he/she does not have to take care of his/her financial situation and the ratio between income and expenses. In addition to the industry, many other players could play an important role in financial education, helping consumers in being responsible market participants. Regarding the specific priorities for the review we would like to stress: 1. Credit Worthiness Assessment: • We recommend keeping proportionality as a guiding principle. This applies when considering the type and size of the loan (thus, the risk for consumer) as well as by considering the specificities of national markets. • The difference between a consumer credit and a real estate loan must remain. On this point we recall the EBIC letter on Credit Worthiness Assessment, specifically addressing the banking industry concerns on the matter. 2. Information disclosure: •The information sheet should facilitate consumers into making a conscious choice. Instead, information overload should be avoided because it would not help consumers to pay enough attention to the information contained therein. •Today, marketing of loans is often taking place on digital media - which requires few clear and transparent key figures that make sense to consumers. •In line with the principle of proportionality, the existing differences between consumer credit on the one hand and real estate credit on the other, should also be reflected in the scope and requirements of the information disclosure rules. 3. The impact of digitalization: • Digitalisation also has brought huge changes in consumer credit markets since the entry into force of the Directive– and they shall be duly taken into consideration (e.g. regarding identification requirements for the conclusion of credit agreements) • Digitalisation has also made it easier and faster to raise small and often short-term loans. This creates a need for ensuring consumer protection, uniform competition terms and equal supervision for all loan providers. It is essential to respect a level playing field in this area according to the principle of "same business, same rules" to protect efficiently all European consumers to the same level.
Read full response

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Vice-President) and

20 Jul 2018 · implementation of the PSD2 and related RTS

Meeting with Eduard Hulicius (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová)

18 Jul 2018 · New deal for Consumers

Response to EU Company law upgraded Package:digital solutions and providing efficient rules for cross border operations of companies

9 Jul 2018

The European Banking Federation (EBF) welcomes the opportunity to share our views on the proposals regarding the use of digital tools and processes in company law. The EBF appreciates the efforts of the European Commission in this field. In particular, we welcome the objectives of enhancing the opportunities for European companies to make extensive use of digital tools in their interactions with public authorities and in general in all compliance requirements under EU company law. From the perspective of the banking and financial sector, we consider this proposal an opportunity to foster the wide adoption of common legal identifiers across different parts of EU legislation. Currently, a variety of EU regulations provide for legal entities active in financial services to obtain a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI). Its purpose is to identify distinct legal entities engaging in financial transactions in a unique way. The usage of the LEI is encouraged by Global and European regulators and policy-makers and explained further in a dedicated ESMA briefing note. Under the Commission’s proposals for “Online registration and filing, disclosure and registers” we note that it introduces the concept of EUID for EU companies ("European unique identifier of companies and branches ('EUID')", Art. 13(a) Definitions). However, we note that this proposal does not refer to the use of LEI. The LEI is an established global identifier, endorsed by the G20, with over 1.2 million records in existence. It is an ISO global standard, specifically, ISO 17442. The Global LEI System is well governed, specifically it is overseen by a Regulatory Oversight Committee (ROC) consisting of over 70 public authorities from more than 40 countries, and an independent Board of Directors. The Global LEI Foundation (GLEIF) is a supra-national not-for-profit organisation which manages a network of the LEI issuing organisations (LOU). It should be noted that the LEI registration process is fully digital in line with the European Commission’s objectives and that LEIs exist in all EU Member States. We understand that EUID is intended to be used for different purposes than the LEI. However, it is crucial to ensure full compatibility and coherence between the national business registers and other records maintained by financial authorities, by market infrastructures and by all intermediaries in the banking and financial sector for the same entities in the EU. We would also like to point to the inevitable risk that the introduction of an additional EU-wide identifier will result in a duplication of identifiers for the same entities., The establishment of another Entity ID standard for the EU would have significant overlap with the LEI and the ISO standard and would create significant additional cost for any Private or Public (i.e. government or NGO) entity that already uses the LEI. We are surprised by the exploration of the creation of a new EUID, given EU regulators’ support and adoption of the LEI in various other regulations, such as, for instance, Regulation (EU) 648/2012 (EMIR), Regulation (EU) 909/2014 (CSDR) and Regulation (EU) 600/2014 (MiFIR). European policymakers including EBA, EIOPA and ESMA have long supported the use of the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) and it is mandatory in many EU directives and regulation relating to financial reporting and supervision. Proposed solution: In our view, the definition of EUID in Article 13a should explicitly mention the possibility of using the LEI, that would serve for the purposes of EUID for all financial services institutions and companies that are active in the EU financial markets.
Read full response

Meeting with Olivier Guersent (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

14 May 2018 · Brexit

European Banking Federation seeks flexible shareholder rights implementation timelines

