CSD Prudential Requirements RTS: Banking CSDs Serving Other CSDs

On 12 October 2026 the European Banking Authority published final report EBA/RTS/2026/08, dated 9 October 2026, with draft amendments to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/390, the regulatory technical standards (RTS) that set CSD prudential requirements, covering central securities depositories and designated credit institutions offering banking-type ancillary services. The trigger is CSDR Refit, Regulation (EU) 2023/2845, which allows a CSD authorised to provide banking services (a banking CSD) to offer those services to the participants of another CSD.

For a banking CSD that accepts such a designation, the draft adds an immediate notification to its banking supervisor and stretches its existing credit, intraday credit, concentration and liquidity controls over a population it did not serve before: the participants of the designating CSD. For every CSD, banking or not, the same package rewrites the capital articles so that operational risk, investment risk and wind-down capital point at the current Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and the amended CSDR.

The amendments proposed in EBA/RTS/2026/08 are not yet binding. However, the CSDR Refit has already introduced binding Level 1 requirements, including Article 54(2a), which permits the designation of an authorised banking CSD, and Article 59(4a), which requires a CSD intending to provide banking-type ancillary services to another CSD under Article 54(2a), first subparagraph, point (b), to have clear rules and procedures in place addressing the resulting credit, liquidity and concentration risks. The draft RTS would provide further technical specifications. The EBA has submitted the text to the European Commission for endorsement. Once the amending regulation is published in the Official Journal, it would enter into force on the twentieth day after publication.

Related reading: EU T+1 Settlement Transition: 2027 Deadlines

EBA/RTS/2026/08 at a glance: dates and legal status

The final report bundles the EBA’s work under three CSDR empowerments named in the draft’s preamble: the third subparagraphs of Article 47(3) (CSD capital), Article 54(8) (the intraday credit capital surcharge) and Article 59(5) (credit and liquidity risk frameworks). Article 59(5), as amended by the Refit, gave the EBA until 17 January 2025 to submit its draft. The final draft arrived after that date, following a consultation that opened in December 2025.

The EBA’s own activity page marks the final report “Not yet applicable” and leaves the application date blank. The final entry-into-force, application and transitional provisions must be checked against the adopted regulation when published. Apart from entry into force 20 days after publication and the trading book transitional provision that the report’s background section mentions, the draft carries one timing rule, and it is inherited: the intraday credit capital surcharge in Article 8 applies 12 months after a CSD or credit institution obtains its authorisation for banking-type ancillary services under Article 55 CSDR, as it did in the 2017 text.

One citation trap is worth fixing in any policy register before it propagates. Recital (1) of the draft regulation refers to “Regulation (EU) No 2024/2845”. The CSDR Refit is Regulation (EU) 2023/2845, which is how the same report’s executive summary and the EBA’s December 2025 threshold report cite it. A gap analysis keyed to the recital citation points at the wrong act.

What CSDR Refit opened up in Article 54

Before the Refit, a CSD without a banking licence that wanted cash settlement in commercial bank money had to designate a credit institution. Outside the small-volume exemption in the original Article 54(5), that institution could use its authorisation only to provide the banking-type ancillary services listed in Section C of the CSDR Annex. The EBA’s executive summary records why the co-legislators widened that. Non-banking CSDs had limited access to commercial bank money, in particular to settle in foreign currencies for their participants, which constrained their business.

Article 54(2a) now lets a CSD that settles cash through accounts held elsewhere designate either (a) a credit institution authorised under Article 8 of Directive 2013/36/EU or (b) a CSD authorised to provide banking-type ancillary services. Point (b) is the new configuration this RTS amendment addresses. Section C of the Annex lists the services in scope: cash accounts and deposits, cash credit and securities lending, payment services involving cash and foreign exchange, guarantees related to securities lending and borrowing, and treasury activities related to participants’ long balances.

