Article 29 Common supervisory culture
1. The Authority shall play an active role in building a common Union supervisory culture and consistent supervisory practices, as well as in ensuring uniform procedures and consistent approaches throughout the Union. The Authority shall carry out, at a minimum, the following activities: (a) providing opinions to competent authorities; (b) promoting an effective bilateral and multilateral exchange of information between competent authorities, with full respect for the applicable confidentiality and data protection provisions provided for in the relevant Union legislation; (c) contributing to developing high-quality and uniform supervisory standards, including reporting standards, and international accounting standards in accordance with Article 1(3); (d) reviewing the application of the relevant regulatory and implementing technical standards adopted by the Commission, and of the guidelines and recommendations issued by the Authority and proposing amendments where appropriate; and (e) establishing sectoral and cross-sectoral training programmes, facilitating personnel exchanges and encouraging competent authorities to intensify the use of secondment schemes and other tools. 2. The Authority may, as appropriate, develop new practical instruments and convergence tools to promote common supervisory approaches and practices.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Today, the solidity of the banking sector is in many instances still closely linked to the Member State in which they are established. Doubts about the sustainability of public debt, economic growth prospects, and the viability of credit institutions have been creating negative, mutually reinforcing market trends. This may lead to risks for the viability of some credit institutions as well as for the stability of the financial system, and may impose a heavy burden for already strained public finances of the Member States concerned. The situation poses specific risks within the euro area, where the single currency increases the likelihood that developments in one Member State can create risks for economic development and the stability of the Euro area as a whole. Furthermore, the current risk of financial disintegration along national borders significantly undermines the Single Market for financial services and prevents it from contributing to economic recovery. The establishment of the European Banking Authority (EBA) by Regulation (EU) No. 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) already contributed to improved cooperation between national supervisors and to the development of a single rulebook for financial services in the EU. However, supervision of banks remains to a large extent within national boundaries and thereby fails to keep up with integrated banking markets. Supervisory failings have, since the onset of the banking crisis, significantly eroded confidence in the EU banking sector and contributed to an aggravation of tensions in euro area sovereign debt markets. The Commission has therefore called in May 2012, as part of a longer term vision for economic and fiscal integration, for a banking union to restore confidence in banks and in the euro. One of the key elements of the banking union should be a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) with direct oversight of banks, to enforce prudential rules in a strict and impartial manner and perform effective oversight of cross border banking markets. Ensuring that banking supervision across the Euro area abides by high common standards will contribute to build the necessary trust between Member States, which is a pre-condition for the introduction of any common backstops. At the Euro area summit on 29 June, 2012, the Heads of State or Government have called on the Commission "to present proposals for the setting up of a single supervisory mechanism shortly. When such a mechanism will be in place for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to recapitalize banks directly". The European Council conclusions of the meeting held on the 28/29 June 2012 state that this Euro Area statement and the proposals that the Commission will present accordingly should take into account the development of "a specific and time-bound road map for the achievement of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union". Under this new mechanism, the ECB will carry out a wide range of key supervisory tasks over credit institutions in the Euro area Member States. With a view to maintaining and deepening the internal market, other Member States will be allowed to enter into close collaboration with the ECB. To avoid fragmentation of the internal market following the establishment of the single supervisory mechanism, the proper functioning of the EBA needs to be ensured. The role of the EBA should therefore be preserved in order to further develop the single rulebook and ensure convergence of supervisory practices over all EU. Along with the proposal for a Council Regulation conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions in accordance with Article 127(6) TFEU, this proposal introduces targeted amendments to the Regulation establishing the European Banking Authority.
Revised version (Article 29 Common supervisory culture):
1. The Authority shall play an active role in building a common Union supervisory culture and consistent supervisory practices, as well as in ensuring uniform procedures and consistent approaches throughout the Union. The Authority shall carry out, at a minimum, the following activities: (a) providing opinions to competent authorities; (b) promoting an effective bilateral and multilateral exchange of information between competent authorities, with full respect for the applicable confidentiality and data protection provisions provided for in the relevant Union legislation; (c) contributing to developing high-quality and uniform supervisory standards, including reporting standards, and international accounting standards in accordance with Article 1(3); (d) reviewing the application of the relevant regulatory and implementing technical standards adopted by the Commission, and of the guidelines and recommendations issued by the Authority and proposing amendments where appropriate; and (e) establishing sectoral and cross-sectoral training programmes, facilitating personnel exchanges and encouraging competent authorities to intensify the use of secondment schemes and other tools. 2. The Authority may, as appropriate, develop new practical instruments and convergence tools to promote common supervisory approaches and practices. For the purpose of building a common supervisory culture, the Authority shall develop and maintain up to date, taking into account, inter alia, changing business practices and business models of financial institutions, a European supervisory handbook on the supervision of financial institutions for the Union as a whole. The European supervisory handbook shall set out supervisory best practices for methodologies and processes.
Article 30 Peer reviews of competent authorities
1. The Authority shall periodically organise and conduct peer reviews of some or all of the activities of competent authorities, to further strengthen consistency in supervisory outcomes. To that end, the Authority shall develop methods to allow for objective assessment and comparison between the authorities reviewed. When conducting peer reviews, existing information and evaluations already made with regard to the competent authority concerned shall be taken into account. 2. The peer review shall include an assessment of, but shall not be limited to: (a) the adequacy of resources and governance arrangements of the competent authority, with particular regard to the effective application of the regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards referred to in Articles 10 to 15 and of the acts referred to in Article 1(2) and the capacity to respond to market developments; (b) the degree of convergence reached in the application of Union law and in supervisory practice, including regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations adopted pursuant to Articles 10 to 16, and the extent to which the supervisory practice achieves the objectives set out in Union law; (c) best practices developed by some competent authorities which might be of benefit for other competent authorities to adopt; (d) the effectiveness and the degree of convergence reached with regard to the enforcement of the provisions adopted in the implementation of Union law, including the administrative measures and sanctions imposed against persons responsible where those provisions have not been complied with. 3. On the basis of a peer review, the Authority may issue guidelines and recommendations pursuant to Article 16. In accordance with Article 16(3), the competent authorities shall endeavour to follow those guidelines and recommendations. The Authority shall take into account the outcome of the peer review when developing draft regulatory technical or implementing technical standards in accordance with Articles 10 to 15. 4. The Authority shall make the best practices that can be identified from those peer reviews publicly available. In addition, all other results of peer reviews may be disclosed publicly, subject to the agreement of the competent authority that is the subject of the peer review.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Today, the solidity of the banking sector is in many instances still closely linked to the Member State in which they are established. Doubts about the sustainability of public debt, economic growth prospects, and the viability of credit institutions have been creating negative, mutually reinforcing market trends. This may lead to risks for the viability of some credit institutions as well as for the stability of the financial system, and may impose a heavy burden for already strained public finances of the Member States concerned. The situation poses specific risks within the euro area, where the single currency increases the likelihood that developments in one Member State can create risks for economic development and the stability of the Euro area as a whole. Furthermore, the current risk of financial disintegration along national borders significantly undermines the Single Market for financial services and prevents it from contributing to economic recovery. The establishment of the European Banking Authority (EBA) by Regulation (EU) No. 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) already contributed to improved cooperation between national supervisors and to the development of a single rulebook for financial services in the EU. However, supervision of banks remains to a large extent within national boundaries and thereby fails to keep up with integrated banking markets. Supervisory failings have, since the onset of the banking crisis, significantly eroded confidence in the EU banking sector and contributed to an aggravation of tensions in euro area sovereign debt markets. The Commission has therefore called in May 2012, as part of a longer term vision for economic and fiscal integration, for a banking union to restore confidence in banks and in the euro. One of the key elements of the banking union should be a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) with direct oversight of banks, to enforce prudential rules in a strict and impartial manner and perform effective oversight of cross border banking markets. Ensuring that banking supervision across the Euro area abides by high common standards will contribute to build the necessary trust between Member States, which is a pre-condition for the introduction of any common backstops. At the Euro area summit on 29 June, 2012, the Heads of State or Government have called on the Commission "to present proposals for the setting up of a single supervisory mechanism shortly. When such a mechanism will be in place for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to recapitalize banks directly". The European Council conclusions of the meeting held on the 28/29 June 2012 state that this Euro Area statement and the proposals that the Commission will present accordingly should take into account the development of "a specific and time-bound road map for the achievement of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union". Under this new mechanism, the ECB will carry out a wide range of key supervisory tasks over credit institutions in the Euro area Member States. With a view to maintaining and deepening the internal market, other Member States will be allowed to enter into close collaboration with the ECB. To avoid fragmentation of the internal market following the establishment of the single supervisory mechanism, the proper functioning of the EBA needs to be ensured. The role of the EBA should therefore be preserved in order to further develop the single rulebook and ensure convergence of supervisory practices over all EU. Along with the proposal for a Council Regulation conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions in accordance with Article 127(6) TFEU, this proposal introduces targeted amendments to the Regulation establishing the European Banking Authority.
Revised version (Article 30 Peer reviews of competent authorities):
1. The Authority shall periodically organise and conduct peer reviews of some or all of the activities of competent authorities, to further strengthen consistency in supervisory outcomes. To that end, the Authority shall develop methods to allow for objective assessment and comparison between the authorities reviewed. When conducting peer reviews, existing information and evaluations already made with regard to the competent authority concerned shall be taken into account. 2. The peer review shall include an assessment of, but shall not be limited to: (a) the adequacy of resources and governance arrangements of the competent authority, with particular regard to the effective application of the regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards referred to in Articles 10 to 15 and of the acts referred to in Article 1(2) and the capacity to respond to market developments; (b) the degree of convergence reached in the application of Union law and in supervisory practice, including regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations adopted pursuant to Articles 10 to 16, and the extent to which the supervisory practice achieves the objectives set out in Union law; (c) best practices developed by some competent authorities which might be of benefit for other competent authorities to adopt; (d) the effectiveness and the degree of convergence reached with regard to the enforcement of the provisions adopted in the implementation of Union law, including the administrative measures and sanctions imposed against persons responsible where those provisions have not been complied with. 3. On the basis of a peer review, the Authority may issue guidelines and recommendations pursuant to Article 16. In accordance with Article 16(3), the competent authorities shall endeavour to follow those guidelines and recommendations. When developing draft regulatory technical or implementing technical standards in accordance with Articles 10 to 15, the Authority shall take into account the outcome of the peer review, along with any other information acquired in carrying out its tasks, in order to ensure convergence of the standards and practices of the highest quality. 3a. The Authority shall submit an opinion to the Commission where the peer review or any other information acquired in carrying out its tasks shows that a legislative initiative is necessary to ensure the further harmonisation of prudential rules. 4. The Authority shall make the best practices that can be identified from those peer reviews publicly available. In addition, all other results of peer reviews may be disclosed publicly, subject to the agreement of the competent authority that is the subject of the peer review.
