LeX-Ray

DGSD of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 3 ) has been substantially amended ( 4 ) . Since further amendments are to be made, that Directive should be recast in the interests of clarity.

In order to make it easier to take up and pursue the business of credit institutions, it is necessary to eliminate certain differences between the laws of the Member States as regards the rules on deposit guarantee schemes (DGSs) to which those credit institutions are subject.

This Directive constitutes an essential instrument for the achievement of the internal market from the point of view of both the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide financial services in the field of credit institutions, while increasing the stability of the banking system and the protection of depositors. In view of the costs of the failure of a credit institution to the economy as a whole and its adverse impact on financial stability and the confidence of depositors, it is desirable not only to make provision for reimbursing depositors but also to allow Member States sufficient flexibility to enable DGSs to carry out measures to reduce the likelihood of future claims against DGSs. Those measures should always comply with the State aid rules.

In order to take account of the growing integration in the internal market, it should be possible to merge the DGSs of different Member States or to create separate cross-border schemes on a voluntary basis. Member States should ensure sufficient stability and a balanced composition of the new and the existing DGSs. Adverse effects on financial stability should be avoided, for example where only credit institutions with a high-risk profile are transferred to a cross-border DGS.

DGSD requires the Commission, if appropriate, to put forward proposals to amend that Directive. This Directive encompasses the harmonisation of the funding mechanisms of DGSs, the introduction of risk-based contributions and the harmonisation of the scope of products and depositors covered.

DGSD is based on the principle of minimum harmonisation. Consequently, a variety of DGSs with very distinct features currently exist in the Union. As a result of the common requirements laid down in this Directive, a uniform level of protection should be provided for depositors throughout the Union while ensuring the same level of stability of DGSs. At the same time, those common requirements are of the utmost importance in order to eliminate market distortions. This Directive therefore contributes to the completion of the internal market.

As a result of this Directive, depositors will benefit from significantly improved access to DGSs, thanks to a broadened and clarified scope of coverage, faster repayment periods, improved information and robust funding requirements. This will improve consumer confidence in financial stability throughout the internal market.

Member States should ensure that their DGSs have sound governance practices in place and that they produce an annual report on their activities.

In the event of closure of an insolvent credit institution, the depositors at any branches situated in a Member State other than that in which the credit institution has its head office should be protected by the same DGS as the credit institution’s other depositors.

This Directive should not prevent Member States from including within its scope credit institutions as defined in point (1) of Article 4(1) of PRCIIFR of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 5 ) which fall outside the scope of Directive 2013/36 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 6 ) pursuant to Article 2(5) of that Directive. Member States should be able to decide that, for the purpose of this Directive, the central body and all credit institutions affiliated to that central body are treated as a single credit institution.

In principle, this Directive requires every credit institution to join a DGS. A Member State admitting branches of a credit institution having its head office in a third country should decide how to apply this Directive to such branches and should take account of the need to protect depositors and maintain the integrity of the financial system. Depositors at such branches should be fully aware of the guarantee arrangements which affect them.

It should be recognised that there are institutional protection schemes (IPS) which protect the credit institution itself and which, in particular, ensure its liquidity and solvency. Where such a scheme is separate from a DGS, its additional safeguard role should be taken into account when determining the contributions of its members to the DGS. The harmonised level of coverage provided for in this Directive should not affect schemes protecting the credit institution itself unless they repay depositors.

Each credit institution should be part of a DGS recognised under this Directive, thereby ensuring a high level of consumer protection and a level playing field between credit institutions, and preventing regulatory arbitrage. A DGS should be able to provide that protection at any time.

The key task of a DGS is to protect depositors against the consequences of the insolvency of a credit institution. DGSs should be able to provide that protection in various ways. DGSs should primarily be used to repay depositors pursuant to this Directive (the ‘paybox’ function).

DGSs should also assist in the financing of the resolution of credit institutions in accordance with Directive 2014/59 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 7 ) .

