As the EU pivots from post-crisis rulemaking to a new phase focused on simplification and competitiveness, the European Banking Authority (EBA) is seeking to recalibrate the bloc’s banking framework.
After more than a decade of regulatory expansion, the focus is shifting towards efficiency – streamlining rules, reducing overlaps and ensuring that supervision remains effective without imposing unnecessary burdens.
Speaking with Euractiv, EBA Chair François-Louis Michaud sets out the rationale behind the authority’s proposals, which aim to modernise the Single Rulebook, improve coordination across institutions and make better use of supervisory data.
The goal, Michaud argues, is not deregulation, but a more coherent and future-proof system capable of supporting financial stability while strengthening Europe’s competitiveness.
EV: The EBA has proposed measures to improve the efficiency of the EU’s regulatory and supervisory framework. What is the core rationale behind this push, and how does it align with the EU’s broader competitiveness and “better regulation” agenda?
FLM: Since its establishment in 2011, the EBA has developed a harmonised rulebook through technical standards, guidelines and harmonised reporting for banking activities across the EU-27, as well as for supervisory and resolution authorities.
The entry into force of the Basel III reforms in January 2025 concluded the post-Global Financial Crisis reform phase and created an opportunity to reflect on how the current framework operates, and whether it could or should evolve.
We are approaching this from two angles. Firstly, after years of harmonisation, some rules that were needed at the outset may now be less relevant. Second, the financial landscape is evolving rapidly, and the framework must adapt in a way that preserves both efficiency and stability.
This aligns closely with the EU’s “better regulation” agenda, which seeks to reduce unnecessary complexity and administrative burden while ensuring rules remain clear and proportionate.
Our objective is to move towards “next-generation regulation”, grounded in public service, trust, collaboration, excellence and creativity. This underpins the 21 proposals set out in the EBA’s 2025 Task Force report (TFE), which we are now working to implement and develop further.
EV: The simplification report points to growing complexity across the EU banking framework. Where do you see the main sources of inefficiency today – are they primarily in the rulebook itself, supervisory practices, or institutional fragmentation?
FLM: Microprudential rules are highly harmonised across the Member States, representing a major simplification compared to 27 separate regimes. The introduction of single supervision within the Banking Union was also a true game-changer.
However, the framework has expanded significantly over time. New dimensions have been added, notably in macroprudential policy, resolution, and anti-money laundering, including the creation of the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AMLA).
This multi-layered structure inevitably introduces complexity, especially as rules were often developed sequentially in response to crises rather than as part of a fully integrated design. Interactions between different layers can therefore be difficult to navigate.
The priority now is to take a more holistic view, assess how the system operates in practice, and identify where simplification, greater coherence and efficiency can be achieved without compromising prudential objectives.
EV: Simplification can mean different things in practice. How is the EBA approaching this exercise to ensure it delivers greater efficiency without weakening prudential standards or financial stability?
FLM: Simplification does not mean deregulation. The EU banking sector has weathered a series of unprecedented external shocks in recent years, and we should not jeopardise the hard-won strength that has been built thanks to the joint efforts of industry and authorities.
Our approach is evidence-based. We assess which requirements are essential for effective supervision and which create unnecessary burdens for firms. This allows us to identify areas where simplification is possible, both in the existing rulebook and in future legislation.
The focus is on clearer, more proportionate and more usable rules, particularly for small and non-complex institutions. Around 20 per cent of upcoming EBA mandates have already been identified for deprioritization, while key areas such as the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP) and credit risk rules are being streamlined.
Ultimately, the aim is to retain what works, remove inefficiencies, and ensure the framework remains fit for a rapidly changing environment. Simplification should be tangible and felt in daily supervisory and banking practices.
EV: Beyond reporting, what are the most significant changes you are proposing to streamline the Single Rulebook and improve consistency across Member States?
FLM: We are proposing and already working on actions in three main areas.
First, modernising the rulebook to make it simpler, more proportionate, regularly updated and easier to use.
Second, strengthening coordination among authorities involved in supervision and oversight. While mechanisms already exist, we see scope to improve cooperation further, building on tools such as supervisory colleges and expanding information-sharing practices. The EBA can play a facilitating role here, drawing on its experience in coordination and mediation.
Third, introducing more systematic impact assessments to evaluate whether rules deliver their intended outcomes. This can also support broader discussions on competitiveness, where the EBA’s cross-EU perspective provides valuable insight.
EV: Supervisory reporting remains a key concern for banks. How do your proposals reduce unnecessary burden while ensuring supervisors retain access to high-quality, decision-relevant data?
FLM: In April, we proposed a major reform to align reporting requirements more closely with supervisory needs, including a 50 per cent reduction in data points in EU-harmonised reporting and stronger proportionality for smaller institutions.
We also plan to integrate stress testing and benchmarking data into regular reporting, reducing overlaps and improving consistency.
A new EU-wide register of reporting requirements will enhance transparency and help ensure that only decision-relevant data is collected. For small and non-complex institutions, reporting is already reduced by 70 per cent compared to large banks, demonstrating that proportionality can be effective.
Overall, the aim is to simplify reporting while preserving the quality and usability of supervisory data, and to support more integrated data-sharing across Europe.
EV: Looking ahead, what should a more efficient EU supervisory and regulatory framework look like? Do you foresee a more integrated, digital, and coordinated model of supervision emerging in the coming years?
FLM: The direction is towards a more integrated, digital and responsive system. This includes greater use of shared data infrastructure, such as the EUCLID platform, and stronger cross-sector cooperation, including through initiatives like the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA).
The framework must remain agile, able to adapt to technological and geopolitical developments, while ensuring consistent implementation across Member States. This is not a one-off reform, but an ongoing process that will require sustained political support, robust data, and a continued focus on practical outcomes.
[BM]
Source:
www.euractiv.com