Article 125 Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010
Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 is amended as follows: (1) In Article 4, point (2) is replaced by the following: ‘(2) ‘competent authority’ means: (i) competent authority as defined in Article 4(1)(40) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, and within the meaning of Directives 2007/64/EC and 2009/110/EC; (ii) with regard to Directives 2002/65/EC and 2005/60/EC, the authorities competent for ensuring compliance with the requirements of those Directives by credit and financial institutions; (iii) with regard to Directive 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( *11 ) , a designated authority as defined in Article 2(1)(18) of that Directive; (iv) with regard to Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( *12 ) , a resolution authority as defined in Article 2(1)(18) of that Directive. ( *11 ) Directive 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on Deposit Guarantee Schemes ( OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 149 )." ( *12 ) 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 ).’;"
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The proposed amendments to Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) are part of a legislative package that includes also amendments to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR), to Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) and to Regulation (EU) 806/2014 (the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR). Over the past years the EU implemented a substantial reform of the financial services regulatory framework to enhance the resilience of financial institutions in the EU, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners. In particular, the reform package included Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) and Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD), on prudential requirements for and supervision of institutions, Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD), on recovery and resolution of institutions and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 on the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM). These measures were taken in response to the financial crisis that unfolded in 2007-2008. The absence of adequate crisis management and resolution frameworks forced governments around the world to rescue banks following the financial crisis. The subsequent impact on public finances as well as the undesirable incentive of socialising the costs of bank failure have underscored that a different approach is needed to manage bank crises and protect financial stability. Within the Union in line with the significant steps that have been taken in international fora, Directive 2014/59/EU (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) 1 and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (SRMR) 2 have established a robust bank resolution framework to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. A cornerstone tool of a robust resolution framework is the “bail-in” which consists of writing down debt or converting debt claims or other liabilities into equity according to a pre-defined hierarchy. The tool can be used to absorb losses of and internally recapitalise an institution that is failing or likely to fail, so that its viability is restored. Therefore, shareholders and other creditors will have to bear the burden of an institution's failure instead of taxpayers. One of the key objectives of the BRRD is to facilitate private sector loss absorbency in the event of a bank crisis. To achieve this objective, all banks are required to meet a Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities ('MREL') to ensure that sufficient financial resources are available for write down or conversion into equity. Under the BRRD, MREL does not generally require mandatory subordination of eligible instruments for MREL. This means, in practical terms, that a liability eligible for MREL may rank in insolvency at the same level ( pari passu ) with certain other liabilities which are not bail-inable in accordance with the BRRD, such as operational liabilities like short-term inter-bank loans, or certain other liabilities which are bail-inable, but could be excluded from bail-in on a discretionary basis if the resolution authority can justify that they are difficult to bail-in for reasons of operational execution or systemic contagion risk (e.g. derivatives). This could lead to situations where bailed-in bondholders may claim they have been treated worse under resolution than under a hypothetical insolvency. In such case, they would need to be compensated by financial means of the resolution fund. To avoid this risk, resolution authorities may decide that the MREL requirement should be met with instruments that rank in insolvency below other liabilities that are either not bail-inable by law or difficult to bail-in (“subordination requirement”). At the global level, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) has published on 9 November 2015 the Total Loss-absorbing Capacity (TLAC) Term Sheet ('the TLAC standard') that was adopted a week later at the G20 summit in Turkey 3 . The TLAC standard requires global systemically important banks (G-SIBs), referred as global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs) in the Union legislation, to hold a sufficient minimum amount