Response to consultation on Implementing Technical Standards on the supervisory reporting of Third Country Branches
Question 1 Are the scope and level of application of the reporting requirements and the content of all the templates and the instructions clear and appropriate?
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Consultation Paper (EBA/CP/2025/28) providing Draft Implementing Technical Standards on the supervisory reporting of Third Country Branches under Directive 2013/36/EU. Our members represent a wide spectrum of third-country branches (“TCBs”) located in Germany, and as we estimate including both Class 1 and Class 2 branches. From our experiences with TCBs, it is often the case that they are part of international banking groups headquartered in jurisdictions with varying supervisory, accounting, and disclosure frameworks, which should be generally acknowledged in the process of finalising the ITS.
The scope and level of application appear appropriate. It is acknowledged that the draft ITS incorporate a proportionate application of the reporting requirements by differentiating Annex I templates for Class 1 and Class 2 TCBs. However, as the CRD VI requires that reporting requirements be proportionate, it should be noted that while the ITS apply this principle to Annex I, they do not extend it to Annex II (HU templates). From the perspective of TCBs, this constitutes a discrepancy with the systematic application of the principle of proportionality. Requiring full HU reporting irrespective of classification may result in unnecessary administrative burden, challenges in data availability (particularly for Class 2 TCBs), and potential inconsistencies in data aggregation.
Question 2 Do the respondents identify any discrepancies between these templates and instructions and the calculation of the requirements set out in the underlying regulation?
The ITS only require a summary LCR template for Class 1 TCBs instead of the complete LCR framework documentation in accordance with CRR, which is generally to be welcomed. However, this can lead to a deviation in the replication of the CRR-orientated calculation, as detailed templates for position determination and allocation logic are missing. TCBs object that instructions for delimitation, allocation and consolidation must be made more precise with CRR definitions.
Question 3 Do the respondents agree that the ITS fits the purpose of the underlying regulation?
No further comment.
Question 4 Do the respondents consider the transition period and frequency of the first year reporting clear and feasible?
As we understand the next steps following the public consultation, the EBA intends to finalise the draft ITS and submit them to the European Commission by 10 January 2026. Following this submission, additional time will be required for the formal adoption and publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Considering that the ITS are expected to apply from 28 December 2026, with the first reporting reference date being December 2026, this would in practice allow TCBs and HUs an implementation period of less than one year. We therefore propose that the date of application of the ITS be set to 1 March 2027.
▪ specify which element(s) of the proposal trigger(s) that particularly high cost of compliance,
see below
▪ explain the nature/source of the cost (i.e. explain what makes it costly to comply with this particular element of the proposal) and specify whether the cost arises as part of the implementation, or as part of the on-going compliance with the reporting requirements,
Most compliance expenditure will arise during the first 12–18 months after adoption of the final ITS. Key cost drivers include:
- System architecture changes to integrate new templates into existing prudential reporting software and data-governance frameworks;
- Data lineage mapping to link EU branch reporting to head-office systems, often located in jurisdictions with divergent regulatory definitions and privacy constraints;
- IT and staff training investments to ensure data quality and internal validation of newly required data fields, particularly those covering qualitative HU information (business strategy, recovery plans, supervisory assessments).
Ongoing compliance phase:
Once implemented, ongoing costs will result from:
- Maintenance of dual reporting cycles (EU ITS vs. home-country prudential reporting), which may require parallel data reconciliations;
- Manual processing of non-standard data for qualitative HU templates (H 05.00–H 07.00), as these are not easily automated;
- Audit and assurance processes, since several competent authorities are expected to request validation of figures originating outside the EU regulatory perimeter.
It should also be noted that, while many of the reporting obligations are not entirely new, CRD VI introduces a number of additional elements, especially in comparison with the former ESRB recommendation of 26 September 2019 on exchange and collection of information for macroprudential purposes on branches of credit institutions having their head office in another Member State or in a third country. For instance, TCBs will be required to report the largest recorded assets and liabilities originated by the TCB, classified by sector and counterparty type, including, in particular, exposures to the financial sector. Likewise, HUs will be required to report on the services provided to clients established or situated in the Union on the basis of reverse solicitation. These new elements will entail an enhancement of existing record-keeping and reporting arrangements, both within HUs and TCBs (see hereto also our answer to question 6).