Two further Refit provisions shape the commercial case. Article 54(4a) provides that cash payments settled through such a designated entity shall not be in a currency of the country where the designating CSD is established. Article 54(5) then switches off the Article 54(4) conditions for designated credit institutions, and the Article 54(4a) condition for designated institutions and CSDs, while the annual value of that cash settlement stays below a threshold. The competent authority monitors the threshold annually and reports to ESMA, the EBA and the ESCB; a CSD that exceeds it has six months to apply for authorisation.

The press release states the policy aim plainly: more access to foreign currency for non-banking CSDs and, ultimately, better settlement efficiency in Europe. The prudential worry is the flip side. More banking CSDs serving more CSDs means more interconnection, and the EBA’s stated purpose for the amendments is to stop that from raising systemic risk.

Two EBA RTS now follow from the Refit’s Article 54 changes, and they answer different questions. The separate threshold RTS, EBA/RTS/2025/10, was developed under Article 54(9) CSDR and addresses how much cash settlement a designating CSD can run through designated entities before the full Article 54(4) and (4a) conditions bite. Its final draft proposes a dynamic threshold ranging from EUR 3.75 billion and 1.5% of annual settlement volume to EUR 6.25 billion and 2.5%. The earlier version of Article 54(5) CSDR contained a threshold of 1% and EUR 2.5 billion, but the amended provision instead refers to a threshold determined under Article 54(9). The proposed figures are not operative requirements until a delegated regulation has been adopted and becomes applicable; until then, institutions should confirm the treatment of the exemption with their competent authority.

EBA/RTS/2026/08 decides something else: how the designated banking CSD measures, manages and reports the resulting credit and liquidity risk under Article 59. Reading one as a substitute for the other leaves a gap in either the designating CSD’s or the banking CSD’s file.

The operating models the EBA drafted for

The EBA says it is neutral on how CSDs operationalise the new service. Its reading of Title IV of CSDR, based on dialogue with industry, is that only two legal arrangements are feasible. In the first, the banking CSD (the “designated CSD”) opens cash accounts directly for participants of the other CSD (the “designating CSD”), which in effect become participants of the banking CSD too. In the second, the designating CSD’s participant goes through an intermediary that is already a participant of the designated CSD and is allowed to offer that service to a third party.

The reason the designating CSD cannot sit in the middle is legal. To hold cash accounts for participants and accept their deposits, a non-banking CSD would itself need authorisation under Article 54 CSDR. So in the model the RTS assumes, the designating CSD helps set up the connection but does not intermediate the cash leg in any way. The designated CSD contracts directly with the participant, or with its intermediary, to open the cash account and settle the cash leg.

The cost-benefit analysis shows what the EBA rejected. Option 1b would have let CSDs build more complex arrangements, for example where a designating banking CSD holds collateral that the designated CSD has a claim over. The EBA judged that more burdensome, harder to enforce if collateral had to be called, and harder to supervise, and noted that industry had not expressed a preference for it. Option 1a, direct onboarding, became the drafting assumption. After consultation the EBA widened the text to include further arrangements respondents raised, such as a participant using a third-party affiliate to reach the banking CSD and a banking CSD using another banking CSD to access foreign currency.

A banking CSD serving another banking CSD is legally possible, but the EBA considered it unlikely and centred the amendments on the case where the designating CSD has no banking licence. Where the designated CSD extends credit, the participant has to meet the banking CSD’s normal participant requirements for credit facilities, which the EBA says brings the counterparty risk down to the level a banking CSD already runs with its own participants. Hence the drafting principle: the controls a banking CSD applies to its own settlement systems extend to this service, with limited changes to the text.

Credit risk: Articles 18a, 21, 24 and 24a

The credit risk changes sit in Section 1 of Chapter II of the RTS. Two articles are new, two are widened and one cross-reference is realigned.

Article 18a: the information duty

Article 18a requires a banking CSD designated under Article 54(2a), first subparagraph, point (b), to put in place rules and procedures under Article 59(4a) that ensure compliance with Article 59(3) for the credit risk of serving the designating CSD’s participants. Those procedures must make the banking CSD gather information about the participants that use its services, including their parent undertakings and subsidiaries, or about the participant of the designated CSD through which the services reach them. They must also identify material dependencies between the designating CSD’s participants and the banking CSD’s own participants, and regularly review the risks and take mitigating action when appropriate.

