MEPs debated sharply over the definition and regulatory scope of the proposed “small mid-cap” category during the ECON-LIBE joint committee meeting on 2 December 2025. The dispute centered around whether to maintain the European Commission’s cautious SME-aligned thresholds, as advocated by Kristian Vigenin (S&D), Mariateresa Vivaldini (ECR), Thomas Bajada (S&D), Ana Vasconcelos (Renew), and the Commission’s representative Marie-Hélène Pradines, or expand these limits significantly, as urged by Enikő Győri and Fabrice Leggeri of PfE, supported in nuance by Isabel Benjumea (EPP). This divergence reflected deeper concerns about regulatory dilution, competitiveness, and safeguarding SME-specific benefits.
Simultaneously, the discussion with Bruna Szego, Chair of the EU Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA), revealed contrasting views on AMLA’s supervisory model and cooperation scope. Questions arose around AMLA’s handling of third-country high-risk lists with calls from MEPs including Mariusz Kamiński (ECR) and Billy Kelleher (Renew) for more assertive inclusion of Russia due to security concerns, whereas Szego maintained AMLA’s alignment with Commission processes without explicit country listings. Further tensions surfaced over achieving supervisory convergence without undermining national prerogatives, balancing cybersecurity imperatives, and integrating AMLA with agencies like Europol and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
The exchanges took place in the European Parliament committee meeting of ECON-LIBE on 2 December 2025. The first agenda item covered the Omnibus IV legislative package addressing MiFID and Critical Entities Resilience Directive issues, focusing on SME simplification extensions. The second featured an extended session with Bruna Szego outlining AMLA’s early operational priorities and challenges.
Proposals from some MEPs and the Commission were concrete: Pradines firmly rejected raising small mid-cap thresholds beyond Commission levels to preserve SME regimes; Bajada pledged amendments to protect SME-growth-market integrity; Szego detailed AMLA’s operational steps including a risk analysis unit by 2027, supervisory convergence plans, cryptoservice provider oversight starting 2026, and cooperation frameworks with Europol and ECB. In contrast, other speakers urged more ambitious deregulation or stronger enforcement without always providing detailed policy frameworks.
Resulting policy directions revealed a cleavage between those advocating for increased EU-level regulatory clarity and supervisory reach (especially through AMLA’s strengthening) and those emphasizing national sovereignty and cautious legislative expansion, particularly to protect SMEs and limit compliance burdens. The debate also highlighted tensions between enhancing capital market access for growing mid-caps and avoiding dilution of SME support structures.
Stakeholders affected include EU producers and financial service entities facing new compliance and reporting requirements, SMEs concerned about preserving simplified regimes and access to capital markets, national authorities balancing sovereignty with EU supervisory integration, and EU taxpayers interested in efficient and secure anti-money laundering frameworks.
Going forward, AMLA’s commitment to extending consultation periods and publishing detailed programming documents suggests increased transparency and engagement with Parliament. The debate’s cleavages indicate that negotiations on the Omnibus package and AMLA’s supervisory mandates will continue to balance regulatory ambition with stakeholder safeguards, shaping EU financial market resilience and AML efforts.
This session reflected a critical moment in aligning EU-wide financial market regulation with emerging risks and economic realities, spotlighting the complexities of harmonizing diverse policy priorities within the Parliament’s committees.