Article 31 Coordination function
The Authority shall fulfil a general coordination role between competent authorities, in particular in situations where adverse developments could potentially jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system in the Union. The Authority shall promote a coordinated Union response, inter alia, by: (a) facilitating the exchange of information between the competent authorities; (b) determining the scope and, where possible and appropriate, verifying the reliability of information that should be made available to all the competent authorities concerned; (c) without prejudice to Article 19, carrying out non-binding mediation upon a request from the competent authorities or on its own initiative; (d) notifying the ESRB of any potential emergency situations without delay; (e) taking all appropriate measures in case of developments which may jeopardise the functioning of the financial markets with a view to facilitating the coordination of actions undertaken by relevant competent authorities; (f) centralising information received from competent authorities in accordance with Articles 21 and 35 as the result of the regulatory reporting obligations for institutions active in more than one Member State. The Authority shall share that information with the other competent authorities concerned.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Today, the solidity of the banking sector is in many instances still closely linked to the Member State in which they are established. Doubts about the sustainability of public debt, economic growth prospects, and the viability of credit institutions have been creating negative, mutually reinforcing market trends. This may lead to risks for the viability of some credit institutions as well as for the stability of the financial system, and may impose a heavy burden for already strained public finances of the Member States concerned. The situation poses specific risks within the euro area, where the single currency increases the likelihood that developments in one Member State can create risks for economic development and the stability of the Euro area as a whole. Furthermore, the current risk of financial disintegration along national borders significantly undermines the Single Market for financial services and prevents it from contributing to economic recovery. The establishment of the European Banking Authority (EBA) by Regulation (EU) No. 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) already contributed to improved cooperation between national supervisors and to the development of a single rulebook for financial services in the EU. However, supervision of banks remains to a large extent within national boundaries and thereby fails to keep up with integrated banking markets. Supervisory failings have, since the onset of the banking crisis, significantly eroded confidence in the EU banking sector and contributed to an aggravation of tensions in euro area sovereign debt markets. The Commission has therefore called in May 2012, as part of a longer term vision for economic and fiscal integration, for a banking union to restore confidence in banks and in the euro. One of the key elements of the banking union should be a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) with direct oversight of banks, to enforce prudential rules in a strict and impartial manner and perform effective oversight of cross border banking markets. Ensuring that banking supervision across the Euro area abides by high common standards will contribute to build the necessary trust between Member States, which is a pre-condition for the introduction of any common backstops. At the Euro area summit on 29 June, 2012, the Heads of State or Government have called on the Commission "to present proposals for the setting up of a single supervisory mechanism shortly. When such a mechanism will be in place for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to recapitalize banks directly". The European Council conclusions of the meeting held on the 28/29 June 2012 state that this Euro Area statement and the proposals that the Commission will present accordingly should take into account the development of "a specific and time-bound road map for the achievement of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union". Under this new mechanism, the ECB will carry out a wide range of key supervisory tasks over credit institutions in the Euro area Member States. With a view to maintaining and deepening the internal market, other Member States will be allowed to enter into close collaboration with the ECB. To avoid fragmentation of the internal market following the establishment of the single supervisory mechanism, the proper functioning of the EBA needs to be ensured. The role of the EBA should therefore be preserved in order to further develop the single rulebook and ensure convergence of supervisory practices over all EU. Along with the proposal for a Council Regulation conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions in accordance with Article 127(6) TFEU, this proposal introduces targeted amendments to the Regulation establishing the European Banking Authority.
Revised version (Article 31 Coordination function):
The Authority shall fulfil a general coordination role between competent authorities, in particular in situations where adverse developments could potentially jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the financial system in the Union. The Authority shall promote a coordinated Union response, inter alia, by: (a) facilitating the exchange of information between the competent authorities; (b) determining the scope and verifying where appropriate the reliability of information that should be made available to all the competent authorities concerned; (c) without prejudice to Article 19, carrying out non-binding mediation upon a request from the competent authorities or on its own initiative; (d) notifying the ESRB, the Council and the Commission of any potential emergency situations without delay; (e) taking all appropriate measures in case of developments which may jeopardise the functioning of the financial markets with a view to the coordination of actions undertaken by relevant competent authorities; (f) centralising information received from competent authorities in accordance with Articles 21 and 35 as the result of the regulatory reporting obligations of institutions. The Authority shall share that information with the other competent authorities concerned.
Article 32 Assessment of market developments
1. The Authority shall monitor and assess market developments in the area of its competence and, where necessary, inform the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), the ESRB and the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission about the relevant micro-prudential trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities. The Authority shall include in its assessments an economic analysis of the markets in which financial institutions operate and an assessment of the impact of potential market developments on such institutions. 2. The Authority shall, in cooperation with the ESRB, initiate and coordinate Union-wide assessments of the resilience of financial institutions to adverse market developments. To that end, it shall develop the following, for application by the competent authorities: (a) common methodologies for assessing the effect of economic scenarios on an institution’s financial position; (b) common approaches to communication on the outcomes of these assessments of the resilience of financial institutions; (c) common methodologies for assessing the effect of particular products or distribution processes on an institution’s financial position and on depositors, investors and customer information. 3. Without prejudice to the tasks of the ESRB set out in Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010, the Authority shall, at least once a year, and more frequently as necessary, provide assessments to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the ESRB of trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities in its area of competence. The Authority shall include a classification of the main risks and vulnerabilities in these assessments and, where necessary, recommend preventative or remedial actions. 4. The Authority shall ensure an adequate coverage of cross-sectoral developments, risks and vulnerabilities by closely cooperating with the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) through the Joint Committee.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Today, the solidity of the banking sector is in many instances still closely linked to the Member State in which they are established. Doubts about the sustainability of public debt, economic growth prospects, and the viability of credit institutions have been creating negative, mutually reinforcing market trends. This may lead to risks for the viability of some credit institutions as well as for the stability of the financial system, and may impose a heavy burden for already strained public finances of the Member States concerned. The situation poses specific risks within the euro area, where the single currency increases the likelihood that developments in one Member State can create risks for economic development and the stability of the Euro area as a whole. Furthermore, the current risk of financial disintegration along national borders significantly undermines the Single Market for financial services and prevents it from contributing to economic recovery. The establishment of the European Banking Authority (EBA) by Regulation (EU) No. 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) already contributed to improved cooperation between national supervisors and to the development of a single rulebook for financial services in the EU. However, supervision of banks remains to a large extent within national boundaries and thereby fails to keep up with integrated banking markets. Supervisory failings have, since the onset of the banking crisis, significantly eroded confidence in the EU banking sector and contributed to an aggravation of tensions in euro area sovereign debt markets. The Commission has therefore called in May 2012, as part of a longer term vision for economic and fiscal integration, for a banking union to restore confidence in banks and in the euro. One of the key elements of the banking union should be a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) with direct oversight of banks, to enforce prudential rules in a strict and impartial manner and perform effective oversight of cross border banking markets. Ensuring that banking supervision across the Euro area abides by high common standards will contribute to build the necessary trust between Member States, which is a pre-condition for the introduction of any common backstops. At the Euro area summit on 29 June, 2012, the Heads of State or Government have called on the Commission "to present proposals for the setting up of a single supervisory mechanism shortly. When such a mechanism will be in place for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to recapitalize banks directly". The European Council conclusions of the meeting held on the 28/29 June 2012 state that this Euro Area statement and the proposals that the Commission will present accordingly should take into account the development of "a specific and time-bound road map for the achievement of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union". Under this new mechanism, the ECB will carry out a wide range of key supervisory tasks over credit institutions in the Euro area Member States. With a view to maintaining and deepening the internal market, other Member States will be allowed to enter into close collaboration with the ECB. To avoid fragmentation of the internal market following the establishment of the single supervisory mechanism, the proper functioning of the EBA needs to be ensured. The role of the EBA should therefore be preserved in order to further develop the single rulebook and ensure convergence of supervisory practices over all EU. Along with the proposal for a Council Regulation conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions in accordance with Article 127(6) TFEU, this proposal introduces targeted amendments to the Regulation establishing the European Banking Authority.
Revised version (Article 32 Assessment of market developments):
1. The Authority shall monitor and assess market developments in the area of its competence and, where necessary, inform the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), the ESRB and the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission about the relevant micro-prudential trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities. The Authority shall include in its assessments an economic analysis of the markets in which financial institutions operate and an assessment of the impact of potential market developments on such institutions. 2. The Authority shall, in cooperation with the ESRB, initiate and coordinate Union-wide assessments of the resilience of financial institutions to adverse market developments. To that end it shall develop: (a) common methodologies for assessing the effect of economic scenarios on an institution's financial position; (b) common approaches to communication on the outcomes of those assessments of the resilience of financial institutions; (c) common methodologies for assessing the effect of particular products or distribution processes on an institution; and (d) common methodologies for asset evaluation, as necessary, for the purpose of the stress testing. 3. Without prejudice to the tasks of the ESRB set out in Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010, the Authority shall, at least once a year, and more frequently as necessary, provide assessments to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the ESRB of trends, potential risks and vulnerabilities in its area of competence. The Authority shall include a classification of the main risks and vulnerabilities in these assessments and, where necessary, recommend preventative or remedial actions. 3a. For the purpose of running the Union-wide assessments of the resilience of financial institutions under this Article, the Authority may, in accordance with Article 35 and subject to the conditions set out therein, request information directly from those financial institutions. It may also require competent authorities to conduct specific reviews. It may request competent authorities to carry out on-site inspections, and may participate in such on-site inspections in accordance with Article 21 and subject to the conditions set out therein, in order to ensure comparability and reliability of methods, practices and results. 3b. The Authority may request that the competent authorities require that financial institutions subject to an independent audit information that they must provide under paragraph 3a. 4. The Authority shall ensure an adequate coverage of cross-sectoral developments, risks and vulnerabilities by closely cooperating with the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) through the Joint Committee.
Article 33 International relations
1. Without prejudice to the respective competences of the Member States and the Union institutions, the Authority may develop contacts and enter into administrative arrangements with supervisory authorities, international organisations and the administrations of third countries. Those arrangements shall not create legal obligations in respect of the Union and its Member States nor shall they prevent Member States and their competent authorities from concluding bilateral or multilateral arrangements with those third countries. 2. The Authority shall assist in preparing equivalence decisions pertaining to supervisory regimes in third countries in accordance with the acts referred to in Article 1(2). 3. In the report referred to in Article 43(5), the Authority shall set out the administrative arrangements agreed upon with international organisations or administrations in third countries and the assistance provided in preparing equivalence decisions.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission.