of highly loss absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities ('TLAC minimum requirement') to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in resolution. In its Communication of 24 November 2015 4 , the Commission committed to bring forward a legislative proposal by the end of this year so as the TLAC standard can be implemented by the agreed deadline of 2019. This proposal is part of the Commission's efforts to implement the TLAC standard in the Union together with a number of other proposals amending the existing Union recovery and resolution framework. The proposal covers specifically the targeted amendments to the BRRD related to the insolvency ranking of holders of debt instruments issued by Union banks for the purposes of complying with the BRRD and TLAC requirements concerning loss absorption and recapitalisation capacity of banks. In order to enhance the operational execution and robustness of bail-in powers and to avoid legal uncertainty, the TLAC standard requires that liabilities may be eligible for TLAC only if they are subordinated to other liabilities, i.e. if they absorb losses in insolvency or in resolution prior to other “preferred” liabilities that are explicitly excluded from TLAC eligibility, such as derivatives, covered deposits or tax liabilities. The TLAC standard provides, therefore, for a subordination requirement subject to certain exemptions, but it is not prescriptive on the way to achieve it. The TLAC requirement to hold subordinated instruments combined with the potential discretionary request by Union resolution authorities to meet the MREL also with subordinated instruments have driven some Member States to re-assess their national insolvency ranking. A number of Member States have amended (or are in the process of amending) the insolvency ranking of certain bank creditors under their national insolvency law to operationalise the possible application of the bail-in tool under the BRRD and to ensure that their G-SIIs comply with the “subordination requirement” of the TLAC standard. Under some national approaches, the existing stock of unsecured senior debt have been subordinated with immediate effect to allow banks to comply with any subordination requirement stemming from the BRRD or the TLAC standard. Under other approaches, banks would need to issue new debt, which meets the subordination criterion. As the national rules adopted so far diverge significantly, there is a broad agreement among stakeholders and Member States that having divergent approaches to the statutory insolvency ranking of bank creditors provides uncertainty for issuers and investors alike and makes more difficult the application of the bail-in tool for cross-border institutions. This uncertainty could also result in competitive distortions in the sense that unsecured debt holders could be treated differently in different Member States and the costs to comply with the TLAC and MREL requirements for banks may be different from Member State to Member State. Additionally, the creditors of banks under such divergent national insolvency regimes would be treated very differently when buying debt instruments issued by banks falling under different national creditor hierarchy regimes. For the above reasons, in its Report on Banking Union 5 , the European Parliament calls on the Commission to present proposals to further reduce the legal risks of claims under the no-creditor-worse-off principle, and, in its conclusions of 17 June 2016 6 , the ECOFIN invited the Commission to put forward a proposal on a common approach to the bank creditors' hierarchy. A specific proposal on bank creditors' hierarchy is justified in view of the distinct nature of the matters concerned and the urgency of harmonised Union rules to prevent any further competitive distortions on the internal market. 
Revised version (Article 125 Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010):
Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 is amended as follows: (1) In Article 4, point (2) is replaced by the following: ‘(2) ‘competent authority’ means: (i) competent authority as defined in Article 4(1)(40) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, and within the meaning of Directives 2007/64/EC and 2009/110/EC; (ii) with regard to Directives 2002/65/EC and 2005/60/EC, the authorities competent for ensuring compliance with the requirements of those Directives by credit and financial institutions; (iii) with regard to Directive 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( *7 ), a designated authority as defined in Article 2(1)(18) of that Directive; (iv) with regard to Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( *8 ), a resolution authority as defined in Article 2(1)(18) of that Directive. (2) In Article 40(6), the following subparagraph is added: ‘For the purpose of acting within the scope of Directive 2014/59/EU, the member of the Board of Supervisors referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 may, where appropriate, be accompanied by a representative from the resolution authority in each Member State, who shall be non-voting.’.
Article 126 Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012
In Article 81(3) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, the following point is added: ‘(k) the resolution authorities designated under Article 3 of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and the Council ( *13 ) .
