LeX-Ray

The financial crisis in 2007 and 2008 exposed important shortcomings in financial supervision, both in particular cases and in relation to the financial system as a whole. Nationally based supervisory models have lagged behind financial globalisation and the integrated and interconnected reality of European financial markets, in which many financial institutions operate across borders. The crisis exposed shortcomings in the areas of cooperation, coordination, consistent application of Union law and trust between national supervisors.

Before and during the financial crisis, the European Parliament has called for a move towards more integrated European supervision in order to ensure a true level playing field for all actors at the level of the Union and to reflect the increasing integration of financial markets in the Union (in its resolutions of 13 April 2000 on the Commission communication on implementing the framework for financial markets: Action Plan ( 4 ) , of 21 November 2002 on prudential supervision rules in the European Union ( 5 ) , of 11 July 2007 on financial services policy (2005 to 2010) – White Paper ( 6 ) , of 23 September 2008 with recommendations to the Commission on hedge funds and private equity ( 7 ) and of 9 October 2008 with recommendations to the Commission on Lamfalussy follow-up: future structure of supervision ( 8 ) , and in its positions of 22 April 2009 on the amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) ( 9 ) and of 23 April 2009 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Credit Rating Agencies ( 10 ) ).

In November 2008, the Commission mandated a High-Level Group chaired by Jacques de Larosière to make recommendations on how to strengthen European supervisory arrangements with a view to better protecting the citizen and rebuilding trust in the financial system. In its final report presented on 25 February 2009 (the ‘de Larosière Report’), the High-Level Group recommended that the supervisory framework be strengthened to reduce the risk and severity of future financial crises. It recommended reforms to the structure of supervision of the financial sector in the Union. The group also concluded that a European System of Financial Supervisors should be created, comprising three European Supervisory Authorities, one for the banking sector, one for the securities sector and one for the insurance and occupational pensions sector, and recommended the creation of a European Systemic Risk Council. The report represented the reforms the experts considered were needed and on which work had to begin immediately.

In its Communication of 4 March 2009 entitled ‘Driving European Recovery’, the Commission proposed to put forward draft legislation creating a European system of financial supervision and a European systemic risk board. In its Communication of 27 May 2009 entitled ‘European Financial Supervision’, it provided more detail about the possible architecture of such a new supervisory framework reflecting the main thrust of the de Larosière Report.

The European Council, in its conclusions of 19 June 2009, confirmed that a European System of Financial Supervisors, comprising three new European Supervisory Authorities, should be established. The system should be aimed at upgrading the quality and consistency of national supervision, strengthening oversight of cross-border groups and establishing a European single rule book applicable to all financial institutions in the internal market. It emphasised that the European Supervisory Authorities should also have supervisory powers in relation to credit rating agencies and invited the Commission to prepare concrete proposals on how the European System of Financial Supervisors could play a strong role in crisis situations, while stressing that decisions taken by the European Supervisory Authorities should not impinge on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States.

On 17 June 2010, the European Council agreed that ‘Member States should introduce systems of levies and taxes on financial institutions to ensure fair burden-sharing and to set incentives to contain systemic risk. Such levies or taxes should be part of a credible resolution framework. Further work is urgently required on their main features and issues of level playing field and cumulative impacts of various regulatory measures should be carefully assessed’.

The financial and economic crisis has created real and serious risks to the stability of the financial system and the functioning of the internal market. Restoring and maintaining a stable and reliable financial system is an absolute prerequisite to preserving trust and coherence in the internal market, and thereby to preserve and improve the conditions for the establishment of a fully integrated and functioning internal market in the field of financial services. Moreover, deeper and more integrated financial markets offer better opportunities for financing and risk diversification, and thus help to improve the capacity of the economies to absorb shocks.

The Union has reached the limits of what can be done with the present status of the Committees of European Supervisors. The Union cannot remain in a situation where there is no mechanism to ensure that national supervisors arrive at the best possible supervisory decisions for cross-border financial institutions; where there is insufficient cooperation and information exchange between national supervisors; where joint action by national authorities requires complicated arrangements to take account of the patchwork of regulatory and supervisory requirements; where national solutions are most often the only feasible option in responding to problems at the level of the Union, and where different interpretations of the same legal text exist. The European System of Financial Supervision (hereinafter ‘the ESFS’) should be designed to overcome those deficiencies and provide a system that is in line with the objective of a stable and single Union financial market for financial services, linking national supervisors within a strong Union network.