Article 34 Other tasks
1. The Authority may, upon a request from the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission, or on its own initiative, provide opinions to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on all issues related to its area of competence. 2. With regard to prudential assessments of mergers and acquisitions falling within the scope of Directive 2006/48/EC, as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC, and which according to that Directive require consultation between competent authorities from two or more Member States, the Authority may, on application of one of the competent authorities concerned, issue and publish an opinion on a prudential assessment, except in relation to the criteria in Article 19a(1)(e) of Directive 2006/48/EC. The opinion shall be issued promptly and in any event before the end of the assessment period in accordance with Directive 2006/48/EC, as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC. Article 35 shall apply to the areas in respect of which the Authority may issue an opinion.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission.
Article 35 Collection of information
1. At the request of the Authority, the competent authorities of the Member States shall provide the Authority with all the necessary information to carry out the duties assigned to it by this Regulation, provided that they have legal access to the relevant information and that the request for information is necessary in relation to the nature of the duty in question. 2. The Authority may also request information to be provided at recurring intervals and in specified formats. Such requests shall, where possible, be made using common reporting formats. 3. Upon a duly justified request from a competent authority of a Member State, the Authority may provide any information that is necessary to enable the competent authority to carry out its duties, in accordance with the professional secrecy obligations laid down in sectoral legislation and in Article 70. 4. Before requesting information in accordance with this Article and in order to avoid the duplication of reporting obligations, the Authority shall take account of any relevant existing statistics produced and disseminated by the European Statistical System and the European System of Central Banks. 5. Where information is not available or is not made available by the competent authorities in a timely fashion, the Authority may address a duly justified and reasoned request to other supervisory authorities, to the ministry responsible for finance where it has at its disposal prudential information, to the national central bank or to the statistical office of the Member State concerned. 6. Where information is not available or is not made available under paragraph 1 or 5 in a timely fashion, the Authority may address a duly justified and reasoned request directly to the relevant financial institutions. The reasoned request shall explain why the information concerning the respective individual financial institutions is necessary. The Authority shall inform the relevant competent authorities of requests in accordance with this paragraph and with paragraph 5. At the request of the Authority, the competent authorities shall assist the Authority in collecting the information. 7. The Authority may use confidential information received pursuant to this Article only for the purposes of carrying out the duties assigned to it by this Regulation.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Today, the solidity of the banking sector is in many instances still closely linked to the Member State in which they are established. Doubts about the sustainability of public debt, economic growth prospects, and the viability of credit institutions have been creating negative, mutually reinforcing market trends. This may lead to risks for the viability of some credit institutions as well as for the stability of the financial system, and may impose a heavy burden for already strained public finances of the Member States concerned. The situation poses specific risks within the euro area, where the single currency increases the likelihood that developments in one Member State can create risks for economic development and the stability of the Euro area as a whole. Furthermore, the current risk of financial disintegration along national borders significantly undermines the Single Market for financial services and prevents it from contributing to economic recovery. The establishment of the European Banking Authority (EBA) by Regulation (EU) No. 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) already contributed to improved cooperation between national supervisors and to the development of a single rulebook for financial services in the EU. However, supervision of banks remains to a large extent within national boundaries and thereby fails to keep up with integrated banking markets. Supervisory failings have, since the onset of the banking crisis, significantly eroded confidence in the EU banking sector and contributed to an aggravation of tensions in euro area sovereign debt markets. The Commission has therefore called in May 2012, as part of a longer term vision for economic and fiscal integration, for a banking union to restore confidence in banks and in the euro. One of the key elements of the banking union should be a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) with direct oversight of banks, to enforce prudential rules in a strict and impartial manner and perform effective oversight of cross border banking markets. Ensuring that banking supervision across the Euro area abides by high common standards will contribute to build the necessary trust between Member States, which is a pre-condition for the introduction of any common backstops. At the Euro area summit on 29 June, 2012, the Heads of State or Government have called on the Commission "to present proposals for the setting up of a single supervisory mechanism shortly. When such a mechanism will be in place for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to recapitalize banks directly". The European Council conclusions of the meeting held on the 28/29 June 2012 state that this Euro Area statement and the proposals that the Commission will present accordingly should take into account the development of "a specific and time-bound road map for the achievement of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union". Under this new mechanism, the ECB will carry out a wide range of key supervisory tasks over credit institutions in the Euro area Member States. With a view to maintaining and deepening the internal market, other Member States will be allowed to enter into close collaboration with the ECB. To avoid fragmentation of the internal market following the establishment of the single supervisory mechanism, the proper functioning of the EBA needs to be ensured. The role of the EBA should therefore be preserved in order to further develop the single rulebook and ensure convergence of supervisory practices over all EU. Along with the proposal for a Council Regulation conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions in accordance with Article 127(6) TFEU, this proposal introduces targeted amendments to the Regulation establishing the European Banking Authority.
Revised version (Article 35 Collection of information):
1. At the request of the Authority, the competent authorities shall provide the Authority with all the necessary information, in specified formats, to carry out the tasks conferred on it by this Regulation, provided that they have legal access to the relevant information. The information shall be accurate, coherent, complete and timely. 2. The Authority may also request information to be provided at recurring intervals and in specified formats or by way of comparable templates approved by the Authority. Such requests shall, where possible, be made using common reporting formats. 3. Upon a duly justified request from a competent authority, the Authority shall provide any information that is necessary to enable the competent authority to carry out its tasks in accordance with the professional secrecy obligations laid down in sectoral legislation and in Article 70. 4. Before requesting information in accordance with this Article and in order to avoid the duplication of reporting obligations, the Authority shall take account of any relevant existing statistics produced and disseminated by the European Statistical System and the European System of Central Banks. 5. Where information is not available or is not made available by the competent authorities in a timely fashion, the Authority may address a duly justified and reasoned request to other supervisory authorities, to the ministry responsible for finance where it has at its disposal prudential information, to the national central bank or to the statistical office of the Member State concerned. 6. Where complete or accurate information is not available or is not made available in a timely fashion under paragraph 1 or 5, the Authority may request information, by way of a duly justified and reasoned request, directly from: (a) relevant financial institutions; (b) holding companies or branches of a relevant financial institution; (c) non-regulated operational entities within a financial group or conglomerate that are significant to the financial activities of the relevant financial institutions. The addressees of such a request shall provide the Authority promptly and without undue delay with clear, accurate and complete information. The Authority shall inform the relevant competent authorities of requests in accordance with this paragraph and with paragraph 5. At the request of the Authority, the competent authorities shall assist the Authority in collecting the information. 7. The Authority may use confidential information received pursuant to this Article only for the purposes of carrying out the duties assigned to it by this Regulation. 7a. Where the addressees of a request under paragraph 6 do not provide clear, accurate and complete information promptly, the Authority shall inform the European Central Bank where applicable and the relevant authorities in the Member States concerned which, subject to national law, shall cooperate with the Authority with a view of ensuring full access to the information and to any originating documents, books or records to which the addressees have legal access in order to verify the information.
Article 36 Relationship with the ESRB
1. The Authority shall cooperate closely and on a regular basis with the ESRB. 2. The Authority shall provide the ESRB with regular and timely information necessary for the achievement of its tasks. Any data necessary for the achievement of its tasks that are not in summary or aggregate form shall be provided, without delay, to the ESRB upon a reasoned request, as specified in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010. The Authority, in cooperation with the ESRB, shall have in place adequate internal procedures for the transmission of confidential information, in particular information regarding individual financial institutions. 3. The Authority shall, in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5, ensure a proper follow-up to ESRB warnings and recommendations referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010. 4. On receipt of a warning or recommendation from the ESRB addressed to the Authority, the Authority shall convene a meeting of the Board of Supervisors without delay and assess the implications of such a warning or recommendation for the fulfilment of its tasks. It shall decide, by the relevant decision-making procedure, on any actions to be taken in accordance with the powers conferred upon it by this Regulation for addressing the issues identified in the warnings and recommendations. If the Authority does not act on a recommendation, it shall explain to the ESRB and the Council its reasons for not doing so. 5. On receipt of a warning or recommendation from the ESRB addressed to a competent national supervisory authority, the Authority shall, where relevant, use the powers conferred upon it by this Regulation to ensure a timely follow-up. Where the addressee intends not to follow the recommendation of the ESRB, it shall inform and discuss with the Board of Supervisors its reasons for not acting. The competent authority shall take due account of the views of the Board of Supervisors when informing the Council and the ESRB in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010. 6. In discharging the tasks set out in this Regulation, the Authority shall take the utmost account of the warnings and recommendations of the ESRB.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Today, the solidity of the banking sector is in many instances still closely linked to the Member State in which they are established. Doubts about the sustainability of public debt, economic growth prospects, and the viability of credit institutions have been creating negative, mutually reinforcing market trends. This may lead to risks for the viability of some credit institutions as well as for the stability of the financial system, and may impose a heavy burden for already strained public finances of the Member States concerned. The situation poses specific risks within the euro area, where the single currency increases the likelihood that developments in one Member State can create risks for economic development and the stability of the Euro area as a whole. Furthermore, the current risk of financial disintegration along national borders significantly undermines the Single Market for financial services and prevents it from contributing to economic recovery. The establishment of the European Banking Authority (EBA) by Regulation (EU) No. 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) already contributed to improved cooperation between national supervisors and to the development of a single rulebook for financial services in the EU. However, supervision of banks remains to a large extent within national boundaries and thereby fails to keep up with integrated banking markets. Supervisory failings have, since the onset of the banking crisis, significantly eroded confidence in the EU banking sector and contributed to an aggravation of tensions in euro area sovereign debt markets. The Commission has therefore called in May 2012, as part of a longer term vision for economic and fiscal integration, for a banking union to restore confidence in banks and in the euro. One of the key elements of the banking union should be a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) with direct oversight of banks, to enforce prudential rules in a strict and impartial manner and perform effective oversight of cross border banking markets. Ensuring that banking supervision across the Euro area abides by high common standards will contribute to build the necessary trust between Member States, which is a pre-condition for the introduction of any common backstops. At the Euro area summit on 29 June, 2012, the Heads of State or Government have called on the Commission "to present proposals for the setting up of a single supervisory mechanism shortly. When such a mechanism will be in place for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to recapitalize banks directly". The European Council conclusions of the meeting held on the 28/29 June 2012 state that this Euro Area statement and the proposals that the Commission will present accordingly should take into account the development of "a specific and time-bound road map for the achievement of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union". Under this new mechanism, the ECB will carry out a wide range of key supervisory tasks over credit institutions in the Euro area Member States. With a view to maintaining and deepening the internal market, other Member States will be allowed to enter into close collaboration with the ECB. To avoid fragmentation of the internal market following the establishment of the single supervisory mechanism, the proper functioning of the EBA needs to be ensured. The role of the EBA should therefore be preserved in order to further develop the single rulebook and ensure convergence of supervisory practices over all EU. Along with the proposal for a Council Regulation conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions in accordance with Article 127(6) TFEU, this proposal introduces targeted amendments to the Regulation establishing the European Banking Authority.