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 1 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) establishes together with Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 2 (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) the prudential regulatory framework for credit institutions operating in the Union. The CRR and the CRD were adopted in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis to enhance the resilience of institutions operating in the EU financial sector, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners, in particular the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The CRR has been subsequently amended to tackle remaining weaknesses in the regulatory framework and to implement some outstanding elements of the global financial services reform that are essential to ensure institutions' resilience. A major revision was brought by t he ‘Risk Reduction Measures Package’ , which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 20 May 2019 and published in the Official Journal on 7 June 2019. Th at package include d inter alia changes to the Union bank resolution framework through Directive (EU) 2019/879 of the European Parliament an d of the Council 3 , amending Directive 2014/59/EU of the European P arliament and of the Council 4 (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) , Regulation (EU) 2019/87 7 of the European Parliament and of the Council 5 , amending Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 6 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR) and Regulation (EU) 2019/87 6 of the European Parliament and of the Council 7 , amending the CRR . This reform implement ed in the Union the international Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) standard for global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs) adopted by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in November 2015 8 and enhanced the application of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) for all institutions established in the Union. The TLAC standard requires G-SIIs to hold a sufficient amount of highly loss-absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in the event of resolution. The implementation of the TLAC standard in Union law, namely through amendments to the CRR, took into account the existing institution-specific minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), set out in the BRRD. 9 Moreover, both sets of rules are closely interconnected, particularly through cross-references from the BRRD and the SRMR to the CRR. For instance, the BRRD and the SRMR generally rel y on the total exposure measure and the total risk exposure amount as calculated under the CRR for calculating and expressing MREL . The refore, the two requirements should be understood as complementary elements of a common framework. 10 Th at revised framework should better ensure that ins t itutions’ loss absorption and recapitalisation occur s through private means once those institutions get into financial difficulties and are subsequently placed in resolution. TLAC and MREL are thus essential to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. TLAC and the revised rules on MREL became applicable in the Union on 2 7 June 2019 and 28 December 2020, respectively. In line with international standards , Union law recognises both the Single Point of Entry (SPE) resolution strategy and the Multiple Point of Entry (MPE) resolution strategy. 11 Under the SPE resolution strategy, only one group entity , typically the parent undertaking, is resolved (‘resolution entity’) , whereas o ther group entities, usually operating subsidiaries, are not subject to resolution action . Instead, the losses of those subsidiaries are transferred to the resolution entity and capital is down streamed to the subsidiary . This ensures that the subsidiaries can continue to operate smoothly even after they have reach ed the point of non-viability . Each resolution entity forms a ‘resolution group’ t ogether with the subsidiaries that belong to it and that are not themselves resolution entities . Under the MPE resolution strategy, more than one entity of the banking group may be resolved . C onsequently , more than one resolution entity and thus more than one resolution group may exist within the banking group . The underlying principle of the MPE resolution approach is to enable the resolution of a given resolution group in a feasible and credible way without undermining the resolvability of other resolution entities and resolution groups in the same consolidated banking group. The revised bank resolution framework provides that MREL for resolution entities should be set at the consolidated level of a resolution group ( ‘ external MREL ’ ). 12 In addition, that framework envisages how the loss absorption and recapitalisation capacity should be allocated within resolution groups ( ‘ internal MREL ’ ) 13 . According to the BRRD, as a rule, financial instruments that are eligible for internal MREL must be held by the resolution entity , i.e. typically the parent undertaking 14 . The rationale of this rule is to ensure that t he loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity of a subsidiary is provided by its parent, i.e. by the resolution entity . That parent may hold internal MREL eligible instruments either directly or indirectly through other entities in the same resolution group (see illustration below) . The possibility for instruments to be also indirectly subscribed by the parent through intermediate entities was justified by the fact that the obligation to comply with i nternal MREL should not unnecessarily