It should also be possible, where permitted under national law, for a DGS to go beyond a pure reimbursement function and to use the available financial means in order to prevent the failure of a credit institution with a view to avoiding the costs of reimbursing depositors and other adverse impacts. Those measures should, however, be carried out within a clearly defined framework and should in any event comply with State aid rules. DGSs should, inter alia, have appropriate systems and procedures in place for selecting and implementing such measures and monitoring affiliated risks. Implementing such measures should be subject to the imposition of conditions on the credit institution involving at least more stringent risk-monitoring and greater verification rights for the DGSs. The costs of the measures taken to prevent the failure of a credit institution should not exceed the costs of fulfilling the statutory or contractual mandates of the respective DGS with regard to protecting covered deposits at the credit institution or the institution itself.

DGSs should also be able to take the form of an IPS. The competent authorities should be able to recognise IPS as DGSs if they fulfil all criteria laid down in this Directive.

This Directive should not apply to contractual schemes or IPS that are not officially recognised as DGSs, except as regards the limited requirements on advertising and information of depositors in the case of the exclusion or withdrawal of a credit institution. In any event, contractual schemes and IPS are subject to State aid rules.

In the recent financial crisis, uncoordinated increases in coverage across the Union have in some cases led to depositors transferring money to credit institutions in countries where deposit guarantees were higher. Such uncoordinated increases have drained liquidity from credit institutions in times of stress. In times of stability it is possible that different coverage leads to depositors choosing the highest deposit protection rather than the deposit product best suited to them. It is possible that such different coverage results in competitive distortions in the internal market. It is therefore necessary to ensure a harmonised level of deposit protection by all recognised DGSs, regardless of where the deposits are located in the Union. However, for a limited time, it should be possible to cover certain deposits relating to the personal situation of depositors at a higher level.

The same coverage level should apply to all depositors regardless of whether a Member State’s currency is the euro. Member States whose currency is not the euro should have the possibility to round off the amounts resulting from the conversion without compromising the equivalent protection of depositors.

On the one hand, the coverage level laid down in this Directive should not leave too great a proportion of deposits without protection in the interests both of consumer protection and of the stability of the financial system. On the other hand, the cost of funding DGSs should be taken into account. It is therefore reasonable to set the harmonised coverage level at EUR 100 000.

This Directive retains the principle of a harmonised limit per depositor rather than per deposit. It is therefore appropriate to take into consideration the deposits made by depositors who are not mentioned as holders of an account or who are not the sole holders of an account. The limit should be applied to each identifiable depositor. The principle that the limit be applied to each identifiable depositor should not apply to collective investment undertakings subject to special protection rules which do not apply to such deposits.

CLPDD of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 8 ) introduced a fixed coverage level of EUR 100 000, which has put some Member States in the situation of having to lower their coverage level, with risks of undermining depositor confidence. While harmonisation is essential in order to secure the level playing field and financial stability in the internal market, risks of undermining depositor confidence should be taken into account. Therefore, Member States should be able to apply a higher coverage level if they provided for a coverage level that was higher than the harmonised level before the application of CLPDD. Such higher coverage level should be limited in time and in scope and the Member States concerned should adjust the target level and contributions paid to their DGSs proportionately. Given that it is not possible to adjust the target level if the coverage level is unlimited, it is appropriate to limit the option to Member States which on 1 January 2008 applied a coverage level within a range of between EUR 100 000 and EUR 300 000. In order to limit the impact of diverging coverage levels, and taking into account that the Commission will review the implementation of this Directive by 31 December 2018, it is appropriate to allow for this option until that date.

DGSs should be permitted to set off liabilities of a depositor against that depositor’s claims for repayment only if those liabilities are due on or before the date of unavailability. Such set off should not impede the capacity of DGSs to repay deposits within the deadline set by this Directive. Member States should not be prevented from taking appropriate measures concerning the rights of DGSs in a winding up or reorganisation procedure of a credit institution.

It should be possible to exclude from repayment deposits where, in accordance with national law, the funds deposited are not at the disposal of the depositor because the depositor and the credit institution have contractually agreed that the deposit would serve only to pay off a loan contracted for the purchase of a private immovable property. Such deposits should be offset against the outstanding amount of the loan.

