Opinion of the European Central Bank of 27 March 2019 on judicial relief granted to former holders of qualified bank credit (CON/2019/13) 
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: Slovenia, central bank, credit, damages, financial stability, judicial proceedings, national law

EN 

ECB-PUBLIC 

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK 

of 27 March 2019 

on judicial relief granted to former holders of qualified bank credit 

(CON/2019/13) 

Introduction and legal basis 

On 1 February 2019 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the Slovenian Ministry of 

Finance for an opinion on a draft law on judicial relief granted to former holders of qualified bank credit 

(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  third  and  sixth  indents  of  Article  2(1)  of  Council  Decision 
98/415/EC1 as the draft law relates to Banka Slovenije, rules applicable to financial institutions insofar as 

they materially influence the stability of financial institutions and markets and the tasks conferred upon the 

ECB pursuant to Article 127(6) of the Treaty. 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  main  objective  of  the  draft  law  is  to  remedy  the  unconstitutionality,  as  declared  by  the 

Slovenian Constitutional Court in decision No U-I-295/13-260, dated 19 October 2016 (hereinafter 
the  ‘2016  Decision’),  of  certain  provisions  of  the  Law  on  banking  (hereinafter  the  ‘ZBan-1’)2 

governing Banka Slovenije’s liability for damages with respect to extraordinary measures imposed 
by  Banka  Slovenije.  The  provisions  assessed  by  the  Constitutional  Court3  authorised  Banka 

Slovenije  to  adopt  extraordinary  measures  to  write-down  or  convert  qualified  liabilities  during  the 

reorganisation of a bank that failed or was likely to fail, to meet minimum requirements for capital 

and liquidity, to an extent that could result in the withdrawal of their banking authorisation.  

1.2  While  the  Constitutional  Court  confirmed  that  the  legal  basis  for  the  extraordinary  measures 

imposed  in  2013  and  2014  by  Banka  Slovenije  in  respect  of  the  write-down  of  subordinated 
instruments was in line with the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia,4 it held that the provisions 

of Article 350.a of the ZBan-1 providing for judicial relief to be unconstitutional. This conclusion was 

1  

2 
3  

4  

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). 
Zakon o bančništvu, Uradni list Republike Slovenije št. 131/06. 
Articles  253,  253.a,  253.b,  260.a,  260.b,  261.b,  261.c,  261.d,  261.e,  262.a,  262.b(2),  346,  347,  350  and  350.a  of 
ZBan-1.  
Ustava Republike Slovenije, Uradni list Republike Slovenije št. 33/91-I. 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

based on the Constitutional Court’s finding that exercising judicial relief under Article 350.a of the 

ZBan-1 did not afford effective judicial protection to former holders of qualified bank credit affected 

by Banka Slovenije’s extraordinary measures. The Constitutional Court decided that the legislator 

must  remedy  the  unconstitutionality  within  six  months  of  the  publication  of  the  Constitutional 

Court’s  decision,  and  provided  the  legislator  with  further  guidance  on  how  best  to  ensure  more 

effective judicial protection. 

1.3  The main purpose of the draft law is to remedy the unconstitutionality of the judicial relief afforded 

to former holders of qualified bank credit affected by Banka Slovenije’s extraordinary measures, as 

declared  by  the  Slovenian  Constitutional  Court.  The  key  points  of  the  draft  law  are  summarised 

below. 

1.4  The draft law codifies special procedural rules of judicial redress for the former holders of qualified 

bank credit, which deviate from the general rules and, inter alia, enable legal proceedings affecting 

similarly-placed litigants to be joined together to achieve a joint and uniform assessment of claims 

regarding a specific bank that was subject to Banka Slovenije’s extraordinary measures. Any action 

for compensation may be filed after three months have elapsed from the entry into force of the draft 

law and at the latest within fifteen months from the entry into force of the draft law. The draft law 

prescribes a two-stage decision procedure. First, a decision establishing that there is a basis for a 

claim  against  Banka  Slovenije  would  be  issued  by  the  court  in  the  form  of  an  interlocutory 

judgment. The claimant would then file a claim stipulating the level of damages at the latest sixty 

days  from  the  date  on  which  the  interlocutory  judgement  becomes  final.  Banka  Slovenije  would, 

within  thirty  days  of  the  interlocutory  judgment  becoming  final,  prepare  and  present  a  list  of 

amounts of individual damages to the court and an individual assessment to the relevant claimant. 

