12.6.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 204/5
Under the proposed framework, college opinions, in addition to agreeing or disagreeing with certain supervisory decisions, may also include conditions and recommendations that the college considers necessary to mitigate any shortcomings in the CCP’s risk management (7).
The ECB welcomes the proposed regulation as it enables college members to specify the considerations informing their votes and to flag remaining concerns.
To further enhance the voting process, college members should also be encouraged to provide reasoning when casting their votes in the college opinion process, so as to allow the CCP’s competent authority to benefit more from the various perspectives of college members in a college opinion.
Finally, the ECB supports the proposed obligation for the CCP’s competent authority to state reasons, fully explaining, in its decision, any significant deviations from the college opinion (8).
The ECB believes that these proposed measures will enhance college involvement on an ongoing basis and will help to ensure that CCP supervision supports effective engagement with, and benefits from the perspectives of, all relevant authorities.
The ECB supports the provision in the proposed regulation for college members to provide greater input on the conduct of the annual review process, and suggests that such input should not be restricted to simply establishing the frequency and depth of the annual review but should also address the substantive supervisory focus of that review.
1.1.2.
Cooperation in joint supervisory teams (JSTs)
The ECB fully supports the intent underlying the proposal to introduce JSTs in the supervision of authorised EU CCPs.
Enhancing the involvement of college members in the process of ongoing supervision – notably with respect to the review of the application of non-objection procedures, on-site inspections and in the context of the annual review process – is a step towards strengthening supervision at Union level.
It will help college members to gain a deeper shared understanding of key developments affecting the risks and risk management of CCPs, thereby enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the dialogue between CCPs’ competent authorities and college members across the Union.
It will also enable a pooling of the resources of CCPs’ competent authorities and colleges, which will further contribute to the cost-effectiveness of EU CCP supervision, to the benefit of both national competent authorities and college members.
However, the ECB does not consider it necessary to establish a new supervisory body for this purpose, as this may lead to greater institutional complexity.
In order to ensure proportionality, the ECB proposes to rely on existing cooperation within the college framework.
In this vein, the ECB suggests assigning the envisaged tasks of the JSTs to the college as joint supervisory activities, with participation of college members on a voluntary basis, in line with the ‘no compulsion – no prohibition’ principle.
In case no college member volunteers to participate in a joint supervisory activity together with the competent authority, this entails that the competent authority assumes this task alone.
With a view to embedding the joint supervisory activities in the existing college processes, the ECB suggests adding an additional element to CCPs’ competent authorities’ report on the annual review process (9), namely a plan for joint supervisory activities during the forthcoming annual review period.
In addition to the JSTs’ tasks under the proposed regulation, the ECB also proposes joint supervisory activities with respect to providing input to the non-objection procedure related to the approval of changes in the CCP’s margin models, as well as to the conduct of the annual review and evaluation carried out by the EU CCP’s competent authority (10).
Joint supervisory activities should also include potential desktop exercises as an additional tool for cooperative assessments of the CCP’s risks and risk management procedures.
To enable effective participation of all authorities, including the college, in non-objection procedures, the ECB proposes extending the respective assessment timeline (see paragraph 3.2 below).
(7) (8) (9) (10)
See Article 1, point (12), of the proposed regulation, which inserts a new Article 17b(2), point (c), in EMIR.
See Article 1, point (12), of the proposed regulation, which inserts a new Article 17b(3) in EMIR.
See Article 1, point (16), of the proposed regulation.
See Article 1, point (16), of the proposed regulation, which amends Article 21 of EMIR.