Member States should ensure that the protection of deposits resulting from certain transactions, or serving certain social or other purposes, is higher than EUR 100 000 for a given period. Member States should decide on a temporary maximum coverage level for such deposits and, when doing so, they should take into account the significance of the protection for depositors and the living conditions in the Member States. In all such cases, the State aid rules should be complied with.

It is necessary to harmonise the methods of financing of DGSs. On the one hand, the cost of financing DGSs should, in principle, be borne by credit institutions themselves and, on the other, the financing capacity of DGSs should be proportionate to their liabilities. In order to ensure that depositors in all Member States enjoy a similarly high level of protection, the financing of DGSs should be harmonised at a high level with a uniform ex-ante financial target level for all DGSs.

However, in certain circumstances, credit institutions may operate in a highly concentrated market where most credit institutions are of such a size and degree of interconnection that they would be unlikely to be wound up under normal insolvency proceedings without endangering financial stability and would therefore be more likely to be subject to orderly resolution proceedings. In such circumstances, schemes could be subject to a lower target level.

Electronic money and funds received in exchange for electronic money should not, in accordance with Directive 2009/110 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 9 ) , be treated as a deposit and should not therefore fall within the scope of this Directive.

In order to limit deposit protection to the extent necessary to ensure legal certainty and transparency for depositors and to avoid transferring investment risks to DGSs, financial instruments should be excluded from the scope of coverage, except for existing savings products evidenced by a certificate of deposit made out to a named person.

Certain depositors should not be eligible for deposit protection, in particular public authorities or other financial institutions. Their limited number compared to all other depositors minimises the impact on financial stability in the case of a failure of a credit institution. Authorities also have much easier access to credit than citizens. However, Member States should be able to decide that the deposits of local authorities with an annual budget of up to EUR 500 000 are covered. Non-financial undertakings should in principle be covered, regardless of their size.

Depositors whose activities include money laundering within the meaning of Article 1(2) or (3) of Directive 2005/60 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 10 ) should be excluded from repayment by a DGS.

The cost to credit institutions of participating in a DGS bears no relation to the cost that would result from a massive withdrawal of deposits not only from a credit institution in difficulty but also from healthy institutions, following a loss of depositor confidence in the soundness of the banking system.

It is necessary that the available financial means of DGSs amount to a certain target level and that extraordinary contributions may be collected. In any event, DGSs should have adequate alternative funding arrangements in place to enable them to obtain short-term funding to meet claims made against them. It should be possible for the available financial means of DGSs to include cash, deposits, payment commitments and low-risk assets, which can be liquidated within a short period of time. The amount of contributions to the DGS should take due account of the business cycle, the stability of the deposit-taking sector and existing liabilities of the DGS.

DGSs should invest in low-risk assets.

Contributions to DGSs should be based on the amount of covered deposits and the degree of risk incurred by the respective member. This would allow the risk profiles of individual credit institutions to be reflected, including their different business models. It should also lead to a fair calculation of contributions and provide incentives to operate under a less risky business model. In order to tailor contributions to market circumstances and risk profiles, DGSs should be able to use their own risk-based methods. In order to take account of particularly low-risk sectors which are regulated under national law, Member States should be allowed to provide for corresponding reductions in the contributions while respecting the target level for each DGS. In any event, calculation methods should be approved by competent authorities. The European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (‘EBA’), established by ESAEBAR of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 11 ) should issue guidelines for specifying methods for calculating contributions.

Deposit protection is an essential element in the completion of the internal market and an indispensable complement to the system of supervision of credit institutions on account of the solidarity it creates among all the institutions in a given financial market in the event of the failure of any of them. Therefore, Member States should be able to allow DGSs to lend money to each other on a voluntary basis.

The existing repayment period runs counter to the need to maintain depositor confidence and does not meet depositors’ needs. The repayment period should therefore be reduced to seven working days.

