CSSF Updates 2026

Key dates

2025-01-17

DORA became applicable to financial entities within the CSSF supervisory perimeter.

2025-12-17

The European Commission confirmed through DORA Q&A DORA102-3097 that DORA applies to qualifying third-country branches in an EU country.

2026-08-27

Circular CSSF 26/915 was published and its amendments took effect immediately.

2027-02-27 Deadline

The six-month transition period for PSPs not otherwise subject to DORA under Circular CSSF 25/893 is expected to end; the DORA incident-reporting framework then applies to those PSPs and Circular CSSF 21/787 is repealed for them.

2027-03-31 Deadline

Latest date in the annual CSSF register-of-information submission window for arrangements contracted during 2026, subject to the applicable CSSF collection process.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should map each Luxembourg third-country branch against the DORA Article 2(1)(a) to (t) categories as the undertaking would be classified in the third country, documenting the legal-entity and regulatory-status analysis.
• Compliance teams may wish to update the branch's regulatory inventory, DORA applicability assessment, governance documentation and responsibility matrices to reflect immediate inclusion where the qualifying test is met.
• Affected branches should review ICT third-party-service contracts, the register of information and planned arrangements supporting critical or important functions, including whether CSSF notification was made at least three months before implementation or one month where the specified Luxembourg support-PFS exception applies.
• Firms should distinguish ICT outsourcing from other outsourcing: ICT outsourcing should be managed under the DORA framework and Circular CSSF 25/882, while non-ICT outsourcing remains subject to Circular CSSF 22/806 Part I.
• Incident-response teams should test the CSSF eDesk Portal and S3 API reporting channels and maintain a contingency process for notifying [email protected] by the applicable deadline if technical failure prevents use of the primary channel.
• Firms should confirm that major ICT incidents are reported individually and that outsourced reporting arrangements preserve the firm's responsibility for timing, completeness and notification content.
• Affected branches should assess whether they are microenterprises under DORA Article 3(60), since Circular CSSF 25/892 excludes microenterprises from its aggregated-cost estimation framework, except for trading venues, central counterparties, trade repositories and central securities depositories.
• Where the branch is an EU branch rather than a third-country branch, firms should verify the home-Member-State allocation rules because the CSSF circulars generally exclude EU branches from the relevant Luxembourg reporting chapters.

What changed

The circular implements the European Commission's 17 December 2025 DORA Q&A position and includes qualifying third-country branches in the scope of Circulars CSSF 25/882 on ICT third-party services, 25/892 on aggregated annual costs and losses from major ICT incidents, and 25/893 on major ICT-related incident and significant cyber-threat reporting.

Key dates

2025-01-17

DORA began applying to in-scope financial entities supervised by the CSSF.

2025-12-17

The European Commission confirmed through DORA Q&A 102 that DORA applies to qualifying third-country branches in an EU Member State.

2026-06-30 Deadline

CSSF’s extended best-efforts deadline for the first register-of-information submission by third-country branches of credit institutions headquartered in a third country.

2026-08-27

Circular CSSF 26/915 was published and took effect immediately; the listed CSSF circulars were amended to include or remove qualifying third-country branches as applicable.

2027-03-31 Deadline

Target date identified by CSSF for the required-quality register-of-information submission by third-country branches of credit institutions headquartered in a third country.

2027-01-11

Relevant CRD VI third-country-branch provisions are scheduled to take effect, subject to national transposition and applicable transitional rules.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should map each Luxembourg third-country branch against the counterfactual test in Circular 26/915: whether the head-office undertaking would qualify under Article 2(1)(a) to (t) of DORA if established in the relevant third country.
• Affected branches should update their regulatory-perimeter inventories, governance documents, ICT-risk policies, outsourcing inventories, incident-classification procedures and DORA control testing to reflect immediate inclusion in the DORA-specific CSSF circulars.
• Compliance teams may wish to separate non-ICT outsourcing, which remains subject to Part I of Circular CSSF 22/806, from ICT outsourcing, which is governed by DORA and Circular CSSF 25/882 rather than the legacy Part II framework.
• Affected entities should validate their register-of-information process under DORA and Circular CSSF 25/882, including branch-level data, ICT third-party contracts, intra-group arrangements and submission ownership. The 30 June 2026 best-efforts deadline for third-country branches of credit institutions has passed, and firms should prepare for the 31 March 2027 collection and any CSSF remediation requests.
• Incident-response teams should test access to the CSSF eDesk procedure and S3 API and document an escalation process for emailing [email protected] when technical impossibility prevents electronic submission.
• Firms should assess whether they qualify for the microenterprise exclusion in Circular CSSF 25/892; the exclusion applies to entities employing fewer than 10 persons with annual turnover and/or annual balance-sheet total not exceeding EUR 2 million, subject to the DORA definition and exclusions for specified market infrastructures.
• Third-country banking groups should coordinate DORA implementation with the CRD VI third-country-branch analysis, including the 11 January 2027 effective date for relevant CRD VI provisions, rather than assuming that the two regimes have identical scope or timing.

What changed

Qualifying third-country branches are added to the scope of Circulars CSSF 25/882, 25/892 and 25/893, covering DORA ICT third-party-service information and reporting, estimation of aggregated annual costs and losses from major ICT-related incidents under Article 11(11) of DORA and the Joint ESA Guidelines JC/GL/2024/34, and reporting of major ICT-related incidents and significant cyber threats.

Key dates

2025-01-17

DORA became applicable to financial entities within its scope, subject to the specific DORA provisions and technical standards applicable to each entity.

2025-04-09

Circular CSSF 25/881 was published and took effect, removing DORA financial entities from Circular 20/750 and retaining 20/750 for entities outside DORA; PSP-specific provisions were reorganised under Circular 25/880.

2026-06-30 Deadline

CSSF extended the first Register of Information submission for Luxembourg branches of third-country credit institutions to this date on a best-efforts basis; the CSSF indicated that the required level of quality should be achieved for the 2027 submission.

