01 · THE SHORT ANSWER

No passport-based ban has been enacted.

The often-repeated claim that “EU citizens will no longer be allowed to open bank accounts outside the EEA” is too broad and legally inaccurate.

Directive (EU) 2024/1619, commonly called CRD VI, inserts a new Article 21c into the Capital Requirements Directive. It regulates how an undertaking established in a third country may provide certain banking services in an EU Member State. The legal test refers to a client or counterparty who is “established or situated in the Union.” It does not refer to EU citizenship.

The primary obligation is therefore a market-access requirement for the bank. From 11 January 2027, a bank outside the EU that commences or continues providing covered services in a Member State will generally need an authorised branch in that Member State, unless it serves the market through an EU-authorised subsidiary or an express exception applies.

THE RULE IN ONE SENTENCE

CRD VI limits unlicensed cross-border provision into the EU; it does not make it unlawful for an EU citizen, as such, to hold an account abroad.

02 · THE NEW MARKET-ACCESS RULE

Article 21c changes the route through which a non-EU bank can serve the EU market.

The new provision replaces a patchwork of national approaches with a minimum EU framework for third-country providers of core banking services.

Article 21c(1) requires Member States to make an undertaking established in a third country set up a branch in their territory and obtain authorisation before it commences or continues covered activities in that Member State. Recital 5 also recognises the alternative of providing services through a subsidiary authorised in the Union.

This distinction matters. A Swiss bank’s Swiss head office and its separately authorised Luxembourg subsidiary are not the same service provider. The client-facing brand may look similar, while the contracting entity, licence, deposit protection and supervisory framework differ.

The rule does not compel a third-country bank to establish an EU branch, and it does not compel any bank to accept a customer. A bank can instead stop serving a particular Member State, narrow its eligible-residence list, or route customers to an authorised EU entity.

03 · SERVICES IN SCOPE

A conventional deposit account sits close to the centre of the rule.

Article 21c reaches the core activities listed in Annex I points 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2013/36/EU.

  • Deposits and other repayable funds. This is the relevant category for a conventional current, savings or deposit account in which the bank receives and owes money to the customer.
  • Lending. Consumer credit, property-related credit, factoring and commercial finance are included in the Annex I lending category.
  • Guarantees and commitments. Guarantees and credit commitments form the third expressly referenced core category.

The official Annex I list makes clear why an ordinary bank account can be affected: taking deposits and other repayable funds is point 1. That does not mean every custody, payment or investment service is treated identically. The product, the provider and the legal basis for the service still have to be identified.

04 · LOCATION, NOT PASSPORT

The client’s situation and the place of provision are the relevant starting points.

The wording of Article 21c breaks the link assumed by the “EU-citizen ban” headline.

WHAT THE RULE LOOKS AT

  • Whether the provider is established in a third country.
  • Whether the client is established or situated in the Union.
  • Whether a covered service is provided in the relevant Member State.

WHAT IT DOES NOT USE AS ITS TEST

  • An EU passport on its own.
  • The marketing label “offshore account.”
  • The currency or booking location on its own.

An EU citizen living and consuming banking services outside the Union is not brought within Article 21c merely because of citizenship. Conversely, a non-EU citizen situated in an EU Member State can fall within the provision. Recital 6 expressly says that consumption of banking services outside the Union is to remain unaffected.

That boundary should not be reduced to “sign the form while travelling.” The Directive does not resolve every question about where a continuing digital relationship is provided. Residence, solicitation, contracting entity, staff activity and national implementation may all matter. The specific facts require jurisdiction-specific review.

05 · TIMELINE

The decisive date for the branch requirement is 11 January 2027.

CRD VI uses separate dates for national implementation, existing contracts and the new third-country service rule.

  1. 10 JAN 2026 — Transposition deadline. Member States were required to adopt and publish the national measures needed to implement CRD VI.
  2. 11 JUL 2026 — Existing-contract cut-off. Article 21c(5) protects contracts entered into before this date from the new branch requirement.
  3. 11 JAN 2027 — Article 21c applies. Member States must apply the branch requirement and the associated third-country branch framework from this date.