9 May 2018
Topic — Implementation requirements for the EU Shareholder Rights Directive regarding information transmission.
Message — The EBF requests flexible timelines for information transmission, exemptions from same-day requirements for paper-based communications, and alignment with existing market standards. They emphasize the need to avoid prescriptive formats that contradict ISO standards and warn that the proposed deadlines create unnecessary operational risk.123
Why — This would reduce compliance costs and allow banks to maintain existing efficient processes.45
Impact — Shareholders may experience delays in exercising voting rights if flexibility reduces information flow speed.6
Read full response

Meeting with Carl-Christian Buhr (Cabinet of Commissioner Mariya Gabriel)

17 Apr 2018 · Cybersecurity, blockchain, data, cloud

Response to Draft Delegated Act amending the Commission Delegated Regulation on the Liquidity Coverage Ratio ('LCR')

21 Feb 2018

The EBF welcomes the opportunity to share its comments on the European Commission Draft Delegated Act amending the Delegated Regulation (EU) N° 2015/61 of 10 October 2014 on the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (Communication reference ‘Ares (2018)418078’). The EBF supports the Commission applying its power to review, as regards to article 462 of Regulation (EU) N°575/2013, the Delegated Regulation (EU) N°2015/61, in order to keep the legal text up to date in light of market changes. We would like to use the opportunity to bring to the Commission’s attention a matter linked to the treatment of Simple, Transparent and Standardised (STS) securitisations (see Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 creating a specific framework for simple, transparent and standardised securitisation). In our opinion, the Commission’ s initiative to amend the Delegated Regulation on the Liquidity Coverage Ratio should be used to get a better liquidity treatment (Level 2A) for the STSs as long as such transactions meet the additional criteria laid down in Article 13. We provide the following comments and recommendations on the Draft Delegated Act amending the Commission Delegated Regulation on the Liquidity Coverage Ratio ('LCR') currently being consulted on by the European Commission which require some clarification.
Read full response

Banking groups urge EU regulatory forbearance powers for financial supervisors

23 Jan 2018
Topic — Review of European Supervisory Authorities' powers, governance and funding arrangements.
Message — The associations advocate amendments to empower ESAs with limited regulatory forbearance powers to defer legislative requirements in exceptional circumstances. They want ESAs able to direct national authorities not to enforce Union law when compliance is impossible, creates conflicts, or threatens financial stability. They also seek faster procedures for amending primary and secondary legislation.12
Why — This would protect banks from enforcement when complying with EU rules is impossible or conflicts with other requirements.34
Impact — Consumer and investor protections would be weakened when supervisors defer enforcement of financial rules.
Read full response

Response to Statutory prudential backstops addressing insufficient provisioning for newly originated loans that turn non-performing

7 Dec 2017

Key points:  The situation of non-performing loans (NPLs) is very diverse across EU Member States and, in line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, it seems appropriate to address it at a Member State level under EU general blueprint.  Any prudential backstop, also in combination with the EU directive on business insolvency and IRFS9, may significantly impact the price and availability of future credit, therefore it is important to conduct an impact assessment of the combined effect of these proposals on availability and cost of (secured) lending before a final decision is reached. EBF position: The EBF fully agrees with the Commission that “tackling NPLs is primarily the responsibility of affected banks and Member States.” However, we acknowledge that this is also a priority for the EU and the EU institutions can and should play a role in resolving these legacy issues. The IIA correctly states that “high levels of NPLs across a substantial number of banks pose risks to the financial system at large and the overall economy of the EU”, however not all banks have a problem of NPL concentration, as indicated in numerous reports on this subject from the EU Council, EBA, ECB or the Commission itself. To complement the efforts of Member States to tackle certain situations associated in general with too long proceedings in some jurisdictions, we believe that the EU could and should play an important role in the process of identification of significant obstacles to the recovery of NPLs, in particular complex and inefficient proceedings, and in ensuring that those EU Member States, which do not have an effective framework for NPL workout, implement necessary reforms. However, we are not convinced that any additional action beyond coordination, in particular additional legislation, is necessary at the EU level. In line with the principle of proportionality, we believe the action of the EU must be limited to what is necessary to achieve the objectives, in this case to tackle the high level of NPLs in certain banks. The most recent Commission’s initiative in this regard considers compulsory prudential deductions of NPLs from own funds, “in order to effectively address on a systematic and EU-wide basis the potential under-provisioning for new loans that become non-performing”. This action tackles the symptom but not the root cause of the problem which is explained by too long proceedings in some countries, exogenous macroeconomic factors in countries that have been hit harder by the Euro Area crisis. The formula of increasing provisions beyond the accounting framework as a general rule can only lift the cost of credit and restrict its access. Moreover, as alluded above, we consider that the introduction and implementation of obligatory statutory prudential backstops would be a violation of the overarching principle of proportionality pursuant to Article 5 of the Lisbon Treaty because the purpose to achieve the sought coverage of risk with sufficient provisions can be achieved by other supervisory measures that are more proportionate. Therefore, we very much look forward to the outcome of the Commission’s impact assessment. In particular, we would like to urge the Commission to include an estimated cumulative impact of the suggested proposal, the Commission’s proposal on preventive restructuring frameworks and second chance as well as the introduction of the IFRS 9 standards on the costs of future loans.
Read full response