2026-08-27

Circular CSSF 26/915 was published, confirming the DORA treatment of qualifying third-country branches and removing them from the full scope of Circular 20/750 and related overlapping circular provisions.

2027-03-31 Deadline

Target date identified by the CSSF for the required-quality Register of Information submission by Luxembourg branches of third-country credit institutions.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should classify each Luxembourg entity and branch against DORA Article 2 and the amended scope of Circular 20/750, including an assessment of whether a third-country head office would qualify under DORA Article 2(1)(a) to (t).
• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether the entity should operate under DORA rather than 20/750, and document the rationale, legal-entity perimeter and treatment of any Luxembourg branch.
• Firms remaining within Circular 20/750 should consider reviewing their ICT and security-risk-management framework, governance approvals, risk assessments, incident processes, business-continuity arrangements and control testing against the continuing requirements.
• Payment service providers should consider replacing references to the PSP provisions formerly contained in Circular 20/750 with the applicable requirements in Circular CSSF 25/880 and EBA/GL/2025/02.
• Third-country branches treated as DORA entities should consider validating their DORA governance, ICT-risk framework, incident-reporting arrangements, ICT contractual inventory and Register of Information processes, taking account of CSSF reporting communications.
• Firms should update policies, regulatory inventories, outsourcing and ICT-third-party registers, training materials and regulatory mapping to distinguish DORA obligations from the residual Circular 20/750 obligations.
• Compliance teams may wish to retain evidence of the scope assessment and implementation date, because the 2025 amendment was effective immediately and the 2026 amendment changes the treatment of a previously identified 20/750 population.

What changed

Circular 25/881 provides that DORA financial entities supervised by the CSSF no longer fall within Circular 20/750; for entities covered by 20/750 but outside DORA, the circular continues to apply in full. Payment-service-provider-specific ICT and security-risk provisions were removed from 20/750 and regrouped in Circular CSSF 25/880, reflecting the revised EBA Guidelines on ICT and security risk management for payment service providers, including EBA/GL/2025/02.

Key dates

2025-01-17

DORA became applicable to in-scope financial entities, according to the CSSF implementation communication referenced by Circular CSSF 25/882.

2025-04-09

Circular CSSF 25/882 was published and applied with immediate effect.

2025-04-01 Deadline

The first exceptional CSSF register submission window opened for arrangements contracted up to 31 March 2025.

2025-04-15 Deadline

The first exceptional CSSF register submission window closed.

2026-08-27

Circular CSSF 26/915 was published and immediately amended Circular CSSF 25/882 to include qualifying third-country branches in Luxembourg.

2027-03-31 Deadline

Latest date for submission of the register covering arrangements contracted through the end of 2026, under the recurring annual window running from 28 February to 31 March of the following year.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess whether Luxembourg third-country branches now fall within the amended scope by comparing the branch’s undertaking and head-office activities with the DORA categories in Article 2(1)(a) to (t) and documenting the conclusion.
• Compliance teams may wish to inventory all ICT third-party arrangements, including digital, data, cloud, infrastructure and operational services that may not qualify as outsourcing under prior CSSF terminology.
• Firms should consider updating ICT third-party approval workflows so arrangements supporting critical or important functions are notified through the CSSF-prescribed form at least three months before commencement, or one month before commencement where the provider is an eligible Luxembourg support PFS.
• Firms should maintain an accurate register of information at individual, sub-consolidated and consolidated levels, with controls for prompt correction when requested by the CSSF and the ability to provide the register outside the annual submission window.
• Compliance and outsourcing teams may wish to reassess contractual access to professional-secrecy data against Article 41(2a) LFS or Article 30(2a) LPS and verify that Luxembourg ICT management or operations providers hold the required Article 29-3 LFS authorisation or qualify for an applicable exception.
• Firms using cloud services should confirm that the resource operator has designated a suitably qualified cloud officer and that internal cloud, information-security and third-party oversight responsibilities are clearly allocated.
• Third-country branches should consider implementing the requirements immediately because Circular CSSF 26/915 provides no transition period, while preserving evidence of governance, notification and register controls for supervisory review.

What changed

Circular CSSF 26/915 includes in Circular CSSF 25/882’s scope all Luxembourg third-country branches of undertakings covered by the specified DORA financial-entity categories where the head office would qualify as a DORA entity under Article 2(1)(a) to (t) in the relevant third country. The requirements apply to ICT services broadly, not only arrangements that meet a traditional outsourcing definition.

Key dates

2025-01-17

DORA began applying to financial entities within its scope, subject to the relevant provisions and transitional arrangements.

2025-04-09

Circular CSSF 25/883 was published and applied with immediate effect, amending Circular CSSF 22/806 and introducing the DORA-based division between ICT and business-process outsourcing.

2025-12-17

The European Commission confirmed through a DORA Q&A that DORA applies to qualifying third-country branches in an EU Member State.

2026-06-30 Deadline

CSSF-extended submission date for the 2026 DORA register of information for third-country branches of credit institutions headquartered in a third country; entities were invited to submit on a best-efforts basis.

2026-08-27

Circular CSSF 26/915 was published and applied with immediate effect, confirming the DORA treatment of qualifying Luxembourg third-country branches and updating Circular CSSF 22/806 accordingly.