In many cases, however, the necessary procedures for a short time limit for repayment do not yet exist. Member States should therefore be given the option, during a transitional period, to reduce the repayment period gradually to seven working days. The maximum repayment delay set out in this Directive should not prevent DGSs from making earlier repayments to depositors. In order to ensure that, during the transitional period, depositors do not encounter financial difficulties in the event of failure of their credit institution, depositors should, however, on request, be able to have access to an appropriate amount of their covered deposits to cover their cost of living. Such access should only be made on the basis of data provided by the credit institution. Given the different living costs between the Member States, that amount should be determined by the Member States.

The period necessary for the repayment of deposits should take into account cases where schemes have difficulty in determining the amount of repayment and the rights of the depositor, in particular if deposits arise from residential housing transactions or certain life events, if a depositor is not absolutely entitled to the sums held on an account, if the deposit is the subject of a legal dispute or competing claims to the sums held on the account or if the deposit is the subject of economic sanctions imposed by national governments or international bodies.

In order to secure repayment, DGSs should be entitled to subrogate into the rights of repaid depositors against a failed credit institution. Member States should be able to limit the time in which depositors whose deposits were not repaid, or not acknowledged within the deadline for repayment, can claim repayment of their deposits, in order to enable DGSs to exercise the rights into which it is subrogated by the date on which those rights are due to be registered in insolvency proceedings.

A DGS in a Member State where a credit institution has established branches should inform and repay depositors on behalf of the DGS in the Member State where the credit institution has been authorised. Safeguards are necessary to ensure that a DGS repaying depositors receives from the home DGS the necessary financial means and instructions prior to such repayment. The DGS that may be concerned should enter into agreements in advance in order to facilitate those tasks.

Information is an essential element in depositor protection. Therefore, depositors should be informed about their coverage and the responsible DGS on their statements of account. Intending depositors should be provided with the same information by way of a standardised information sheet, receipt of which they should be asked to acknowledge. The content of such information should be identical for all depositors. The unregulated use in advertising of references to the coverage level and the scope of a DGS could affect the stability of the banking system or depositor confidence. Therefore, references to DGSs in advertisements should be limited to short factual statements.

Directive 1995/46 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 12 ) applies to the processing of personal data carried out pursuant to this Directive. DGSs and relevant authorities should handle data relating to individual deposits with extreme care and should maintain a high standard of data protection in accordance with that Directive.

This Directive should not result in the Member States or their relevant authorities being made liable in respect of depositors if they have ensured that one or more schemes guaranteeing deposits or credit institutions themselves and ensuring the compensation or protection of depositors under the conditions prescribed in this Directive have been introduced and officially recognised.

ESAEBAR has assigned a number of tasks concerning DGSD to EBA.

While respecting the supervision of DGSs by Member States, EBA should contribute to the achievement of the objective of making it easier for credit institutions to take up and pursue their activities while at the same time ensuring effective protection for depositors and minimising the risk to taxpayers. Member States should keep the Commission and EBA informed of the identity of their designated authority in view of the requirement for cooperation between EBA and the designated authorities provided for in this Directive.

There is a need to introduce guidelines in financial services to ensure a level playing field and adequate protection of depositors across the Union. Such guidelines should be issued for specifying the method for calculating risk-based contributions.

In order to ensure efficient and effective functioning of DGSs and a balanced consideration of their positions in different Member States, EBA should be able to settle disagreements between them with binding effect.

Given the divergences in administrative practices relating to DGSs in Member States, Member States should be free to decide which authority determines the unavailability of deposits.

Competent authorities, designated authorities, resolution authorities, relevant administrative authorities and DGSs should cooperate with each other and exercise their powers in accordance with this Directive. They should cooperate from an early stage in the preparation and implementation of the resolution measures in order to set the amount by which the DGS is liable when the financial means are used to finance the resolution of credit institutions.

The power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in order to adjust the coverage level for the total deposits of the same depositor as laid down in this Directive in line with inflation in the Union on the basis of changes in the consumer price index. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.

In accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents ( 13 ) , Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments. With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of such documents to be justified.

Since the objective of this Directive, namely the harmonisation of rules concerning the functioning of DGSs, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

The obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive amendment as compared to the earlier directives. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under the earlier directives.

This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for the transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex II,