The ESFS should be an integrated network of national and Union supervisory authorities, leaving day-to-day supervision to the national level. Greater harmonisation and the coherent application of rules for financial institutions and markets across the Union should also be achieved. In addition to the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (hereinafter ‘the Authority’), a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) as well as a Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (hereinafter ‘the Joint Committee’) should be established. A European Systemic Risk Board (hereinafter ‘the ESRB’) should form part of the ESFS for the purposes of the tasks as specified in this Regulation and in Regulation 2010/1092 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 11 ) .

The European Supervisory Authorities (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘ESAs’) should replace the Committee of European Banking Supervisors established by Commission Decision 2009/78/EC ( 12 ) , the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors established by Commission Decision 2009/79/EC ( 13 ) and the Committee of European Securities Regulators established by Commission Decision 2009/77/EC ( 14 ) , and should assume all of the tasks and competences of those committees including the continuation of ongoing work and projects, where appropriate. The scope of each European Supervisory Authority’s action should be clearly defined. The ESAs should be accountable to the European Parliament and the Council. When that accountability relates to cross-sectoral issues that have been coordinated through the Joint Committee, the ESAs should be accountable, through the Joint Committee, for such coordination.

The Authority should act with a view to improving the functioning of the internal market, in particular by ensuring a high, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision taking account of the varying interests of all Member States and the different nature of financial institutions. The Authority should protect public values such as the stability of the financial system, the transparency of markets and financial products, and the protection of depositors and investors. The Authority should also prevent regulatory arbitrage and guarantee a level playing field, and strengthen international supervisory coordination, for the benefit of the economy at large, including financial institutions and other stakeholders, consumers and employees. Its tasks should also include promoting supervisory convergence and providing advice to the Union institutions in the areas of banking, payments, e-money regulation and supervision, and related corporate governance, auditing and financial reporting issues. The Authority should also be entrusted with certain responsibilities for existing and new financial activities.

The Authority should also be able to temporarily prohibit or restrict certain financial activities that threaten the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union in the cases specified and under the conditions laid down in the legislative acts referred to in this Regulation. If required to make such temporary prohibition in the case of an emergency situation, the Authority should do so in accordance with and under the conditions laid down in this Regulation. In cases where a temporary prohibition or restriction of certain financial activities has a cross-sectoral impact, sectoral legislation should provide that the Authority should consult and coordinate its action with, where relevant, the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and with the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), through the Joint Committee.

The Authority should take due account of the impact of its activities on competition and innovation within the internal market, on the Union’s global competitiveness, on financial inclusion, and on the Union’s new strategy for jobs and growth.

In order to fulfil its objectives, the Authority should have legal personality as well as administrative and financial autonomy.

Based on the work of international bodies, systemic risk should be defined as a risk of disruption in the financial system with the potential to have serious negative consequences for the internal market and the real economy. All types of financial intermediaries, markets and infrastructures may be potentially systemically important to some degree.

Cross-border risk includes all risks caused by economic imbalances or financial failures in all or parts of the Union that have the potential to have significant negative consequences for the transactions between economic operators of two or more Member States, for the functioning of the internal market or for the public finances of the Union or any of its Member States.

The Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 2 May 2006 in Case C-217/04 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union) held that ‘nothing in the wording of Article 95 EC [now Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( TFEU )] implies that the addressees of the measures adopted by the Community legislature on the basis of that provision can only be the individual Member States. The legislature may deem it necessary to provide for the establishment of a Community body responsible for contributing to the implementation of a process of harmonisation in situations where, in order to facilitate the uniform implementation and application of acts based on that provision, the adoption of non-binding supporting and framework measures seems appropriate’ ( 15 ) . The purpose and tasks of the Authority – assisting competent national supervisory authorities in the consistent interpretation and application of Union rules and contributing to financial stability necessary for financial integration – are closely linked to the objectives of the Union acquis concerning the internal market for financial services. The Authority should therefore be established on the basis of Article 114 TFEU.

The following legislative acts lay down the tasks for the competent authorities of Member States, including cooperating with each other and with the Commission: Directive 2006/48 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions ( 16 ) , CAIFCID of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions ( 17 ) and DGSD of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes ( 18 ) .