2027-03-31 Deadline

Target CSSF submission deadline for the DORA register of information for affected third-country branches following the initial 2026 collection.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should classify each outsourcing arrangement as ICT or non-ICT and determine whether the entity and arrangement fall within DORA, Circular 22/806, or both regimes in their respective areas of application.
• DORA entities should consider moving ICT arrangements from their Circular 22/806 outsourcing inventory and controls into the DORA ICT third-party register, while retaining Circular 22/806 controls for business-process outsourcing.
• Non-DORA entities should consider continuing to apply the full Circular 22/806 framework to ICT and business-process outsourcing, including due diligence, governance, critical-or-important assessments, monitoring, sub-outsourcing and exit planning.
• Third-country branches should assess whether their head office would qualify under Article 2(1)(a) to (t) of DORA and, if so, align ICT governance, contractual arrangements, registers and reporting with DORA rather than relying solely on Circular 22/806.
• Compliance teams may wish to review cloud contracts and avoid carrying forward legacy EEA governing-law or hosting clauses where DORA now provides the applicable framework, while preserving enforceable audit, access, cooperation, security, business-continuity and exit rights.
• Firms should use the revised CSSF notification form for new critical or important ICT outsourcing arrangements and preserve evidence supporting the three-month notification period, or the one-month period for arrangements involving a support PSF.
• Firms should consider validating that existing ICT outsourcing notifications remain complete under the applicable DORA register-of-information requirements, even though Circular 25/883 does not require their re-submission.
• Affected third-country branches should consider submitting and maintaining the DORA register of information through the CSSF process, with the 2027 collection requiring data quality suitable for the 31 March 2027 submission deadline.

What changed

From 9 April 2025, DORA entities generally no longer apply the ICT-outsourcing provisions of Circular CSSF 22/806 to ICT arrangements; those arrangements are governed by DORA, including its ICT third-party risk-management, contractual, register-of-information and oversight requirements, together with Circular CSSF 25/882. Circular 22/806 continues to apply to business-process outsourcing by DORA entities, and continues to apply in full to non-DORA entities, including their ICT outsourcing. Chapter 16 management companies remain subject to Circular 22/806 for ICT outsourcing.

Key dates

2025-05-19

The Joint ESA Guidelines JC/GL/2024/34 apply at ESA level.

2025-05-31

Circular CSSF 25/892 applies to its original in-scope Luxembourg entities, excluding DORA microenterprises.

2026-08-27

Circular CSSF 26/915 is issued and applies with immediate effect, bringing qualifying Luxembourg third-country branches into the scope of Circular CSSF 25/892.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether each Luxembourg entity or third-country branch falls within the amended scope, including whether a third-country head-office undertaking would qualify under DORA Article 2(1)(a) to (t).
• Firms should consider documenting their microenterprise analysis against DORA Article 3(60), including the fewer-than-10-employees and EUR 2 million annual turnover and/or balance-sheet-total thresholds, while noting that the DORA definition excludes trading venues, central counterparties, trade repositories and central securities depositories from the microenterprise exemption.
• Firms should consider maintaining an incident-level ledger linking major ICT-related incidents, DORA final-report reference codes, gross costs, losses, provisions, recoveries and subsequent adjustments.
• Finance, operational-risk and ICT-incident teams may wish to agree whether the firm will use a completed calendar year or completed accounting year as its reference basis and establish controls to apply that basis consistently.
• Firms should consider reconciling estimates to financial-statement or supervisory-reporting data where available, while retaining documented estimation methodology and assumptions where accurate data is unavailable.
• Firms should consider tracking quantifiable financial impacts from prior-year major incidents because those impacts may need to be included in a later reference year without reopening the original final incident report.
• Third-country branches may wish to confirm reporting ownership and data availability with their head office, because the amended CSSF scope is at branch level but the required cost and loss information may arise across the undertaking.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor CSSF communications for a specific request, reporting channel and submission deadline; the circular itself establishes an upon-request obligation rather than a fixed automatic annual filing deadline.

What changed

From 2025-05-31, in-scope Luxembourg financial entities other than DORA microenterprises must be able, upon CSSF request, to provide an entity-level estimate of aggregated annual costs and losses arising from major ICT-related incidents. The estimate must use the ESA common template and identify each relevant incident by the same reference code used in its DORA final incident report.

Key dates

2025-01-17

DORA provisions became applicable to financial entities in scope and supervised by the CSSF.

2025-05-28

Circular CSSF 25/893 was published and established the Luxembourg DORA incident and significant cyber-threat reporting modalities.

2025-11-28 Deadline

End of the six-month transition period granted to payment service providers outside DORA for implementation of the Circular 25/893 framework.

2026-08-27

Circular CSSF 26/915 was published and the 25/893 page was updated to clarify DORA applicability to qualifying third-country branches in Luxembourg; the amendment applies immediately.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to confirm the entity-by-entity scope analysis against DORA Article 2, including whether a Luxembourg third-country branch is covered following the 27 August 2026 clarification.
• Firms should consider documenting incident-classification criteria and decision records against Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1772, including the quantitative thresholds for clients, transactions, duration, geographical spread, data loss, economic impact and reputational impact.
• Firms should consider testing an escalation timetable that supports classification, initial notification within four hours and no later than 24 hours after awareness, the 72-hour intermediate report and the one-month final report.
• PSPs outside DORA may wish to update policies so that all ICT-related incidents, rather than only payment-service incidents, are assessed under the DORA framework and to verify that the six-month transition requirements were completed by 28 November 2025.
• Firms should consider ensuring that eDesk access, authorised users, templates, internal approvals and S3 API connectivity are operational before an incident occurs.
• Incident-response procedures may wish to prohibit aggregation of separate major incidents where the CSSF reporting process requires event-specific submissions and should assign ownership even where reporting support is outsourced.
• Third-country branches may wish to align their Luxembourg reporting playbooks, head-office escalation arrangements and local CSSF contacts with the immediate-effect scope clarification.
• Firms should consider retaining evidence of classification, notification times, report versions, management approvals and communications with ICT third parties to demonstrate timely compliance.

What changed

DORA financial entities supervised by the CSSF must classify ICT-related incidents using the criteria and thresholds in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1772 and report each major ICT-related incident using the DORA reporting templates and procedures. Reporting is phased: an initial notification is generally due within four hours after classification as major and in any event no later than 24 hours after the entity becomes aware of the incident; an intermediate report is generally due within 72 hours after the initial notification; and a final report is generally due within one month...

Key dates

2022-04-22

Circular CSSF 22/806 was published and replaced or amended specified earlier CSSF and IML outsourcing, governance and control circulars.

2022-06-30

Circular CSSF 22/806 became applicable according to the CSSF implementation framework.