Revised version (Article 36 Relationship with the ESRB):
1. The Authority shall cooperate closely and on a regular basis with the ESRB. 2. The Authority shall provide the ESRB with regular and timely information necessary for the achievement of its tasks. Any data necessary for the achievement of its tasks that are not in summary or aggregate form shall be provided, without delay, to the ESRB upon a reasoned request, as specified in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010. The Authority, in cooperation with the ESRB, shall have in place adequate internal procedures for the transmission of confidential information, in particular information regarding individual financial institutions. 3. The Authority shall, in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5, ensure a proper follow-up to ESRB warnings and recommendations referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010. 4. On receipt of a warning or recommendation from the ESRB addressed to the Authority, the Authority shall convene a meeting of the Board of Supervisors without delay and assess the implications of such a warning or recommendation for the fulfilment of its tasks. It shall decide, by the relevant decision-making procedure, on any actions to be taken in accordance with the powers conferred upon it by this Regulation for addressing the issues identified in the warnings and recommendations. If the Authority does not act on a recommendation, it shall explain to the Council and to the ESRB its reasons for not doing so. The ESRB shall inform the European Parliament thereof in accordance with Article 19(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010. 5. On receipt of a warning or recommendation from the ESRB addressed to a competent national supervisory authority, the Authority shall, where relevant, use the powers conferred upon it by this Regulation to ensure a timely follow-up. Where the addressee intends not to follow the recommendation of the ESRB, it shall inform and discuss with the Board of Supervisors its reasons for not acting. Where the competent authority, in accordance with Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010, informs the Council and the ESRB of the actions it has undertaken in response to a recommendation of the ESRB, it shall take due account of the views of the Board of Supervisors and shall also inform the Commission. 6. In discharging the tasks set out in this Regulation, the Authority shall take the utmost account of the warnings and recommendations of the ESRB.
Article 37 Banking Stakeholder Group
1. To help facilitate consultation with stakeholders in areas relevant to the tasks of the Authority, a Banking Stakeholder Group shall be established. The Banking Stakeholder Group shall be consulted on actions taken in accordance with Articles 10 to 15 concerning regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards and, to the extent that these do not concern individual financial institutions, Article 16 concerning guidelines and recommendations. If actions must be taken urgently and consultation becomes impossible, the Banking Stakeholder Group shall be informed as soon as possible. The Banking Stakeholder Group shall meet at least four times a year. 2. The Banking Stakeholder Group shall be composed of 30 members, representing in balanced proportions credit and investment institutions operating in the Union, their employees’ representatives as well as consumers, users of banking services and representatives of SMEs. At least five of its members shall be independent top-ranking academics. Ten of its members shall represent financial institutions, three of whom shall represent cooperative and savings banks. 3. The members of the Banking Stakeholder Group shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, following proposals from the relevant stakeholders. In making its decision, the Board of Supervisors shall, to the extent possible, ensure an appropriate geographical and gender balance and representation of stakeholders across the Union. 4. The Authority shall provide all necessary information subject to professional secrecy as set out in Article 70 and ensure adequate secretarial support for the Banking Stakeholder Group. Adequate compensation shall be provided to members of the Banking Stakeholder Group representing non-profit organisations, excluding industry representatives. The Banking Stakeholder Group may establish working groups on technical issues. Members of the Banking Stakeholder Group shall serve for a period of 2 1/2 years, following which a new selection procedure shall take place. The members of the Banking Stakeholder Group may serve two successive terms. 5. The Banking Stakeholder Group may submit opinions and advice to the Authority on any issue related to the tasks of the Authority with particular focus on the tasks set out in Articles 10 to 16 and Articles 29, 30 and 32. 6. The Banking Stakeholder Group shall adopt its rules of procedure by a majority of two-thirds of its members. 7. The Authority shall make public the opinions and advice of the Banking Stakeholder Group and the results of its consultations.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Today, the solidity of the banking sector is in many instances still closely linked to the Member State in which they are established. Doubts about the sustainability of public debt, economic growth prospects, and the viability of credit institutions have been creating negative, mutually reinforcing market trends. This may lead to risks for the viability of some credit institutions as well as for the stability of the financial system, and may impose a heavy burden for already strained public finances of the Member States concerned. The situation poses specific risks within the euro area, where the single currency increases the likelihood that developments in one Member State can create risks for economic development and the stability of the Euro area as a whole. Furthermore, the current risk of financial disintegration along national borders significantly undermines the Single Market for financial services and prevents it from contributing to economic recovery. The establishment of the European Banking Authority (EBA) by Regulation (EU) No. 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) already contributed to improved cooperation between national supervisors and to the development of a single rulebook for financial services in the EU. However, supervision of banks remains to a large extent within national boundaries and thereby fails to keep up with integrated banking markets. Supervisory failings have, since the onset of the banking crisis, significantly eroded confidence in the EU banking sector and contributed to an aggravation of tensions in euro area sovereign debt markets. The Commission has therefore called in May 2012, as part of a longer term vision for economic and fiscal integration, for a banking union to restore confidence in banks and in the euro. One of the key elements of the banking union should be a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) with direct oversight of banks, to enforce prudential rules in a strict and impartial manner and perform effective oversight of cross border banking markets. Ensuring that banking supervision across the Euro area abides by high common standards will contribute to build the necessary trust between Member States, which is a pre-condition for the introduction of any common backstops. At the Euro area summit on 29 June, 2012, the Heads of State or Government have called on the Commission "to present proposals for the setting up of a single supervisory mechanism shortly. When such a mechanism will be in place for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to recapitalize banks directly". The European Council conclusions of the meeting held on the 28/29 June 2012 state that this Euro Area statement and the proposals that the Commission will present accordingly should take into account the development of "a specific and time-bound road map for the achievement of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union". Under this new mechanism, the ECB will carry out a wide range of key supervisory tasks over credit institutions in the Euro area Member States. With a view to maintaining and deepening the internal market, other Member States will be allowed to enter into close collaboration with the ECB. To avoid fragmentation of the internal market following the establishment of the single supervisory mechanism, the proper functioning of the EBA needs to be ensured. The role of the EBA should therefore be preserved in order to further develop the single rulebook and ensure convergence of supervisory practices over all EU. Along with the proposal for a Council Regulation conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions in accordance with Article 127(6) TFEU, this proposal introduces targeted amendments to the Regulation establishing the European Banking Authority.
Revised version (Article 37 Banking Stakeholder Group):
1. To help facilitate consultation with stakeholders in areas relevant to the tasks of the Authority, a Banking Stakeholder Group shall be established. The Banking Stakeholder Group shall be consulted on actions taken in accordance with Articles 10 to 15 concerning regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards and, to the extent that these do not concern individual financial institutions, Article 16 concerning guidelines and recommendations. If actions must be taken urgently and consultation becomes impossible, the Banking Stakeholder Group shall be informed as soon as possible. The Banking Stakeholder Group shall meet on its own initiative as necessary, and in any event at least four times a year. 2. The Banking Stakeholder Group shall be composed of 30 members, representing in balanced proportions credit and investment institutions operating in the Union, their employees’ representatives as well as consumers, users of banking services and representatives of SMEs. At least five of its members shall be independent top-ranking academics. Ten of its members shall represent financial institutions, three of whom shall represent cooperative and savings banks. 3. The members of the Banking Stakeholder Group shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, following proposals from the relevant stakeholders. In making its decision, the Board of Supervisors shall, to the extent possible, ensure an appropriate geographical and gender balance and representation of stakeholders across the Union. 4. The Authority shall provide all necessary information subject to professional secrecy as set out in Article 70 and ensure adequate secretarial support for the Banking Stakeholder Group. Adequate compensation shall be provided to members of the Banking Stakeholder Group representing non-profit organisations, excluding industry representatives. Such compensation shall be at least equivalent to the reimbursement rates of officials pursuant to Title V, Chapter 1, Section 2 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union laid down in Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 ( 43 ) (Staff Regulations). The Banking Stakeholder Group may establish working groups on technical issues. Members of the Banking Stakeholder Group shall serve for a period of two-and-a-half years, following which a new selection procedure shall take place. The members of the Banking Stakeholder Group may serve two successive terms. 5. The Banking Stakeholder Group may submit opinions and advice to the Authority on any issue related to the tasks of the Authority with particular focus on the tasks set out in Articles 10 to 16 and Articles 29, 30 and 32. 6. The Banking Stakeholder Group shall adopt its rules of procedure by a majority of two-thirds of its members. 7. The Authority shall make public the opinions and advice of the Banking Stakeholder Group and the results of its consultations.