Existing Union legislation regulating the field covered by this Regulation also includes Directive 2002/87 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate ( 19 ) , SSIUIIGD of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on the supplementary supervision of insurance undertakings in an insurance group ( 20 ) , IPATFR of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 on information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds ( 21 ) , Directive 2009/110 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions ( 22 ) , and the relevant parts of Directive 2005/60 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing ( 23 ) , of DMCFSD of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services ( 24 ) and of PSD of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market ( 25 ) .

It is desirable that the Authority promote a consistent approach in the area of deposit guarantees to ensure a level playing field and the equitable treatment of depositors across the Union. As deposit guarantee schemes are subject to oversight in their Member States rather than regulatory supervision, the Authority should be able to exercise its powers under this Regulation in relation to the deposit guarantee scheme itself and its operator.

In accordance with the Declaration (No 39) on Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( TFEU ), annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, the elaboration of regulatory technical standards requires assistance of technical expertise in a form which is specific to the financial services area. It is necessary to allow the Authority to provide such expertise also on standards or parts of standards that are not based on a draft technical standard that it has elaborated.

There is a need to introduce an effective instrument to establish harmonised regulatory technical standards in financial services to ensure, also through a single rulebook, a level playing field and adequate protection of depositors, investors and consumers across the Union. As a body with highly specialised expertise, it is efficient and appropriate to entrust the Authority, in areas defined by Union law, with the elaboration of draft regulatory technical standards, which do not involve policy choices.

The Commission should endorse those draft regulatory technical standards by means of delegated acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU in order to give them binding legal effect. They should be subject to amendment only in very restricted and extraordinary circumstances, since the Authority is the actor in close contact with and knowing best the daily functioning of financial markets. Draft regulatory technical standards would be subject to amendment if they were incompatible with Union law, did not respect the principle of proportionality or ran counter to the fundamental principles of the internal market for financial services as reflected in the acquis of Union financial services legislation. The Commission should not change the content of the draft regulatory technical standards prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority. To ensure a smooth and expeditious adoption process for those standards, the Commission’s decision to endorse draft regulatory technical standards should be subject to a time limit.

Given the technical expertise of the Authority in the areas where regulatory technical standards should be developed, note should be taken of the Commission’s stated intention to rely, as a rule, on the draft regulatory technical standards submitted to it by the Authority in view of the adoption of the corresponding delegated acts. However, in cases where the Authority fails to submit a draft regulatory technical standard within the time limits set out by the relevant legislative act, it should be ensured that the result of the exercise of delegated power is actually achieved, and the efficiency of the decision-making process be maintained. In those cases, the Commission should therefore be empowered to adopt regulatory technical standards in the absence of a draft by the Authority.

The Commission should also be empowered to adopt implementing technical standards by means of implementing acts pursuant to Article 291 TFEU.

In areas not covered by regulatory or implementing technical standards, the Authority should have the power to issue guidelines and recommendations on the application of Union law. In order to ensure transparency and to strengthen compliance by national supervisory authorities with those guidelines and recommendations, it should be possible for the Authority to publish the reasons for supervisory authorities’ non-compliance with those guidelines and recommendations.

Ensuring the correct and full application of Union law is a core prerequisite for the integrity, transparency, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, the stability of the financial system, and for neutral conditions of competition for financial institutions in the Union. A mechanism should therefore be established whereby the Authority addresses instances of non-application or incorrect application of Union law amounting to a breach thereof. That mechanism should apply in areas where Union law defines clear and unconditional obligations.

To allow for a proportionate response to instances of incorrect or insufficient application of Union law, a three-step mechanism should apply. First, the Authority should be empowered to investigate alleged incorrect or insufficient application of Union law obligations by national authorities in their supervisory practice, concluded by a recommendation. Second, where the competent national authority does not follow the recommendation, the Commission should be empowered to issue a formal opinion taking into account the Authority’s recommendation, requiring the competent authority to take the actions necessary to ensure compliance with Union law.

Third, to overcome exceptional situations of persistent inaction by the competent authority concerned, the Authority should be empowered, as a last resort, to adopt decisions addressed to individual financial institutions. That power should be limited to exceptional circumstances in which a competent authority does not comply with the formal opinion addressed to it and in which Union law is directly applicable to financial institutions by virtue of existing or future Union regulations.

Serious threats to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system in the Union require a swift and concerted response at Union level. The Authority should therefore be able to require national supervisory authorities to take specific actions to remedy an emergency situation. The power to determine the existence of an emergency situation should be conferred on the Council, following a request by any of the ESAs, the Commission or the ESRB.