2025-01-17

DORA Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 became applicable to in-scope financial entities, creating the primary EU framework for ICT third-party risk management.

2025-04-09

Circular CSSF 25/883 was published; the amended Circular 22/806 applies to outsourcing arrangements entered into, reviewed or amended on or after this date.

2025-12-17

The European Commission confirmed that DORA also applies to qualifying third-country branches in an EU Member State where the third-country head-office entity would fall within DORA Article 2(1)(a) to (t).

2026-08-27

Circular CSSF 26/915 was published and the CSSF webpage consolidated the amended version of Circular 22/806, confirming the DORA treatment of qualifying Luxembourg third-country branches.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should map each outsourcing and third-party technology arrangement against the applicable regime: DORA, Circular 22/806 business-process outsourcing requirements, or the full Circular 22/806 framework for non-DORA entities.
• Compliance teams may wish to review whether Luxembourg third-country branches have a head-office activity that corresponds to a DORA Article 2(1)(a) to (t) financial entity and document the resulting DORA scope assessment.
• Firms should update outsourcing policies, risk assessments, governance approvals, materiality or criticality assessments, due-diligence files, monitoring controls and exit strategies to reflect the split between DORA ICT third-party risk management and Circular 22/806 business-process outsourcing.
• Firms should maintain or update the DORA register of information for ICT third-party arrangements where DORA applies, and reconcile it with the outsourcing inventory and CSSF notification processes.
• Firms should review legacy cloud contracts and remove reliance on the repealed Circular 22/806 EEA-law and EEA-resilience clauses where DORA is the applicable ICT third-party regime, while retaining contract terms needed to satisfy DORA and any applicable national requirements.
• Non-DORA entities should consider whether their existing contracts still address Circular 22/806 requirements for access and audit rights, sub-outsourcing, confidentiality, data location, business continuity, termination and exit.
• Management companies authorised solely under Article 125-1 should consider retaining the full Circular 22/806 control framework for ICT outsourcing rather than assuming that DORA displaces it.
• Firms should assess whether outsourcing arrangements entered into, reviewed or amended from 9 April 2025 require remediation or re-papering under the amended framework.

What changed

Circular 25/883 amended Circular 22/806 following DORA Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 becoming applicable on 17 January 2025. For entities subject to DORA, the ICT-outsourcing provisions of Circular 22/806 were largely repealed or displaced by DORA's ICT third-party risk-management requirements, while Circular 22/806 remains applicable to business-process outsourcing.

Key dates

2020-08-25

Circular CSSF 20/750 was originally published, establishing CSSF expectations for ICT and security risk management.

2025-01-17

Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 on digital operational resilience for the financial sector became applicable to DORA-defined financial entities supervised by the CSSF.

2025-04-09

Circular CSSF 25/881 amended Circular 20/750, narrowing it primarily to non-DORA entities and moving PSP-specific requirements to Circular CSSF 25/880.

2026-08-27

Circular CSSF 26/915 was published and applies with immediate effect; DORA-equivalent third-country branches are removed from Circular 20/750 and addressed through the DORA-related CSSF framework.

Suggested considerations

• Firms with Luxembourg third-country branches should document an entity-by-entity DORA scoping analysis, including the classification of the non-EU head-office undertaking under Article 2(1)(a) to (t) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 and the relevance of Article 2(2).
• Affected branches should consider retiring Circular 20/750 as their primary ICT framework and mapping controls instead to DORA and the applicable CSSF circulars, including Circular CSSF 25/882 on ICT third-party services and Circular CSSF 25/893 on major ICT-related incidents and significant cyber threats.
• Firms should review ICT third-party inventories, contracts, due diligence files, exit strategies and, where relevant, the DORA Register of Information so that all ICT services are captured regardless of whether the arrangement is formally classified as outsourcing.
• Entities remaining within Circular 20/750 should consider confirming that the management body has approved the ICT and security risk-management framework and that it is reviewed at least annually.
• Remaining in-scope entities should consider refreshing their annual ICT and security risk assessment, critical-function and information-asset mapping, threat and vulnerability monitoring, access controls, patching, backup, recovery, incident-response and business-continuity documentation.
• Compliance teams may wish to verify that critical ICT systems undergo security testing at least annually, non-critical systems are tested regularly and at least every three years, and critical business continuity arrangements are tested at least annually.
• Branches and PSP-related entities should consider validating incident-reporting channels and escalation procedures, including the CSSF alternative email channel for exceptional technical failures where the prescribed DORA reporting channel cannot be used.
• Firms should consider preserving evidence of proportionality assessments, control testing, audit findings, remediation, management-body reporting and staff security training for CSSF supervisory review.

What changed

Circular 26/915 applies with immediate effect and removes DORA-equivalent third-country branches from the scope of Circular 20/750. A third-country branch is treated as DORA-relevant where, in the jurisdiction of its head office, the undertaking would qualify as an entity listed in Article 2(1)(a) to (t) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2554, subject to the applicable exclusions and Article 2(2) conditions.

Key dates

2026-08-21

CSSF published the administrative sanction imposed on BigRep SE.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should confirm whether each Luxembourg-home-State issuer in scope has published its annual financial report no later than four months after the end of the financial year under Article 3 of the Transparency Law.
• Firms should verify that half-yearly financial reports are published no later than three months after the end of the first six months of the financial year under Article 4 of the Transparency Law.
• Compliance teams may wish to test evidence of effective dissemination, filing with the CSSF and storage with the Officially Appointed Mechanism for each periodic report.
• Issuer boards and senior management may wish to review escalation procedures for missed reporting deadlines and CSSF orders, including documented ownership, contingency arrangements and prompt remediation.
• Firms should consider maintaining an auditable reporting calendar that captures statutory deadlines, CSSF correspondence, publication timestamps, CSSF filings and Officially Appointed Mechanism confirmations.
• Issuers subject to a CSSF order should consider treating the order as a separately tracked remediation obligation rather than relying solely on completion of the underlying publication.