Response to Review of ENISA Regulation and laying down a EU ICT security certification and labelling

6 Dec 2017

The European Banking Federation (EBF) is the voice of the European banking sector, uniting 32 national banking associations in Europe that together represent some 4,500 banks - large and small, wholesale and retail, local and international - employing about 2.1 million people. Launched in 1960, the EBF is committed to creating a single market for financial services in the European Union and to supporting policies that foster economic growth. Please see the attached document for EBF's main comments on the EC Proposal for the Cybersecurity Act. www.ebf.eu @EBFeu
Read full response

Meeting with Inge Bernaerts (Cabinet of Commissioner Marianne Thyssen), Piet van Nuffel (Cabinet of Commissioner Marianne Thyssen) and

27 Sept 2017 · Revision of the Written Statement Directive

Response to Accelerated Loan security - Protection of secured creditors from business borrowers' default

4 Aug 2017

European Banking Federation (EBF) comments on the Commission’s Inception Impact Assessment (IIA) on Accelerated Loan security - Protection of secured creditors from business borrowers' default
Read full response

Meeting with Kai Wynands (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis), Raquel Lucas (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and

27 Jun 2017 · Role of Social partners in the Services Sector

Meeting with Inge Bernaerts (Cabinet of Commissioner Marianne Thyssen) and EuroCommerce and

27 Jun 2017 · Changing world of work, social dialogue

Meeting with Andrus Ansip (Vice-President) and

24 May 2017 · GDPR Implementation and Privacy Shield

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Vice-President) and

12 May 2017 · High Level Principles of SME credit feedback

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Vice-President) and

10 Apr 2017 · Euribor reform

Meeting with Elina Melngaile (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

4 Jan 2017 · PSD2

Meeting with Andrus Ansip (Vice-President) and

19 Dec 2016 · Discussion with industry on general data protection regulation implementation

Meeting with Paulina Dejmek Hack (Cabinet of President Jean-Claude Juncker)

15 Dec 2016 · Financial services agenda

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Vice-President) and

29 Sept 2016 · Basel framework; TLAC/MREL; Banking structural reform; CMU in the light of Brexit

Meeting with Renate Nikolay (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová)

19 Jul 2016 · CMU - Insolvency Law

Meeting with Jonathan Hill (Commissioner)

4 Apr 2016 · Financial Policy

Meeting with Andrus Ansip (Vice-President) and

15 Mar 2016 · DSM and digital banking

Meeting with Bernardus Smulders (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and DIGITALEUROPE and

14 Jan 2016 · AECA Round-Table on “Dealing with Regulatory Burden

Meeting with Michelle Sutton (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

8 Dec 2015 · Financial services and better regulation

Meeting with Paulina Dejmek Hack (Cabinet of President Jean-Claude Juncker)

27 Nov 2015 · Speech "One year on – stock-taking and next steps for Financial Services" at EBF Financial Fridays Conference

Meeting with Matthew Baldwin (Cabinet of Commissioner Jonathan Hill)

18 Sept 2015 · Financial Policy

Meeting with Jasmin Battista (Cabinet of Vice-President Andrus Ansip), Laure Chapuis-Kombos (Cabinet of Vice-President Andrus Ansip)

2 Sept 2015 · Meeting on DSM in the banking sector

Meeting with Lee Foulger (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

6 Jul 2015 · Capital Markets Union/Prospectus Directive

Meeting with Denzil Davidson (Cabinet of Commissioner Jonathan Hill)

23 Jun 2015 · Financial Services Policy

Meeting with Jonathan Hill (Commissioner)

11 Jun 2015 · Banking regulation and capital markets union

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Vice-President) and

2 Jun 2015 · Banking regulation and sectoral social dialogue

Meeting with Maria Elena Scoppio (Cabinet of Commissioner Pierre Moscovici)

4 Mar 2015 · EU fiscal policy

Meeting with Jon Nyman (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström), Maria Asenius (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström)

11 Feb 2015 · Financial services - Capital markets

Meeting with Nathalie De Basaldua Lemarchand (Cabinet of Commissioner Jonathan Hill)

22 Jan 2015 · Securitisation

Meeting with Jonathan Hill (Commissioner)

9 Dec 2014 · Financial services: priorities for 2015 including Capital Markets Union