EN ECB-PUBLIC  
 
OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK 
of 2 September 2015 
on bank resolution 
 (CON/2015/31) 
 
Introduction and legal basis 
On 21 May 2015 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the German Federal Ministry 
of Finance for an opinion on a draft law adapting the national banking resolution law to the Single 
Resolution Mechanism (SRM) and the Union provisions on the bank levy (hereinafter the ‘draft law’). The 
draft law also delegates certain competences to the Federal Ministry of Finance related to the issuing of regulations in the areas of internal governance, risk management, outsourcing and recovery plans of 
credit institutions. 
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
1, as 
the draft law relates to rules applicab le to financial institutions insofar as they materially influence the 
stability of financial institut ions 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 1.1 The principal purpose of the draft law is to align the German regime for the resolution of credit 
institutions with Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
2 (hereinafter 
the ‘BRRD’) and to clarify the scope of application of the Law on recovery and resolution in light of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council
3 (hereinafter the 
‘SRM Regulation’). The draft law amends several laws, in particular the Law on recovery and resolution, the Law on banking and the Law on a resolution fund, and provides for: (a) the 
adaptation of national provisions on recovery and resolution to the SRM Regulation; (b) the 
adaptation of the Law on a resolution fund to the BRRD and the SRM Regulation; (c) the use of 
bank contributions collected between 2011 and 2014; and (d) the clarification from the point of view 
                                                 
1  Council Decision 98/415/EC of 29 June 1998 on the consultation of the European Central Bank by national 
authorities regarding draft legislative provisions (OJ L 189, 3.7.1998, p. 42). 
2  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for 
the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the 
Council (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 190). 
3  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform 
rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of 
a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 
L  225, 30.7.2014, p. 1). 
ECB-PUBLIC  
2 of German law of the interaction between the Law on recovery and resolution and the SRM 
Regulation, which is directly applicable, by in corporating certain practical measures, notably 
regarding the implementation by the national re solution authority of decisions of the Single 
Resolution Board (SRB). 
1.2 The draft law delegates certain competences to th e Federal Ministry of Finance to issue regulations 
relating to the internal governance, risk management, outsourcing and recovery plans of credit 
institutions4. Such regulations, where issued, would replace the existing administrative guidelines 
issued by the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, notably the Minimum Requirements for Risk 
Management (MaRisk) and the Minimum Requirements for Designing Recovery Plans. 
1.3 Moreover, the draft law provides for the statutory subordination in bank insolvency proceedings of 
certain senior unsecured debt instruments issued by credit institutions. In particular, such debt instruments would be subordinated under statute to interbank deposits, corporate deposits, money 
market instruments, certain claims under derivative transactions, and structured notes with 
derivative-linked features
5. This subordination is in tended to facilitate the appl ication of the bail-in 
tool in the course of the resolu tion of a credit institution. 
1.4 The draft law also sets out how national contributions are to be transferred to the Single Resolution 
Fund (SRF) and provides that contributions to the German resolution fund collected between 2011 
and 2014 may be used during the build-up of the SRF for financing the resolution of national credit 
institutions. In addition, the mechanisms for the financing of the national resolution authority are 
specified. 
 2. Scope of the opinion 
This opinion focuses on: (a) the potential impact on  the ECB’s responsibilities in the context of the 
Banking Union of the delegation of competence to the Federal Ministry of Finance to issue binding 
regulations; (b) the subordination of certain senior unsecured debt instruments issued by a credit 
institution to that institution’s other senior debt in bank insolvency proceedings, in light of the proposals
6 
of the Financial Stability Board (FSB) on total loss-a bsorbing capacity (TLAC) for global systemically 
important banks (G-SIBs) and of the Eurosystem’s coll ateral eligibility requirements; and (c) the transfer 
of the contributions from the German resolution fund to the SRF including the use of the contributions 
accumulated by means of the bank levy between 2011 and 2014. 
 