Article 38 Safeguards
1. The Authority shall ensure that no decision adopted pursuant to Article 18 or 19 impinges in any way on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States. 2. Where a Member State considers that a decision taken pursuant to Article 19(3) impinges on its fiscal responsibilities, it may notify the Authority and the Commission within 2 weeks after notification of the Authority’s decision to the competent authority that the decision will not be implemented by the competent authority. In its notification, the Member State shall clearly and specifically explain why and how the decision impinges on its fiscal responsibilities. In the case of such notification, the decision of the Authority shall be suspended. Within a period of 1 month from the notification by the Member State, the Authority shall inform the Member State as to whether it maintains its decision or whether it amends or revokes it. If the decision is maintained or amended, the Authority shall state that fiscal responsibilities are not affected. Where the Authority maintains its decision, the Council shall take a decision, by a majority of the votes cast, at one of its meetings not later than 2 months after the Authority has informed the Member State as set out in the fourth subparagraph, as to whether the Authority’s decision is maintained. Where the Council, after having considered the matter, does not take a decision to maintain the Authority’s decision in accordance with the fifth subparagraph, the Authority’s decision shall be terminated. 3. Where a Member State considers that a decision taken pursuant to Article 18(3) impinges on its fiscal responsibilities, it may notify the Authority, the Commission and the Council within 3 working days after notification of the Authority’s decision to the competent authority that the decision will not be implemented by the competent authority. In its notification, the Member State shall clearly and specifically explain why and how the decision impinges on its fiscal responsibilities. In the case of such notification, the decision of the Authority shall be suspended. The Council shall, within 10 working days, convene a meeting and take a decision, by a simple majority of its members, as to whether the Authority’s decision is revoked. Where the Council, after having considered the matter, does not take a decision to revoke the Authority’s decision in accordance with the fourth subparagraph, the suspension of the Authority’s decision shall be terminated. 4. Where the Council has taken a decision in accordance with paragraph 3 not to revoke a decision of the Authority relating to Article 18(3), and the Member State concerned still considers that the decision of the Authority impinges upon its fiscal responsibilities, that Member State may notify the Commission and the Authority and request the Council to re-examine the matter. The Member State concerned shall clearly set out the reasons for its disagreement with the decision of the Council. Within a period of 4 weeks after the notification referred to in the first subparagraph, the Council shall confirm its original decision or take a new decision in accordance with paragraph 3. The period of 4 weeks may be extended by four additional weeks by the Council, if the particular circumstances of the case so require. 5. Any abuse of this Article, in particular in relation to a decision by the Authority which does not have a significant or material fiscal impact, shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Today, the solidity of the banking sector is in many instances still closely linked to the Member State in which they are established. Doubts about the sustainability of public debt, economic growth prospects, and the viability of credit institutions have been creating negative, mutually reinforcing market trends. This may lead to risks for the viability of some credit institutions as well as for the stability of the financial system, and may impose a heavy burden for already strained public finances of the Member States concerned. The situation poses specific risks within the euro area, where the single currency increases the likelihood that developments in one Member State can create risks for economic development and the stability of the Euro area as a whole. Furthermore, the current risk of financial disintegration along national borders significantly undermines the Single Market for financial services and prevents it from contributing to economic recovery. The establishment of the European Banking Authority (EBA) by Regulation (EU) No. 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) already contributed to improved cooperation between national supervisors and to the development of a single rulebook for financial services in the EU. However, supervision of banks remains to a large extent within national boundaries and thereby fails to keep up with integrated banking markets. Supervisory failings have, since the onset of the banking crisis, significantly eroded confidence in the EU banking sector and contributed to an aggravation of tensions in euro area sovereign debt markets. The Commission has therefore called in May 2012, as part of a longer term vision for economic and fiscal integration, for a banking union to restore confidence in banks and in the euro. One of the key elements of the banking union should be a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) with direct oversight of banks, to enforce prudential rules in a strict and impartial manner and perform effective oversight of cross border banking markets. Ensuring that banking supervision across the Euro area abides by high common standards will contribute to build the necessary trust between Member States, which is a pre-condition for the introduction of any common backstops. At the Euro area summit on 29 June, 2012, the Heads of State or Government have called on the Commission "to present proposals for the setting up of a single supervisory mechanism shortly. When such a mechanism will be in place for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to recapitalize banks directly". The European Council conclusions of the meeting held on the 28/29 June 2012 state that this Euro Area statement and the proposals that the Commission will present accordingly should take into account the development of "a specific and time-bound road map for the achievement of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union". Under this new mechanism, the ECB will carry out a wide range of key supervisory tasks over credit institutions in the Euro area Member States. With a view to maintaining and deepening the internal market, other Member States will be allowed to enter into close collaboration with the ECB. To avoid fragmentation of the internal market following the establishment of the single supervisory mechanism, the proper functioning of the EBA needs to be ensured. The role of the EBA should therefore be preserved in order to further develop the single rulebook and ensure convergence of supervisory practices over all EU. Along with the proposal for a Council Regulation conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions in accordance with Article 127(6) TFEU, this proposal introduces targeted amendments to the Regulation establishing the European Banking Authority.
Revised version (Article 38 Safeguards):
1. The Authority shall ensure that no decision adopted pursuant to Article 18 or 19 impinges in any way on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States. 2. Where a Member State considers that a decision taken pursuant to Article 19(3) impinges on its fiscal responsibilities, it may notify the Authority and the Commission within 2 weeks after notification of the Authority’s decision to the competent authority that the decision will not be implemented by the competent authority. In its notification, the Member State shall clearly and specifically explain why and how the decision impinges on its fiscal responsibilities. In the case of such notification, the decision of the Authority shall be suspended. Within a period of 1 month from the notification by the Member State, the Authority shall inform the Member State as to whether it maintains its decision or whether it amends or revokes it. If the decision is maintained or amended, the Authority shall state that fiscal responsibilities are not affected. Where the Authority maintains its decision, the Council shall take a decision, by a majority of the votes cast, at one of its meetings not later than 2 months after the Authority has informed the Member State as set out in the fourth subparagraph, as to whether the Authority’s decision is maintained. Where the Council, after having considered the matter, does not take a decision to maintain the Authority’s decision in accordance with the fifth subparagraph, the Authority’s decision shall be terminated. 3. Where a Member State considers that a decision taken pursuant to Article 18(3) impinges on its fiscal responsibilities, it may notify the Authority, the Commission and the Council within 3 working days after notification of the Authority’s decision to the competent authority that the decision will not be implemented by the competent authority. The Council shall, within 10 working days, convene a meeting and take a decision, by a simple majority of its members, as to whether the Authority’s decision is revoked. Where the Council, after having considered the matter, does not take a decision to revoke the Authority’s decision in accordance with the fourth subparagraph, the suspension of the Authority’s decision shall be terminated. 4. Where the Council has taken a decision in accordance with paragraph 3 not to revoke a decision of the Authority relating to Article 18(3), and the Member State concerned still considers that the decision of the Authority impinges upon its fiscal responsibilities, that Member State may notify the Commission and the Authority and request the Council to re-examine the matter. The Member State concerned shall clearly set out the reasons for its disagreement with the decision of the Council. Within a period of 4 weeks after the notification referred to in the first subparagraph, the Council shall confirm its original decision or take a new decision in accordance with paragraph 3. The period of 4 weeks may be extended by four additional weeks by the Council, if the particular circumstances of the case so require. 5. Any abuse of this Article, in particular in relation to a decision by the Authority which does not have a significant or material fiscal impact, shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market.
Article 39 Decision-making procedures
1. Before taking the decisions provided for in this Regulation, the Authority shall inform any named addressee of its intention to adopt the decision, setting a time limit within which the addressee may express its views on the matter, taking full account of the urgency, complexity and potential consequences of the matter. This applies mutatis mutandis to recommendations as referred to in Article 17(3). 2. The decisions of the Authority shall state the reasons on which they are based. 3. The addressees of decisions of the Authority shall be informed of the legal remedies available under this Regulation. 4. Where the Authority has taken a decision pursuant to Article 18(3) or (4), it shall review that decision at appropriate intervals. 5. The decisions which the Authority takes pursuant to Article 17, 18 or 19 shall be made public and shall state the identity of the competent authority or financial institution concerned and the main content of the decision, unless such publication is in conflict with the legitimate interests of financial institutions in the protection of their business secrets or could seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system of the Union.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission. 
Revised version (Article 39 Decision-making procedures):
1. The Authority shall act in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article when adopting decisions pursuant to Articles 17, 18 and 19. 2. The Authority shall inform any addressee of a decision of its intention to adopt the decision, in the official language of the addressee, setting a time limit within which the addressee may express its views on the subject-matter of the decision, taking full account of the urgency, complexity and potential consequences of the matter. The addressee may express its views in its official language. The provision laid down in the first sentence shall apply mutatis mutandis to recommendations as referred to in Article 17(3). 3. The decisions of the Authority shall state the reasons on which they are based. 4. The addressees of decisions of the Authority shall be informed of the legal remedies available under this Regulation. 5. Where the Authority has taken a decision pursuant to Article 18(3) or 18(4), it shall review that decision at appropriate intervals. 6. The decisions which the Authority takes pursuant to Article 17, 18 or 19 shall be made public. The publication shall disclose the identity of the competent authority or financial institution concerned and the main content of the decision, unless such publication is in conflict with the legitimate interest of those financial institutions, or with the protection of their business secrets, or could seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system of the Union.
Article 40 Composition
1. The Board of Supervisors shall be composed of: (a) the Chairperson, who shall be non-voting; (b) the head of the national public authority competent for the supervision of credit institutions in each Member State, who shall meet in person at least twice a year; (c) one representative of the Commission, who shall be non-voting; (d) one representative of the European Central Bank, who shall be non-voting; (e) one representative of the ESRB, who shall be non-voting; (f) one representative of each of the other two European Supervisory Authorities, who shall be non-voting. 2. The Board of Supervisors shall convene meetings with the Banking Stakeholder Group regularly, at least twice a year. 3. Each competent authority shall be responsible for nominating a high-level alternate from its authority, who may replace the member of the Board of Supervisors referred to in paragraph 1(b), where that person is prevented from attending. 4. Where the authority referred to in paragraph 1(b) is not a central bank, the member of the Board of Supervisors referred to in that point may decide to bring a representative from the Member State’s central bank, who shall be non-voting. 5. In Member States where more than one authority is responsible for the supervision according to this Regulation, those authorities shall agree on a common representative. Nevertheless, when an item to be discussed by the Board of Supervisors does not fall within the competence of the national authority being represented by the member referred to in paragraph 1(b), that member may bring a representative from the relevant national authority, who shall be non-voting. 6. For the purpose of acting within the scope of Directive 94/19/EC, the member of the Board of Supervisors referred to in paragraph 1(b) may, where appropriate, be accompanied by a representative from the relevant bodies which administer deposit-guarantee schemes in each Member State, who shall be non-voting. 7. The Board of Supervisors may decide to admit observers. The Executive Director may participate in meetings of the Board of Supervisors, without the right to vote.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Today, the solidity of the banking sector is in many instances still closely linked to the Member State in which they are established. Doubts about the sustainability of public debt, economic growth prospects, and the viability of credit institutions have been creating negative, mutually reinforcing market trends. This may lead to risks for the viability of some credit institutions as well as for the stability of the financial system, and may impose a heavy burden for already strained public finances of the Member States concerned. The situation poses specific risks within the euro area, where the single currency increases the likelihood that developments in one Member State can create risks for economic development and the stability of the Euro area as a whole. Furthermore, the current risk of financial disintegration along national borders significantly undermines the Single Market for financial services and prevents it from contributing to economic recovery. The establishment of the European Banking Authority (EBA) by Regulation (EU) No. 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) already contributed to improved cooperation between national supervisors and to the development of a single rulebook for financial services in the EU. However, supervision of banks remains to a large extent within national boundaries and thereby fails to keep up with integrated banking markets. Supervisory failings have, since the onset of the banking crisis, significantly eroded confidence in the EU banking sector and contributed to an aggravation of tensions in euro area sovereign debt markets. The Commission has therefore called in May 2012, as part of a longer term vision for economic and fiscal integration, for a banking union to restore confidence in banks and in the euro. One of the key elements of the banking union should be a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) with direct oversight of banks, to enforce prudential rules in a strict and impartial manner and perform effective oversight of cross border banking markets. Ensuring that banking supervision across the Euro area abides by high common standards will contribute to build the necessary trust between Member States, which is a pre-condition for the introduction of any common backstops. At the Euro area summit on 29 June, 2012, the Heads of State or Government have called on the Commission "to present proposals for the setting up of a single supervisory mechanism shortly. When such a mechanism will be in place for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to recapitalize banks directly". The European Council conclusions of the meeting held on the 28/29 June 2012 state that this Euro Area statement and the proposals that the Commission will present accordingly should take into account the development of "a specific and time-bound road map for the achievement of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union". Under this new mechanism, the ECB will carry out a wide range of key supervisory tasks over credit institutions in the Euro area Member States. With a view to maintaining and deepening the internal market, other Member States will be allowed to enter into close collaboration with the ECB. To avoid fragmentation of the internal market following the establishment of the single supervisory mechanism, the proper functioning of the EBA needs to be ensured. The role of the EBA should therefore be preserved in order to further develop the single rulebook and ensure convergence of supervisory practices over all EU. Along with the proposal for a Council Regulation conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions in accordance with Article 127(6) TFEU, this proposal introduces targeted amendments to the Regulation establishing the European Banking Authority.