alter the existing funding channels of banking groups where the funding for acquiring such instruments is structured around the chains of ownership and distributed to the s ubsidiaries across the group through intermediate entities and not directly by ultimate parents (resolution entities). Illustration: Subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments (directly or indirectly) To operationalise the approach of indirect subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments within resolution groups , also referred to as the ‘daisy chain’ approach, and to ensure that it i s prudentially sound, the co-legislators mandated the E uropean B anking A uthority (EBA) to develop draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) and the Commission to adopt on that basis a delegated act to specify a methodology for such an indirect issuance of eligible instruments . 15 According to the BRRD mandate that methodology should: · permit a proper transfer of losses from subsidiaries to their ultimate parent (resolution entity) and a proper transfer of capital from that parent to subsidiaries; · ensure that the loss-absorbing capacity of the subsidiary is not also counted for the purposes of compliance with internal MREL by the intermediate parent ; and · ensure that its outcome is equivalent to that of a direct subscription by the ultimate parent (resolution entity) of eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries. Since early 2020, t he EBA has been working on that draft RTS on the basis of a deduction regime , in line with the mandate set out in the BRRD and the recommend ations in the relevant international standards . 16 The deduction regime developed by the EBA envisages that i nternal MREL eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries to the resolution entity via an intermediate parent would have to be fully deducted from the amount of the intermediate parent’s own i nternal MREL capacity. Such a deduction approach was considered as the most consistent with the conditions set out in the BRRD mandate and conducive to the operationalisation of the i nternal MREL framework . 17 Th e methodology developed by the EBA was subject to a public consultation. 18 The consultation feedback showed general support to the draft RTS, but highlighted several inconsistencies of the requirements for the delegation laid down in the BRRD with the existing prudential rules laid down in the CRR. Hence, in a letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021 19 , the EBA outlined that the interactions between the BRRD and the CRR would not allow the application of the prudential treatment needed for the mandate to be fulfilled as originally intended. More precisely, the EBA noted that the CRR did not allow for the deduction of internal MREL eligible instruments and , subsequently, for the application of an appropriate risk weight of zero percent in all the cases relevant for the mandate under the BRRD . Similar issues were identified in the area of the CRR leverage ratio requirement. T his situation would not only generate an inconsistency between the prudential and resolution framework but would also go against the requirement of the BRRD mandate to generate an outcome equivalent to that of a direct subscription , according to the EBA. It was concluded that the BRRD requirements could not be fulfilled without additional provisions that the RTS could not bear on its own but need ed rather to rely on the Level 1 text to specify. Apart from the need to operationalise the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL, some other resolution related issues have been identified since the revised TLAC/MREL framework bec a me applicable in 2019. 20 Those issues mainly relate to the regulatory tr eatment of G-SII groups with a n MPE resolution strategy, including those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries . For instance, the CRR currently does not specify whether the various adjustments to TLAC 21 for G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy also cover those subsidiaries of a G-SII that are located in a third country . In addition, the formula 22 for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy relies on the risk-based TLAC/MREL requirement of the subsidiary only, while it was omitted to also take into account the non-risked - based TLAC/MREL. Further issues include some contradictions within the Level 1 text, notably with regard to the interplay of provisions in the CRR and the BRRD 23 that are relevant to address potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements . Lastly, some issues have been observed with regard to the criteria 24 for instruments to be eligible for compliance with the internal TLAC requirement, which is of relevance when addressing the failure of EU subsidiaries of non-EU global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs). Some targeted changes to specific resolution related aspects of the CRR are necessary to address the above issues. In particular, the regulatory treatment of G-SII groups with an MPE resolution strategy, including of those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries, needs to be better aligned with the treatment outlined in the TLAC standard. This would help to ensure that, in case of resolution, each resolution entity and group belonging to those G-SIIs can continue to perform critical functions without the risk of contagion. The amendments proposed would not alter the overall architecture of the framework but would ensure the proper application of TLAC and MREL. First, it is necessary to incorporate directly into the CRR a dedicated prudential