What changed

The CSSF imposed an administrative sanction on BigRep SE under the amended Luxembourg law of 11 January 2008 on transparency requirements for issuers. The decision concerns BigRep SE's failure to comply with the applicable requirement to publish periodic financial information and with related obligations concerning effective dissemination, filing with the CSSF and storage through the Officially Appointed Mechanism. The sanction is an enforcement action against a specific issuer rather than a new rule or general regulatory amendment.

Key dates

2026-08-21

CSSF publication of the administrative sanction against Corestate Capital Holding S.A.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams of Luxembourg-home-State issuers should obtain and review both PDFs linked to the CSSF publication to confirm the sanction amount, affected report, breached provision, reasoning and any required remediation.
• Issuers should consider testing their annual and half-yearly financial-reporting calendars against the applicable deadlines in Articles 3 and 4 of the Transparency Law, including controls for effective dissemination, filing with the CSSF and storage through the Officially Appointed Mechanism.
• Boards and senior management may wish to document ownership, escalation and evidence-retention arrangements for periodic-reporting deliverables, particularly where audits, restructuring, going-concern issues or delayed financial close could affect publication timing.
• Groups with repeated or historic reporting delays should consider a targeted review of prior CSSF correspondence, compliance with supervisory orders and the completeness of issuer disclosure controls.
• Legal and compliance teams should assess whether any appeal or procedural response is relevant after reviewing the decision; the publication page supplied does not state an appeal period.

What changed

The CSSF imposed an administrative sanction on Corestate Capital Holding S.A. The supplied publication page does not disclose the sanction amount, the precise reporting failure, the legal provision breached, or any remedial order; those details should be taken from the linked PDF decision before relying on them operationally. The publication does not itself introduce a new general obligation: the relevant existing framework is the Luxembourg Transparency Law of 11 January 2008, including its periodic-reporting, dissemination, storage and CSSF-filing requirements where applicable.

Key dates

2026-08-21

CSSF imposed and published the €10,000 administrative fine against Gaz Capital S.A. for non-compliance concerning the annual financial report for the year ended 31 December 2025.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify every security for which the firm has Luxembourg as its home Member State and confirm whether any Article 7 exemption applies.
• Issuers with a 31 December financial year-end should consider scheduling publication of the annual financial report no later than 30 April of the following year, subject to the applicable reporting-period and instrument requirements.
• Firms should consider maintaining evidence of timely publication, effective dissemination, submission to the CSSF and storage on the Officially Appointed Mechanism, including timestamps, responsible persons and vendor confirmations.
• Reporting calendars may be reviewed to ensure that audited financial statements, the management report and responsible-person statements are complete and approved sufficiently before the four-month deadline.
• Where a delay is possible, issuers may wish to escalate promptly to senior management, legal counsel and the CSSF and document the cause, remediation and communications plan; the sanction indicates that failure across multiple disclosure channels can be treated as non-compliance even where the underlying report is subsequently produced.
• The issuer may wish to assess whether to challenge the decision before the Tribunal administratif within the statutory three-month period.

What changed

No new regulatory obligation was introduced; this is an enforcement action applying existing requirements. An issuer for which Luxembourg is the home Member State must make its annual financial report public no later than four months after the end of each financial year under Article 3 of the Transparency Law, keep it publicly available for at least 10 years, effectively disseminate it, store it on the Officially Appointed Mechanism and file it with the CSSF.

Key dates

07 August 2023

- Law of 7 August 2023 introducing the new accounting regime for associations and foundations enters into force and defines classification as “small associations”, “medium‑sized associations” and “large associations” with corresponding accounting obligations

Autumn 2026

- CNC plans to publish an accounting guide dedicated to the new accounting regime for ASBLs classified as small, medium‑sized and large associations, and associations recognised as being of public utility

04 August 2026

- CSSF press release is published, formally drawing supervisory attention to CNC Q&A 26/038 and the related upcoming CNC accounting guide

Suggested considerations

• Identify all Luxembourg associations, public‑utility associations and foundations within or related to the group that are impacted by the Law of 7 August 2023 and confirm their size classification (small, medium‑sized, large) and whether they fall under the “medium‑sized undertakings” regime.
• Review existing accounting policies, charts of accounts and annual accounts formats for affected entities to ensure alignment with LRCS statutory layouts, including non‑abridged balance sheet, appropriate profit and loss format, and required notes disclosures.
• Decide at governing‑body level whether each affected entity will voluntarily adopt the PCN or maintain an internal chart of accounts, documenting the rationale, governance approvals and compliance impacts of the chosen option.
• Where PCN is not adopted, design, implement and document a robust mapping from the internal chart of accounts to the statutory LRCS balance sheet and profit and loss layouts, ensuring audit‑ready documentation and traceability.
• Update accounting systems and reporting tools for affected entities to support LRCS statutory layouts, consistent layout adaptations, and classic‑format filing with the RCS, including necessary changes to interfaces and data capture.

What changed

• - Large associations, associations recognised as being of public utility and foundations are now subject to the accounting regime applicable to “medium‑sized undertakings” under the amended...
• Annual accounts for affected entities must include a non‑abridged balance sheet, a profit and loss account (at least in abridged format), and notes to the accounts containing disclosures required by...
• Affected entities must use statutory LRCS layouts for the balance sheet and profit and loss account and file their annual accounts in classic format with the Luxembourg Trade and Companies Register...
• Large associations, public‑utility associations and foundations remain exempt from the mandatory use of the Standard Chart of Accounts (Plan Comptable Normalisé – PCN) and from eCDF standard data...
• Affected entities may voluntarily adopt the PCN; if they do not adopt PCN, they must maintain an internal chart of accounts and ensure robust, documented mapping between internal accounts and...

