Extracting reporting obligations from EU legislation is critical for assessing and reducing regulatory reporting burden. However, distinguishing reporting requirements from structurally similar provisions requires specialised legal understanding. Current legal NLP methods lack specialised datasets with clear guidelines and comparative evaluation of extraction paradigms and domain adaptation strategies. We curate EURO-5K, a corpus of sentence-level reporting obligations and challenging negative examples from 136 EU legislative acts. On this dataset, we train and compare discriminative token-classification models (BERT-style) and generative span-extraction models (LLMs), evaluating both full fine-tuning and parameter-efficient QLoRA against baselines (pattern and dependency-based extraction, few-shot prompting). Results show that fully fine-tuned generic and legal BERT models achieve similar performance (0.89 F1), while fine-tuned LLMs match encoder accuracy for sentence-level extraction. Legal pretraining offers only small gains for generative models. In contrast, it is clearly beneficial when adaptation capacity is constrained, as parameter-efficient tuning of Legal-BERT outperforms its generic counterpart. Learning curve analysis demonstrates that legal pretraining accelerates early learning with minimal data. All approaches converge around 3K samples with diminishing returns thereafter, validating dataset sufficiency. Cross-dataset evaluation on two external regulatory corpora shows that our models behave as specialised reporting obligation extractors rather than generic regulatory classifiers. We release EURO-5K, trained models, and an interactive demo with explainability visualizations and structured RDF export. These demonstrate that both paradigms and parameter-efficient training provide practical tools for regulatory compliance automation.