treatment related to the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL (daisy chain approach). The proposed modifications to the CRR would address the identified inconsistencies between the CRR and the BRRD, which were outlined in the EBA’s letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021. More precisely, the deduction regime, which was developed by the EBA in the context of the draft RTS under the BRRD, would be incorporated directly into the CRR. This would ensure a proper functioning of the indirect subscription of internal MREL within resolution groups with several layers of ownership, in line with the political agreement reached during the negotiations of Directive (EU) 2019/879. In addition, the revisions would ensure that the treatment of holdings of internal MREL eligible instruments remains aligned in both the resolution and the prudential framework, thus enabling the operationalisation of the deduction methodology developed by the EBA and, at the same time, avoiding the introduction of undue complexity in the treatment of those exposures. Second , the CRR provisions on the comparison between the sum of the actual TLAC requirement s of all the resolution groups within a G-SII group with a n MPE resolution strategy with the theoretical SPE requirement of that G-SII group need to be clarified . 25 The changes proposed are needed to clarify the extent to which resolution authorities can address the potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements. This would be achieved by aligning the CRR treatment with the one envisaged under the BRRD 26 and the TLAC standard 27 . Th ird , it is necessary to amend th e formula for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy 28 to ensure that that formula takes into account both the risk-based and the non- risk- based TLAC/MREL requirement s of the subsidiary, in line with the TLAC standard. This would avoid that the TLAC/MREL surplus of a given subsidiary is overestimated. Fourth, some CRR provisions applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy should be clarified to allow for the consideration of subsidiaries established outside of the Union. This would align the CRR with the corresponding TLAC principle agreed internationally, which is applicable with respect to subsidiaries established in all FSB jurisdictions. Fifth, some targeted clarifications in the context of the r equirement for own funds and eligible liabilities for i nstitutions that are material subsidiaries of non-EU G-SIIs ( ‘ internal TLAC ’ ) are needed to ensure that debt instruments issued by those institutions could meet all eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments . The reason for this change is that currently the eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments are based on the assumption that those instruments are issued by a resolution entity, and not by subsidiaries subject to an internal TLAC requirement. The gap would be addressed by clarifying that the same eligibility conditions applicable to resolution entities apply also to non-resolution entities, mutatis mutandis . This, in turn, would enable those institutions to me e t their internal TLAC requirement inter alia with eligible liabilities, as originally intended by the co-legislators . 29 These proposed amendments to the CRR can play an essential role in improving an institution’s resolvability . Given that the corresponding provisions are already applicable in the Union, the proposed modifications would need to be made in a timely manner . The need for an expedited adoption is further amplified by the fact that banking groups need clarity on the daisy chain mechanism to decide how best to preposition their internal MREL capacity in view of the general MREL compliance deadline that is set to 1 January 2024 , with binding intermediate targets needing to be complied with by 1 January 2022 . 
Revised version (Article 126 Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012):
In Article 81(3) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, the following point is added: ‘(k) the resolution authorities designated under Article 3 of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and the Council ( *9 ). ‘(k)
Article 127 EBA Resolution Committee
EBA shall create a permanent internal committee pursuant to Article 41 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 for the purpose of preparing EBA decisions to be taken in accordance with Article 44 thereof, including decisions relating to draft regulatory technical standards and draft implementing technical standards, relating to tasks that have been conferred on resolution authorities as provided for in this Directive. In particular, in accordance with Article 38(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, EBA shall ensure that no decision referred to in that article impinges in any way on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States. That internal committee shall be composed of the resolution authorities referred to in Article 3 of this Directive. For the purposes of this Directive, EBA shall cooperate with EIOPA and ESMA within the framework of the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities established in Article 54 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. For the purposes of this Directive, EBA shall ensure structural separation between the resolution committee and other functions referred to in Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. The resolution committee shall promote the development and coordination of resolution plans and develop methods for the resolution of failing financial institutions.
