EACB responds to EBA draft Guidelines on Ancillary Services

The EACB welcomes the opportunity to comment on the EBA draft Guidelines on ancillary services undertakings (ASUs) specifying the criteria for the identification of activities referred to in Article 4(1)(18) CRR. 
While we appreciate the aim of enhancing clarity, we believe that the EBA should better calibrate its approach to the definition of ASUs. This should be limited to activities that directly support banking operations, excluding broader interpretations like “complementing” or “relying on banking,” which bear the risk of expanding the list of entities that may be classified as ASUs indefinitely.  
The scope of prudential consolidation is to enable indirect supervisory access to non-institution entities only where these are exposed to, or create, specific banking risks. Including entities merely “complementing” banking would dilute the purpose of the rules and increase administrative complexity without improving oversight. 
Furthermore, the obligation to assess whether an undertaking qualifies as an ASU should apply only to entities that are, or must be, included in prudential consolidation. Institutions exempt from consolidation under Article 19 CRR or without subsidiaries qualifying as financial institutions should not be subject to these requirements.  
We stressed that the concept of banking should be applied consistently throughout the Guidelines, following the activities listed in points 1, 2 and 6 of Annex I of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD), i.e. lending, deposit-taking, and payment services. 
Finally, the proposed mechanism allowing national authorities to submit new cases to the EBA could lead to ongoing and potentially indefinite revisions, undermining legal certainty. Instead, the Guidelines should provide a clear, harmonised definition applicable across the EU.