3. Specific observations 
3.1 Competences of the Federal Ministry of Finance to issue regulations  
3.1.1  The ECB understands that by means of the abovementioned delegation of competences to the 
Federal Ministry of Finance the German legislator transposes certain provisions of Directive 
                                                 
4  Sections 25a and 25b of the Law on banking and Section 21a of the Law on recovery and resolution, as amended by 
the draft law. 
5  Section 46f(5) of the Law on banking, as amended by the draft law. 
6  Available on the FSB’s website: http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/ wp-content/uploads/TLAC-Condoc-6-Nov-
2014-FINAL.pdf  
ECB-PUBLIC  
3 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council7 (hereinafter ‘CRD IV’), particularly 
relating to risk management and governance of credit institutions, and the BRRD, including provisions relating to the incorporation of several guidelines of the European Banking Authority 
(EBA). These provisions are currently implemented by means of administrative guidelines and take 
effect through the individual supervisory decisions of the national competent authority (NCA).  
3.1.2  Indeed, CRD IV provides Member States with the scope to accommodate in their legislation 
national specificities of the banking sector, lega l requirements and supervisory practices. Pursuant 
to Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013
8 (hereinafter the ‘SSM Regulation’), the 
ECB shall apply all relevant Union law and, where such Union law is composed of Directives, the national legislation transposing those Directives.  
3.1.3  While the ECB fully acknowledges the scope granted by CRD IV (and also the BRRD) to Member 
States to make such accommodation in their legislatio n, this needs to be in line with the objectives 
of the Banking Union. It has to take into account its potential impact on the effectiveness of the 
Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and on the ECB’s mandate to carry out prudential supervision with full regard for the unity and integrity of the internal market with a view to 
preventing regulatory arbitrage, as stipulated in Article 1 of the SSM Regulation. In accordance with these objectives, and pursuant to Article 6(1) of the SSM Regulation, the ECB is responsible for the 
effective and consistent functioning of the SSM, wh ich shall ensure that the Union’s policy relating 
to the prudential supervision of credit institutions is implemented in a coherent and effective way 
and that the single rulebook for financial services is applied in the same manner to credit 
institutions in all Member States concerned
9. 
3.1.4 Binding national prudential legislation that leads to fragmentation of the prudential rules applicable 
to credit institutions within the Banking Union has an impact on the ECB’s exercise of its responsibilities within the SSM, with respect to bot h direct supervision and the SSM’s effectiveness 
and consistency. Member States should acknowl edge that the advent of the SSM means that the 
ECB’s new responsibilities have to be adequately cons idered in the context of the adoption of any 
future banking or prudential legislation with a view to facilitating the harmonisation of supervisory 
practices in the Banking Union. Indeed, fragmentation would result in a considerable additional 
burden not only on the SSM, which would have to consider and enforce at worst 19 different 
prudential regimes for credit institutions, but also on bank groups themselves, which would have to implement such different regimes for each group entity in other Member States participating in the 
Banking Union. 
3.1.5  In addition, national mandatory diverging provisions  will have an impact on the level playing field for 
credit institutions that the ECB seeks to ensure across the Banking Union. The establishment of 
uniform conditions of competition could be hampered significantly. 
                                                 