The  claimants  would  have  the  possibility  to  comment  on  the  list  made  by  Banka  Slovenije  within 

the  claimants’  sixty  day  deadline.  The  court  would  then  issue  a  final  judgement  deciding  on  the 

amount of damages for each individual claimant.  

1.5  The  draft  law  regulates  those  proceedings  that  were  already  pending  or  will  be  pending  in  which 

the former holders of qualified bank credit are seeking judicial protection under civil law based on 

Article 350.a of the ZBan-1.  

Article 350.a of the ZBan-1 stipulates that shareholders, creditors, and other persons whose rights 

are affected due to the  effects of an order by  Banka Slovenije on  an  extraordinary  measure  may 

claim damages from Banka Slovenije in accordance with Article 223.a of the ZBan-1, if they prove 

that the loss that has arisen due to the effects of the extraordinary measure is higher than it would 

have  been  had  the  extraordinary  measure  not  been  adopted.  Article  223.a  of  the  ZBan-1  stated 

that Banka Slovenije and all of the persons acting on its behalf should be acting with the diligence 

of  a  good  expert  when  exercising  their  supervisory  functions.  As  confirmed  by  the  Constitutional 

Court,  and  also  noted  in  the  explanatory  memorandum  to  the  draft  law,  the  liability  of  Banka 

Slovenije  as  provided  for  in  Article  350.a  of  the  ZBan-1  is  a  sui  generis  liability  (specially 
determined liability)5.  

5  

See paragraph 120 of the 2016 Decision and page 16 of the explanatory memorandum. 

2 

 
                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

The draft law specifically refers to the material provisions of the ZBan-1 for the court to consider in 

establishing  whether  a  claimant  has  a  right  to  compensation.  Article  19  of  the  draft  law  provides 

guidelines  for  the  court  on  how  to  establish  a  right  to  compensation  in  the  most  economically 
efficient way6. When determining whether a claimant has a right to compensation, the court must 

establish  whether  extraordinary  measures  relating  to  qualified  liabilities  were  adopted  by  Banka 
Slovenije in accordance with the conditions laid down in the ZBan-17. Under the draft law, the court 

must,  inter  alia,  verify  whether  the  assessment  of  the  conditions  necessary  for  imposing 
extraordinary  measures,  as  laid  down  in  Article  253.a  of  the  ZBan-18,  including  the  respective 

bank’s  asset  quality  review  (AQR),  was  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  relevant  provisions  of 

the  ZBan-1.  In  doing  so,  the  main  aspects  that  the  court  must  verify,  in  accordance  with  the 

conditions laid  down  in the  draft law, are  whether: (i) the method  and  the  premises on  which  the 

method was based, to an extent that impacted the assessment were in breach of the ZBan-1, the 

rules  of  the  European  Union  on  state  aid  and  the  standards  for  the  supervision  of  banks  as 

stipulated by the ECB, the European Commission, and the European Banking Authority (EBA); (ii) 

the methods and premises on which the method was based were used wrongly and this affected 

the  assessment;  (iii) the  method  of  obtaining the  data  used  in the  preparation  of the  assessment 

raises a reasonable doubt as to whether source data were used and this affected the assessment; 

and  (iv)  there  is  reasonable  doubt  concerning  the  professionalism  and  the  independence  of  the 

person who, or the entity which, performed the valuation of the assets of the bank that was used for 
the assessment to such an extent that it would be an unsuitable basis for a decision9.  

In the event of a dispute regarding the fulfilment of the conditions for the extraordinary measures, 

Banka Slovenije must, in connection with the write-off or conversion of qualified credit of the bank, 

ensure that an individual creditor does not, as a result of such actions, suffer greater losses than he 

would have suffered if the bank had been declared insolvent, in accordance with the ‘no-creditor-
worse-off-than-in-insolvency’ principle10. The burden of proof lies with the Banka Slovenije11. 