The Authority should be able to require national supervisory authorities to take specific action to remedy an emergency situation. The action undertaken by the Authority in this respect should be without prejudice to the Commission’s powers pursuant to Article 258 TFEU to initiate infringement proceedings against the Member State of that supervisory authority for its failure to take such action, and without prejudice to the Commission’s right in such circumstances to seek interim measures in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Furthermore, it should be without prejudice to any liability that that Member State might incur in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union if its supervisory authorities fail to take the action required by the Authority.

In order to ensure efficient and effective supervision and a balanced consideration of the positions of the competent authorities in different Member States, the Authority should be able to settle disagreements in cross-border situations between those competent authorities with binding effect, including within colleges of supervisors. A conciliation phase should be provided for during which the competent authorities may reach an agreement. The Authority’s competence should cover disagreements on the procedure or content of an action or inaction by a competent authority of a Member State in cases specified in the legally binding Union acts referred to in this Regulation. In such a situation, one of the supervisors involved should be entitled to refer the issue to the Authority, which should act in accordance with this Regulation. The Authority should be empowered to require the competent authorities concerned to take specific action or to refrain from action in order to settle the matter in order to ensure compliance with Union law, with binding effects for the competent authorities concerned. If a competent authority does not comply with the settlement decision addressed to it, the Authority should be empowered to adopt decisions directly addressed to financial institutions in areas of Union law directly applicable to them. The power to adopt such decisions should apply only as a last resort and then only to ensure the correct and consistent application of Union law. In cases where the relevant Union legislation confers discretion on Member States’ competent authorities, decisions taken by the Authority cannot replace the exercise in compliance with Union law of that discretion.

The crisis has proven that the current system of cooperation between national authorities whose powers are limited to individual Member States is insufficient as regards financial institutions that operate across borders.

Expert Groups set up by Member States to examine the causes of the crisis and make suggestions to improve the regulation and supervision of the financial sector have confirmed that the current arrangements are not a sound basis for the future regulation and supervision of cross-border financial institutions across the Union.

As the de Larosière Report indicates, ‘[i]n essence, we have two alternatives: the first “chacun pour soi” beggar-thy-neighbour solutions; or the second – enhanced, pragmatic, sensible European cooperation for the benefit of all to preserve an open world economy. This will bring undoubted economic gains’.

Colleges of supervisors play an important role in the efficient, effective and consistent supervision of financial institutions operating across borders. The Authority should contribute to promoting and monitoring the efficient, effective and consistent functioning of the colleges of supervisors and, in that respect, have a leading role in ensuring the consistent and coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors for cross-border financial institutions across the Union. The Authority should therefore have full participation rights in colleges of supervisors with a view to streamlining the functioning of and the information exchange process in the colleges of supervisors and to foster convergence and consistency across colleges in the application of Union law. As the de Larosière Report states, ‘competition distortions and regulatory arbitrage stemming from different supervisory practices must be avoided, because they have the potential of undermining financial stability – inter alia by encouraging a shift of financial activity to countries with lax supervision. The supervisory system has to be perceived as fair and balanced’.

Convergence in the fields of crisis prevention, management and resolution, including funding mechanisms, is necessary in order to ensure the internalisation of costs by the financial system and the ability of public authorities to resolve failing financial institutions whilst minimising the impact of failures on the financial system, reliance on taxpayer funds to bail out banks and the use of public sector resources, limiting damage to the economy, and coordinating the application of national resolution measures. In this regard it is imperative to develop a common set of rules on a complete set of tools for the prevention and resolution of failing banks, to deal in particular with the crisis of large, cross-border or interconnected institutions, and the need to confer additional relevant powers to the Authority should be assessed as well as how banks and savings institutions could prioritise the protection of savers.

In the current review of DGSD and ICSD of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes ( 26 ) , the Commission’s intention to pay special attention to the need to ensure further harmonisation throughout the Union is noted. In the insurance sector, the Commission’s intention to examine the possibility of introducing Union rules protecting insurance policy holders in case of a failing insurance company is also noted. The ESAs should play an important role in those areas and appropriate powers concerning the European guarantee scheme systems should be conferred upon them.