Article 128 Cooperation with EBA
The competent and resolution authorities shall cooperate with EBA for the purposes of this Directive in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. The competent and resolution authorities shall, without delay, provide EBA with all the information necessary to carry out its duties in accordance with Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Article 129 Review
By 1 June 2018, the Commission shall review the implementation of this Directive and shall submit a report thereon to the European Parliament and to the Council. It shall assess in particular the following: (a) on the basis of the report from EBA referred to in Article 4(7), the need for any amendments with regard to minimising divergences at national level; (b) on the basis of the report from EBA referred to in Article 45(19), the need for any amendments with regard to minimising divergences at national level; (c) the functioning and efficiency of the role conferred on EBA in this Directive, including carrying out of mediation. Where appropriate, that report shall be accompanied by a legislative proposal. Notwithstanding the review provided for in the first subparagraph, the Commission shall, by 3 July 2017, specifically review the application of Articles 13, 18 and 45 as regards EBA’s powers to conduct binding mediation to take account of future developments in financial services law. That report and any accompanying proposals, as appropriate, shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and to the Council.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The establishment of a European Single Access Point (ESAP) by 2024 is a flagship action of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) Action Plan adopted by the European Commission in September 2020 1 . ESAP will contribute to the achievement of the CMU’s objectives by providing EU-wide access to information published by entities that is relevant to capital markets, financial services and sustainable finance, i.e. mainly information about their economic activities and products. ESAP will provide access to this information in an efficient and non-discriminatory manner. Information about entities’ activities and products is essential for decision-making by providers of capital. ESAP will contribute to further integrating the financial services and capital markets in the single market, to allocating capital more efficiently across the EU and promoting the development of smaller national capital markets and economies by giving them greater visibility. ESAP will also allow non-listed entities including Small and Medium-Sized enterprises (SMEs) to make available information on a voluntary basis. This will facilitate their access to capital. This proposal is part of a package comprised of: · a proposal for a Regulation establishing a European Single Access Point; · a proposal for a Directive amending certain Directives (this proposal); and · a proposal for a Regulation amending certain Regulations. Amendments to certain Directives are necessary to achieve the above objectives to contribute to the integration of the single market, particularly as regards the collection of information to be made available to ESAP. 
Revised version (Article 129 Review):
By 1 June 2018, the Commission shall review the implementation of this Directive and shall submit a report thereon to the European Parliament and to the Council. It shall assess in particular the following: (a) on the basis of the report from EBA referred to in Article 4(7), the need for any amendments with regard to minimising divergences at national level; (b) on the basis of the report from EBA referred to in Article 45(19), the need for any amendments with regard to minimising divergences at national level; (c) the functioning and efficiency of the role conferred on EBA in this Directive, including carrying out of mediation. Where appropriate, that report shall be accompanied by a legislative proposal. Notwithstanding the review provided for in the first subparagraph, the Commission shall, by 3 July 2017, specifically review the application of Articles 13, 18 and 45 as regards EBA’s powers to conduct binding mediation to take account of future developments in financial services law. That report and any accompanying proposals, as appropriate, shall be forwarded to the European Parliament and to the Council. By 31 December 2022, the Commission shall review the impact of the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for meeting the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities on the level playing field between different types of banking group structures, including where groups have an operating company between the holding company identified as a resolution entity and its subsidiaries. It shall assess in particular the following: (a) the possibility to allow entities that are not themselves resolution entities to comply with the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities on a consolidated basis; (b) the treatment, under the rules governing the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities, of entities whose resolution plan provides that they are to be wound up under normal insolvency proceedings; (c) the appropriateness of limiting the amount of deductions required pursuant to Article 72e(5) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. The Commission shall submit a report thereon to the European Parliament and to the Council. Where appropriate, that report shall be accompanied by a legislative proposal, taking into account the application date of Article 72e(5) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
Article 130 Transposition
1. Member States shall adopt and publish by 31 December 2014 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those measures. Member States shall apply those measures from 1 January 2015. However, Member States shall apply provisions adopted in order to comply with Section 5 of Chapter IV of Title IV from 1 January 2016 at the latest. 2. When Member States adopt the measures referred to in paragraph 1, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such a reference is to be made. 3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission and to EBA the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Article 131 Entry into force
This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union . Article 124 shall enter into force on 1 January 2015.
Article 132 Addressees
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.