EBA Third-Country Branch Reporting - What the New Harmonised Standards Mean for Your Branch

Last updated: March 2026

If you run regulatory reporting for a third-country branch in the EU, your reporting workload is about to change substantially. For the first time, the EBA has published a harmonised set of reporting templates specifically designed for third-country branches (TCBs). The first reporting reference date is 31 March 2027. That is twelve months away, and the implementation work is not trivial.

Until now, each Member State defined its own reporting requirements for branches of non-EU banks. A US bank branch in Luxembourg filed different reports from a US bank branch in Frankfurt. The data points differed, the formats differed, and the supervisory expectations differed. CRD VI (Directive 2024/1619) changes that. It introduces a harmonised prudential regime for third-country branches in Title VI, and the EBA has built a full reporting framework to support it.

I have spent the past several weeks working through the EBA’s final report and template annexes. This article walks through what the framework covers, what the templates look like, who reports, when, and what the practical challenges are. If you are a reporting officer at a third-country branch, or if you manage the parent group’s EU branch reporting, this is the reference you need.

Related reading: COREP Reporting Explained

Why This Framework Exists

Before CRD VI, the treatment of third-country branches across the EU was a patchwork. Article 47(1a) of CRD V gave competent authorities some reporting powers over branches of non-EU banks, but the requirements were high-level. Member States could (and did) implement them differently. Some required detailed balance sheet reporting; others asked for little more than basic identification data.

The result was a supervisory blind spot. Competent authorities had limited, inconsistent visibility into what third-country branches were doing on their territory. Cross-border comparisons were impossible. When a crisis hit, supervisors struggled to assess the risk that third-country branches posed to local financial stability.

CRD VI addresses this directly. Directive (EU) 2024/1619 was published in the Official Journal on 19 June 2024 and entered into force on 9 July 2024 (20 days after publication). It amends CRD to introduce a comprehensive Title VI on third-country branches, including new Articles 48a through 48p. Article 48k sets out what TCBs must report. Article 48l mandates the EBA to develop implementing technical standards (ITS) specifying the templates, definitions, frequencies, and formats.

The EBA published its final draft ITS in March 2026 and submitted it to the European Commission. As of March 2026, the ITS has not yet been formally adopted by the Commission. The templates and instructions are final from the EBA’s side, but the formal endorsement and publication in the Official Journal remain pending. The two annexes of templates cover: Annex I for the branch itself (financial and regulatory information) and Annex II for information about the head undertaking and its group. This is the first time third-country branch reporting has been standardised at the EU level.

Who Must Report

Scope: Third-Country Branches of Credit Institutions

The framework applies to branches of third-country credit institutions that are authorised to operate in an EU Member State. In practical terms, this covers the EU branch of any bank headquartered outside the EU/EEA.

Think of the US, UK, Swiss, Japanese, and Chinese bank branches that operate across EU financial centres. In Luxembourg alone, there are branches of major US banks (JPMorgan, Citibank, Bank of America), UK banks (HSBC, Barclays), Swiss banks (UBS, Credit Suisse/UBS), and others. Each of these branches will need to file the new EBA templates.

Class 1 vs Class 2 Branches

CRD VI introduces a two-tier classification system. Class 1 TCBs are larger, more complex branches that present greater systemic relevance. Class 2 TCBs are smaller branches with simpler operations. The classification determines the granularity of reporting. Both classes report the same set of templates, but Class 1 branches report more detailed breakdowns.

For example, template E 01.01 (assets and liabilities for Class 1) requires a full breakdown by instrument type, whereas E 01.02 (the Class 2 equivalent) limits the breakdown to financial instruments only. The liquidity template E 09.01 for Class 1 is based on template C 76.00, the simplified summary LCR template. The EBA deliberately chose a proportionate approach rather than requiring Class 1 TCBs to file the full suite of LCR templates that EU-authorised institutions report. E 09.02 for Class 2 is further simplified: branches must hold unencumbered liquid assets sufficient to cover outflows for a 30-day period.

The classification is determined by the competent authority based on quantitative thresholds and qualitative criteria set out in CRD VI. A branch is classified as Class 1 if its total assets are at least EUR 5 billion, or if it holds at least EUR 50 million in deposits from individuals and SMEs. Competent authorities can also classify a branch as Class 1 based on the nature of its activities, its interconnectedness with the local financial system, or the systemic importance of the third-country group. Branches that fall below these thresholds and are not otherwise flagged are classified as Class 2.

