C 349/164
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
29.9.2023
3.5.
The EESC believes that the recent experience also underlines the importance of organising the transfer of a troubled bank to another bank properly in a very short space of time.
It is therefore important to ensure that the regulatory framework provides the right conditions for such transfers, since they need to happen without the usual due diligence procedures and the implications of the transaction are huge and uncertain.
Additionally, experience gained so far has shown that there is a need for a general special regime when a bank going through resolution is acquired, that facilitates the integration of the bank into the new group in the most efficient way.
3.6.
The integration and management of a resolved bank is a complex process, and the regulatory steps and requirements need to be streamlined.
The different authorities involved should be able to duly coordinate their respective roles within the regulatory processes or in the accelerated approval procedures of crisis management measures.
Moreover, it is key to ensure that such transfers can also occur across borders in the EU whenever it is necessary.
3.7.
The EESC appreciates that the Commission has extended DGS protection to the deposits of public authorities, as well as the fact that it is pursuing enhanced harmonisation of deposit protection tools across the EU.
By protecting both private and public savers and retail depositors in the event of a bank failure, deposit insurance minimises the risk of deposit evasion and mitigates the risk of contagion.
The EESC considers that this deposit insurance should be adjusted in certain cases in order to take into consideration depositors in a fragile economic situation, such as disabled persons or people with long-term illnesses.
Since properly funded and organised DIFs are key, the enhanced harmonisation proposed by the Commission will certainly be beneficial.
3.8.
The EESC notes that one of the main objectives of the Commission proposal is to enlarge the scope of application of resolution, should this solution be considered in line with ‘the public interest’.
Liquidation can only take place if: (i) it can satisfy — more effectively than resolution — the objectives that the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive sets out for the resolution itself; and (ii) there is no need to use public funds.
3.9.
The EESC fully understands the Commission’s approach, its regulatory rationale and the long-term objectives.
At the same time, the EESC points to the need for a pragmatic approach — as the recent US bank crises have demonstrated — regarding the regulatory approach, the use of the most effective available tools, the practical implications of the actions undertaken, the necessary cooperation between stakeholders, the speed of execution and, lastly, the financial resources to be used in implementing the chosen crisis management tools.
3.10.
The EESC believes that resolution might not always be the most convenient solution for fully protecting the economic ecosystems in which a troubled bank, especially a small or medium-sized bank, operates.
It is worth noting that, when it comes to small and medium-sized banks, resolution might actually prove to be more expensive than other forms of intervention, especially at the — often limited — local level where the bank works.
In this respect, the EESC suggests that the market share of medium-sized, small and local banks without any cross-border activity could be evaluated with reference to the overall national market share and not on a regional basis within Member States.
3.11.
The EESC believes that the entire CMDI package should be duly coordinated with the expected revision of the 2013 Communication on State Aid (6) in the banking sector, which has played a role in triggering the current unpredictability as to whether resolution should be activated or not.
Adopting the CMDI regulatory proposals without knowledge of the State aid rules could mean implementing proposals that are potentially inconsistent with State aid legislation.
3.12.
As a general comment, the EESC reiterates the importance of respecting the proportionality principle in order to achieve a regulation fit to fulfil its objectives without excessively harming the interests of small, medium-sized and local banks.
The proportionality principle should also be considered in performing the PIA, especially when it comes to local banks, which do not present a risk to financial stability.
(6)
Communication from the Commission on the application, from 1 August 2013, of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis (‘Banking Communication’) (OJ C 216, 30.7.2013, p. 1).