The delegation of tasks and responsibilities can be a useful instrument in the functioning of the network of supervisors in order to reduce the duplication of supervisory tasks, to foster cooperation and thereby streamline the supervisory process, as well as to reduce the burden imposed on financial institutions. This Regulation should therefore provide a clear legal basis for such delegation. Whilst respecting the general rule that delegation should be allowed, Member States should be able to introduce specific conditions for the delegation of responsibilities, for example, regarding information about, and the notification of, delegation arrangements. Delegation of tasks means that tasks are carried out by the Authority or by a national supervisory authority other than the responsible authority, while the responsibility for supervisory decisions remains with the delegating authority. By the delegation of responsibilities, the Authority or a national supervisory authority (the delegate) should be able to decide upon a certain supervisory matter in its own name in lieu of the delegating authority. Delegations should be governed by the principle of allocating supervisory competence to a supervisor which is best placed to take action in the subject matter. A reallocation of responsibilities would be appropriate, for example, for reasons of economies of scale or scope, of coherence in group supervision, and of optimal use of technical expertise among national supervisory authorities. Decisions by the delegate should be recognised by the delegating authority and by other competent authorities as determinative if those decisions are within the scope of the delegation. Relevant Union legislation could further specify the principles for the reallocation of responsibilities upon agreement. The Authority should facilitate and monitor delegation agreements between national supervisory authorities by all appropriate means. It should be informed in advance of intended delegation agreements, in order to be able to express an opinion where appropriate. It should centralise the publication of such agreements to ensure timely, transparent and easily accessible information about agreements for all parties concerned. It should identify and disseminate best practices regarding delegation and delegation agreements.

The Authority should actively foster supervisory convergence across the Union with the aim of establishing a common supervisory culture.

Peer reviews are an efficient and effective tool for fostering consistency within the network of financial supervisors. The Authority should therefore develop the methodological framework for such reviews and conduct them on a regular basis. Reviews should focus not only on the convergence of supervisory practices, but also on the capacity of supervisors to achieve high-quality supervisory outcomes, as well as on the independence of those competent authorities. The outcome of peer reviews should be made public with the agreement of the competent authority subject to the review. Best practices should also be identified and made public.

The Authority should actively promote a coordinated Union supervisory response, in particular to ensure the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets and the stability of the financial system in the Union. In addition to its powers for action in emergency situations, the Authority should therefore be entrusted with a general coordination function within the ESFS. The smooth flow of all relevant information between competent authorities should be a particular focus of the Authority’s actions.

In order to safeguard financial stability it is necessary to identify, at an early stage, trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities stemming from the micro-prudential level, across borders and across sectors. The Authority should monitor and assess such developments in the area of its competence and, where necessary, inform the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the other European Supervisory Authorities and the ESRB on a regular and, as necessary, on an ad hoc basis. The Authority should also, in cooperation with the ESRB, initiate and coordinate Union-wide stress tests to assess the resilience of financial institutions to adverse market developments, and it should ensure that an as consistent as possible methodology is applied at the national level to such tests. In order to perform its functions properly, the Authority should conduct economic analyses of the markets and the impact of potential market developments.

Given the globalisation of financial services and the increased importance of international standards, the Authority should foster dialogue and cooperation with supervisors outside the Union. It should be empowered to develop contacts and enter into administrative arrangements with the supervisory authorities and administrations of third countries and with international organisations, while fully respecting the existing roles and respective competences of the Member States and the Union institutions. Participation in the work of the Authority should be open to countries which have concluded agreements with the Union whereby they have adopted and are applying Union law, and the Authority should be able to cooperate with third countries which apply legislation that has been recognised as equivalent to that of the Union.

The Authority should serve as an independent advisory body to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission in the area of its competence. Without prejudice to the competencies of the competent authorities concerned, the Authority should be able to provide its opinion on the prudential assessment of mergers and acquisitions under Directive 2006/48, as amended by Directive 2007/44 ( 27 ) in those cases in which that Directive requires consultation between competent authorities from two or more Member States.

In order to carry out its duties effectively, the Authority should have the right to request all necessary information. To avoid the duplication of reporting obligations for financial institutions, that information should normally be provided by the national supervisory authorities which are closest to the financial markets and institutions and should take into account already existing statistics. However, as a last resort, the Authority should be able to address a duly justified and reasoned request for information directly to a financial institution where a national competent authority does not or cannot provide such information in a timely fashion. Member States’ authorities should be obliged to assist the Authority in enforcing such direct requests. In that context, the work on common reporting formats is essential. The measures for the collection of information should be without prejudice to the legal framework of the European Statistical System and the European System of Central Banks in the field of statistics. This Regulation should therefore be without prejudice both to ESR of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics ( 28 ) and to Council CSIBECBR of 23 November 1998 concerning the collection of statistical information by the European Central Bank ( 29 ) .