National Opt-Out

CRD VI must be transposed by all Member States by 10 January 2026. However, the third-country branch regime is minimum harmonisation: Member States may impose stricter requirements than the CRD VI baseline, and some may continue applying full CRR/CRD requirements to their TCBs under Article 48a(4). The EBA has designed the reporting templates to support both scenarios. The ITS includes provisions for Member States that adopt the harmonised regime and for those that maintain national specificities.

What Gets Reported: Annex I – Branch-Level Templates

Annex I contains templates that capture financial and regulatory information about the third-country branch itself. These are the templates the branch filing team will spend most of their time on.

Financial Information Templates (E 01 to E 06)

Template E 01.01 / E 01.02 covers assets and liabilities booked and originated by the branch. This is the core balance sheet template. Assets, liabilities, and selected off-balance-sheet items are categorised by instrument type in the rows, and by booked versus originated amounts in the columns. The distinction between booked and originated is important: it captures whether exposures were written locally or transferred from the head office.

Template E 02.00 covers off-balance-sheet items for both Class 1 and Class 2 branches. This includes guarantees, commitments, and other contingent exposures.

Templates E 03.01 / E 03.02 address the largest assets and significant exposure concentrations. These templates require the branch to identify its largest recorded assets by counterparty type and flag significant exposure concentrations. This is the concentration risk template. For branches of large international banks, where a few counterparties can dominate the local book, this data is critical for supervisors.

Templates E 04.01 / E 04.02 mirror this on the funding side: largest liabilities and significant funding source concentrations. Supervisors want to know whether the branch relies on a few large depositors or group funding, and how vulnerable that funding structure is.

Templates E 05.01 / E 05.02 and E 06.01 / E 06.02 cover significant internal transactions with the head undertaking and group entities. E 05 captures amounts payable and receivable; E 06 captures expenses and income generated by those transactions. In practice, head-office connected transactions are the biggest area of supervisory interest for third-country branches. These templates make the intragroup flows visible in a structured, comparable format.

Regulatory Information Templates (E 07 to E 10)

Template E 07.01 / E 07.02 covers the computation of the capital endowment requirement (CER). This is new. CRD VI Article 48e requires third-country branches to maintain a minimum capital endowment. The template facilitates the calculation and reporting of this requirement, broken down by significant currencies for Class 1 branches.

Template E 08.01 / E 08.02 tracks the assets deposited in escrow to cover the minimum capital endowment requirement (MCER). Branches must deposit qualifying assets to back their capital endowment, and this template monitors compliance with that requirement over time.

Template E 09.01 / E 09.02 addresses liquidity. For Class 1 branches, E 09.01 is modelled on template C 76.00, the simplified summary LCR template used in existing COREP reporting. The EBA chose this proportionate approach rather than requiring the full LCR template suite: third-country branches are not EU-authorised institutions, and applying the complete LCR reporting package would be disproportionate to the supervisory need. The template still references the LCR framework under Part Six, Title I of the CRR and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61, but in a condensed format. For Class 2 branches, E 09.02 is further simplified: they must hold unencumbered liquid assets sufficient to cover liquidity outflows for a 30-day period, without applying the full LCR methodology. Article 48f of CRD provides the legal basis for both.

Template E 10.00 covers deposit protection arrangements available to depositors in the branch, as referenced in Article 15(2) and (3) of the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive (2014/49/EU). This applies to both Class 1 and Class 2 branches.

What Gets Reported: Annex II – Head Undertaking Templates

Annex II is where the framework gets interesting, and more challenging. These templates require reporting on the head undertaking and its group, not just the branch. The data comes from the parent entity in the third country, which means the branch reporting team must coordinate with head office to source it.

Quantitative Templates (H 01 to H 04)

Template H 01.00 reports the ultimate head undertaking’s aggregated assets and liabilities in the Union. This gives the supervisor a view of the total EU footprint of the third-country group.

Template H 02.00 provides entity-by-entity information on subsidiaries and other third-country branches of the same group in the Union. If JPMorgan has branches in Luxembourg, Frankfurt, and Paris, the H 02.00 template maps out the entire EU network of that group.