Paragraph 4 sets the aggregation rule. Where a participant, including its parent and subsidiaries, sits in both settlement systems, the overall exposure to it is considered. The banking CSD also has to consider its overall exposure across its own participants and, where relevant, the designating CSD’s participants and the designating CSD itself.

Article 21(c): who counts as an exposure source

The 2017 text required a CSD-banking service provider to record intraday credit exposures from issuers, its own participants at entity and group level, CSDs with interoperable links, and banks and other financial institutions used to make or receive payments. The draft keeps those four and adds three: participants of a designating CSD’s settlement system to which the provider offers Section C services (including where they use cash accounts of the provider’s own participants, whether or not both belong to the same group), any other entity to which the CSD provides banking-type services, and other banking CSDs that have opened omnibus cash accounts. A respondent asked for the designating-CSD limb to be clarified because exposures arise only on the designated CSD’s books, and the EBA amended the wording.

Articles 24 and 24a: limits and measurement

Article 24’s eight credit limit duties survive unchanged in substance: creditworthiness assessment that does not rely only on external opinions, collateral checks against Articles 9 and 15, limits reflecting multiple relationships, the Article 34 qualifying liquid resources link, review and reduction when creditworthiness or collateral value falls, at least annual review of credit lines, and the overnight credit rules. The change is in the definition. When the provider sets group-level limits, “the borrowing participant” now covers a participant of the designating CSD.

Article 24a then requires the procedures to identify and measure, for the purposes of Article 19(1), the intraday credit exposures stemming from the designating CSD’s participants (and, where relevant, the designating CSD itself), recording peak and average exposures to each participant and applying the Article 19(1)(e) collateral breakdown. It also asks the provider to verify collateral against Articles 9 and 15 and to specify, for Article 21(e), how it monitors concentration of these exposures, including to any other entity involved in delivering the services.

The consultation’s sharpest argument was about who supplies the data. Banking CSDs wanted specific obligations on non-banking CSDs to pass on participant information and pointed to confidentiality rules that might stop them. Non-banking CSDs did not want to provide anything beyond their own systems.

The EBA kept the obligation on one side only. In its view the service is a contractual arrangement between the participant and the banking CSD, the responsibility to collect relevant information lies with the banking CSD, and where the participant does not provide it the banking CSD “can and should decline” the service. A proposal for a legally binding support duty on the designating CSD was not taken up.

Liquidity risk: Article 29a, Article 35 and the Annex scenarios

The liquidity side follows the same pattern with fewer words. New Article 29a requires a banking CSD designated under Article 54(2a)(b) to put in place rules and procedures under Article 59(4a) that ensure compliance with Article 59(4) for the liquidity risks of serving the designating CSD’s participants, “as further specified in this Section”. That cross-reference pulls the existing liquidity articles of the RTS, from measurement and monitoring through qualifying liquid resources, stress testing and reporting, across to the new service.

Article 35(5)(b) is the one liquidity article rewritten. When managing intraday liquidity risk, the 2017 text required the provider to consider strong relationships or similar exposures between its own participants, including their parents and subsidiaries. The draft extends that to the participants of a designating CSD and, where relevant, the designating CSD itself. Article 35(3) is untouched: the provider still has to manage the risk of default of at least two participants with the largest liquidity exposures, including their parent undertakings and subsidiaries. Once Article 29a applies Section 2 to the new service, a designating CSD’s participant can be one of those two names, so the default scenario population widens even though the paragraph does not change (interpretation, not explicit text).

Points 6 and 7 of the Annex, which list the idiosyncratic and system-wide stress events for the winding-down and restructuring scenarios, are replaced. Set against the 2017 text as adopted, the events themselves are the same: failure of significant counterparties, reputational damage, severe liquidity outflow, adverse asset price moves, severe credit losses and a severe operational risk loss on the idiosyncratic side; counterparty failure affecting financial stability, reduced interbank liquidity, country risk and capital outflow, adverse price moves and a macroeconomic downturn on the system-wide side. The final report does not discuss the restatement, and no new stress event is added.