Close cooperation between the Authority and the ESRB is essential to give full effectiveness to the functioning of the ESRB and the follow-up to its warnings and recommendations. The Authority and the ESRB should share any relevant information with each other. Data related to individual undertakings should be provided only upon reasoned request. Upon receipt of warnings or recommendations addressed by the ESRB to the Authority or a national supervisory authority, the Authority should ensure follow-up as appropriate.

The Authority should consult interested parties on regulatory or implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations and provide them with a reasonable opportunity to comment on proposed measures. Before adopting draft regulatory or implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations, the Authority should carry out an impact study. For reasons of efficiency, a Banking Stakeholder Group should be used for that purpose, and should represent, in balanced proportions, Union credit and investment institutions, representing the diverse models and sizes of financial institutions and businesses, including, as appropriate, institutional investors and other financial institutions which themselves use financial services; small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); trade unions; academics; consumers; and other retail users of banking services. The Banking Stakeholder Group should work as an interface with other user groups in the financial services area established by the Commission or by Union legislation.

Members of the Banking Stakeholder Group representing non-profit organisations or academics should receive adequate compensation in order to allow persons that are neither well-funded nor industry representatives to take part fully in the debate on financial regulation.

Member States have a core responsibility for ensuring coordinated crisis management and preserving financial stability in crisis situations, in particular with regard to stabilising and resolving individual failing financial institutions. Decisions by the Authority in emergency or settlement situations affecting the stability of a financial institution should not impinge on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States. A mechanism should be established whereby Member States may invoke this safeguard and ultimately bring the matter before the Council for a decision. However, that safeguard mechanism should not be abused, in particular in relation to a decision taken by the Authority which does not have a significant or material fiscal impact, such as a reduction of income linked to the temporary prohibition of specific activities or products for consumer protection purposes. When taking decisions under the safeguard mechanism, the Council should vote in accordance with the principle where each member has one vote. It is appropriate to confer on the Council a role in this matter given the particular responsibilities of the Member States in this respect. Given the sensitivity of the issue, strict confidentiality arrangements should be ensured.

In its decision-making procedures, the Authority should be bound by Union rules and general principles on due process and transparency. The right of the addressees of the Authority’s decisions to be heard should be fully respected. The Authority’s acts should form an integral part of Union law.

A Board of Supervisors composed of the heads of the relevant competent authorities in each Member State, and chaired by the Chairperson of the Authority, should be the principal decision-making organ of the Authority. Representatives of the Commission, the ESRB, the European Central Bank, the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) should participate as observers. Members of the Board of Supervisors should act independently and only in the Union’s interest.

As a general rule, the Board of Supervisors should take its decisions by simple majority in accordance with the principle where each member has one vote. However, for acts of a general nature, including those relating to regulatory and implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations, for budgetary matters as well as in respect of requests by a Member State to reconsider a decision by the Authority to temporarily prohibit or restrict certain financial activities, it is appropriate to apply the rules of qualified majority voting as laid down in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Cases concerning the settlement of disagreements between national supervisory authorities should be examined by a restricted, objective panel, composed of members who neither are representatives of the competent authorities which are party to the disagreement nor have any interest in the conflict or direct links to the competent authorities concerned. The composition of the panel should be appropriately balanced. The decision taken by the panel should be approved by the Board of Supervisors by simple majority in accordance with the principle where each member has one vote. However, with regard to decisions taken by the consolidating supervisor, the decision proposed by the panel could be rejected by members representing a blocking minority of the votes as defined in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 3 of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions.

A Management Board, composed of the Chairperson of the Authority, of representatives of national supervisory authorities and of the Commission, should ensure that the Authority carries out its mission and performs the tasks assigned to it. The Management Board should be entrusted with the necessary powers, inter alia, to propose the annual and multi-annual work programme, to exercise certain budgetary powers, to adopt the Authority’s staff policy plan, to adopt special provisions on the right to access to documents and to propose the annual report.