Template H 03.01 assesses the head undertaking’s compliance with applicable prudential requirements in the third country, specifically Basel III requirements. H 03.02 (qualitative) covers compliance with prudential requirements other than Basel III. Together, these templates let the EU supervisor assess whether the parent bank is adequately capitalised and supervised at home.

Template H 04.00 captures services provided by the head undertaking to clients in the Union on the basis of reverse solicitation. This is a new data point that reflects concerns about third-country firms providing services into the EU without a local presence.

Qualitative Templates (H 05 to H 07)

Template H 05.00 covers significant supervisory reviews and assessments of the head undertaking. Template H 06.00 addresses the head undertaking’s recovery plans and specific measures that could be taken on the branches. Template H 07.00 covers the head undertaking’s business strategy in relation to the TCB.

These qualitative templates are where implementation becomes difficult. The information is narrative, not numerical. It originates from the home-country supervisor and the head office compliance function. Automating these templates is not realistic. In practice, most branches will handle H 05 through H 07 as manual, narrative submissions coordinated with the head office legal and compliance teams.

I expect these qualitative templates to be the most time-consuming part of the framework in the early filing cycles. The data does not sit in a reporting system. It sits in board papers, supervisory correspondence, and recovery plan documents that were written for a different jurisdiction’s requirements.

Reporting Frequencies and Remittance Dates

Annex I Frequencies

The reporting frequencies for Annex I (branch-level) templates are set by Article 48l of CRD, with the EBA specifying exact remittance dates:

Monthly reporting (where applicable): reference date is the last day of each month. Remittance date is the 15th calendar day after the reference date.

Quarterly reporting: reference dates are 31 March, 30 June, 30 September, and 31 December. Remittance dates are 12 May, 11 August, 11 November, and 11 February.

Semi-annual reporting: reference dates are 30 June and 31 December. Remittance dates are 11 August and 11 February.

Annual reporting: reference date is 31 December. Remittance date is 11 February.

Annex II Frequencies

Head undertaking templates have different remittance dates, reflecting the additional time needed to source data from the third-country parent:

Quarterly reporting (H 01.00 and H 02.00): remittance dates are 11 June, 11 September, 11 December, and 11 March.

Semi-annual reporting: remittance dates are 11 September and 11 March.

Annual reporting: remittance date is 11 March.

Class 1 branches generally report at higher frequencies (quarterly or semi-annually) while Class 2 branches may report semi-annually or annually for certain templates. If the remittance date falls on a weekend or public holiday, submission is due the following working day.

Adjusted Reference Dates

Branches whose accounting year-end does not align with December can use adjusted reference dates based on their fiscal year-end. The remittance periods from the adjusted reference dates remain the same. This accommodation is important for Japanese and some other Asian bank branches whose fiscal years end in March.

Relationship to COREP and FINREP

The TCB reporting framework is a standalone set of templates. It is not an extension of COREP or FINREP. However, the EBA has designed it with deliberate alignment to existing reporting concepts.

The financial information templates (E 01 through E 06) use accounting-based definitions (carrying and nominal amounts) consistent with FINREP conventions. The liquidity template E 09.01 for Class 1 branches is based on C 76.00, the simplified summary LCR template from COREP, rather than the full LCR reporting suite. The capital endowment templates are new and specific to the TCB framework.

In practice, this means that branches of third-country banks that also file COREP or FINREP at a subsidiary level (because the group has both a branch and a subsidiary in the EU) will see some conceptual overlap but will still need to build separate reporting processes. The TCB templates have their own data model, their own validation rules, and their own submission channels.

Branches that currently file under CRD V’s Article 47(1a) reporting requirements will find some continuity in the data points, but the template structure is significantly more detailed. The EBA’s consultation paper includes a correspondence table mapping CRD V requirements to CRD VI, which is helpful for identifying where existing data feeds can be reused.

Luxembourg Relevance

Luxembourg hosts a significant number of third-country branches. Major US banks, Swiss institutions, and UK-headquartered banks (post-Brexit) all maintain branches authorised by the CSSF. For these branches, the new framework is directly relevant.

The CSSF as Host Supervisor

The CSSF is the competent authority that will receive the TCB reports from branches authorised in Luxembourg. The CSSF has historically taken a pragmatic approach to branch supervision, working within the CRD V framework while maintaining its own supervisory expectations.