1.6  The  draft  law  provides  that  the  action  for  the  recovery  of  damages  based  on  Article  350.a  of  the 

ZBan-1 may only be filed  against the Banka Slovenije. Compensation for damages incurred  as a 

result  of  the  extraordinary  measures  must  therefore  be  paid  by  Banka  Slovenije.  As  noted  in  the 

explanatory memorandum to the draft law, the full amount of the qualified credit that was written off 

as a result of the extraordinary measures ordered by Banka Slovenije pursuant to the ZBan-1, and 

as  such  the  potential  amount  of  damages  to  be  covered  by  Banka  Slovenije,  amounts  to  EUR 

6  
7  
8  

9    
10 
11  

As noted in the explanatory memorandum in the comments to Article 19 of the draft law.  

Articles 253.a(1) and Article 261.a to 261.c ZBan-1. 
The conditions laid down in Article 253.a of the ZBan-1 are as follows: i) an increase in risk is prevailing in relation to 
the  bank; ii)  there are  no  circumstances  indicated  showing  that  the  reasons  for  this  increased  risk  are likely  to  be 
eliminated  within  a  suitable  time  period,  iii)  it  is  not  likely  that  Banka  Slovenije  could  take  other  measures  on  the 
basis of this act for the bank to achieve short-term and long-term capital adequacy or to achieve a suitable liquidity 
position  within  a  suitable  time;  and  iv)  extraordinary  measures  are  in  the  public  interest  to  prevent  a  threat  to  the 
stability of the financial system. 
See Article 19 of the draft law. 

See the fifth paragraph of Article 261.a of the ZBan-1.  
See Article 14 of the draft law. 

3 

 
 
                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

963,197,453.8912. 

1.7  The funds for the payment of the damages will be provided independently by Banka Slovenije from 

its own  funds, up to  the level of the  provisions  established for this  purpose and general  reserves 
established in accordance with the Law on Banka Slovenije13. If the funds required for the payment 

of damages exceed the level of the provisions established for this purpose and general reserves, 

the Republic of Slovenia will temporarily cover the difference. The Republic of Slovenia and Banka 

Slovenije will, within twelve months from the draft law entering into force, enter into an agreement 
on this temporary provision of funds14. The draft law provides that the Banka Slovenije must make 

arrangements  for  the  reimbursement  of  the  temporarily  provided  monetary  funds  in  its  financial 

plan and ensure that the reimbursement of these funds does not cause a shortfall in income over 
expenses that cannot be covered by the existing general reserves of Banka Slovenije15.  

1.8  The  draft  law  provides  for  one  exception  from  the  mandatory  application  of  the  draft  law,  in 

situations  where  a  criminal  offence  has  been  declared  to  have  been  committed  in  relation  to  a 

decision of Banka Slovenije on an extraordinary measure by a final judgement of a criminal court. 

In such cases, the general rules for the recovery of damages and the general procedure will apply, 

instead of the special provisions of the draft law. 

1.9  The draft law lays down rules for a two-stage disclosure of documents and information in relation to 

any decision on extraordinary measures adopted by Banka Slovenije.  

Firstly,  Banka  Slovenije  must  publish  on  its  website:  (i)  the  order  under  which  the  extraordinary 

measure was adopted; (ii) documents showing the content of the contractual relationship between 

Banka Slovenije and the person who, or entity which, performed the valuation of the assets of the 

bank in accordance with Article 261(b)(1) of the ZBan-1; (iii) documents showing the content of the 

contractual  relationship  between  Banka  Slovenije  and  the  performers  of  the  asset  quality  review, 
the  stress  tests  and  the  property  valuators;  and  (iv)  the  stress  test  reports16.  All  personal  and 

confidential information or commercial secrets must be redacted in advance of any such publication 
on the website of Banka Slovenije17.  

Secondly,  Banka  Slovenije  must  establish  a  data  room  for  each  bank  in  respect  of  which  an 

extraordinary  measure  was  adopted  at  discrete  sites  in  the  area  in  which  the  bank  had  its 

registered office at the time the measure was adopted. Former holders of the qualified bank credit 

(i.e.,  the  claimants)  have  the  right  to  access  all  the  data  and  documents  that  were  taken  into 
account  in  adopting  the  extraordinary  measures18.  Personal  data  will  be  redacted  from  the 
documents made available in the  data room  19 and  persons seeking access to the data  room  will 

12 
13 
14 

15 
16 
17 
18 
19  

See page 7 of the explanatory memorandum to the draft law. 
Zakon o Banki Slovenije, Uradni list Republike Slovenije št. 72/06. 