Revised version (Article 40 Composition):
1. The Board of Supervisors shall be composed of: (a) the Chairperson, who shall be non-voting; (b) the head of the national public authority competent for the supervision of credit institutions in each Member State, who shall meet in person at least twice a year; (c) one representative of the Commission, who shall be non-voting; (d) one representative nominated by the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank, who shall be non-voting; (e) one representative of the ESRB, who shall be non-voting; (f) one representative of each of the other two European Supervisory Authorities, who shall be non-voting. 2. The Board of Supervisors shall convene meetings with the Banking Stakeholder Group regularly, at least twice a year. 3. Each competent authority shall be responsible for nominating a high-level alternate from its authority, who may replace the member of the Board of Supervisors referred to in paragraph 1(b), where that person is prevented from attending. 4. Where the authority referred to in paragraph 1(b) is not a central bank, the member of the Board of Supervisors referred to in that point may decide to bring a representative from the Member State’s central bank, who shall be non-voting. 4a. In discussions not relating to individual financial institutions, as provided in Article 44(4), the representative nominated by the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank may be accompanied by a representative of the European Central Bank with expertise on central banking tasks. 5. In Member States where more than one authority is responsible for the supervision according to this Regulation, those authorities shall agree on a common representative. Nevertheless, when an item to be discussed by the Board of Supervisors does not fall within the competence of the national authority being represented by the member referred to in paragraph 1(b), that member may bring a representative from the relevant national authority, who shall be non-voting. 6. For the purpose of acting within the scope of Directive 94/19/EC, the member of the Board of Supervisors referred to in paragraph 1(b) may, where appropriate, be accompanied by a representative from the relevant bodies which administer deposit-guarantee schemes in each Member State, who shall be non-voting. 7. The Board of Supervisors may decide to admit observers. The Executive Director may participate in meetings of the Board of Supervisors, without the right to vote.
Article 41 Internal committees and panels
1. The Board of Supervisors may establish internal committees or panels for specific tasks attributed to the Board of Supervisors, and may provide for the delegation of certain clearly defined tasks and decisions to internal committees or panels, to the Management Board or to the Chairperson. 2. For the purposes of Article 19, the Board of Supervisors shall convoke an independent panel to facilitate an impartial settlement of the disagreement, consisting of the Chairperson and two of its members, who are not representatives of the competent authorities which are party to the disagreement and who have neither any interest in the conflict nor direct links to the competent authorities concerned. 3. Subject to Article 19(2), the panel shall propose a decision for final adoption by the Board of Supervisors, in accordance with the procedure set out in the third subparagraph of Article 44(1). 4. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt rules of procedure for the panel referred to in paragraph 2.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Today, the solidity of the banking sector is in many instances still closely linked to the Member State in which they are established. Doubts about the sustainability of public debt, economic growth prospects, and the viability of credit institutions have been creating negative, mutually reinforcing market trends. This may lead to risks for the viability of some credit institutions as well as for the stability of the financial system, and may impose a heavy burden for already strained public finances of the Member States concerned. The situation poses specific risks within the euro area, where the single currency increases the likelihood that developments in one Member State can create risks for economic development and the stability of the Euro area as a whole. Furthermore, the current risk of financial disintegration along national borders significantly undermines the Single Market for financial services and prevents it from contributing to economic recovery. The establishment of the European Banking Authority (EBA) by Regulation (EU) No. 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) already contributed to improved cooperation between national supervisors and to the development of a single rulebook for financial services in the EU. However, supervision of banks remains to a large extent within national boundaries and thereby fails to keep up with integrated banking markets. Supervisory failings have, since the onset of the banking crisis, significantly eroded confidence in the EU banking sector and contributed to an aggravation of tensions in euro area sovereign debt markets. The Commission has therefore called in May 2012, as part of a longer term vision for economic and fiscal integration, for a banking union to restore confidence in banks and in the euro. One of the key elements of the banking union should be a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) with direct oversight of banks, to enforce prudential rules in a strict and impartial manner and perform effective oversight of cross border banking markets. Ensuring that banking supervision across the Euro area abides by high common standards will contribute to build the necessary trust between Member States, which is a pre-condition for the introduction of any common backstops. At the Euro area summit on 29 June, 2012, the Heads of State or Government have called on the Commission "to present proposals for the setting up of a single supervisory mechanism shortly. When such a mechanism will be in place for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to recapitalize banks directly". The European Council conclusions of the meeting held on the 28/29 June 2012 state that this Euro Area statement and the proposals that the Commission will present accordingly should take into account the development of "a specific and time-bound road map for the achievement of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union". Under this new mechanism, the ECB will carry out a wide range of key supervisory tasks over credit institutions in the Euro area Member States. With a view to maintaining and deepening the internal market, other Member States will be allowed to enter into close collaboration with the ECB. To avoid fragmentation of the internal market following the establishment of the single supervisory mechanism, the proper functioning of the EBA needs to be ensured. The role of the EBA should therefore be preserved in order to further develop the single rulebook and ensure convergence of supervisory practices over all EU. Along with the proposal for a Council Regulation conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions in accordance with Article 127(6) TFEU, this proposal introduces targeted amendments to the Regulation establishing the European Banking Authority.
Revised version (Article 41 Internal committees and panels):
1. The Board of Supervisors may establish internal committees or panels for specific tasks attributed to the Board of Supervisors, and may provide for the delegation of certain clearly defined tasks and decisions to internal committees or panels, to the Management Board or to the Chairperson. 1a. For the purposes of Article 17, the Board of Supervisors shall convoke an independent panel, consisting of the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors and six other members, who are not representatives of the competent authority alleged to have breached Union law and who have neither any interest in the matter nor direct links to the competent authority concerned. Each member of the panel shall have one vote. Decisions of the panel shall be taken where at least four members vote in favour. 2. For the purposes of Article 19, the Board of Supervisors shall convoke an independent panel consisting of the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors, and of six other members who are not representatives of the competent authorities party to the disagreement and who have neither any interest in the conflict nor direct links to the competent authorities concerned. 3. The panels referred to in this Article shall propose decisions under Article 17 or Article 19 for final adoption by the Board of Supervisors. 4. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt rules of procedure for the panels referred to in this Article.
Article 42 Independence
When carrying out the tasks conferred upon it by this Regulation, the Chairperson and the voting members of the Board of Supervisors shall act independently and objectively in the sole interest of the Union as a whole and shall neither seek nor take instructions from Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body. Neither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the members of the Board of Supervisors in the performance of their tasks.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Today, the solidity of the banking sector is in many instances still closely linked to the Member State in which they are established. Doubts about the sustainability of public debt, economic growth prospects, and the viability of credit institutions have been creating negative, mutually reinforcing market trends. This may lead to risks for the viability of some credit institutions as well as for the stability of the financial system, and may impose a heavy burden for already strained public finances of the Member States concerned. The situation poses specific risks within the euro area, where the single currency increases the likelihood that developments in one Member State can create risks for economic development and the stability of the Euro area as a whole. Furthermore, the current risk of financial disintegration along national borders significantly undermines the Single Market for financial services and prevents it from contributing to economic recovery. The establishment of the European Banking Authority (EBA) by Regulation (EU) No. 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) already contributed to improved cooperation between national supervisors and to the development of a single rulebook for financial services in the EU. However, supervision of banks remains to a large extent within national boundaries and thereby fails to keep up with integrated banking markets. Supervisory failings have, since the onset of the banking crisis, significantly eroded confidence in the EU banking sector and contributed to an aggravation of tensions in euro area sovereign debt markets. The Commission has therefore called in May 2012, as part of a longer term vision for economic and fiscal integration, for a banking union to restore confidence in banks and in the euro. One of the key elements of the banking union should be a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) with direct oversight of banks, to enforce prudential rules in a strict and impartial manner and perform effective oversight of cross border banking markets. Ensuring that banking supervision across the Euro area abides by high common standards will contribute to build the necessary trust between Member States, which is a pre-condition for the introduction of any common backstops. At the Euro area summit on 29 June, 2012, the Heads of State or Government have called on the Commission "to present proposals for the setting up of a single supervisory mechanism shortly. When such a mechanism will be in place for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to recapitalize banks directly". The European Council conclusions of the meeting held on the 28/29 June 2012 state that this Euro Area statement and the proposals that the Commission will present accordingly should take into account the development of "a specific and time-bound road map for the achievement of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union". Under this new mechanism, the ECB will carry out a wide range of key supervisory tasks over credit institutions in the Euro area Member States. With a view to maintaining and deepening the internal market, other Member States will be allowed to enter into close collaboration with the ECB. To avoid fragmentation of the internal market following the establishment of the single supervisory mechanism, the proper functioning of the EBA needs to be ensured. The role of the EBA should therefore be preserved in order to further develop the single rulebook and ensure convergence of supervisory practices over all EU. Along with the proposal for a Council Regulation conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions in accordance with Article 127(6) TFEU, this proposal introduces targeted amendments to the Regulation establishing the European Banking Authority.
