EN 
 
 
OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK 
of 5 June 2009 
on measures to increase the effectiv eness of the deposit-guarantee scheme  
(CON/2009/51) 
 
Introduction and legal basis  
On 25 May 2009 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from Banca Na ţională a României 
(BNR) for an opinion on a draft emergency or dinance amending and supplementing Government 
Ordinance No 39/1996 regarding the setting up and th e operation of the Deposit Guarantee Fund in the 
banking system (hereinafter the ‘draft emergency ordinance’). 
The ECB’s competence to deliver an  opinion is based on Article 105(4) of the Treaty establishing the 
European Community and the third and the sixth i ndents of Article 2(1) of  Council Decision 98/415/EC 
of 29 June 1998 on the consultation of the European  Central Bank by national authorities regarding draft 
legislative provisions1, as the draft emergency ordinance relates to BNR and to rules applicable to 
financial institutions insofar as they materially influe nce the stability of financial institutions and markets. 
In accordance with the first sentence of Article 17.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Central 
Bank, the Governing Council has adopted this opinion. 
 1.  Purpose of the draft emergency ordinance 
The draft emergency ordinance aims to implement in to Romanian legislation Directive 2009/14/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 amending Dir ective 94/19/EC on deposit-
guarantee schemes as regards the cove rage level and the payout delay
2 and also to adopt the measures 
necessary to ensure a higher level of effectivene ss of the Romanian deposit-guarantee scheme. This 
opinion is not a comprehensive assessment of the provisions of the draft emergency ordinance implementing Directive 2009/14/EC. Instead, it only fo cuses on those provisions of the draft emergency 
ordinance that go beyond implementation of Directive 2009/14/EC.  
The draft emergency ordinance amends Government Ordinance No 39/1996 regarding the setting up and 
the operation of the Deposit Guarantee Fund in the banking system (hereinafter ‘GO No 39/1996’). The 
Deposit Guarantee Fund (hereinafter the ‘Fund’), as Ro mania’s officially recognised deposit-guarantee 
scheme, guarantees deposits and the payment of comp ensation to depositors in accordance with the 
                                                 
1  OJ L 189, 3.7.1998, p. 42.  
2  OJ L 68, 13.3.2009, p. 3. 
2 conditions and limits laid down by  GO No 39/1996. The draft emerge ncy ordinance will make certain 
changes to the way that the Fund operates. In pa rticular, it will: (i) increase the maximum coverage 
ceiling from the equivalent in Romanian lei of EU R 20 000 to the equivalent in Romanian lei of 
EUR 50 000; (ii) reduce the payout delay, following e xpiry of a transitional period, to 20 working days; 
(iii) introduce the obligation for credit institutions to  inform depositors adequately if a deposit is not 
guaranteed by the Fund; (iv) introduce a specific m echanism for BNR as the competent authority to 
declare that deposits are unavailable; (v) introdu ce the obligation for the Fund’s members to keep 
permanently complete and accurate records of all in formation necessary to determine the value of the 
compensation due to each covered depositor; and (vi) strengthen the Fund’s capacity to pay compensation 
on time. 
 2. General observations  2.1 The ECB takes this opportunity to reiterate that, when implementing Directive 2009/14/EC or 
otherwise amending the legal framework for oper ation of national depos it-guarantee schemes, 
Member States should act in a coordinated manner to  avoid significant differences in national legal 
frameworks having a counterproductive effect and cr eating distortions in global banking markets
3. 
2.2 The ECB also emphasises that  the funding arrangements for national deposit-guarantee schemes 
must, inter alia , comply with the monetary financing prohibition laid down in the Treaty, and in 
particular with the prohibition on national central banks providing overdraft facilities or any other 
type of credit facility within the meaning of Article 101 of the Treaty4, as specifically considered in 
past ECB opinions concerning draft national legislation5 and in the ECB’s Convergence Reports6.  
 3.  Specific observations 3.1  Under the draft emergency ordinance the Fund ma y be financed by means of borrowings from the 
Romanian Government
7. In specific circumstances and where the Fund’s financial resources are 
insufficient to pay compensation, the Government, through the Ministry of Finance, will lend the 
necessary amount to the Fund8. The draft emergency ordinance also  states that the loan repayment 
                                                 
3  See paragraph 2.1 of ECB Opinion CON/2008/70 of 18 November 2008 at the request of the Council of the European 
Union on a proposal for a Directive of the European Parl iament and of the Council amending Directive 94/19/EC on 
deposit-guarantee schemes as regards the coverage level and the payout delay (OJ C 314, 9.12.2008, p. 1). 
4  Interpreted in line with Council Regulation (EC) No  3603/93 of 13 December 1993 specifying definitions for the 
application of the prohibitions referred to in Articles 104 and 104b(1) of the Treaty (OJ L 332, 31.12.1993, p. 1). 
5  See, for example, paragraph 3.1 of ECB Opinion CON/2009/10. 
6  See, for example, the ECB’s Conver gence Report of December 2006, p. 30. 
7  See Article I point 7 of th e draft emergency ordinance. 
8  See Article I point 13 of th e draft emergency ordinance. 
3 conditions will be set by Government decision. In this context, the ECB notes that such conditions 
should be in accordance with a coordinate d framework within the European Union9.  
3.2  The ECB considers that the draft emergenc y ordinance should establish a framework that is 
consistent with the need to enable payouts in th e prescribed time period. In this respect, the ECB 
refers to Article 10(1) of Directive 94/19/EC, which requires that ‘[d]eposit-guarantee schemes 
shall be in a position to pay duly verified claims  by depositors in respect of unavailable deposits’. 
This means that it is primarily the responsibilit y of the national deposit-guarantee scheme to ensure 
that guaranteed deposits are made available to en titled depositors in an orderly and timely manner, 
whatever the payment system chosen10. In line with its recent opinions11, the ECB reminds the 
consulting authority that reducing delays in  payouts of guaranteed deposits can strengthen 
depositor confidence, which plays a key role in  the effectiveness of deposit protection schemes12. 
At the same time, it is essential that a pragmatic  approach is taken to introducing the necessary 
reduction in payout delays, thereby preserving the credibility of deposit-guarantee schemes13. 
Finally, attention should be drawn to the impor tance of establishing efficient operational processes 
for verifying claims and reimbursing depositors, as well as ensuring that sufficient sources of 
funding are available. 
3.3 The ECB further notes that the draft emergenc y ordinance provides for a specific mechanism for 
declaring deposits unavailable and entrusts BNR with the assessment of such a measure. This 
represents an extension of BNR’s regulatory and supervisory powers. In this context the ECB 
restates its general position that ‘Member States may not put their national central banks in a position where they have insufficient financial r esources to carry out their European System of 
Central Banks (ESCB) or Eurosystem-related tasks, as applicable’.  
 This opinion will be published on the ECB’s website.    Done at Frankfurt am Main, 5 June 2009. 
[signed] 
The President of the ECB 
Jean-Claude TRICHET 
                                                 
9  See, by analogy, paragraph 6 of E CB Opinion CON/2008/58 regarding a State guar antee set as a ‘com plement to and in 
addition to’ an existing deposit-guarantee scheme. 
10  See paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of ECB Opinion CON/2009/31. 
11  See, for example, paragraph 2.2. of ECB Opinion CON/2009/20. 
12  See, for example, paragraph 2.2 of ECB Opinion CON/2008/70. 
13  See Opinion CON/2008/70.