European Banking Authority (EBA) outlines its data processing activities for recruiting Temporary Agents, Contract Agents, and Seconded National Experts under EUDPR, detailing personal data handling, legal bases, external processors, and candidate selection procedures.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) today launched a consultation on the revised joint Guidelines on the assessment of the suitability of members of the management body and key function holders. In parallel, the EBA is consulting on draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) specifying the documentation and information that large institutions must submit to competent authorities. Together, these elements form the Suitability Package, which aims to harmonise suitability assessments and promote supervisory convergence across the EU.
EBA and ESMA consult on joint guidelines for assessing suitability of management body members and key function holders under CRD IV and MiFID II, covering proportionality, diversity, reputation, skills, training, and ongoing monitoring requirements.
EBA consults on draft Regulatory Technical Standards outlining minimum requirements for suitability questionnaires, CVs, and internal assessments under Directive 2013/36/EU for bank management evaluations, with feedback due by May 2026.
EBA decision establishing mandatory annual data collection from EU credit institutions to monitor Basel III standards, assess regulatory mandates, and support impact analysis—covering capital, liquidity, leverage, and funding ratios for systemic and large banks.
European Banking Authority follow-up report assessing progress on ICT risk evaluation under the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP), including recommendations for competent authorities, benchmarking, and alignment with DORA and CRD/CRR frameworks.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) today published the follow-up to its 2022 peer review report on ICT risk assessment under the supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP). The follow-up Report shows that competent authorities have made notable progress in strengthening ICT risk assessment, driven largely by the implementation of the Digital Operational Resilience Act. At the same time, further work and continued investment remain necessary to ensure consistent and effective ICT risk supervision across the European Union (EU).
Can persons who are authorized in writing by the issuer to offer crypto-assets to the public conduct this activity on a commercial basis, continuously, repeatedly, and possibly for different issuers (whether concurrently or consecutively) without having a MiCA CASP license for the crypto-asset service 'placing of crypto-assets'?
In Article 67, Paragraph 1, crypto asset providers shall at all time have prudential safeguards as the highest of the following;
- the amount of permanent minimum capital requirements indicated in Annex IV
- one quarter of the fixed overheads of the preceding year, reviewed annually
In Paragraph 3, the method to calculate the prudential requirement of one quarter of the fixed overheads of the preceding year, reviewed annually is stated as;
"Crypto-asset service providers shall calculate their fixed overheads for the preceding year, using figures resulting from the applicable accounting framework, by subtracting the following items from the total expenses after distribution of profits to shareholders or members."
When defining "total expenses" in the quoted sentence from Paragraph 3, does it in fact mean the total costs (fixed and variable overheads) after distribution of profits in the income statement for the preceding year, or is it meant to be the total fixed overheads after distribution of profits?
Article 5(2) of MiCA states that “when a crypto-asset is admitted to trading on the initiative of a trading platform and a crypto-asset white paper has not been published in accordance with Article 9 in the cases required by this Regulation [emphasis added], the operator of that trading platform for crypto-assets shall comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 1 of this Article”.
In turn, Article 9 requires offerors and persons seeking admission to trading of crypto-assets other than ARTs or EMTs to publish their crypto-asset white papers and any marketing materials.
However, recital 22 of MiCA states that “Where crypto-assets have no identifiable issuer, they should not fall within the scope of Title II, III or IV of this Regulation”.
Does the expression “in the cases required by this Regulation” mean that Article 5(2) exempts operators of trading platforms from the requirements of Article 5 for crypto-assets without an identifiable issuer?
Should the business model whereby a crypto-asset service provider (CASP) provides exchange services but only ever allows clients to collect their balance in fiat currency be allowed?
I seek clarification regarding the obligations of Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs) under Article 75 of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) concerning the ability for customers to withdraw specific crypto assets. Specifically, does Article 75 require CASPs to enable customers to withdraw every cryptocurrency offered for trading on the platform? For example, if a cryptocurrency exchange allows customers to trade Dogecoin but faces technical limitations in facilitating direct Dogecoin withdrawals, would it suffice to offer a conversion option, allowing customers to exchange Dogecoin for Bitcoin, Ethereum, or fiat currency, which they can then withdraw?
Does MiCA permit crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) to earn interest on client funds deposited in a savings account at a credit institution?
EBA decision amending data collection requirements for monitoring Basel III supervisory standards, including additional data on CRR3 implementation, Loss Given Default floors, leasing exposures, and Securities Financing Transactions to assess EU banking sector competitiveness and regulatory impacts.
European Banking Authority (EBA) public meeting register for February 1–15, 2026, listing Vice-Chairperson Helmut Ettl’s disclosed engagements – confirms no meetings or hospitality were reported during this period.