Implementation is still uneven. The European Commission’s tracker, updated on 7 August 2026, recorded full transposition measures communicated by 12 Member States. Germany has already implemented CRD VI through the BRUBEG published in the Federal Law Gazette on 30 March 2026. The relevant national statute and supervisor remain important even where the Directive’s EU deadline is common.

06 · EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITS

Reverse solicitation exists, but it is not a general workaround.

Article 21c contains targeted exceptions. Each has boundaries that matter for an ordinary private client.

  • Client’s own exclusive initiative. A client may approach the third-country undertaking without solicitation. If the bank, a closely linked entity or someone acting for it solicits the client, the service is not treated as reverse solicitation.
  • Closely related follow-on services. The bank may provide services necessary for or closely related to what the client originally requested, but the initiative does not permit marketing unrelated product categories.
  • Existing contracts. Contracts entered into before 11 July 2026 are preserved against the branch requirement. The clause is not a guarantee that a bank must keep the relationship open under every other law, policy or contract term.
  • Bank and intragroup business. Services to a credit institution and certain services within the same group are exempt. These provisions are not ordinary retail-account exemptions.
  • MiFID services. MiFID investment services and accommodating ancillary services, including related deposits or lending whose purpose is to provide that investment service, are carved out. A standalone current account does not become exempt merely because the bank also offers investments.

The European Banking Authority’s Article 21c report found no evidence to recommend a broader exemption for other EU financial-sector entities. Its description of the framework confirms that the exceptions provide flexibility without displacing the basic restriction on direct provision.

07 · EU AND EEA STATUS

CRD VI is an EU directive with EEA relevance. The EU rule and its extension to the EEA are related processes, not the same legal event.

EEA Joint Committee Decision No 90/2026 incorporated CRD VI into the EEA Agreement on 20 March 2026. However, the current EFTA factsheet states that entry into force of that Decision is still pending fulfilment of constitutional requirements by Iceland, Liechtenstein and/or Norway under Article 103 of the EEA Agreement.

As of 30 August 2026, it would therefore be inaccurate to describe every CRD VI deadline as already operating uniformly throughout the EEA. Switzerland is a different case: it is neither an EU nor an EEA state, so a Swiss-headquartered bank is a third-country undertaking for EU purposes. A separately authorised subsidiary or branch inside the EU may nevertheless serve the relevant Member State under its own permissions.

08 · PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES

Expect changes in bank access models—not an automatic closure of every foreign account.

The most likely effect is a reassessment by non-EU banks of how, and through which legal entity, they serve clients located in the Union. That is an inference from the rule, not a result prescribed for every institution.

A bank may establish or use an authorised branch, move eligible clients to an EU subsidiary, limit active marketing, narrow the residence countries it accepts, rely on a properly documented exception where available, or leave a market. Existing relationships may be reviewed, but CRD VI does not itself state that every EU-based client’s non-EU account must be closed.

Before applying to a bank outside the EU, a prospective client should obtain clear answers to five questions:

  1. Which legal entity will hold the account? The brand name is not enough; identify the contracting bank and its home jurisdiction.
  2. Under which permission will it serve the client’s Member State? Ask whether the relationship uses an EU branch, subsidiary or a specific exception.
  3. Where is the service treated as being provided? Remote onboarding, relationship management and ongoing digital service can make the answer more complex than the signing location.
  4. Which protection and custody framework applies? A transfer to another group entity can change the supervisor, deposit-protection scheme, contractual counterparty and custody arrangements.
  5. Is an existing contract actually grandfathered? Check the contract date, later amendments, new services and the relevant national implementation rather than assuming the exception applies.

The practical conclusion is narrower than the headline circulating online: access may become more selective and more dependent on a bank’s licensed EU structure. Citizenship alone does not decide the outcome, and no exception guarantees that a bank will accept an application.