7  Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of 
credit institutions and the prudential regulation of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 
2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 338). 
8  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank 
concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63). 
9  Recital (12) of the SSM Regulation. 
ECB-PUBLIC  
4 3.1.6 In addition to the above considerations, the ECB notes the following. The BRRD and CRD IV 
require the EBA, in certain areas, to issue guideli nes in order to establish consistent, efficient and 
effective supervisory practices within the European System of Financial Supervision, and to ensure 
the common, uniform and consistent application of Union law10. Competent authorities are subject 
to a ‘comply or explain’ procedure in relation to these guidelines, pursuant to Article 16(3) of 
Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council11 (hereinafter the 
‘EBA Regulation’). In this regard, it should be noted that the ECB is the competent authority as 
regards matters relating to the tasks conferred on it by the SSM Regulation. Therefore, regulations 
issued by the Federal Ministry of Finance under the competences delegated under the draft law may conflict with the ECB’s discretion under the EBA Regulation to incorporate the guidelines into 
its supervisory practices: the regulations, which would qualify as national legislation transposing 
directives, could vitiate the measure of discretion available to the ECB under the ‘comply or explain’ 
procedure.  
3.1.7 At the same time, the regulations would bind the NCA concerned and the ECB would be deprived, 
on the matters subject to the regulations, of the capacity to establish a consistent, harmonised and 
effective approach across the SSM to the supervision of credit institutions subject to the SSM. The 
alleged benefit resulting from converting non-binding guidelines into binding legal acts – namely, 
that infringements can be sanctioned directly
12 – should therefore be balanced against the 
objectives of the Banking Union and the abovementioned capacity of the ECB. An administrative 
guideline that contains provisions on governance and risk management and incorporates EBA guidelines, such as the MaRisk in its current form, already allows the NCA concerned to issue 
supervisory decisions enforcing the objectives of the guideline in individual cases, without unduly 
limiting the ECB in the performance of its tasks or depriving it of its capacity to establish consistency across the SSM.  
3.1.8 To summarise, banking legislation adopted by the Member States after the establishment of the 
SSM should facilitate the exercise by the ECB of  its responsibilities within the SSM including its 
capacity to enhance the consistency of the supervision of credit institutions across the SSM. 
Member States should refrain from setting obstacles both to uniform supervisory practice and to 
the exercise of supervisory discretion by the ECB within the SSM. In view of the principle of 
supremacy of Union law and the ECB’s status as an independent institution, the ECB will not be 
bound by any governmental regulations or similar measures which may affect its independence or 
the smooth functioning of the SSM, for which the ECB is responsible. 
3.2 Statutory subordination: effects on bail-in and TLAC eligibility 
3.2.1  The ECB notes that the proposed statutory subordination of certain senior unsecured debt 
instruments of credit institutions to other senior de bt of those institutions is expected to facilitate 
resolution action and the implementation of the FSB’s forthcoming TLAC proposals. 
                                                 
10  Article 16(1) of the EBA Regulation. 
11  Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a 
European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing 
Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 12). 
12  As set out in the explanatory memorandum to the draft law. 
ECB-PUBLIC  
5 3.2.2 Changing the statutory creditor hierarchy in bank insolvency proceedings is expected to enhance 
the implementation of the bail-in tool in resolution. By means of the subordination, which can be achieved statutorily, contractually or structurally, the resolution authority may apply the bail-in tool 
to liabilities under unsecured bank debt instruments prior to operational liabilities such as corporate 
deposits and derivatives while minimising the risk of compensation claims under the ‘no creditor 
worse off’ principle. The bail-in of such unsecured bank debt instruments is perceived to carry a 
lower contagion risk than that of operational liabilities. 
3.2.3 The ECB also notes that, due to the statutor y subordination, the bail-in of unsecured bank debt 
instruments is likely to be more effective and credi ble to market participants. It will allow losses in 
resolution to be allocated to holders of such instruments, who would be bailed-in ahead of other 
senior unsecured creditors, thus fostering effective resolution action and reducing the need to have recourse to the resolution fund, which is expected to promote adequate pricing of risk on the side of 
investors. Such statutory subordination is therefore expected to improve the resolvability of credit 
institutions under the Union resolution regime and enhance market discipline. 
3.2.4 In addition, the statutory subordination may fa cilitate the implementation of the FSB’s forthcoming 
proposals for G-SIBs which will, in particular, require TLAC-eligible debt instruments to be contractually, statutorily or structurally  subordinated to operational liabilities
13. Under the draft law, 
German banks will be able to use some of thei r already-issued debt instruments to meet the TLAC 
requirements as the statutory subordination applies to existing senior unsecured bank debt 
instruments. This will assist in reducing the possible disadvantages faced by German credit 
institutions with an operating parent company mode l, in comparison with credit institutions that 
have issued TLAC-eligible debt instruments via their holding company, which is a common model 
in some third countries. Moreover, statutory subordination avoids the need to issue a larger volume of contractually subordinated debt, which may be difficult to achieve in a short timeframe. In 
summary, the legislator introduces a legal feature (statutory subordination) to make existing debt instruments TLAC-eligible, without the need for any action by the issuer. 
3.2.5 The ECB notes that the introduction of such statutory subordination will not be without an impact in 
particular on: (a) pricing and capital requirements for holding senior unsecured bank bonds; 
(b) investment mandates; and (c) the ratings and therefore refinancing costs of the German credit 
institutions, which should be ascertained. It is assumed that this is also clear to the legislator. Nonetheless, the ECB welcomes the effective removal of the implicit ‘State guarantee’
14 by the 
draft law and acknowledges that these impacts result in principle from the efforts to facilitate resolution in accordance with the BRRD and SRM. 
3.2.6 With regard to senior unsecured debt instruments issued under the law of a non-European 
Economic Area (EEA) country, credit institutions should in future, in accordance with Article 55 of the BRRD, and as stipulated in Section 55 of the Law on recovery and resolution, contractually 
                                                 
