The paper analyses the administrative means of review, which can be sought against decisions made by the European Supervisory Authorities (before the Joint Board of Appeal) and by the European Central Bank (before the Administrative Board of Review), in the light of the challenges posed by the completion of the Monetary Union and the forthcoming introduction of the Capital Markets Union. After examining the legal framework, as well as the ongoing practice and the case-law, the paper contends that the two instruments are aimed at striking a balance between the protection of rights and the preservation of the decision-making autonomy of the ESAs and the ECB, while at the same time serving the purpose of shielding these bodies from judicial control. The analysis will also show how and why common goals are differently pursued in the two cases and will address some issues of fragmentation and incoherence.