One consultation request did not make it in. A respondent asked to extend Article 38, on prearranged and highly reliable funding arrangements, to cover arrangements to convert cash and financial instruments into cash, and to recognise cash explicitly as eligible collateral. The EBA said this could not be addressed under the current mandate and noted it for future reviews. These RTS liquidity reports are also a separate stream from the CRR liquidity returns a credit institution files, which our guide to LCR, NSFR and ALMM liquidity reporting covers.

Reporting: the Article 27(2)(d) notification and the return the EBA did not create

Article 27(2) already requires a CSD-banking service provider to submit a qualitative statement on how it measures, monitors and manages credit risk, including intraday credit risk, at least annually; to notify material changes to those actions immediately; and to submit the Article 19 metrics monthly. The draft adds point (d): the provider shall notify immediately the relevant competent authority referred to in Article 60(1) CSDR on being designated by a designating CSD.

That is the only new reporting obligation. The cost-benefit analysis set out two options. Option 2a kept current reporting, let designated CSDs monitor and report intraday exposures at borrowing-participant level, and added the designation notice. Option 2b would have required separate reporting of credit exposures arising from foreign currency cash settlement for other CSDs. The EBA chose 2a on proportionality grounds and respondents supported it.

The reasoning is operational. A participant of the designating CSD may already be a participant of the banking CSD and prefer one cash account for collateral and credit efficiency. Separate reporting would force separate cash accounts to disaggregate the exposure, removing netting benefits, and the EBA judged the extra data of unclear value because foreign currency settlement is not a large part of a CSD’s business. The draft therefore does not require the designated CSD to monitor or report cash settlement for the designating CSD’s participants separately.

Those exposures stay inside the reporting perimeter. Because Article 24a measures them “for the purposes of Article 19(1)”, they appear to flow into the monthly Article 19 metrics the provider already submits, without a separate breakdown (interpretation, not explicit text). The liquidity reporting article, Article 39, is not amended: monthly submission of the Article 30(1) metrics, an annual qualitative statement, immediate notification and a remediation plan in case of breach, and end-of-day reporting at least daily until compliance is restored unless the authority allows less.

Respondents also called the reporting frequency and governance disproportionate. The EBA did not move, describing intraday credit and liquidity risk as among the primary risks a banking CSD manages and frequent senior management engagement as a reflection of that profile.

CSD prudential requirements on capital: Articles 4, 5, 7 and 8

The capital articles in Title I apply to all CSDs, so this part of the amendment reaches CSDs that will never serve another CSD. Title II, the Article 8 intraday credit surcharge, applies only to CSDs authorised to offer banking-type ancillary services and to designated credit institutions. The EBA describes the changes as updates for the CRR and alignment with the amended CSDR.

Operational, legal and custody risk (Article 4)

The 2017 Article 4 set a ladder: a banking CSD with permission could use the Advanced Measurement Approaches (AMA) or the Standardised Approach, and every other CSD, including banking CSDs without those permissions, used the Basic Indicator Approach. The replacement is one sentence: a CSD calculates its capital requirements for operational, legal and custody risks in accordance with Part Three, Title III of the CRR. The EBA explains that there is now only one method for operational risk in the CRR, so the distinction between banking and non-banking CSDs falls away. A non-banking CSD that calculates under the Basic Indicator Approach today would move to the single CRR3 method; our article on CRR3 operational risk reporting covers the mechanics on the bank side.

Investment risk and the trading book (Article 5)

Investment risk capital is 8% of risk-weighted exposure amounts for credit risk and counterparty credit risk, plus market risk capital. The credit risk approach depends on status: a non-banking CSD uses the Standardised Approach (Articles 111 to 141 CRR) with credit risk mitigation (Articles 192 to 239); a banking CSD without IRB permission uses Articles 107 to 141 with credit risk mitigation; a banking CSD with permission uses the IRB Approach (Articles 142 to 191). Counterparty credit risk uses one of the methods in Articles 271 to 282 together with the Financial Collateral Comprehensive Method and the volatility adjustments in Articles 220 to 227.