Revised version (Article 42 Independence):
When carrying out the tasks conferred upon it by this Regulation, the Chairperson and the voting members of the Board of Supervisors shall act independently and objectively in the sole interest of the Union as a whole and shall neither seek nor take instructions from Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body. Neither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the members of the Board of Supervisors in the performance of their tasks. The first and second paragraphs are without prejudice to the tasks conferred on the European Central Bank by Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013.
Article 43 Tasks
1. The Board of Supervisors shall give guidance to the work of the Authority and shall be in charge of taking the decisions referred to in Chapter II. 2. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the opinions, recommendations, and decisions, and issue the advice referred to in Chapter II. 3. The Board of Supervisors shall appoint the Chairperson. 4. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt, before 30 September of each year, on the basis of a proposal by the Management Board, the work programme of the Authority for the coming year, and shall transmit it for information to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The work programme shall be adopted without prejudice to the annual budgetary procedure and shall be made public. 5. The Board of Supervisors shall, on the basis of a proposal by the Management Board, adopt the annual report on the activities of the Authority, including on the performance of the Chairperson’s duties, on the basis of the draft report referred to in Article 53(7) and shall transmit that report to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the European Economic and Social Committee by 15 June each year. The report shall be made public. 6. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the multi-annual work programme of the Authority, and shall transmit it for information to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The multi-annual work programme shall be adopted without prejudice to the annual budgetary procedure and shall be made public. 7. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the budget in accordance with Article 63. 8. The Board of Supervisors shall exercise disciplinary authority over the Chairperson and the Executive Director and may remove them from office in accordance with Article 48(5) or 51(5) respectively.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission. 
Revised version (Article 43 Tasks):
1. The Board of Supervisors shall give guidance to the work of the Authority and shall be in charge of taking the decisions referred to in Chapter II. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the opinions, recommendations, guidelines and decisions of the Authority, and issue the advice referred to in Chapter II, based on a proposal of the relevant internal committee or panel, the Chairperson, or of the Management Board, as applicable. 4. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt, before 30 September of each year, on the basis of a proposal by the Management Board, the work programme of the Authority for the coming year, and shall transmit it for information to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The work programme shall be adopted without prejudice to the annual budgetary procedure and shall be made public. 5. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt, on the basis of a proposal by the Management Board, the annual report on the activities of the Authority, including on the performance of the Chairperson’s duties, and shall transmit that report to the European Parliament, to the Council, to the Commission, to the Court of Auditors and to the European Economic and Social Committee by 15 June each year. The report shall be made public. 6. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the multi-annual work programme of the Authority, and shall transmit it for information to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The multi-annual work programme shall be adopted without prejudice to the annual budgetary procedure and shall be made public. 7. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the budget in accordance with Article 63. 8. The Board of Supervisors shall exercise disciplinary authority over the Chairperson and the Executive Director. It may remove the Executive Director from office in accordance with Article 51(5).
Article 44 Decision-making
1. Decisions of the Board of Supervisors shall be taken by a simple majority of its members. Each member shall have one vote. With regard to the acts specified in Articles 10 to 16 and measures and decisions adopted under the third subparagraph of Article 9(5) and Chapter VI and by way of derogation from the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the Board of Supervisors shall take decisions on the basis of a qualified majority of its members, as defined in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 3 of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions. With regard to decisions in accordance with Article 19(3), for decisions taken by the consolidating supervisor, the decision proposed by the panel shall be considered as adopted, if approved by a simple majority, unless it is rejected by members representing a blocking minority of the votes as defined in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 3 of the Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions. For all other decisions in accordance with Article 19(3), the decision proposed by the panel shall be adopted by a simple majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors. Each member shall have one vote. 2. Meetings of the Board of Supervisors shall be convened by the Chairperson at his own initiative or at the request of one third of its members, and shall be chaired by the Chairperson. 3. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure. 4. The rules of procedure shall set out in detail the arrangements governing voting, including, where appropriate, the rules governing quorums. The non-voting members and the observers, with the exception of the Chairperson and the Executive Director, shall not attend any discussions within the Board of Supervisors relating to individual financial institutions, unless otherwise provided for in Article 75(3) or in the acts referred to in Article 1(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Today, the solidity of the banking sector is in many instances still closely linked to the Member State in which they are established. Doubts about the sustainability of public debt, economic growth prospects, and the viability of credit institutions have been creating negative, mutually reinforcing market trends. This may lead to risks for the viability of some credit institutions as well as for the stability of the financial system, and may impose a heavy burden for already strained public finances of the Member States concerned. The situation poses specific risks within the euro area, where the single currency increases the likelihood that developments in one Member State can create risks for economic development and the stability of the Euro area as a whole. Furthermore, the current risk of financial disintegration along national borders significantly undermines the Single Market for financial services and prevents it from contributing to economic recovery. The establishment of the European Banking Authority (EBA) by Regulation (EU) No. 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) already contributed to improved cooperation between national supervisors and to the development of a single rulebook for financial services in the EU. However, supervision of banks remains to a large extent within national boundaries and thereby fails to keep up with integrated banking markets. Supervisory failings have, since the onset of the banking crisis, significantly eroded confidence in the EU banking sector and contributed to an aggravation of tensions in euro area sovereign debt markets. The Commission has therefore called in May 2012, as part of a longer term vision for economic and fiscal integration, for a banking union to restore confidence in banks and in the euro. One of the key elements of the banking union should be a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) with direct oversight of banks, to enforce prudential rules in a strict and impartial manner and perform effective oversight of cross border banking markets. Ensuring that banking supervision across the Euro area abides by high common standards will contribute to build the necessary trust between Member States, which is a pre-condition for the introduction of any common backstops. At the Euro area summit on 29 June, 2012, the Heads of State or Government have called on the Commission "to present proposals for the setting up of a single supervisory mechanism shortly. When such a mechanism will be in place for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to recapitalize banks directly". The European Council conclusions of the meeting held on the 28/29 June 2012 state that this Euro Area statement and the proposals that the Commission will present accordingly should take into account the development of "a specific and time-bound road map for the achievement of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union". Under this new mechanism, the ECB will carry out a wide range of key supervisory tasks over credit institutions in the Euro area Member States. With a view to maintaining and deepening the internal market, other Member States will be allowed to enter into close collaboration with the ECB. To avoid fragmentation of the internal market following the establishment of the single supervisory mechanism, the proper functioning of the EBA needs to be ensured. The role of the EBA should therefore be preserved in order to further develop the single rulebook and ensure convergence of supervisory practices over all EU. Along with the proposal for a Council Regulation conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions in accordance with Article 127(6) TFEU, this proposal introduces targeted amendments to the Regulation establishing the European Banking Authority.
Revised version (Article 44 Decision-making):
1. Decisions of the Board of Supervisors shall be taken by a simple majority of its members. Each member shall have one vote. With regard to the acts specified in Articles 10 to 16 and measures and decisions adopted under the third subparagraph of Article 9(5) and Chapter VI and by way of derogation from the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the Board of Supervisors shall take decisions on the basis of a qualified majority of its members, as defined in Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 3 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, which shall include at least a simple majority of its members from competent authorities of Member States that are participating Member States as defined in point 1 of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (participating Member States) and a simple majority of its members from competent authorities of Member States that are not participating Member States as defined in point 1 of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (non-participating Member States). With regard to decisions in accordance with Articles 17 and 19, the decision proposed by the panel shall be adopted by a simple majority of the voting members of the Board of Supervisors, which shall include a simple majority of its members from competent authorities of participating Member States and a simple majority of its members from competent authorities of non-participating Member States. By way of derogation from the third subparagraph, from the date when four or fewer voting members are from competent authorities of non-participating Member States, the decision proposed by the panel shall be adopted by a simple majority of the voting members of the Board of Supervisors, which shall include at least one vote from members from competent authorities of non-participating Member States. Each voting member shall have one vote. With regard to the composition of the panel in accordance with Article 41(2), the Board of Supervisors shall strive for consensus. In the absence of consensus, decisions of the Board of Supervisors shall be taken by a majority of three quarters of its voting members. Each voting member shall have one vote. With regard to decisions adopted under Article 18(3) and (4), and by way of derogation from the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the Board of Supervisors shall take decisions on the basis of a simple majority of its voting members, which shall include a simple majority of its members from competent authorities of participating Member States and a simple majority of its members from competent authorities of non-participating Member States. 2. Meetings of the Board of Supervisors shall be convened by the Chairperson at his own initiative or at the request of one third of its members, and shall be chaired by the Chairperson. 3. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure. 4. The non-voting members and the observers, with the exception of the Chairperson, the Executive Director and the European Central Bank representative nominated by its Supervisory Board, shall not attend any discussions within the Board of Supervisors relating to individual financial institutions, unless otherwise provided for in Article 75(3) or in the acts referred to in Article 1(2). 4a. The Authority's Chair shall have the prerogative to call a vote at any time. Without prejudice to that power and to the effectiveness of the Authority's decision-making procedures, the Board of Supervisors of the Authority shall strive for consensus when taking its decisions.
