Welcome to the FIG Top 5 at 5

1. Central Bank publishes NCID report on employers’ liability and public liability insurance

On 8 April 2026, the Central Bank of Ireland (“Central Bank”) published the mid-year report (“Report”) on Employers’ Liability (“EL”) and Public Liability (“PL”) insurance of the National Claims Information Database (“NCID”).  The Report is based on data up to and including the first half of 2025 – 1 January to 30 June 2025 (“H1 2025”).

Some of the key findings are outlined below.

Settled claims trends

• the cost of all EL and PL claims settling in H1 2025 totalled approximately €146m across 3,300 claims, representing a 3% increase in settled claim costs compared to H2 2024;
• 37% of claimants made damage claims in H1 2025, which accounted for 8% of total settled costs;
• 63% of claimants made injury claims, which accounted for 92% of total settled costs;
• the majority of damage claims arise from PL policies which have a mix of bodily injury and damage claims. Claims arising from EL policies are predominantly injury claims;
• between H2 2024 and H1 2025, settlement activity was as follows:
• direct settlements increased by 6% to 352 claims in H1 2025;
• Injuries Resolution Board (“Board”) settlements increased by 29% to 312 claims in H1 2025; and
• litigated settlements remained stable with 1,405 claims in H1 2025.
• the average time taken to settle claims directly was 1.9 years, 2.2 years for claims settling through the Board and 5.8 years for claims settling through litigation;
• litigated settlements made up 68% of claimants in H1 2025, which can be divided into 65% who settled before a court award and 3% who settled with a court award;
• claims settling directly with an insurer averaged €20,052 in H1 2025, representing a 14% decrease from 2024, whilst claims settling through the Board averaged €27,398, an increase of 2% from 2024;
• across all channels, the average compensation cost for claims that settled for less than €150,000 was 17% lower in H1 2025 compared to 2020; and
• legal costs are most significant for claims settled through litigation and there has been an upward trend in recent years reaching 45% of total costs (or 84% of the compensation award) in H1 2025. The Report compares this to the direct settlement route, where legal costs were 18% of total cost and the Board where legal costs were 3% of total costs.

Personal injuries guidelines

• across all channels, 64% of claims settled in H1 2025 settled under the Personal Injuries Guidelines (“Guidelines”), including 48% of litigated claims;
• for injury claims settled in H1 2025, 64% settled under the Guidelines, with the remaining 36% having compensation amounts decided upon using the book of quantum;
• in order to assess the impact of the Guidelines, the Report compares the average cost of claims settled under the Guidelines between 2022 and H1 2025 against the average cost of claims settled under the book of quantum in 2020. The findings are set out in a comparative table;
• litigated claims account for the highest proportion of total injury claim costs at 87% in H1 2025, with the Report highlighting that the impact of the Guidelines will be most uncertain in this channel due to the generally long period of time between an accident being reported and the claim being settled; and
• legal and other costs also contribute a significant proportion to the total cost of a litigated claims, and the Report highlights that these will not be directly impacted by the Guidelines.

Insurance Ireland reaction

On 10 April 2026, Insurance Ireland issued a statement on the Report, with Moyagh Murdock, CEO of Insurance Ireland, stating that:

“The introduction of the Personal Injuries Guidelines since 2021 has supported the Injuries Resolution Board process by improving consistency and predictability in awards. Greater use of the Injuries Resolution Board as an alternative to the litigation channel will be important in helping to manage overall claims costs and improve efficiency within the system. The Personal Injuries Guidelines and additional measures in the Government’s Insurance Reform Agenda have been helpful in stabilising the claims environment and the insurance market generally.

While the Personal Injuries Guidelines have reduced award levels, these gains have, to some extent, been offset by increases in litigation costs. Continued focus on encouraging the use of the Injuries Resolution Board will therefore be key to ensuring the full benefits of these reforms are realised.”

2. EIOPA publishes letter sent to EU institutions on AI Act and EU insurance legislation

On 14 April 2026, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (“EIOPA”) published a letter (“Letter”) it sent to the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council, setting out targeted suggestions as regards the AI Act. Such suggestions are aimed at ensuring that the objectives of the AI Act, in the insurance sector, are achieved while also ensuring that unnecessary burden is not created for insurance undertakings and their supervisors.

Existing legislation

The Letter highlights that the insurance sector is subject to EU legislation that applies to supervised entities using AI systems, namely, Solvency II, the Insurance Distribution Directive and DORA. The Letter goes on to state that the implementation of the AI Act, which operates within an existing sectoral framework, may result in the need to manage overlap and to reconcile different but complimentary objectives – particularly matters regarding the protection of fundamental rights under the AI Act and the prudential and consumer protection goals of sectoral legislation.