The trading book provisions carry the substantive update. A CSD manages its trading book under Part Three, Title I, Chapter 3 CRR and calculates market risk own funds requirements under Part Three, Title IV. Only banking CSDs may be permitted to use internal models for market risk, and the Article 94 CRR derogation for small trading book business is available where its conditions are met. The background section says a transitional provision covers the case where the RTS enters into force before the fundamental review of the trading book does, and that Standardised Approach references reflect the repeal of Articles 240 and 241 CRR. For the bank-side context, see our note on CRR3 FRTB market risk reporting.

Wind-down capital (Article 7)

The three-step calculation is unchanged: estimate the time needed to wind down or restructure under each Annex scenario, divide annual gross operational expenses by twelve, and multiply by the longer of that time span or six months. What moves is the anchor. The 2017 text tied the time estimate to the plan in Article 47(2) CSDR; the draft ties it to the plan in Article 22a, the recovery and orderly wind-down plan the Refit inserted. Article 22a generally requires recovery and orderly wind-down plans to be submitted to the competent authority and reviewed at least every two years. It also relieves a CSD of preparing separate plans where its recovery and resolution plans under Directive 2014/59/EU, or similar national plans, contain all the elements listed in Article 22a(2), so any use of the wind-down cross-reference should account for that exemption.

Intraday credit surcharge (Article 8)

The surcharge method is carried over: average the five highest intraday credit exposures of the most recent calendar year, apply CRR haircuts (Articles 222 to 227) and assume collateral loses a further 5% of market value, then average the own funds requirements on those peaks treated as end-of-day exposures, under the Standardised or IRB Approach. Two things are new. The heading now names CSDs authorised to offer banking-type ancillary services, and a new paragraph 5 requires a designated credit institution to meet the surcharge with capital instruments that satisfy Article 2. The EBA added that clarification after a respondent argued that designation alone should not trigger enhanced capital; the EBA’s answer was that the surcharge captures intraday credit and liquidity risks the CRR does not.

Respondents also argued that tying the CSD regime to the CRR sometimes makes CSDs hold capital under both. The EBA kept the link, citing a level playing field between banking CSDs and other credit institutions and the CRR’s evidence base.

What changes for supervisors

The Article 27(2)(d) notice goes to the competent authority referred to in Article 60(1) CSDR. That is the authority under point (40) of Article 4(1) CRR, the banking supervisor responsible for authorising the entity as a credit institution and for supervising its compliance with Article 59 CSDR. Where the banking CSD’s banking supervisor and the designating CSD’s CSDR authority are different authorities, possibly in different Member States, the notice goes to the former.

The EBA’s stated purpose for the notice is to give competent authorities a view of the interconnections between CSDs. The existing Article 60 machinery then carries that information. The Article 60(1) authority assesses compliance with Article 59 regularly and at least every two years and informs the CSD’s competent authority, which passes results to the authorities under Article 55(4) and, where applicable, the college under Article 24a. Separately, the Article 54(5) threshold is monitored annually by the competent authority.

Supervisors will not receive a separate dataset on cash settlement provided to designating CSDs’ participants. The EBA’s reasoning is that current reporting is already at its most granular at borrowing-participant level. An authority that wants to isolate this business line would be working from the designation notices and the monthly Article 19 metrics, which do not separate it out.

Options and requests the EBA turned down

The EBA rejected several drafting options and consultation requests, and together they mark the edges of the amendment.