▪ offer suggestions on alternative ways to achieve the same/a similar result with lower cost of compliance for you.
We recommend an amended transition period, hereto please refer to our answer to question 3. We also recommend non-objection rules, hereto please refer to our answer to question 6.
Question 6 In particular, are there challenges foreseen in obtaining detailed data on the head undertaking or other group entities, especially for Class 2 TCBs? Would further proportionality be helpful, especially regarding remittance date? How could it be implemented?
We support the EBA’s objective of achieving consistent and comparable supervisory data and would like to emphasise that the feasibility and proportionality of reporting requirements—especially those linked to the HU and wider third-country group—are crucial to ensure effectiveness without imposing operational burdens that exceed supervisory value. Obtaining timely, granular, and verifiable information on the HU or on other EU and non-EU group entities represents one of the most significant practical challenges for TCBs, especially those with limited size and local infrastructure.
Access to detailed, entity-level prudential or financial data (templates H 01.00–H 07.00) is subject to both corporate governance limits and local legal constraints. Even when the HU is subject to Basel III-equivalent standards, supervisory data—such as risk-weighted assets, leverage ratio, or liquidity metrics—may follow differing definitions. Furthermore, in some jurisdictions, confidentiality rules prevent the HU from sharing supervisory reviews, recovery plans, or business strategies (as requested under H 05.00–H 07.00) with their foreign branches in the EU. TCBs cannot compel their parent to provide such information, as they act as dependent entities under the HU.
Templates H 01.00 and H 02.00 require aggregation of assets and liabilities across all EU subsidiaries and EU TCBs of the same third-country group. This presupposes that each TCB has both (a) visibility over other group entities’ EU exposures and (b) the ability to consolidate data using common accounting frameworks in the relevant time frames of the envisaged ITS. In practice, neither condition is guaranteed.
Large international groups often maintain decentralised systems, with different accounting calendars, currencies, and internal reporting taxonomies. Data reconciliation to a uniform format—aligned with the EBA’s DPM/XBRL specifications—would require significant manual work and time.
Under Article 2 of the draft ITS, quarterly data for templates H 01.00 and H 02.00 must be submitted by 11 May, 11 August, 11 November, and 11 February (in alignment with the ITS on Reporting). For many TCBs, this leaves fewer than six weeks after the quarter-end to collect, translate, validate, and transmit group-level data across multiple jurisdictions. In view of Class 2 TCBs—often rather small branches with limited staff and seldom with access to group-wide IT systems—face disproportionate pressure to meet these deadlines. In some cases, the relevant HU data may only become available after external audit processes in the home jurisdiction are completed. In addition, most third-country groups prepare consolidated financial statements only semi-annually or annually. Monthly or quarterly internal management data may not follow IFRS or EU prudential definitions. Hence, TCBs must either rely on estimates or use partial information, which risks reducing the reliability of the reported figures.
Where information on the HU or group entities originates from the home supervisor’s assessments (e.g. supervisory reviews as to be reported with template H 05.00), it may not be permissible for the HU to share such documents externally without authorisation. Delays or omissions in transmission would not reflect a TCB’s non-compliance but jurisdictional limits beyond its control.
In summary, there are new templates, with genuine requirements on data granularity, and this will lead to system integration requirements in headquarters. Despite timely preparation, TCBs and their headquarters face temporary operational challenges during the transition period as reporting systems and internal controls are recalibrated to comply with the revised standards. Therefore, we recommend that temporary reporting delays during the initial implementation phase should not be treated as compliance breaches. Similar tolerance was applied in prior regulatory transitions (e.g. initial CRD IV reporting phases), recognising that technical readiness cannot be achieved instantaneously. National competent authorities should refrain from initiating enforcement or administrative measures against third-country branches for reporting of HU information delays occurring within a reasonable transition period following the entry into force of the CRD VI reporting framework, provided that such delays are (i) temporary in nature, (ii) duly documented, and (iii) promptly rectified once operational readiness is achieved.