EIOPA also points to potential inconsistency as regards supervision if member states decide to designate authorities who are not existing supervisors as market surveillance authorities under the AI Act.

Drafting proposals

The first suggestion put forward by EIOPA relates to the European Supervisory Authorities (“ESAs”) and providing for input from the ESAs as regards the development of guidelines or guidance in relation to the application of the AI Act in the context of credit institutions, investment firms and (re)insurance undertakings. EIOPA explains that the ESAs are uniquely positioned to identify overlaps, complementarities and potential inconsistencies between the AI Act requirements and existing financial services legislation.

The Letter further emphasises the role the ESAs would have to play in terms of a coherent and proportionate application of the regulatory framework, also highlighting the extensive sector experience that the ESAs have, which would enhance the work of the AI office.

The second amendment proposed by EIOPA relates to AI systems intended to be used for risk assessment and pricing in relation to natural persons in the case of life and health insurance. EIOPA suggests that AI systems that rely solely on linear or logistic regression or decision trees under human supervision, generalised linear models, including generalised additive models, do not raise the risks that justify the AI Act’s enhanced governance requirements.

The Letter highlights that such systems, which are widely used by (re)insurance undertakings, are not autonomous, as they operate strictly according to predefined instructions and require human intervention for retraining and any material modification. Additionally, it is emphasised that their outcomes are generally easily reversible and that EIOPA has no evidence, to date, that their use has led to significant adverse effects on fundamental rights. Including these models in the scope of high-risk AI systems would, EIOPA argues, not materially reduce the risks associated with these models, rather it would create unnecessary compliance burdens for undertakings and supervisors without bringing added value to consumer protection.

Simplification

In the Letter, EIOPA states that the proposed amendments to the Digital Omnibus on AI “would be in line with the proposal’s introduction of targeted simplification measures to ensure timely, smooth, and proportionate implementation of the AI Act’s provisions.”

On 10 April 2026, the European Banking Authority (“EBA”) published two consultations regarding the simplification of supervisory reporting. The proposals in the consultations are aimed at reducing the reporting burden for banks in the EU while also ensuring that supervisory authorities receive the necessary information to carry out their supervisory responsibilities.

The consultations are as follows:

Consultation on revisions to implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting (simplification package)

The EBA supervisory reporting requirements are contained in commission implementing regulation (EU) 2024/3117. The consultation paper highlights how, in line with the EU focus on simplification and streamlining the regulatory framework, a comprehensive review of the implementing technical standards (“ITS”) on supervisory reporting was considered necessary.

The EBA explains that this consultation combines regulatory driven amendments and enhancements with a broad set of simplification measures informed by supervisory experience and stakeholder input – including engagement with competent authorities and industry feedback.

Simplification elements focus on:

• reducing data points and templates;
• adjusting reporting frequency and scope;
• enhancing proportionality for small and non‑complex institutions (“SNCIs”);
• expanding the use of a ‘core plus supplement’ approach;
• integrating parallel data collections at the EBA level, such as stress testing and supervisory benchmarking;
• improving alignment of definitions and qualitative elements; and
• harmonising and integrating reporting requirements, now requested at national / jurisdictional level, into the EBA reporting framework.

In addition to a main consultation paper, this consultation on supervisory reporting is divided into nine topic‑specific modules with each module having its own background and rationale, reporting templates, instructions, impact assessment and consultation questions. The modules cover:

• liquidity and asset encumbrance;
• financial reporting (“FINREP”);
• operational risk losses;
• integration of EU‑wide stress testing data;
• market risk and FRTB;
• COREP own funds;
• ESG reporting;
• alignment with Pillar 3 disclosures for SNCIs; and
• a set of other targeted amendments.

Next Steps

Responses to the consultation can be submitted via the dedicated surveys in each module and in the general part of the consultation paper until 10 July 2026.

It should be noted that feedback regarding the FINREP templates and related instructions can be submitted until 10 May 2026.

The EBA will hold a public hearing on the consultation on changes to the ITS on supervisory reporting on 5 May 2026. Interested parties are required to register by 28 April 2026.

The EBA plans to finalise the revised ITS after the consultation and will submit the final report to the European Commission (“Commission”) by the end of 2026. First reporting under the revised framework is expected for the reference date of 30 September 2027, accompanied by a comprehensive reporting technical package.

