EN 
 
 
OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK 
of 2 November 2010 
on the extension of the Irish State guarantee of certain liabilities of credit institutions 
(CON/2010/75) 
 
Introduction and legal basis  
On 28 October 2010 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the Irish Minister for 
Finance (hereinafter the ‘Minister’) for an opini on on a draft Credit Institutions (Eligible Liabilities 
Guarantee) (Amendment) (No 2) Scheme 2010 (herei nafter the ‘draft scheme’) amending the Credit 
Institutions (Eligible Liabilities Guarantee) Scheme 2009 (hereinafter the ‘ELG Scheme’).  
The ECB’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on Articles 127(4) and 282(5) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union and the sixth indent 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 provisions
1, as the draft scheme relates to rules appli cable to financial ins titutions insofar as 
they materially influence the stability of financial in stitutions 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 revised draft scheme  
1.1 The ELG Scheme was signed into law on 9 December 2009. The ECB was consulted on the ELG 
Scheme at the draft stage and adopted its Opinion CON/2009/562. Subsequently the ECB adopted 
Opinions CON/2009/92 and CON/2010/71 on proposed amendments to the ELG Scheme. 
1.2 The Irish Government now proposes a further prolongation of the validity of the ELG Scheme by 
12 months, i.e. that eligible liabilities may be is sued until 31 December 2011 together with some 
minor technical changes. 
 
2. The appropriate time to consult the ECB  
The ECB notes that the Minister for Finance has reques ted that the ECB provides its opinion as soon as 
possible in order to ensure that Union State aid approv al for the draft scheme ca n be obtained quickly and 
                                                 
1  OJ L 189, 3.7.1998, p. 42.  
2  All ECB opinions are published on the ECB’s website at www.ecb.europa.eu. 
2 the draft scheme presented for parliamentary approv al. The ECB reiterates its view as expressed in 
previous opinions3 that the consultation should take place at a point in the legislative process which 
affords the ECB sufficient time to examine the draft legislative provisions and to adopt its opinion in all 
required language versions, and which also enables the relevant national aut horities to take the ECB’s 
opinion into consideration before the provisions are adopted. Article 3(4) of Decision 98/415/EC also obliges Member States to suspend the adoption process for draft legislative provisions, pending receipt of 
the ECB’s opinion. The ECB would appreciate the Department of Finance giving due consideration to 
honouring their obligation to consult the ECB in th e future, in accordance with Decision 98/415/EC. 
 3. The draft scheme  
3.1 The purpose of the draft scheme is the extension of the issuance period under the ELG Scheme 
from 31 December 2010 to 31 December 2011. The Minister in his request for an opinion advises that a positive assessment by the ECB on financial stability grounds of the requirement for a prolongation of the guarantee of short term and in terbank liabilities is considered essential by the 
European Commission to the Commission’s approval process.   
3.2 The ECB reiterates the views expressed in previous opinions
4. In particular, it recalls that 
coordination of the duration of national financial support schemes across the Union is of crucial importance in order to ensu re a level playing field
5.  
3.3 Taking into account financial stability consider ations, an extension of the ELG Scheme may be 
beneficial.  
 
This opinion will be published on the ECB’s website. 
  
Done at Frankfurt am Main, 2 November 2010. 
 
[signed] 
 
The President of the ECB 
Jean-Claude TRICHET 
                                                 
3  See Opinion CON/2010/71, paragraph 2, CON/2010/ 50, paragraph 2 and CON/2010/36, paragraph 2.1. 
4 See Opinions CON/2010/71, CON/2010/29 and CON/2008/44. 
5  See Opinions CON/2009/24, paragraph 3.1, CON/2009/54, paragraph 2.5.2 and CON/2009/73, paragraph 3.2.