EN ECB-PUBLIC  
 
 
OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK 
of 16 July 2012  
on the bank levy and contributions to the deposit guarantee scheme 
(CON/2012/53) 
 
Introduction and legal basis 
On 12 June 2012 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the Slovak Ministry of 
Finance for an opinion on a draft law amending Law No  384/2011 on a special levy on selected financial 
institutions and on amendments to certain laws, a nd Law No 118/1996 on the protection of deposits and 
on amendments to certain laws (hereinafter the ‘draft law’). 
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 Ce ntral Bank by national authorities regarding draft 
legislative provisions1, as the draft law relates to rules applicable  to financial institutions insofar as they 
materially influence the stability of financial ins titutions 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 law 
The purpose of the draft law is to amend Law No  384/2011, on the draft of which the ECB issued 
Opinion CON/2011/66, and Law No 118/1996. The pr oposed amendments concern the following areas: 
1.1 Rules concerning the bank levy.  
Under the draft law, the levy introduced by Law No 384/2011 will no longer exclude from its base the 
value of: (a) deposits received by a bank or the branch  of a foreign bank (hereinafter the ‘bank’) within 
the territory of the Slovak Republic and protected wi thin the Slovak Deposit Protection Fund (hereinafter 
the ‘Fund’); and (b) deposits received by a bank within the territory of the Slovak Republic and protected 
in other Member States of the European Economic Area
2. Moreover, the draft law imposes an obligation 
for banks to pay, together with the instalment of th e regular bank levy for the last quarter of 2012, an 
extraordinary one-off levy of 0.1% of the bank levy base3. This extraordinary levy is intended to support 
the development programmes of the Slovak government and to enhance own sources of funding for legal 
                                                 
1  OJ L 189, 3.7.1998, p. 42.  
2  Article I(1) of the draft law. 
3  Article I(5) of the draft law (proposed new Article 7(1)). 
ECB-PUBLIC 
2 entities established to promote the foreign trade operations of exporters and importers4. Finally, the draft 
law also introduces a provision5 under which the bank may neither increase, nor introduce, new financial 
consideration6 to cover higher costs triggered by the incr eased levy. If there is an increase in financial 
consideration which is unrelated to the payment of the levy, the grounds for the increase will need to be 
disclosed.   
1.2 Rules concerning contributions to the Fund.  
Under Law No 118/1996 the Fund itself determines the amount of annual contributions which it receives 
from the member banks. Under the draft law, the amount  will be determined either by Law No 118/1996 
or by the Fund.7 At the same time, the draft law establis hes that the member banks will not pay any 
contributions to the Fund in 2013.8  
 2. Financing and governance of a bank resolution fund  2.1 Law No 384/2011 introducing the bank levy specif ied that its sole purpose is the provision of 
financing to a dedicated resolution mechanism for banks
9. The ECB recommended in its previous 
opinion the introduction of: (a) a clear separation between the extra-budgetary account created out of the levy proceeds and the general budgetary r esources; and (b) detailed rules on the application 
of the resolution fund to finance the bank resolution measures
10. The ECB reiterates those 
recommendations, given that that they have not been taken into account in Law No 384/2011. At the same time, the ECB invites the Slovak authoritie s to take into account that their approach may 
need to be adjusted in the light of ongoing harmonisation of the Union framework for bank recovery and resolution
11. 
2.2 Further, the ECB notes that the obligation to pay the bank levy under Law No 384/2011 applies 
among others to Slovak branches of credit institutions  located in other Member States. As already 
pointed out by the ECB, this may lead to double charging of a bank levy by the Slovak authorities 
and by the authorities of the relevant home Member State12. The ECB reiterates its 
recommendation that the Slovak authorities should address the risk of double charging adequately 
following the harmonised solutions which are bei ng developed in this respect at Union level13.  
                                                 