Consultation on draft ITS amending commission implementing regulation (EU) 2024/3117 regarding credit risk and IFRS 9 benchmarking reporting

With this consultation, the EBA explains that the proposals are targeted at a material reduction in the number of templates and the number of portfolios. Additionally, the proposals seek to integrate benchmarking data collection into the ITS on supervisory reporting. This is with a view to stabilising the templates and avoiding the need for annual revision. Some of the changes, set out in this consultation paper, are as follows:

• as regards credit risk, significant changes are proposed mostly due to changes introduced to the EBA ITS on supervisory reporting as a result of the amendments made to the Capital Requirements Regulation and the Capital Requirements Directive; and
• limiting the reporting requirement to the highest level of consolidation at the EU level for banking groups and on an individual basis for institutions that are not part of a group.

The EBA highlights that the proposed changes and simplifications, together with the integration of the reporting requirements into the regular reporting under the ITS on supervisory benchmarking, should result in a significant reduction in the reporting costs.

Next Steps

The consultation is open for feedback until 10 July 2026, following which, the EBA will finalise the draft amendments to the ITS on supervisory reporting and submit the amending final draft text to the Commission.

The EBA will hold a public hearing on the consultation on changes to the ITS on supervisory benchmarking on 24 June 2026. Interested parties are required to register by 17 June 2026.

The EBA will also develop the data-point model (DPM), XBRL taxonomy and validation rules based on the final draft amending ITS. The EBA aims to have the first reporting in place for the 2027 exercise.

On 9 April 2026, the European Banking Authority (“EBA”) launched a consultation (“Consultation”) on draft revised guidelines (“Guidelines”) on limits on exposures to shadow banking entities which carry out banking activities outside a regulated framework under article 395(2) and (2a) of regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (“CRR”).

The Consultation highlights that, while some activities carried out by shadow banking entities can be beneficial in terms of financing the real economy and fostering growth, they also present specific risks from a prudential perspective that may require regulatory attention, such as:

• run risk and / or liquidity problems;
• interconnectivity and spillovers;
• excessive leverage and procyclicality; and
• opaqueness and complexity.

The current Guidelines have been in force since 2015 and set out guidance for institutions’ risk management and limits regarding exposures to entities providing banking activities outside the regulated framework.

The Guidelines are being revised on foot of commission delegated regulation (EU) 2023/2779 (“Delegated Regulation”) coming into force in January 2024, which contains regulatory technical standards (“RTS”) that specify criteria to identify shadow banking entities, introducing a legally binding framework that clarifies the criteria for identifying shadow banking entities, defines banking activities and services, and sets out conditions for the treatment of third-country entities.

Accordingly, the changes to the Guidelines are aimed at ensuring alignment with this regulatory framework. In particular, the revisions to the Guidelines aim to:

• ensure full consistency with the RTS contained in the Delegated Regulation, particularly as regards definitions, the scope of application, and the treatment of third-country entities, ensuring that the Guidelines fully reflect the regulatory binding provisions of the regulation;
• remove obsolete parts that are now covered by the Delegated Regulation, such as the previous indicative lists of banking activities and services, examples of non-regulated entities, and other scoping clarifications that have become redundant; and
• retain and update complementary provisions on governance, internal risk management processes, and supervisory practices, including the setting of internal limits, monitoring of concentrations, and reporting arrangements, to promote supervisory convergence across member states.

The Consultation invites feedback on potential implementation impacts, together with input on current practices and on the possible effects of quantitative limits on lending to shadow banking entities. In addition, the Consultation seeks information as to how institutions identify exposures to shadow banking entities, set limits, and manage related risks.

Next Steps

The Consultation is open for feedback until 9 July 2026. A public hearing will take place on 25 June 2026 with interested parties required to register for this hearing by 17 June 2026.

The EBA has stated that feedback received will support policy decisions in terms of finalising the Guidelines and will inform broader policy work on shadow banking entities, particularly as regards a report on institutions’ exposures to shadow banking entities to be sent to the European Commission by December 2027.

On 14 April 2026, the European Central Bank (“ECB”) published the Eurosystem’s response (“Response”) to the European Commission’s (“Commission”) February 2026 targeted consultation on the competitiveness of the banking sector in the EU – for more information, see FIG Top 5 at 5 dated 19 February 2026.

December 2025 ECB report

The Response references the report (“Report”) of the ECB’s governing council’s high-level task force on simplification, which set out recommendations aimed at simplifying the EU banking framework while maintaining the resilience of the banking system, highlighting that the Report forms the basis of the Response and both should be read in conjunction with each other. For more information on the Report, see FIG Top 5 at 5 dated 18 December 2025.