Key dates

01 January 2023

- Earliest financial year start date from which adjusted size criteria under Articles 35 and 47 LRCS may be applied to undertakings and groups, which indirectly affects categorisation and accounting obligations of entities subject to commercial‑law size criteria

07 August 2023

- Law of 7 August 2023 introducing the new accounting regime for associations and foundations is adopted, setting the legal basis for reclassification and annual accounts obligations

01 January 2024

- Default application date of the adjusted LRCS size criteria for undertakings and groups where early application from 01 January 2023 is not chosen

Financial year 2025

- New LRCS size thresholds start to determine the categorisation of pre‑existing Luxembourg undertakings and, by analogy, influence assessments of “medium‑sized” status relevant to associations

Autumn 2026

- CNC plans to publish an accounting guide dedicated to the new accounting regime for not‑for‑profit associations (ASBLs) classified as small, medium‑sized and large, as well as public‑utility associations and foundations

Suggested considerations

• Identify whether the organisation qualifies as a large association, an association recognised as being of public utility or a foundation under the Law of 7 August 2023, and document the classification decision with reference to Articles 18, 36 and 52 of that law.
• Update internal accounting policies to require annual accounts to be prepared in accordance with the regime for undertakings referred to in Article 47 LRCS, including minimum content (balance sheet, profit and loss account and notes) and disclosure requirements.
• Decide formally whether to adopt the PCN on a voluntary basis or to maintain an internal chart of accounts, and record this decision in accounting governance documents approved by the board or governing body.
• Where PCN is not adopted, design and implement a detailed and documented mapping from internal general ledger accounts to LRCS statutory balance sheet and profit and loss layouts to ensure accurate preparation and filing of annual accounts.
• Review and, where necessary, redesign annual accounts templates to comply with LRCS layouts while making only permitted adaptations (for example, titles and subtotals) that maintain clarity, comparability and consistency over time.

What changed

• - Large not‑for‑profit associations, associations recognised as being of public utility and foundations are required to prepare annual accounting documents consisting at a minimum of annual accounts...
• These entities fall within the regime applicable to “medium‑sized undertakings”, which drives the required content and level of detail of their annual accounts (balance sheet, profit and loss account...
• The law and the CNC Q&A confirm that large associations, public‑utility associations and foundations are not legally required to use the Standard chart of accounts (Plan comptable normalisé, PCN) or...
• Although exempt from mandatory PCN use and eCDF standard data collection, these entities must still file their annual accounts with the Luxembourg Trade and Companies Register (RCS) using statutory...
• Large associations, public‑utility associations and foundations are exempt from the obligation to file the PCN trial balance (balance générale) via the eCDF platform, even though they may still...

Key dates

12 June 2025

- Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1156 is adopted, supplementing MiFIR with RTS on the obligation to make market data available to the public on a reasonable commercial basis

23 August 2026

- ESMA Guidelines on MiFID II/MiFIR market data obligations are withdrawn; CSSF Circular 21/783, which incorporated these Guidelines into CSSF administrative practice, becomes outdated from this date

Suggested considerations

• Identify and catalogue all internal policies, procedures, contractual templates, and pricing frameworks that reference CSSF Circular 21/783 or ESMA’s MiFID II/MiFIR market data Guidelines.
• Review Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1156 in detail and map its RTS requirements (e.g. cost-based pricing, non-discriminatory access, data unbundling, publication formats) against current market data practices.
• Update market data pricing policies to ensure that fees are demonstrably based on reasonable commercial basis criteria defined in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1156, including documentation of cost allocation and margin methodology.
• Revise market data access policies and client terms to ensure non‑discriminatory conditions and appropriate unbundling of pre‑trade and post‑trade data, in line with the RTS.
• Amend compliance manuals, MiFID/MiFIR control frameworks, and training materials to remove references to CSSF Circular 21/783 and ESMA Guidelines, replacing them with references to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1156.

What changed

• - CSSF Circular 21/783, which applied ESMA’s Guidelines on MiFID II/MiFIR obligations on market data in Luxembourg, will cease to be applicable as of 23 August 2026 and is formally classified as...
• The supervisory reference framework for market data obligations in Luxembourg shifts from ESMA soft-law Guidelines to binding regulatory technical standards contained in Commission Delegated...
• Requirements on making market data available to the public on a “reasonable commercial basis” are now set out in directly applicable EU law, including detailed RTS criteria on cost-based pricing,...
• ESMA’s interpretative role via Guidelines is replaced by binding RTS, which reduces reliance on national circulars and increases harmonisation of market data rules across EU trading venues and data...
• Luxembourg firms can no longer rely on Circular 21/783 as the primary interpretative document for market data obligations; instead, their compliance frameworks must directly reference Delegated...

Key dates

31 March 2021 Deadline

– End of the financial year referenced in the prior CSSF sanction against Transnet Soc Ltd for failure to publish its annual financial report within the required time limit

15 November 2021

– CSSF imposed an administrative fine of EUR 15,000 on Transnet Soc Ltd under Article 25(2) of the Transparency Law for late publication of the annual financial report as of 31 March 2021

21 July 2026

– CSSF publishes the administrative sanction “Administrative sanction imposed on Transnet Soc Ltd”; this enforcement notice is made public in line with the Transparency Law’s publication requirements

TBD (within 3 months of CSSF decision)

– Statutory window during which Transnet Soc Ltd (or any sanctioned issuer) may lodge a court action against the CSSF decision with the Luxembourg Administrative Court under Article 27 of the Transparency Law

Suggested considerations

• Map all Transparency Law obligations applicable to your entity, including periodic (annual and half‑yearly) reporting and ongoing disclosure of regulated information, and document them in a compliance obligations register.
• Review and, where necessary, strengthen internal processes to ensure annual and half‑yearly financial reports are prepared, approved, and published within statutory deadlines for issuers with Luxembourg as home Member State.
• Implement a formal disclosure governance framework assigning clear responsibilities to senior management and the board for oversight of regulated information, including escalation procedures where delays or issues arise.
• Establish a calendar of regulatory reporting and publication deadlines, including internal cut‑off dates and contingency plans, and ensure it is monitored by compliance and finance functions.
• Conduct a gap analysis of prior disclosures (financial reports, major holdings notifications, inside information) to confirm that all items required under the Transparency Law have been published correctly and on time; remediate any deficiencies promptly.

