On 22 June 2026, the European Banking Authority (\u201cEBA<\/strong>\u201d) published its final draft<\/a> Implementing Technical Standards (\u201cITS<\/strong>\u201d) relating to the disclosure requirements of the so-called Third Pillar (Pillar 3<\/em>). This action was necessary to align the transparency framework with the changes introduced by Regulation (EU) 2024\/1623 (CRR 3).<\/p>\n The new ITS focus on the following main areas:<\/p>\n The amendments published by the EBA aim to streamline regulatory compliance obligations, improving data consistency and interoperability with future reporting channels.<\/p>\n The new rules will take effect as from 31 December 2026, for institutions generally, while for small and non-complex institutions, the effective date is deferred to 31 December 2027.<\/p>\n On 16 June 2026, the European Banking Authority (\u201cEBA<\/strong>\u201d) published a report<\/a> setting out recommendations aimed at simplifying the so-called stacking order of capital and resolution requirements under the European Union\u2019s prudential framework.<\/p>\n The document analyses the interactions between the capital requirements established by Regulation (EU) 2013\/575 (\u201cCRR<\/strong>\u201d) and Directive (EU) 2013\/36 (\u201cCRD<\/strong>\u201d) and the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (\u201cMREL<\/strong>\u201d), governed by Directive (EU) 2014\/59 (\u201cBRRD<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n In the report, the EBA highlights how the current stacking order of the various requirements under the CRR, the CRD and the BRRD may give rise to operational complexity, reduce the transparency of the regulatory framework and generate unintended effects in institutions\u2019 capital management. While noting that the existing system has contributed to strengthening the resilience of the banking sector, the EBA identifies possible simplification measures aimed at making the application of capital buffers and MREL clearer, while preserving the prudential and resolution objectives.<\/p>\n On 15 June 2026, ABI, APSP, Assofin, CNA, Confartigianato, Confcommercio, Confesercenti and FIPE entered into a new Memorandum of Understanding<\/a> aimed at promoting the mitigation, improved comprehensibility and comparability of the costs of acceptance of electronic payment instruments borne by merchants.<\/p>\n The Memorandum, which is open to accession by further trade associations as well as by individual operators not affiliated with any trade associations, represents an evolution of the agreement signed in July 2023 and forms part of the broader process of digitalisation and modernisation of payment services, with the objective of promoting greater transparency in the economic conditions applied by acquirers and, consequently, of encouraging competition in the sector.<\/p>\n Among the key changes, the Memorandum (which will have a duration of 24 months) extends its scope of application to merchants with revenues of up to EUR 750,000, thereby broadening the pool of beneficiaries compared to the previous agreement, which was directed primarily at operators with revenues of up to EUR 400,000. Furthermore, participating acquirers will be required to present their commercial offers using standardized formats, differentiated according to the commission structure adopted, with a view to ensuring greater simplicity, transparency and immediate comparability of the economic conditions applied, including those relating to POS devices.<\/p>\n By order No. 19956\/2026, published on 15 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court, Fifth Division, clarified the requirements that must characterise the authorisation for the conduct of banking investigations in the context of tax assessments.<\/p>\n In particular, the Court affirms that the authorisation provided for by Article 32, first paragraph, No. 7, of Presidential Decree No. 600\/1973, in the field of direct taxes, and by Article 51, second paragraph, No. 7, of Presidential Decree No. 633\/1972, in the field of VAT, while retaining its nature as a preparatory and organizational act in domestic law, constitutes the title legitimising interference in the taxpayer\u2019s banking data, provided that it precedes the investigations and has a minimum content sufficient to make verifiable, even ex post<\/em>, the preconditions, the subject matter and limits of such interference. In this way it will be considered as consistent with the principles of protection of private life and protection of personal data set out under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in Articles 7, 8 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.<\/p>\n According to the Court, as a consequence, where the taxpayer specifically challenges the lawfulness of the investigative activity and the authorisation is missing or lacking the requisite essential content, the banking documentation acquired will be unusable given the invalidity of the assessment notice in the part based on such findings.<\/p>\n To access the decision, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n By judgment No. 19262\/2026, published on 11 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court ruled on the standards of professional diligence that a bank must observe when assessing a company\u2019s creditworthiness, clarifying the circumstances under which it is necessary to obtain a certificate of pending tax liabilities.<\/p>\n The Court, after reviewing national and EU legislation on creditworthiness assessment, emphasised that the mere regularity of the financial statements and the absence of any reports or anomalies do not, in general, preclude the need for the bank to obtain a certificate of pending tax liabilities. Rather, an assessment of all the circumstances of the specific case is required, given the particular impact of tax and social security debts on the company\u2019s economic and financial stability.<\/p>\n The Italian Supreme Court also noted that the certificate of outstanding tax liabilities need not be obtained automatically and indiscriminately for every financing, even where the financing is backed by a public guarantee. In fact, compliance may still prove unnecessary in practice, for example, due to the knowledge of the client acquired over time or the small amount of the financing.<\/p>\n To access the decision, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
2) <\/a>EBA: report on simplifications to the EU bank capital framework<\/h4>\n
3)\u00a0<\/a> Electronic payments: new Memorandum of Understanding to reduce costs for merchants<\/h4>\n
4) <\/a>Italian Supreme Court: on the requirements for the authorisation to conduct banking investigations<\/h4>\n
5)\u00a0<\/a> Italian Supreme Court: the need to obtain the certificate of pending tax liabilities for the purposes of creditworthiness assessment must be ascertained on a case-by-case basis<\/h4>\n
6) <\/a>EBA: Q&A on the application of Article 207(2) of the CRR to financial collateral in counterparty credit risk<\/h4>\n