4  Article I(5) of the draft law (proposed new Article 7(2)). 
5  Article I(5) of the draft law (proposed new Article 6(1)). 
6  Financial considerations include, inter alia , prices, charges, fees and interest rates. See also the specific part of the 
explanatory memorandum relating to Article I(5).  
7  Article II(2) of the draft law. 
8  Article II(3) of the draft law. 
9  Article 4(3) of Law No 384/2011. See paragraph 3.1 of the Opinion CON/2011/66. All ECB opinions are available on the 
ECB’s website at www.ecb.europa.eu. 
10  Paragraphs 3.2.1-2 of the Opinion CON/2011/66.  
11  See the proposal for a direct ive of the European Parliament and of the C ouncil establishing a framewo rk for the recovery 
and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directiv es 77/91/EEC and 82/891/EC, 
Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/ 25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC and 2011/35/EC and Regulation (EU) No 
1093/2010, COM(2012) 280 final (hereinafter the ‘proposed  directive on bank recovery and resolution’). 
12  Paragraph 2.1 of Opinion CON/2011/66.  
13  See, in particular, Article 94(1) of the propos ed directive on bank recovery and resolution. 
ECB-PUBLIC 
3 2.3 The extraordinary one-off levy introduced by the draft law is unrelated to the establishment of a 
dedicated resolution mechanism for banks. The EC B recommends that the proceeds from this levy 
are clearly separated from the pr oceeds of the regular bank levy established for bank resolution 
purposes and that the dedicated extra-budgetary acc ount used for collection of the regular bank 
levy14 is not used for other purposes. 
 3. Financing of the deposit guarantee scheme 
As already noted by the ECB
15, deposit protection is an important element of the financial safety 
net and therefore contributes to safeguarding fi nancial stability. According to international 
standards, sound funding arrangements are criti cal to the effectiveness of deposit guarantee 
schemes and the maintenance of public confidence in the banking system16. In this respect, the 
ECB would like to make the following remarks. 
First, the contributions to the deposit guarantee scheme  are currently collected and managed by the 
Fund, which is a self-standing legal entity and wh ich has the power to determine the amount of 
annual contributions paid by the member banks17. The draft law foresees that the amount of the 
annual contributions should in the future be determ ined either by the Fund or by Law No 118/1996 
i.e. by the legislature. The proposed wording is ambiguous, as it is not clear which method takes 
precedence. 
Second , while Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 
on deposit-guarantee schemes18 does not prescribe a specified funding level for deposit guarantee 
schemes, it refers to the need to ensure that  the financing capacities of the schemes are in 
proportion to the liabilities of their member credit institutions19. At the same time, the proposal for 
a recast of Directive 94/19/EC20 introduces a rule under which credit institutions will be required to 
make annual contributions to deposit guarantee sc hemes with a view to achieving a pre-defined 
funding level21. The proposed suspension of the member bank contributions to the Fund is 
introduced by the draft law without having safegua rded that the Fund has achieved an adequate 
funding level and hence it contravenes the above  principles. The ECB therefore recommends not 
introducing such a suspension of the contributions to the Fund. 
 
                                                 
14  Article 4(1) of Law No 384/2011. 
15  Paragraph 8 of Opinion CON/2005/50 and paragraph 2.5 of Opinion CON/2007/26. 
16  See ‘Guidance for developing effective deposit insurance systems’, Financ ial Stability Forum, September 2001, point 
V.4. 
17  Article 6(2) of Law No 118/1996. 
18  OJ L 135, 31.5.1994, p. 5. 
19  Recital 23 of Directive 94/19/EC. 
20  See the proposal for a directive …/…/ EU of the European Parliament and of  the Council on deposit guarantee schemes 
(recast), COM(2010) 368 final – COD 2010/0207 (hereinafter the ‘proposed directive on deposit guarantee schemes’). 
21  Article 9(1) of the proposed directive on deposit guarantee schemes.  
ECB-PUBLIC 
4 This opinion will be published on the ECB’s website.  
  Done at Frankfurt am Main, 16 July 2012. 
 
[signed] 
 
The President of the ECB 
Mario DRAGHI