What changed

• As the 21 July 2026 CSSF notice is an enforcement publication (not a new rule), it does not introduce new regulatory requirements; it applies existing Transparency Law obligations.
• Issuers with Luxembourg as home Member State under the Transparency Law must publish annual financial reports within the statutory deadline, typically within four months of financial year-end, and...
• Failure to publish periodic financial information within the required time limits can result in administrative fines imposed by the CSSF under Article 25(2) of the Transparency Law.
• The CSSF will publicly disclose administrative fines imposed on issuers, including naming the issuer and the amount, in line with Article 26b of the Transparency Law.
• Issuers retain the right to challenge CSSF decisions before the Luxembourg Administrative Court within the period set by Article 27 of the Transparency Law (three months from notification), but...

Key dates

20 January 2026

– CSSF Circular 26/906 on central administration, internal governance and risk management for payment institutions, electronic money institutions and account information service providers is published

23 March 2026

– Decision date of the administrative sanction imposed on members of the board of directors of an electronic money institution

30 June 2026

– Application date of CSSF Circular 26/906, from which its governance and risk‑management requirements formally apply to payment institutions and electronic money institutions

21 July 2026

– CSSF publicly releases the notice “Administrative sanction of 23 March 2026 – Administrative sanction imposed on the members of the board of directors of an electronic money institution.”

Suggested considerations

• Review and map the institution’s current governance framework, board charter and committee mandates against the detailed requirements of CSSF Circular 26/906, including central administration, board composition, responsibilities and functioning.
• Ensure that the board of directors collectively has the required expertise, independence, diversity and time commitment, and that this is documented and periodically reassessed in line with CSSF expectations.
• Update board policies to explicitly assign responsibility for strategy, risk appetite, safeguarding of client funds, information security, outsourcing, conflicts of interest and AML/CFT, and ensure these responsibilities are effectively discharged and evidenced.
• Confirm that the institution’s central administration, decision‑making centre and administrative centre are physically located in Luxembourg and that members of the management body are sufficiently present on site, as required under the governance framework.
• Establish or reinforce the “three lines of defence” model by clearly separating business units, control functions (compliance and risk) and internal audit, and ensure reporting lines to the board are independent and robust.

What changed

• - The CSSF demonstrates that it is prepared to impose administrative sanctions directly on members of the board of directors of electronic money institutions, not just on the institution as a legal...
• Board members of Luxembourg‑authorised electronic money institutions are now clearly exposed to personal regulatory liability for governance, risk management and safeguarding failures under the CSSF...
• This enforcement confirms that CSSF Circular 26/906 on central administration, internal governance and risk management for payment institutions and electronic money institutions is not only a formal...
• The sanction underscores CSSF expectations that the supervisory body (board of directors) must ensure sound and prudent management, continuity of the institution and protection of its reputation, and...
• The case signals a stricter enforcement posture by the CSSF towards the payments and e‑money sector, aligning its expectations and enforcement intensity more closely with bank‑equivalent governance...

Key dates

02 December 2022

- CSSF published the SFDR FAQ clarifying supervisory expectations for Article 8 and Article 9 disclosures

01 January 2023 Deadline

- UCITS and AIFs disclosing under Article 8 or Article 9 must use the SFDR RTS periodic reporting templates in annual reports issued after this date

Suggested considerations

• Review all Article 8 pre-contractual disclosures to confirm that the stated investment strategy clearly explains how the fund’s environmental or social characteristics are achieved.
• Strengthen any Article 8 exclusion-based strategy disclosures so they provide sufficient detail for investors to understand the connection between exclusions and the claimed sustainability characteristics.
• Reassess all Article 9 product classifications to confirm that the portfolio is built around qualifying sustainable investments, not only exclusions.
• Implement controls to verify that Article 9 holdings remain aligned with Article 2(17) SFDR on an ongoing basis throughout the fund lifecycle.
• Document and retain the internal methodology used to assess sustainable-investment status, including any thresholds, and ensure it can be provided to investors or supervisors upon request.

What changed

• - Article 8 funds must describe how the investment strategy actually enables the fund to meet the environmental and/or social characteristics disclosed to investors.
• If an Article 8 fund relies mainly on an exclusion strategy, the CSSF expects the exclusion policy to be detailed enough for investors to understand how the stated characteristics are being met.
• Article 9 funds cannot rely only on an exclusion strategy; they must invest in sustainable investments and use a positive selection process that demonstrates alignment with Article 2(17) SFDR.
• For Article 9 funds, the CSSF expects sustainable-investment status to be maintained at all times, including on an ongoing basis during the life cycle of the fund.
• Financial market participants should make available the methodology used to determine whether an investment is a sustainable investment, including any thresholds used for a pass-fail approach.

Key dates

02 March 2026

- Most revised MiFIR transparency requirements under the MiFID II/MiFIR review (amending Delegated Regulation) apply at EU level, influencing the content and focus of national FAQs and supervisory guidance, including CSSF’s

13 July 2026 Deadline

- CSSF publishes/updates the MiFID II/MiFIR FAQ version dated 13 July 2026, which becomes the current reference point for CSSF supervisory expectations on MiFID II/MiFIR compliance

Suggested considerations

• Review the latest CSSF MiFID II/MiFIR FAQ (13 July 2026 version) in full, comparing it against existing internal MiFID II/MiFIR policies, procedures, and controls to identify gaps or misalignments.
• Confirm and, where necessary, update client‑facing disclosures to clearly state whether investment services (especially advice and portfolio management) are provided on an independent or non‑independent basis, and ensure that inducement arrangements are consistent with this classification.
• Reassess inducement frameworks (commissions, fees, non‑monetary benefits) for investment advice and portfolio management to ensure that no prohibited inducements are received or retained where services are independent or involve portfolio management.
• Review and update product governance frameworks, including target market definition processes and product approval procedures, to ensure that each instrument’s intended target market is properly documented and consistently used by distributors.
• Examine best execution policies to confirm they are clear, detailed, and understandable to clients, and implement or enhance ongoing monitoring mechanisms (e.g. execution quality reports, periodic reviews) to evidence compliance with best execution obligations.