In  the  agreement  the  parties  will  stipulate  the  procedures  and  criteria  for  the  calculation  and  determination  of  the 
level of the monetary funds that are necessary for the temporary coverage. 

See Article 24 of the draft law. 
See Article 6(1) of the draft law. 
See Article 6(2) of the draft law. 

See Article 7 of the draft law. 
See Article 7(2) of the draft law. 

4 

 
 
                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

have  to  sign  a  confidentiality  undertaking20.  Furthermore,  the  draft  law  stipulates  that  the  former 

holders of qualified bank credit may file a motion to the court to oblige Banka Slovenije (and certain 

other entities, such as the State, the Court of Audit, the Central Securities Clearing Corporation, the 

Securities  Market  Agency,  the  Insurance  Supervision  Agency,  the  Bank  Assets  Management 

Company and the bank affected by the extraordinary measure) to provide documents to the court 

without redacting personal or confidential information, whereby the court must limit any disclosure 

of evidence to  what is  required  and  proportionate  and must also  ensure  the adoption  of  effective 

measures  to  protect  such  information,  for  example  by  excluding  the  public  from  the  court’s 

proceedings and limiting the review to certain entities. 

1.10 

In order to  ensure  the  effectiveness  of  the  protection  of documents and  data  in  a  data  room,  the 
draft law establishes fines for violations21. Under the draft law, Banka Slovenije is also designated 

as  an  authority  responsible  for  deciding  on  breaches  of  a  confidentiality  undertaking  and  the 
imposition of fines in accordance with the Minor Offences Act22. 

2. 

Observations  

2.1  Prohibition of monetary financing 

2.1.1  The ECB has already delivered opinions on two earlier versions of the draft law23. Under the first 

version  of  the  draft  law,  compensation  for  damages  incurred  as  a  result  of  the  extraordinary 

measures was required to be paid either by Banka Slovenije or the State, and if no liability could be 
attributed  to  Banka  Slovenije,  compensation  was  required  to  be  paid  by  the  State24.  Under  the 

second  version  of  the  draft  law,  even  though  Banka  Slovenije  would  be  liable  for  damages, 

provision was also made for Banka Slovenije to file an action against the State in order to prove in 

a separate court procedure that Banka Slovenije was not liable for the damages resulting from the 
imposition of the extraordinary measures25. The current version of the draft law does not make any 

reference to the liability of the State. 

2.1.2  As  noted  by  the  ECB  in  its  previous  opinions,  a  requirement  that  Banka  Slovenije  must  pay 

compensation for damages, to the extent that it results in Banka Slovenije assuming the liability of 

the Republic of Slovenia, would not be in line with the monetary financing prohibition laid down in 
Article 123 TFEU26.  As repeatedly noted by the ECB, while resolution tasks may be considered to 

be  central  banking  tasks,  provided  that  they  do  not  undermine  an  NCB’s  independence  in 

accordance with Article 130 of the Treaty, the discharge of these tasks by central banks may not 

20  
21 
22 
23 

24 
25  
26 

See Article 7(4) of the draft law. 
See Article 25 of the draft law. 
Zakon o prekrških, Uradni list Republike Slovenije, št. 29/11. 
See  Opinion  CON/2017/16  and  Opinion  CON/2017/41.  All  ECB  opinions  are  published  on  the  ECB’s  website  at 
www.ecb.europa.eu.  

See paragraph 1.4 of Opinion CON/2017/16.  
See paragraph 1.4 of Opinion CON/2017/41.  