13  It should be noted that the TLAC proposals are stil l under discussion, notably in light of the ongoing impact 
assessment. 
14  In this context, the implicit state guarantee refers to the fact that, in the absence of a credible resolution option which 
ensures the allocation of losses to cr editors, the market will assume that losses will be borne by taxpayers and will 
therefore not adequately reflect the insolvency risk relating to the investment. 
ECB-PUBLIC  
6 ensure that recognition of the bail-in tool is included in the contractual terms and conditions of 
these instruments. There is, however, significant uncertainty as to the treatment of existing debt instruments issued under the laws of third countries in the event that there is no contractual 
provision acknowledging the bail-in mechanism and/or the statutory subordination. The cross-border implications of the bail-in tool are a matter of substantial legal complexity, with discussions 
currently underway in international fora, including the FSB.  
3.3 Statutory subordination: effects on eligibility of debt instruments as collateral for Eurosystem credit 
operations.  
 Guideline (EU) 2015/510 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2014/60)
15 sets out a single 
framework that applies in the Eurosystem for assets  that can be submitted as eligible collateral for 
the purpose of participating in Eurosystem monetary operations. In order to be eligible as collateral for such operations, marketable assets must be debt instruments fulfilling the eligibility criteria laid 
down in Guideline (EU) 2015/510 (ECB/2014/60). In accordance with Article 64 of Guideline (EU) 
2015/510 (ECB/2014/60), eligible debt instruments shall not give rise to rights to the principal and/or the interest that are subordinated to the ri ghts of holders of other debt instruments of the 
same issuer. Therefore, bank debt instruments su bject to a statutory subordination of the kind 
proposed in the draft law would currently no longer be eligible as collateral for Eurosystem credit 
operations. Furthermore, Article 141 of Guideli ne (EU) 2015/510 (ECB/2014/60) already sets a limit 
for the use of unsecured debt instruments issued by  a credit institution or by any other entity with 
which the credit institution has close links.   
3.4  Fragmentation   
 A common framework at Union level on the degree of subordination of senior unsecured bank debt 
instruments to other senior unsecured bank liabilities in bank resolution and/or insolvency proceedings may help to avoid fragmentation of the market within the Union market for these 
instruments and to avoid complicating the tasks of the ECB both with regard to monetary policy and 
to supervision within the SSM.  
 
4. Use of the contributions to the German resolution fund between 2011 and 2014  
The ECB welcomes the German legislator’s intention to provide for the use of contributions to the 
German resolution fund collected between 2011 and 2014 as an alternative funding measure pursuant to 
Article 73(1) of the SRM Regulation, albeit only fo r the German compartment. The ECB welcomes the 
fact that the draft law does not make use of the possibility, provided for in Article 70(5) of the SRM 
Regulation, to compensate institutions for their ex  ante contributions by using contributions from the 
existing German resolution fund collected prior to the entry into force of the BRRD, which helps to  
                                                 
15  Guideline (EU) 2015/510 of the European Central Bank of 19 December 2014 on the implementation of the 
Eurosystem monetary policy framework (ECB/2014/60) (OJ L 91, 2.4.2015, p. 3). 
ECB-PUBLIC  
7 reinforce the SRF, even if limited to the German compartment. 
 This opinion will be published on the ECB’s website. 
  
Done at Frankfurt am Main, 2 September 2015. 
 [signed] 
 
The President of the ECB 
Mario DRAGHI