Amendment to the Capital Requirements Regulation in the area of resolution ("daisy chain" proposal) - Related Opinions

While acknowledging the progress made by the Commission in taking account of smaller and less complex banking institutions in its recent regulatory measures, the EESC believes it would be useful to further increase the proportionality of banking rules, without sacrificing the effectiveness of prudential rules.

The EESC endorses the recent decision to push back the date for implementing the Basel III accord, and feels that when the time comes, the new provision on capital requirements should be transposed in a way that caters properly for the diversity of banking business models in Europe.

The EESC very much welcomes the Commission’s package of proposals and hopes that it will contribute effectively to complementing the work done after the crisis to reform the financial sector. The Committee welcomes the underlying holistic and integrated approach and believes that the proposed measures will undoubtedly help strengthen Europe’s prudential and resolution framework for banks. The Committee also these proposals will enable progress to be made not only in further advancing the Banking Union, but also in implementing its third pillar, the European Deposit Insurance Scheme and that certain specific adjustments in the proposals should facilitate the pursuit of a Capital Markets Union.

The EESC welcomes this legislative proposal which ensures the effective resolution of failing financial institutions within the EU, and supports the introduction of harmonised rules regarding intra-group financial support. The Committee also stresses that the Central Banks, including the ECB, have to be involved in the assessment of the recovery and resolution plans, while remaining independent. Professional advice of consumer organisations, trade union representatives, etc., should also be sought. The Committee encourages a greater degree of certainty for the institutions by introducing explicit and more clearly defined rules. The opinion demands more clearly defined rules for the Special Manager (SM) as a highly intrusive early intervention measure, and points out the need for additional clarifications regarding both the bail-in tool and the Resolution Authorities (RAs).