• EMIR emergency collateral relief. Article 59(5) asks for alignment, where appropriate, with the RTS adopted under Article 46(3) EMIR. The EBA declined to mirror the temporary emergency measures in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2311, which widened eligible collateral for non-financial counterparties active on energy markets, citing its September 2022 concern that relaxing prudential standards could erode soundness. EMIR collateral rules continue to move on their own track, as our note on guarantees as CCP collateral under ESMA’s draft RTS shows.
• Duties on the designating CSD. Proposals for a binding obligation on the designating CSD to support the designated CSD were not adopted.
• Separate reporting. Option 2b was dropped in favour of the designation notice.
• Collateral and surcharge mechanics. Requests on cash as eligible collateral, the Article 11(1) criteria for other collateral, the Article 38 scope, the surcharge’s 100% risk weight on EU central bank exposures in a non-domestic currency, and the methodology for identifying relevant currencies were answered as outside this mandate and noted for future reviews.
• Decoupling non-banking CSDs from the CRR. The EBA kept the CRR as the basis for the CSD capital regime.

For collateral and treasury teams, the practical point is that the Article 11(1) “other collateral” conditions and the surcharge treatment of central bank exposures stay as they are.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Article 18a apply to a credit institution designated under Article 54(2a), point (a)?

Articles 18a, 24a and 29a are drafted only for CSD-banking service providers designated under Article 54(2a), first subparagraph, point (b), meaning banking CSDs. A designated credit institution under point (a) is named directly in two places: the Article 18(5) cross-reference to it is realigned, and new Article 8(5) requires it to meet the intraday credit surcharge with capital instruments that satisfy Article 2. Article 18(5) also treats it as a CSD-banking service provider, so on the text as drafted the widened Article 24 credit limit wording and the Article 27(2)(d) notice on being designated also reach it, although the EBA’s report discusses that notice only for designated CSDs. Recital (4) says the surcharge methodology should be the same for both types of provider.

A participant of the designating CSD already holds a cash account at the banking CSD. Does it need a second one?

Article 18a(3) lets the designated CSD hold one cash account for that participant, with the participant’s approval. The banking CSD then considers the overall credit exposure from that account and relies on its existing monitoring and reporting processes. The EBA added text after consultation to stress that a single account is at the participant’s discretion.

What if secrecy rules stop the designating CSD from sharing information on material dependencies?

The EBA expects the banking CSD to gather the information directly from the participant. “Material” is not defined; the EBA kept the word so the banking CSD can decide what it needs, and said that if it cannot collect information on material dependencies, which it should define itself, it should not enter into the contractual arrangement to provide cash settlement.

Does the Article 8 surcharge start when the banking CSD is designated?

The 12-month clock in Article 8(6) runs from authorisation to provide banking-type ancillary services under Article 55 CSDR, not from a designation. A banking CSD authorised more than 12 months earlier is already within the surcharge. Because the five peak exposures are measured across services listed in Section C of the Annex, intraday credit extended to a designating CSD’s participants would appear to enter that calculation from the start (interpretation, not explicit text).

Can a banking CSD settle cash in the designating CSD’s home currency under a designation?

Article 54(4a) says cash payments through a designated entity shall not be in a currency of the country where the designating CSD is established. Article 54(5) disapplies that condition while settlement stays below the threshold, and the EBA’s threshold report reads the threshold as covering both foreign currency and the home currency. Above the threshold, the currency condition applies; the RTS amendment itself is built around foreign currency settlement.

Does a non-banking designating CSD pick up new obligations from this RTS?

The new credit and liquidity articles bind the designated banking CSD; the designating CSD’s own conditions come from Article 54 CSDR and the threshold RTS. As a CSD, though, it is caught by the rewritten capital articles: operational risk under Part Three, Title III CRR, the Article 5 investment risk references and the Article 22a link in the Article 7 wind-down calculation.

Can the Commission still change the text?

Yes. Under Article 10 of the EBA Regulation the Commission can endorse draft RTS as submitted or with amendments, and where the Commission intends to endorse the draft with amendments or not to endorse it, Article 10(1) gives the EBA six weeks to amend the draft on the basis of the Commission’s proposed amendments and resubmit it as a formal opinion. The article numbering and wording discussed here are the EBA’s final draft and should be checked against the Official Journal version.

