EBA final RTS: cooperation & colleges for CRD6 third-country branches

On 9 January 2026, the EBA published its Final Report on the draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) on cooperation and colleges of supervisors for third-country branches (TCBs), following the July 2025 consultation. Please see our client note on that here: EBA Draft RTS: Cooperation & Colleges for Third-Country Branches CRD6 | Simmons & Simmons. The Final Report incorporates targeted amendments and clarifications in response to industry feedback, while confirming the EBA's overall approach. Below we highlight the principal changes and their implications for TCBs and their groups.

We cover this update in our CRD6 Manager product. See more details of that here: CRD6 Manager | Simmons & Simmons

1. Clarification on establishment of colleges of supervisors

• Draft RTS (July 2025): There was some ambiguity regarding the scenario where a third-country group has both TCBs and subsidiaries subject to Article 116 CRD but no college of supervisors has yet been established.
• Final RTS (January 2026): The EBA clarifies that in such cases, a college of supervisors must still be established for Class 1 TCBs under Article 48p(2)(b) or (c) CRD6, even if a college under Article 116 has not yet been formed. This ensures that Class 1 TCBs are always subject to comprehensive supervision via a college structure.

Implication: TCBs and their groups should expect the establishment of a college of supervisors where required by the presence of Class 1 TCBs, regardless of the status of any subsidiary-focused college. This may accelerate the need for coordination and information sharing across jurisdictions and with the EBA.

2. Flexibility and proportionality in information exchange

• Draft RTS: Some respondents requested greater flexibility and a more principles-based approach to information exchange, particularly outside the college context.
• Final RTS: While the EBA acknowledges these concerns, it has retained the alignment of information exchange requirements with the reporting obligations under Article 48k CRD6. The RTS continue to provide a focused and proportionate framework, but do not reduce the level of detail as requested by some respondents.

Implication: TCBs must be prepared for a harmonised and relatively detailed approach to information sharing, both within colleges and under general cooperation arrangements. This may require enhancements to internal processes to ensure timely and accurate provision of all required data.

3. SREP information exchange - alignment with future guidelines

• Draft RTS: The original draft included prescriptive requirements for the exchange of information related to the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP).
• Final RTS: The EBA has streamlined these provisions to ensure they are aligned with the relevant provisions of CRD6 and can accommodate future regulatory developments, including forthcoming SREP Guidelines for TCBs.

Implication: TCBs should monitor further regulatory developments in this area, as the precise information to be exchanged in the context of SREP may evolve. However, the current requirements are now more flexible and less prescriptive .

4. Observers and membership of colleges

• Final RTS: The EBA confirms that the EBA itself will be a member of colleges of supervisors for Class 1 TCBs, and that the ECB may be invited as an observer where less significant institutions are involved. Observers may opt out of participation, providing reasons.

Implication: TCBs should anticipate the involvement of a range of supervisory authorities in college meetings and activities, which may impact the scope and nature of supervisory engagement.

5. Coordination with non-EU supervisory authorities

• Final RTS: The EBA reiterates the importance of coordination between EU colleges and the supervisory authority of the head undertaking in the third country, including as an observer where appropriate.

Implication: TCBs should ensure that their group structures and governance facilitate effective cross-border supervisory cooperation, including with non-EU authorities.

6. No major changes to core requirements

• The final RTS largely confirm the structure and content of the July 2025 draft, including the mapping exercise, the minimum frequency of college meetings, and the scope of information to be exchanged.
• In relation to reverse solicitation reporting under Articles 10.1 (f) vi and 28.1(g) (vi) of the final RTS; the reference to information on the services provided on the basis of reverse solicitation only having to be provided "where available" suggests that there may be flexibility in relation to the reporting requirements under Article 21c regarding its scope and the entities it will apply to, which is yet to be clarified by the national exemptions and secondary legislative framework.

Next steps

Firms should:

• Review and, where necessary, update internal policies and procedures to ensure readiness for the establishment of a college of supervisors and the associated information exchange requirements;
• Ensure that all relevant data and documentation can be provided in a timely and accurate manner, in line with the harmonised EU approach;
• Monitor further regulatory developments, particularly in relation to SREP and the functioning of colleges; and
• Prepare for increased supervisory engagement and coordination, both within the EU and with non-EU authorities.

For further advice or a detailed gap analysis, please contact one of the contacts on this page or your usual Simmons & Simmons contact.