With CRD VI, the CSSF gains a standardised data set for all third-country branches. This should improve the quality of supervisory dialogue, but it also means branches can expect more structured follow-up on the data they submit. If the capital endowment computation in E 07.01 shows a shortfall, or if the liquidity template flags concentration, the CSSF will have a concrete data point to act on.

Post-Brexit UK Branches

Post-Brexit, UK bank branches in the EU became third-country branches overnight. Several UK banks maintained or established branches in Luxembourg. These branches were previously passport holders under CRD IV/V and are now subject to the third-country branch regime. For them, the transition from passporting to TCB status already involved significant operational changes. The new reporting framework adds another layer.

UK bank branches in Luxembourg have the advantage of familiarity with EU reporting concepts. Their head offices filed COREP and FINREP when the UK was in the EU. That institutional knowledge helps, but the TCB templates still require bespoke implementation because the data is at the branch level, not the consolidated group level.

Swiss and US Bank Branches

Swiss and US bank branches in Luxembourg are long-established. They have operated under various national reporting arrangements for years. The harmonised framework will standardise their reporting obligations, but it also means they may need to report data points they were not previously required to disclose, particularly around head-office connected transactions (E 05/E 06) and head undertaking qualitative information (H 05 through H 07).

For US bank branches, the qualitative templates about the head undertaking’s recovery plans (H 06.00) and business strategy (H 07.00) will require coordination with the US parent’s legal and compliance teams. Recovery planning concepts differ between the US (where the Federal Reserve and FDIC have their own resolution planning framework) and the EU. Translating US recovery plan information into EU template format will require careful mapping.

Timeline and Transitional Provisions

The EBA’s final draft ITS provides a clear timeline:

The regulation enters into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. However, the templates that depend on underlying provisions in Articles 48h, 48e, and 48f of CRD (covering bookkeeping, capital endowment, and liquidity requirements) only become applicable on 11 January 2027, which is the transposition deadline for CRD VI.

The first reporting reference date for third-country branches is 31 March 2027. This gives branches until 12 May 2027 (the quarterly remittance date) to submit their first Annex I quarterly reports, and until 11 June 2027 for the first Annex II quarterly templates.

The EBA explicitly postponed the first reference date to March 2027 in response to stakeholder feedback during the consultation. The original proposal would have required earlier reporting, but respondents argued (correctly, in my view) that branches need time to build or adapt their reporting infrastructure after the regulation is finalised and the templates are locked down.

For branches that need to implement from scratch, the window between the regulation’s publication and the first filing date is tight but manageable if planning starts now. The template structures are published. The instructions are available. What remains is the IT build, the data sourcing agreements with head office, and the internal governance around sign-off.

Implementation Challenges

Dual Reporting Burden

Third-country branches already report to their home-country supervisor. US branches file call reports. UK branches file returns to the PRA. Swiss branches report to FINMA. The new EBA framework adds a parallel reporting obligation with different templates, different definitions, and different reference dates.

The dual reporting burden was the most frequently raised concern in the EBA consultation. Respondents highlighted costs from maintaining dual reporting cycles, parallel reconciliations, and manual processing for non-standard qualitative templates that cannot be fully automated.

In practice, most branches will need to map their existing head-office data to both home-country and EU template formats. Where definitions align (for example, basic balance sheet categories), data can be reused. Where they diverge (for example, the CER computation, which is an EU-specific concept), new data feeds are required.

Head Undertaking Data Sourcing

The Annex II templates require information that originates outside the EU regulatory perimeter. The head undertaking’s aggregated EU assets (H 01.00), the group’s entity-by-entity breakdown (H 02.00), and the supervisory reviews of the parent (H 05.00) all require data from the third-country head office.

This creates practical challenges. Privacy rules in some jurisdictions may restrict the sharing of supervisory information. Head-office systems may not capture data in the format or granularity the EU templates require. The qualitative templates (H 05 through H 07) require narrative information about supervisory assessments, recovery plans, and business strategy that may be considered confidential at the parent level.

Branches will need formal data-sharing agreements with their head offices, and those agreements need to be in place well before the first filing date. I would not underestimate the time this takes. Internal approvals at a large international bank can move slowly, especially when the request involves sharing supervisory correspondence with a foreign regulator.