Key messages

The Response highlights three key messages:

1. financial and regulatory fragmentation of the single market, including the incomplete banking union, limits the competitiveness of banks;
2. the resilience of euro area banks is a key prerequisite for economic growth and competitiveness; and
3. undue complexity in regulatory frameworks needs to be addressed, while also maintaining a level playing field to ensure fair competition while supporting innovation and containing risks.

Proposals

Some of the proposals in the Response, as regards banking reforms, are as follows:

• the banking union should be regarded, for the purpose of financial regulation, as a single European jurisdiction by all relevant competent and designated authorities;
• the finalisation of the European Deposit Insurance Scheme, accompanied by a clear implantation timeline;
• the free flow of capital and liquidity within a cross-border banking group in the banking union, subject to the same conditions applicable to domestic banking groups;
• further harmonisation of the regulatory framework and the reduction of non prudential barriers, with the Response highlighting that a refocus of directives to regulations would significantly improve the effectiveness of the EU prudential framework by creating a harmonised toolkit, suggesting, for example, that merging the CRD into the CRR would reduce the potential for regulatory divergence by transposing prudential rules into national legal frameworks. In addition, further harmonisation as regards insolvency law, the mortgage market and corporate law is advocated for;
• merging the existing five macroprudential buffers into two buffers – a non-releasable buffer and a releasable buffer;
• extending the degree of proportionality in the EU under the existing small and non-complex institutions regime in a prudent way; and
• adjusting the prudential framework to close regulatory gaps between banks and non-banks, aimed at preserving the level playing field and reducing disintermediation risks, while supporting innovation.

1. EBA publishes decision harmonising reporting of SEPA data by national authorities

On 10 April 2026, the European Banking Authority (“EBA”) published a decision (“Decision”) regarding the reporting of data by competent authorities for the purposes of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 (“SEPA Regulation”) and amendment of the annex to the EUCLID decision.

Article 15 of the SEPA Regulation requires competent authorities to provide the information reported to them by payment service providers (“PSPs”) to both the European Commission (“Commission”) and the EBA.  This includes data relating to charges for credit transfers and payment accounts.

Burden reduction

The Decision seeks to avoid competent authorities reporting the same information twice and, in that regard, states that competent authorities should submit the relevant data to the EBA only. The EBA will then forward this data to the Commission via its data collection ecosystem EUCLID, as soon as possible after receiving it from the competent authorities. This, the EBA explains, will mean that the reporting burden will be reduced but will also ensure that both the Commission and the EBA have the same information and necessary data.

Additionally, the EBA has stated that this will support the Commission in monitoring that consumers benefit from access to instant credit transfers across the EU, and that these are not more expensive than standard credit transfers.

Next Steps

The Decision is effective immediately.

2. Commission adopts RTS on establishment and assessment of order execution policies under MiFID II

On 14 April 2026, the European Commission (“Commission”) adopted a delegated regulation (“Regulation”) supplementing MiFID II regarding regulatory technical standards (“RTS”) specifying the criteria to be taken into account in establishing and assessing the effectiveness of order execution policies of investment firms.

The MiFID II Directive set outs a “best execution” obligation for investment firms to ensure that those firms execute client orders on terms that are the most favourable to their clients.

The European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”) consulted on the RTS in July 2024 and published a final report on the matter in April 2025 – for more information, see FIG Top 5 at 5 dated 17 April 2025.

The RTS set out the rules regarding:

• selecting execution venues to enable investment firms to consistently achieve the best possible result when executing client orders;
• monitoring the investment firms’ execution policies, particularly the data to be used by investment firms to enable them to monitor their execution policies and arrangements;
• order routing to avoid adverse impact on the execution quality;
• dealing with the specific instructions from clients and the safeguards to avoid unfavourable consequences regarding investor protection;
• the periodic assessment of the effectiveness of the investment firms’ order execution policy; and
• identifying classes of financial instruments to ensure that the execution quality can be assessed for homogenous groups of products.

Next Steps

The Regulation is now subject to the scrutiny of the European Parliament and the European Council and if neither object, it will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the official journal of the EU. The Regulation will apply 18 months after its entry into force – this will allow time for investment firms to adjust their order execution policy, order execution procedures and related IT infrastructure.

Once the Regulation is in force delegated regulations (EU) 2017/575 and (EU) 2017/576 will be repealed.