The Authority should be represented by a full-time Chairperson, appointed by the Board of Supervisors, on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and of experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation, following an open selection procedure organised and managed by the Board of Supervisors assisted by the Commission. For the designation of the first Chairperson of the Authority, the Commission should, inter alia, draw up a shortlist of candidates on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation. For the subsequent designations, the opportunity of having a shortlist drawn up by the Commission should be reviewed in a report to be established pursuant to this Regulation. Before the selected person takes up his duties, and up to 1 month after his selection by the Board of Supervisors, the European Parliament should be entitled, after having heard the person selected, to object to his designation.

The management of the Authority should be entrusted to an Executive Director, who should have the right to participate in meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board without the right to vote.

In order to ensure cross-sectoral consistency in the activities of the ESAs, they should coordinate closely through a Joint Committee and reach common positions where appropriate. The Joint Committee should coordinate the functions of the ESAs in relation to financial conglomerates and other cross-sectoral matters. Where relevant, acts also falling within the area of competence of the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) or the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) should be adopted in parallel by the European Supervisory Authorities concerned. The Joint Committee should be chaired for a 12-month term on a rotating basis by the Chairpersons of the ESAs. The Chairperson of the Joint Committee should be a Vice-Chair of the ESRB. The Joint Committee should have dedicated staff provided by the ESAs to allow for informal information sharing and the development of a common supervisory culture approach across the ESAs.

It is necessary to ensure that the parties affected by decisions adopted by the Authority may have recourse to the necessary remedies. To protect effectively the rights of parties, and for reasons of procedural economy, where the Authority has decision-making powers, parties should be granted a right of appeal to a Board of Appeal. For reasons of efficiency and consistency, the Board of Appeal should be a joint body of the ESAs, independent from their administrative and regulatory structures. The decisions of the Board of Appeal should be subject to appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

In order to guarantee its full autonomy and independence, the Authority should be granted an autonomous budget with revenues mainly from obligatory contributions from national supervisory authorities and from the General Budget of the European Union. Union financing of the Authority is subject to an agreement by the budgetary authority in accordance with Point 47 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management ( 30 ) . The Union budgetary procedure should be applicable. The auditing of accounts should be undertaken by the Court of Auditors. The overall budget is subject to the discharge procedure.

OLAF of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) ( 31 ) should apply to the Authority. The Authority should also accede to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities concerning internal investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) ( 32 ) .

In order to ensure open and transparent employment conditions and equal treatment of staff, the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities ( 33 ) should apply to the staff of the Authority.

It is essential that business secrets and other confidential information be protected. The confidentiality of information made available to the Authority and exchanged in the network should be subject to stringent and effective confidentiality rules.

Directive 1995/46 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data ( 34 ) and Regulation 2001/45 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data ( 35 ) are fully applicable to the processing of personal data for the purposes of this Regulation.

In order to ensure the transparent operation of the Authority, Regulation 2001/1049 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents ( 36 ) should apply to the Authority.

Third countries should be allowed to participate in the work of the Authority in accordance with appropriate agreements to be concluded by the Union.

Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely improving the functioning of the internal market by means of ensuring a high, effective and consistent level of prudential regulation and supervision, protecting depositors and investors, protecting the integrity, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, maintaining the stability of the financial system, and strengthening international supervisory coordination, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can, therefore, by reason of the scale of the action, 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 Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

The Authority should assume all current tasks and powers of the Committee of European Banking Supervisors. Commission Decision 2009/78/EC should therefore be repealed on the date of the establishment of the Authority and Decision No 716/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 establishing a Community programme to support specific activities in the field of financial services, financial reporting and auditing ( 37 ) should be amended accordingly. Given the existing structures and operations of the Committee of European Banking Supervisors, it is important to ensure very close cooperation between the Committee of European Banking Supervisors and the Commission when establishing appropriate transitional arrangements, to ensure that the period during which the Commission is responsible for the administrative establishment and initial administrative operation of the Authority be as limited as possible.

It is appropriate to set a time limit for the application of this Regulation in order to ensure that the Authority is adequately prepared to begin operations and a smooth transition from the Committee of European Banking Supervisors. The Authority should be appropriately financed. At least initially, it should be financed 40 % from Union funds and 60 % through contributions from Member States, made in accordance with the weighting of votes set out in Article 3(3) of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions.

In order to enable the Authority to be established on 1 January 2011, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union ,