Related Articles

• EU T+1 Settlement Transition: 2027 Deadlines: the EU’s move to a shorter settlement cycle and the milestones CSDs and their participants are working to.
• Liquidity Reporting: LCR, NSFR and ALMM Explained: the CRR liquidity returns a banking CSD files as a credit institution, alongside its CSDR reporting.
• CRR3 Operational Risk Reporting: the CRR3 operational risk method that the amended Article 4 now points every CSD to.
• CRR3 FRTB Market Risk Reporting: the market risk framework behind the rewritten Article 5 trading book references.
• Guarantees as CCP Collateral: What ESMA’s Draft RTS Changes: the EMIR collateral track that this RTS chose not to mirror.

Key Takeaways

• Trigger to watch: Official Journal publication of any Commission-adopted amending regulation. Confirm its entry-into-force, application and transitional provisions before updating compliance deadlines.
• Article 27(2)(d) notice: due immediately on each designation, to the Article 60(1) banking supervisor; a step for the designation workflow.
• Onboarding gate for designating-CSD participants: a written definition of “material dependency” and a decline step where the information cannot be obtained (EBA feedback on Article 18a(2)(b)).
• Exposure records need three new Article 21(c) categories, with designating-CSD participants mapped to their parents and subsidiaries for Article 24 group limits.
• Non-banking CSDs: operational risk capital moves off the Basic Indicator Approach to the CRR Part Three, Title III method once the amendment applies.
• Wind-down capital: reconcile the Article 7 time estimate with the Article 22a recovery and wind-down plan; the six-month floor stays.
• Fix the “2024/2845” recital citation in internal registers; the Refit is Regulation (EU) 2023/2845.

Sources and References

• EBA press release, “The EBA publishes Final Report on draft amendments to technical standards on prudential requirements for central securities depositories” (12 October 2026): eba.europa.eu
• EBA Final Report EBA/RTS/2026/08, Draft RTS amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/390 (9 October 2026): EBA Final Report (PDF)
• EBA activity page, RTS on prudential requirements for CSDs: eba.europa.eu
• EBA press release, “The EBA consults on amendments to technical standards on prudential requirements for central securities depositories” (3 December 2025): eba.europa.eu
• EBA Final Report EBA/RTS/2025/10, Draft RTS on the threshold referred to in Article 54(5) CSDR (12 December 2025): EBA Final Report (PDF)
• Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 (CSDR): EUR-Lex
• Regulation (EU) 2023/2845 (CSDR Refit): EUR-Lex
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/390 (RTS on certain prudential requirements for CSDs and designated credit institutions): EUR-Lex; text as adopted: legislation.gov.uk
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/392 (RTS on CSD authorisation, supervisory and operational requirements): EUR-Lex
• Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR): EUR-Lex
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2311 (EMIR temporary emergency collateral measures): EUR-Lex
• Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (EBA Regulation): EUR-Lex
• Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD): EUR-Lex
• Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD): EUR-Lex
• Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR): EUR-Lex
• ESMA Interactive Single Rulebook, CSDR Article 54 (authorisation and designation): esma.europa.eu
• ESMA Interactive Single Rulebook, CSDR Article 59 (prudential requirements): esma.europa.eu
• ESMA Interactive Single Rulebook, CSDR Article 60 (supervision of designated credit institutions and banking CSDs): esma.europa.eu
• ESMA Interactive Single Rulebook, CSDR Article 22a (plans for recovery and orderly wind-down): esma.europa.eu
• ESMA, Central Securities Depositories (CSDR Refit publication date): esma.europa.eu

Next step for EBA/RTS/2026/08: Commission endorsement

The amendment now sits with the Commission. Until the Official Journal version appears, the 2017 text of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/390 governs, and the draft is a planning document. Banking CSDs considering designations under Article 54(2a)(b) can map the Article 18a information requirements and the Article 27(2)(d) notice against their onboarding process now; every CSD can reconcile its operational risk and wind-down capital with the CRR and Article 22a references. The date to put in the calendar is publication in the Official Journal: entry into force follows on the twentieth day.

Disclaimer: The information on RegReportingDesk.com is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or compliance advice. Always consult your compliance officer, legal counsel, or the relevant supervisory authority for guidance specific to your institution.