What changed

• Because the visible page content provided is limited to technical and cookie‑related information, the key points below focus on the regulatory substance of the CSSF MiFID II/MiFIR FAQ (Q&A) as the...
• The CSSF confirms the application of MiFID II investor protection rules to Luxembourg investment service providers, including obligations on inducements, suitability, product governance, and best...
• The FAQ reiterates that investment services providers must inform clients clearly whether their investment advice or services are provided on an independent or non‑independent basis, and explains the...
• The FAQ clarifies that inducements are expressly prohibited when investment advice is provided on an independent basis and for portfolio management services, requiring firms to structure their...
• The CSSF guidance reflects product governance obligations: manufacturers must define a target market for each financial instrument based on clients’ knowledge and experience, financial situation,...

Key dates

20 January 2026

– CSSF publishes Circular 26/906 on central administration, internal governance and risk management for payment and e‑money institutions, raising supervisory expectations for the sector

2 March 2026

– CSSF issues the administrative sanction decision imposing an administrative fine of EUR 12,000 on PingPong Europe S.A. as an electronic money institution

30 June 2026

– Effective date of CSSF Circular 26/906, from which strengthened governance, risk management and safeguarding requirements apply to payment and e‑money institutions

8 July 2026

– CSSF publicly publishes the administrative sanction of 2 March 2026, formally informing the market and stakeholders

Suggested considerations

• Review the CSSF sanction against PingPong Europe S.A. and identify which categories of requirements (e.g. governance, safeguarding of client funds, reporting, outsourcing, internal controls) were implicated, then map these to your own control framework.
• Conduct a gap analysis against CSSF Circular 26/906, focusing on central administration, internal governance, risk management, and safeguarding of client funds for payment and e‑money institutions.
• Update policies, procedures and internal control documentation governing payment services, e‑money issuance, safeguarding (segregation, reconciliations), outsourcing and IT connectivity to ensure alignment with CSSF Circular 26/906.
• Ensure that a clearly designated member of the management body holds documented responsibility for oversight of safeguarding arrangements and compliance with CSSF requirements for payment and e‑money institutions.
• Implement or enhance daily reconciliations and robust segregation of client funds accounts, supported by periodic internal reviews and testing of safeguarding controls.

What changed

• (From the enforcement notice itself, there are no new rules; the impact is interpretative and enforcement‑related.)
• CSSF confirms that authorised electronic money institutions are subject to active supervisory and enforcement scrutiny, including public administrative sanctions for regulatory breaches.
• The sanction demonstrates that failures which may appear operational or procedural can nonetheless result in monetary fines and public naming, reinforcing the need for robust compliance frameworks in...
• The case is likely to be assessed by CSSF in light of the new governance, risk management and safeguarding expectations introduced under CSSF Circular 26/906 for payment and e‑money institutions,...
• The public nature of the sanction underscores CSSF’s use of transparency as a deterrent tool, increasing reputational risk for firms that do not comply with licensing, governance, reporting or...

Key dates

01 July 2026

- ESMA launches its public consultation on simplifying the EU Taxonomy disclosure framework and technical advice on selected KPIs under the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act

22 July 2026

- ESMA holds a public hearing to present its proposals and engage with stakeholders on the consultation

12 August 2026 Deadline

- Deadline for stakeholders to submit responses to ESMA’s consultation on Taxonomy disclosure simplification

By October 2026

- ESMA (and other ESAs) are expected to deliver final technical advice on the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act KPIs to the European Commission

Q1 2027

- Target date for the European Commission to complete its review of the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act based on ESAs’ advice

Suggested considerations

• Conduct an internal impact assessment of current Taxonomy Article 8 KPI calculation and reporting processes, focusing on OpEx, Commissions and Fees, Trading Book, and Underwriting KPIs, to identify pain points and simplification priorities.
• Prepare and submit a response to ESMA’s consultation by 12 August 2026, either directly or via industry associations, articulating specific operational, data, and system challenges and concrete proposals for simplification.
• Register for and attend ESMA’s public hearing on 22 July 2026 to understand the detailed proposals, ask clarifying questions, and align internal positions ahead of submission.
• Coordinate with regulatory affairs, sustainability, risk, and finance functions to develop a unified institutional position on the desired design of revised KPIs and group‑level reporting under the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act.
• Map dependencies between Taxonomy Article 8 data and other ESG reporting (including SFDR product disclosures and CSRD/ESRS reporting) to anticipate how changes to KPIs may affect cross‑framework consistency and data architecture.

What changed

• - ESMA is consulting on technical advice to the European Commission specifically targeting selected KPIs under the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act (Article 8 of the Taxonomy Regulation), including...
• The stated policy objective is simplification of the EU Taxonomy disclosure framework while preserving decision‑useful information for investors and supervisors.
• ESMA aims to reduce reporting burdens for market participants, notably corporates and financial institutions subject to Taxonomy Article 8 disclosures.
• The consultation covers selected KPIs under the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act, with the European Commission having requested focused advice on: OpEx KPI of non‑financial firms; Commissions and...
• ESMA is proposing more pragmatic approaches to group‑level reporting for mixed groups, including reporting at parent‑undertaking level to reduce complexity for conglomerates.

Key dates

30 June 2026 Deadline

– Reference date for the covered deposits snapshot; all figures in the survey must reflect the amount of covered deposits outstanding at close of business on this date

Early July 2026 (TBD by CSSF circular text and technical annex)

– Expected opening of the reporting window for uploading the 30 June 2026 covered deposits survey via CSSF eDesk or other specified channels, in line with the timetable used in prior CPDI surveys

Mid–Late July 2026 (TBD by CSSF/CSSI reporting instructions)

– Likely cut-off date for submission of the 30 June 2026 survey, consistent with prior CPDI quarterly survey practices that require prompt post‑quarter reporting for FGDL purposes