Qualitative Template Automation

Templates H 05.00 through H 07.00 are qualitative and narrative-based. They cannot be automated in the traditional sense. Each filing cycle will require manual input from senior compliance and legal staff who understand the head undertaking’s supervisory position, recovery arrangements, and strategic direction regarding the EU branch.

The EBA acknowledged this challenge in its cost-benefit analysis. The ongoing operational cost of these templates is non-trivial, particularly for branches with complex group structures where multiple head undertakings (direct, intermediate, ultimate) may each require separate reporting.

Data Governance and Lineage

Building data lineage from EU branch reporting to head-office systems is a significant undertaking. The data governance framework needs to trace every reported data point back to its source, whether that source is the branch’s local accounting system, the head office’s risk management system, or a third-party data provider.

For branches that currently have light-touch reporting obligations, this may be the first time they need to build a formal data governance structure for regulatory reporting. The investment is front-loaded but lasting.

CRR3 Interaction

CRR3 (Regulation (EU) 2024/1623) introduces changes to the capital framework that affect how third-country branches interact with the broader prudential regime. While the TCB reporting templates are grounded in CRD VI (the directive), the capital and liquidity computations reference provisions in the CRR (the regulation).

For Class 1 branches, the liquidity template E 09.01 is based on C 76.00 (the simplified summary LCR template), which references the LCR framework under Part Six, Title I of the CRR. As CRR3 modifies certain aspects of the prudential framework, branches need to ensure their liquidity reporting aligns with the applicable version of the CRR at each reporting reference date.

The capital endowment requirement under Article 48e of CRD is a standalone concept. It does not directly reference CRR own funds definitions. However, the instruments that qualify for the capital endowment must be available for unrestricted and immediate use to cover risks or losses. The EBA’s separate guidelines on qualifying instruments (referenced in Article 48e(2)(c)) will clarify what counts. Branches should monitor those guidelines as they are finalised.

In practice, the interaction between CRR3 and the TCB framework is limited. The TCB templates are designed as a self-contained reporting package. But branches that are part of groups with EU subsidiaries filing COREP under CRR3 rules will need to ensure consistency in how group-level data is reported across the subsidiary’s COREP filings and the branch’s TCB filings.

Practical Steps for Implementation

Based on what I have seen in the templates and instructions, here is a realistic implementation sequence:

Step 1: Classify the branch. Confirm with the competent authority whether the branch is Class 1 or Class 2. This determines template granularity and reporting frequency. If the classification is not yet communicated, plan for Class 1 (the more demanding set) and scale back if needed.

Step 2: Map existing data. Identify which data points are already captured in existing home-country or local reporting. The CRD V to CRD VI correspondence table published by the EBA is the starting point. Where data is available, build extraction routines. Where it is not, flag the gaps.

Step 3: Establish head-office data channels. Agree with the head office on data delivery formats, timelines, and responsibilities for Annex II templates. Start with H 01.00 and H 02.00 (quantitative, more automatable) before tackling H 05 through H 07 (qualitative, manual).

Step 4: Build or configure the reporting solution. Whether you use a vendor platform, an in-house solution, or spreadsheets, the template structures from Annex I and Annex II need to be implemented. The EBA publishes DPM (Data Point Model) and XBRL taxonomies for the templates. If your reporting vendor supports EBA taxonomies, check their roadmap for TCB template support.

Step 5: Run a dry-run filing. Before the 31 March 2027 reference date, produce a test submission using the templates. Identify data quality issues, reconciliation breaks, and process bottlenecks. The dry run is not optional. First filings always surface problems that desk reviews miss.

Step 6: Establish internal governance. Define who signs off on each template, how qualitative templates are reviewed, and how corrections are handled. The ITS allows submission of unaudited figures, with a requirement to resubmit audited figures if they differ materially.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this replace existing national reporting for third-country branches?

It depends on the Member State. CRD VI introduces minimum harmonisation. Member States that transpose the harmonised framework will use the EBA templates. Member States that maintain stricter national requirements may overlay additional reporting on top of the EBA framework, or may retain separate national templates. Branches should confirm with their competent authority which regime applies.

Do both Class 1 and Class 2 branches report the same templates?