Question 7 Article 48h(1) of the CRD (as further developed in the RTS on booking arrangements) requires the maintenance of a registry book that allows to track and keep a comprehensive and precise record of all the assets and liabilities booked or originated. Have you foreseen that, according to the proposed breakdown in columns 0050 and 0060 of template E 01.01, such a registry book should also allow you to distinguish between the originated amounts where servicing (or other type of continuing involvement) is maintained and the originated amounts where no continuing involvement is maintained at all?
As we have already stated in our position to the Consultation Paper EBA/CP/2025/16 – Draft Regulatory Technical Standards specifying the booking arrangements that third-country branches are to apply for the purposes of Article 48h of Directive 2013/36/EU – we ask for clarification of the scope of the requirement to record assets and liabilities originated if this just refers to intragroup transfers. Furthermore, with respect to the proposed breakdown in columns 0050 and 0060 of template E 01.01, we foresee several practical and proportionality challenges in implementing a registry book capable of distinguishing between originated amounts where servicing or other continuing involvement is maintained and those where no such involvement remains. Although the distinction proposed by EBA is conceptually sound from a prudential perspective, as continued servicing or other forms of involvement may imply ongoing credit, operational, or reputational risk exposures, nonetheless, the degree of continuing involvement can vary substantially across products and jurisdictions. Current accounting frameworks—IFRS and relevant national GAAP—do not always require a binary classification between “retained” and “fully derecognised” assets in the operational systems of TCBs. Servicing arrangements may exist under contractual or agency relationships without implying risk transfer or exposure retention. Hence, the proposed columnar split could lead to interpretational inconsistencies across Member States and TCBs, potentially undermining comparability and the uniformity sought by the ITS.
And from an operational perspective, establishing a registry book that tracks the origination status of every asset and liability, together with its subsequent servicing condition, would entail significant adaptation of booking and data-warehouse infrastructures. For many TCBs, transaction-level data are managed within global systems located outside the Union, and mapping these to the proposed template dimensions would require substantial systems development, reconciliation processes, and governance layers. Such implementation would also necessitate alignment between prudential reporting, accounting ledgers, and risk-management databases—systems that are currently not synchronised at the level of individual asset servicing status. We therefore consider that the operational cost and complexity could be disproportionate, particularly for Class 2 TCBs whose activities are typically limited in scale and systemic relevance.
Question 8 Do you have any specific comment regarding templates E 01.01/E 01.02 and their instructions?
No comments.
Question 9 Do you have any specific comment regarding template E 02.00 and its instructions?
No comments.
Question 10 Do you have any specific comment regarding templates E 03.01/E 03.02 and their instructions?
No comments.
Question 11 Do you have any specific comment regarding templates E 04.01/E 04.02 and their instructions?
No comments.
Question 12 Do you have any specific comment regarding templates E 05.01/E 05.02 and their instructions?
No comments.
Question 13 Do you have any specific comment regarding templates E 06.01/E 06.02 and their instructions?
No comments.
Question 14 Do you have any specific comment regarding templates E 07.01/E 07.02 and their instructions?
No comments.
Question 15 Do you have any specific comment regarding templates E 08.01/E 08.02 and their instructions?
No comments.
Question 16 Do you have any specific comment regarding templates E 09.01/E 09.02 and their instructions?
No comments.
Question 17 Do you have any specific comment regarding template E 10.00 and its instructions?
No comments.
Question 18 Do you have any specific comment regarding template H 01.00 and its instructions?
No comments.
Question 19 Do you have any specific comment regarding template H 02.00 and its instructions?
No comments.
Question 20 Do you have any specific comment regarding templates H 03.01/H 03.02 and their instructions?
No comments.
Question 21 Do you have any specific comment regarding template H 04.00 and its instructions?
No comments.
Question 22 Do you have any specific comment regarding template H 05.00 and its instructions?
No comments.
Question 23 Do you have any specific comment regarding template H 06.00 and its instructions?
No comments.
Question 24 Do you have any specific comment regarding template H 07.00 and its instructions?
No comments.