For  the  purposes  of  the  monetary  financing  prohibition,  Article  1(1)(b)(ii)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  3603/93 
defines  ‘other  type  of  credit  facility’,  inter  alia,  as  ‘any  financing  of  the  public  sector’s  obligations  vis-à-vis  third 
parties’.. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

extend  to  the  financing  of  resolution  funds  or  other  financial  arrangements  related  to  resolution 
proceedings  as  these  are  governmental  tasks27.  In  this  respect,  it  is  noted  that  Directive 
2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council28 provides that the resolution financing 

arrangements  may  be  used  to  pay  compensation  to  shareholders  and  creditors  if  the  valuation 

carried out for the purposes of assessing whether shareholders and creditors would have received 

better treatment if the institution under resolution had entered into normal insolvency proceedings 

determines that any shareholder or creditor has incurred greater losses than it would have incurred 
under  normal  insolvency  proceedings29.  It  is  also  noted  that  Regulation  (EU)  No  806/2014  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council30 envisages that, on the one hand, the resolution fund may 

be  used  to  pay  compensation  to  shareholders  or  creditors  if,  following  an  evaluation,  they  have 

incurred greater losses than they would have incurred under normal insolvency proceedings while 

on  the  other  hand,  in  the  case  of  non-contractual  liability,  the  Single  Resolution  Board  would 
compensate  for  any  damage  caused  by  it  or  by  its staff  in  the  performance  of  their  duties31.  The 

draft  law  should  establish  liability  arrangements  which  clarify  that  Banka  Slovenije  is  not  liable  to 

pay  compensation  for  damages  in  circumstances  that  would  mirror  the  compensation  foreseen 

under Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 to be paid from resolution financing 

arrangements to shareholders or creditors when a second independent valuation (carried out after 

resolution  actions  have  been  effected)  determines  that  shareholders  or  creditors  have  incurred 

greater losses than they would have incurred under normal insolvency proceedings, as otherwise 

Banka Slovenije would de facto finance measures akin to resolution proceedings. Banka Slovenije 

may not finance a government task. 

2.2  Financial independence of Banka Slovenije  

As the ECB has repeatedly stated32, Member States may not put their central banks in a position 

where they have insufficient financial resources and inadequate net equity to carry out their ESCB 

or Eurosystem-related tasks, as well as their national tasks. Consequently, the impact of the draft 

law on the financial independence of Banka Slovenije should be carefully considered. According to 

the  figures  provided  in  the  explanatory  memorandum  to  the  draft  law,  the  total  amount  of  the 

qualified  credit  written  of,  pursuant  to  the  orders  of  Banka  Slovenije  on  extraordinary  measures, 
was EUR 963,197,453.8933. However, Banka Slovenije’s most recently reported reserves amount 

27  
28  

31  
32  
33  

See, e.g., paragraph 3.2.3 of Opinion CON/2016/28.  

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).  
See Articles 75 and 101(1)(e) of Directive 2014/59/EU.  

29  
30     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). 
See Articles 76(1)(e) and 87(3) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014.  

See Opinions CON/2014/24, CON/2014/27, CON/2014/56 and CON/2017/17. 
See page 7 of the explanatory memorandum to the draft law 

6 

 
                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

to EUR 908,827,000.0034. Taking into account the worst-case scenario, Banka Slovenije could lose 

a  significant  amount  of  its  reserves  and  as  a  consequence  it  may  have  a  negative  effect  on  the 

financial resources of Banka Slovenije and its financial independence.  

2.3  Professional secrecy 

As noted by the ECB in its opinions on earlier versions of the draft law, national legislation should 

be compatible with obligations to maintain professional secrecy imposed by Union law, in particular 
by  Article  53  of  Directive  2013/36/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council35.  In  this 

respect, the ECB considers that except for the outcome of stress tests, the publication of which is 

explicitly  permitted  under  Article  53(3)  of  Directive  2013/36/EU,  the  stress  test  reports,  AQR  and 

asset  valuations  relating  to  individual  supervised  banks  are  to  be  regarded  as  confidential 

information.  Disclosure  of  such  confidential  information  can  generally  only  be  permitted  in  cases 

specified  in  Article  53(1)  of  Directive  2013/36/EU,  which  does  not  include  disclosure  to  all  the 

claimants  envisaged  under  the  draft  law  as  disclosure  is  only  permitted  in  cases  of  civil 

proceedings  in  connection  with  cases  where  a  credit  institution  has  been  declared  bankrupt  or  is 
being compulsorily wound up36. 