Yes. Both classes report the same set of Annex I and Annex II templates. The difference is in granularity. Class 1 templates (e.g. E 01.01, E 03.01, E 07.01) require more detailed breakdowns than their Class 2 counterparts (E 01.02, E 03.02, E 07.02). Annex II (head undertaking) templates are identical for both classes.

What if the head office refuses to share data for Annex II templates?

This is a real risk, particularly for templates that contain supervisory assessments (H 05.00) or recovery plan details (H 06.00). The regulation places the reporting obligation on the branch, not the head office. If the head office does not cooperate, the branch remains responsible. In practice, branches should escalate this to their competent authority early. The CSSF and other supervisors are aware of this challenge and may engage with home-country supervisors through existing cooperation arrangements.

Can branches submit unaudited figures?

Yes. The ITS explicitly permits unaudited figures for initial submission. Where audited figures differ from submitted unaudited figures, the revised audited figures must be submitted without undue delay. This is consistent with how FINREP handles the audit cycle.

How does this interact with EMIR, MiFIR, or other transaction reporting?

The TCB reporting framework is a prudential reporting obligation. It does not replace or duplicate transaction reporting under EMIR or MiFIR. Third-country branches that execute reportable transactions continue to file those reports separately. However, the TCB balance sheet and exposure templates may reference some of the same underlying positions that also generate transaction reports, so data consistency across regimes is something auditors and supervisors may check.

When is the first filing due?

The first reporting reference date is 31 March 2027. For Annex I quarterly templates, the remittance date is 12 May 2027. For Annex II quarterly templates (H 01.00 and H 02.00), the remittance date is 11 June 2027. Semi-annual and annual templates have later remittance dates.

Key Takeaways

The EBA’s third-country branch reporting framework is the first EU-wide harmonised reporting standard for branches of non-EU banks, replacing the patchwork of national requirements under CRD V.
The framework consists of two annexes: Annex I (branch-level financial and regulatory templates, E 01 through E 10) and Annex II (head undertaking templates, H 01 through H 07).
Class 1 and Class 2 branches report the same templates, but Class 1 branches report at greater granularity and higher frequency.
The first reporting reference date is 31 March 2027, with remittance dates of 12 May 2027 (Annex I) and 11 June 2027 (Annex II).
Class 1 classification applies to branches with at least EUR 5 billion in assets or EUR 50 million in deposits from individuals and SMEs; Class 2 applies to all others.
The capital endowment requirement (CER) and liquidity coverage templates (based on the simplified C 76.00 LCR summary, not the full LCR suite) are new prudential concepts specific to third-country branches under CRD VI.
The EBA submitted the final draft ITS to the European Commission in March 2026; formal adoption and OJ publication remain pending as of March 2026.
Qualitative templates (H 05 through H 07) on supervisory assessments, recovery plans, and business strategy cannot be automated and will require manual coordination with head-office legal and compliance teams.
Luxembourg-based third-country branches (US, UK, Swiss banks) should begin implementation planning now, including establishing formal data-sharing agreements with head offices.

COREP Reporting Explained – A comprehensive guide to the EU’s common reporting framework for capital adequacy, covering templates, frequencies, and practical filing guidance.
FINREP Reporting Explained – How the EU’s financial reporting framework works in practice, including template structure, scope, and common implementation challenges.
Common COREP Reporting Errors – The most frequent mistakes institutions make when filing COREP, and how to avoid them.
MREL Reporting Requirements – A practitioner guide to reporting on minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities.
Pillar 3 Disclosure Requirements for Luxembourg Banks – How Luxembourg banks meet their public disclosure obligations under CRR.

Sources and References

Directive (EU) 2024/1619 of the European Parliament and of the Council (CRD VI) – Amending Directive 2013/36/EU as regards supervisory powers, sanctions, third-country branches, and ESG risks http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1619/oj
Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD) – Consolidated text on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/36/oj
EBA Final Report on draft ITS on third-country branches supervisory reporting (March 2026) https://www.eba.europa.eu/publications-and-media/press-releases/eba-sets-out-harmonised-reporting-standards-enhance-oversight-third-country-branches
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) – On prudential requirements for credit institutions http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/575/oj
Regulation (EU) 2024/1623 (CRR3) – Amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1623/oj
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 – Supplementing the CRR with regard to the liquidity coverage requirement http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2015/61/oj
Directive 2014/49/EU (DGSD) – On deposit guarantee schemes http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/49/oj

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.