In order to ensure the adequate protection of confidential supervisory information, the disclosure of 

stress  test  reports  without  confidential  information  should  be  limited  only  to  the  shareholders  or 

creditors who were directly affected by the extraordinary measures taken by Banka Slovenije and 

therefore have a legitimate legal interest as defined by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of 
Slovenia37.  

2.4  Miscellaneous 

2.4.1  Regarding  the  draft  law’s  requirement  to  verify  whether  the  methods  and  the  basic  premises 

underlying  the  methods  used  in  the  assessment  of  the  conditions  necessary  for  imposing 

extraordinary  measures,  as  laid  down  in  Article  253.a  of  the  ZBan-1,  were  consistent  with  the 

standards  of  banking  supervision  adopted  by  the  ECB,  the  European  Commission  and  the  EBA, 

the  ECB  reiterates  its  previous  recommendation  that,  in  order  to  provide  legal  certainty,  the  draft 

law  should  specify  in  more  detail  the  relevant  legal  sources  (e.g.  legal  acts  and  best supervisory 
practices) relevant in this context38. 

2.4.2  Finally,  as  noted  previously  by  the  ECB39,  pursuant  to  Article  33  of  Council  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1024/201340, from 3 November 2013 onwards, in view of the imminent assumption of its prudential 

34   
35  

36  

37  
38  
39  
40  

See Banka Slovenije’s Annual Report 2017 (Letno poročilo 2017, leto 28, april 2018). 
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  supervision  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). 
See  the  judgement  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  19  June  2018,  Baumeister,  C-15/16,  ECLI:EU:C:2018:464;  the 
judgement of the Court of Justice of 13 September 2018, UBS Europe and Others, C-358/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:715; 
and the judgement of the Court of Justice of, 13 September 2018, Buccioni, C-594/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:717. 

See paragraph 123 of the 2016 Decision. 
See paragraph 2.5 of Opinion CON/2017/16. 
See paragraph 2.9 of Opinion CON/2017/41. 

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). 

7 

 
 
                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

supervisory  tasks  under  Regulation  (EU)  No  1024/2013,  the  ECB  was  authorised  to  require  the 

national competent authorities, including Banka Slovenije, together with credit institutions, financial 

holding  companies,  mixed  financial  holding  companies  and  mixed-activity  holding  companies  of 

euro area Member States, as well as persons belonging to these entities and third parties to whom 

these entities had outsourced functions or activities, to provide all relevant information for the ECB 

to  carry  out  a  comprehensive  assessment,  including  a  balance-sheet  assessment,  of  credit 

institutions in euro area Member States. The comprehensive assessment conducted by the ECB in 

this context comprised two components, including an AQR, which was a point-in-time assessment 

of  the  accuracy  of  the  carrying  value  of  banks’  assets  as  at  31  December  2013.  The  AQR  was 

undertaken by the ECB and the national competent authorities, including Banka Slovenije, and was 

based on a uniform methodology and harmonised definitions. The comprehensive assessment was 
based  on  Regulation  (EU)  No  575/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council41  and 
Directive 2013/36/EU42. The ECB notes that the judicial review of the comprehensive assessment, 

including the  underlying  uniform methodology, conducted by the  ECB in this respect falls  outside 

the competence of the national courts, and falls exclusively within the competence of the Court of 

Justice  of  the  European  Union.  It  would  be  useful,  to  avoid  any  possible  doubt  on  this  issue,  to 

introduce  a  provision  into  the  draft  law  to  clarify  this  particular  point,  so  that  any  possible 

discrepancies between the draft law and Union law in this respect can be avoided. 

This opinion will be published on the ECB’s website.  

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 27 March 2019. 

[signed] 

The President of the ECB 

Mario DRAGHI 

41  

42  

Regulation  (EU)  No  575/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  June  2013  on  prudential 
requirements  for  credit  institutions  and  investment  firms  and  amending  Regulation  (EU)  No  648/2012  (OJ  L  176, 
27.6.2013, p. 1). 

See  pages  2-4  of  the  European  Central  Bank,  Aggregate  Report  on  the  Comprehensive  Assessment:  Summary 
(October 2014), available on the ECB’s website at www.ecb.europa.eu. 

8