Article 45 Composition
1. The Management Board shall be composed of the Chairperson and six other members of the Board of Supervisors, elected by and from the voting members of the Board of Supervisors. Other than the Chairperson, each member of the Management Board shall have an alternate, who may replace him if he is prevented from attending. The term of office of the members elected by the Board of Supervisors shall be 2 1/2 years. That term may be extended once. The composition of the Management Board shall be balanced and proportionate and shall reflect the Union as a whole. Mandates shall be overlapping and an appropriate rotating arrangement shall apply. 2. Decisions by the Management Board shall be adopted on the basis of a majority of the members present. Each member shall have one vote. The Executive Director and a representative of the Commission shall participate in meetings of the Management Board without the right to vote. The representative of the Commission shall have the right to vote on matters referred to in Article 63. The Management Board shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure. 3. Meetings of the Management Board shall be convened by the Chairperson at his own initiative or at the request of at least a third of its members, and shall be chaired by the Chairperson. The Management Board shall meet prior to every meeting of the Board of Supervisors and as often as the Management Board deems necessary. It shall meet at least five times a year. 4. The members of the Management Board may, subject to the rules of procedure, be assisted by advisers or experts. The non-voting members, with the exception of the Executive Director, shall not attend any discussions within the Management Board relating to individual financial institutions.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Today, the solidity of the banking sector is in many instances still closely linked to the Member State in which they are established. Doubts about the sustainability of public debt, economic growth prospects, and the viability of credit institutions have been creating negative, mutually reinforcing market trends. This may lead to risks for the viability of some credit institutions as well as for the stability of the financial system, and may impose a heavy burden for already strained public finances of the Member States concerned. The situation poses specific risks within the euro area, where the single currency increases the likelihood that developments in one Member State can create risks for economic development and the stability of the Euro area as a whole. Furthermore, the current risk of financial disintegration along national borders significantly undermines the Single Market for financial services and prevents it from contributing to economic recovery. The establishment of the European Banking Authority (EBA) by Regulation (EU) No. 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) already contributed to improved cooperation between national supervisors and to the development of a single rulebook for financial services in the EU. However, supervision of banks remains to a large extent within national boundaries and thereby fails to keep up with integrated banking markets. Supervisory failings have, since the onset of the banking crisis, significantly eroded confidence in the EU banking sector and contributed to an aggravation of tensions in euro area sovereign debt markets. The Commission has therefore called in May 2012, as part of a longer term vision for economic and fiscal integration, for a banking union to restore confidence in banks and in the euro. One of the key elements of the banking union should be a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) with direct oversight of banks, to enforce prudential rules in a strict and impartial manner and perform effective oversight of cross border banking markets. Ensuring that banking supervision across the Euro area abides by high common standards will contribute to build the necessary trust between Member States, which is a pre-condition for the introduction of any common backstops. At the Euro area summit on 29 June, 2012, the Heads of State or Government have called on the Commission "to present proposals for the setting up of a single supervisory mechanism shortly. When such a mechanism will be in place for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to recapitalize banks directly". The European Council conclusions of the meeting held on the 28/29 June 2012 state that this Euro Area statement and the proposals that the Commission will present accordingly should take into account the development of "a specific and time-bound road map for the achievement of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union". Under this new mechanism, the ECB will carry out a wide range of key supervisory tasks over credit institutions in the Euro area Member States. With a view to maintaining and deepening the internal market, other Member States will be allowed to enter into close collaboration with the ECB. To avoid fragmentation of the internal market following the establishment of the single supervisory mechanism, the proper functioning of the EBA needs to be ensured. The role of the EBA should therefore be preserved in order to further develop the single rulebook and ensure convergence of supervisory practices over all EU. Along with the proposal for a Council Regulation conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions in accordance with Article 127(6) TFEU, this proposal introduces targeted amendments to the Regulation establishing the European Banking Authority.
Revised version (Article 45 Composition):
1. The Management Board shall be composed of the Chairperson and six other members of the Board of Supervisors, elected by and from the voting members of the Board of Supervisors. Other than the Chairperson, each member of the Management Board shall have an alternate, who may replace him if he is prevented from attending. The term of office of the members elected by the Board of Supervisors shall be two-and-a-half years. That term may be extended once. The composition of the Management Board shall be balanced and proportionate and shall reflect the Union as a whole. The Management Board shall include at least two representatives of non-participating Member States. Mandates shall be overlapping and an appropriate rotating arrangement shall apply. 2. Decisions by the Management Board shall be adopted on the basis of a majority of the members present. Each member shall have one vote. The Executive Director and a representative of the Commission shall participate in meetings of the Management Board without the right to vote. The representative of the Commission shall have the right to vote on matters referred to in Article 63. The Management Board shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure. 3. Meetings of the Management Board shall be convened by the Chairperson at his own initiative or at the request of at least a third of its members, and shall be chaired by the Chairperson. The Management Board shall meet prior to every meeting of the Board of Supervisors and as often as the Management Board deems necessary. It shall meet at least five times a year. 4. The members of the Management Board may, subject to the rules of procedure, be assisted by advisers or experts. The non-voting members, with the exception of the Executive Director, shall not attend any discussions within the Management Board relating to individual financial institutions.
Article 46 Independence
The members of the Management Board shall act independently and objectively in the sole interest of the Union as a whole and shall neither seek nor take instructions from the Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body. Neither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the members of the Management Board in the performance of their tasks.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission. 
Revised version (Article 46 Independence of the Management Board):
The members of the Management Board shall act independently and objectively in the sole interest of the Union as a whole and shall neither seek nor take instructions from the Union institutions or bodies, from any government or from any other public or private body. Member States, Union institutions or bodies and any other public or private body shall not seek to influence the members of the Management Board in the performance of their tasks.
Article 47 Tasks
1. The Management Board shall ensure that the Authority carries out its mission and performs the tasks assigned to it in accordance with this Regulation. 2. The Management Board shall propose, for adoption by the Board of Supervisors, an annual and multi-annual work programme. 3. The Management Board shall exercise its budgetary powers in accordance with Articles 63 and 64. 4. The Management Board shall adopt the Authority’s staff policy plan and, pursuant to Article 68(2), the necessary implementing measures of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (hereinafter ‘the Staff Regulations’). 5. The Management Board shall adopt the special provisions on right of access to the documents of the Authority, in accordance with Article 72. 6. The Management Board shall propose an annual report on the activities of the Authority, including on the Chairperson’s duties, on the basis of the draft report referred to in Article 53(7) to the Board of Supervisors for approval. 7. The Management Board shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure. 8. The Management Board shall appoint and remove the members of the Board of Appeal in accordance with Article 58(3) and (5).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Today, the solidity of the banking sector is in many instances still closely linked to the Member State in which they are established. Doubts about the sustainability of public debt, economic growth prospects, and the viability of credit institutions have been creating negative, mutually reinforcing market trends. This may lead to risks for the viability of some credit institutions as well as for the stability of the financial system, and may impose a heavy burden for already strained public finances of the Member States concerned. The situation poses specific risks within the euro area, where the single currency increases the likelihood that developments in one Member State can create risks for economic development and the stability of the Euro area as a whole. Furthermore, the current risk of financial disintegration along national borders significantly undermines the Single Market for financial services and prevents it from contributing to economic recovery. The establishment of the European Banking Authority (EBA) by Regulation (EU) No. 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), and of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) already contributed to improved cooperation between national supervisors and to the development of a single rulebook for financial services in the EU. However, supervision of banks remains to a large extent within national boundaries and thereby fails to keep up with integrated banking markets. Supervisory failings have, since the onset of the banking crisis, significantly eroded confidence in the EU banking sector and contributed to an aggravation of tensions in euro area sovereign debt markets. The Commission has therefore called in May 2012, as part of a longer term vision for economic and fiscal integration, for a banking union to restore confidence in banks and in the euro. One of the key elements of the banking union should be a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) with direct oversight of banks, to enforce prudential rules in a strict and impartial manner and perform effective oversight of cross border banking markets. Ensuring that banking supervision across the Euro area abides by high common standards will contribute to build the necessary trust between Member States, which is a pre-condition for the introduction of any common backstops. At the Euro area summit on 29 June, 2012, the Heads of State or Government have called on the Commission "to present proposals for the setting up of a single supervisory mechanism shortly. When such a mechanism will be in place for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to recapitalize banks directly". The European Council conclusions of the meeting held on the 28/29 June 2012 state that this Euro Area statement and the proposals that the Commission will present accordingly should take into account the development of "a specific and time-bound road map for the achievement of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union". Under this new mechanism, the ECB will carry out a wide range of key supervisory tasks over credit institutions in the Euro area Member States. With a view to maintaining and deepening the internal market, other Member States will be allowed to enter into close collaboration with the ECB. To avoid fragmentation of the internal market following the establishment of the single supervisory mechanism, the proper functioning of the EBA needs to be ensured. The role of the EBA should therefore be preserved in order to further develop the single rulebook and ensure convergence of supervisory practices over all EU. Along with the proposal for a Council Regulation conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions in accordance with Article 127(6) TFEU, this proposal introduces targeted amendments to the Regulation establishing the European Banking Authority.
Revised version (Article 47 Tasks):
1. The Management Board shall ensure that the Authority carries out its mission and performs the tasks assigned to it in accordance with this Regulation. 2. The Management Board shall propose, for adoption by the Board of Supervisors, an annual and multi-annual work programme. 3. The Management Board shall exercise its budgetary powers in accordance with Articles 63 and 64. 4. The Management Board shall adopt the Authority's staff policy plan and, pursuant to Article 68(2), the necessary implementing measures of the Staff Regulations. 5. The Management Board shall adopt the special provisions on right of access to the documents of the Authority, in accordance with Article 72. 6. The Management Board shall propose an annual report on the activities of the Authority, including on the Chairperson’s duties, on the basis of the draft report referred to in Article 53(7) to the Board of Supervisors for approval. 7. The Management Board shall adopt and make public its rules of procedure. 8. The Management Board shall appoint and remove the members of the Board of Appeal in accordance with Article 58(3) and (5).
Article 48 Appointment and tasks
1. The Authority shall be represented by a Chairperson, who shall be a full-time independent professional. The Chairperson shall be responsible for preparing the work of the Board of Supervisors and shall chair the meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board. 2. The Chairperson shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and of experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation, following an open selection procedure. Before taking up his duties, and up to 1 month after the selection by the Board of Supervisors, the European Parliament may, after having heard the candidate selected by the Board of Supervisors, object to the designation of the selected person. The Board of Supervisors shall also elect, from among its members, an alternate who shall carry out the functions of the Chairperson in his absence. That alternate shall not be elected from among the members of the Management Board. 3. The Chairperson’s term of office shall be 5 years and may be extended once. 4. In the course of the 9 months preceding the end of the 5-year term of office of the Chairperson, the Board of Supervisors shall evaluate: (a) the results achieved in the first term of office and the way they were achieved; (b) the Authority’s duties and requirements in the coming years. The Board of Supervisors, taking into account the evaluation, may extend the term of office of the Chairperson once subject to confirmation by the European Parliament. 5. The Chairperson may be removed from office only by the European Parliament following a decision of the Board of Supervisors. The Chairperson shall not prevent the Board of Supervisors from discussing matters relating to the Chairperson, in particular the need for his removal, and shall not be involved in deliberations concerning such a matter.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission. 
Revised version (Article 48 Appointment and tasks):
1. The Authority shall be represented by a Chairperson, who shall be a full-time independent professional. The Chairperson shall be responsible for preparing the work of the Board of Supervisors, including setting the agenda to be adopted by the Board of Supervisors, convening the meetings and tabling items for decision, and shall chair the meetings of the Board of Supervisors. The Chairperson shall be responsible for setting the agenda of the Management Board, to be adopted by the Management Board, and shall chair the meetings of the Management Board. The Chairperson may invite the Management Board to consider setting up a coordination group in accordance with Article 45b. 2. The Chairperson shall be selected on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and of experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation, following an open selection procedure which shall respect the principle of gender balance and shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union . The Board of Supervisors shall draw up a shortlist of qualified candidates for the position of the Chairperson, with the assistance of the Commission. Based on the shortlist, the Council shall adopt a decision to appoint the Chairperson, after confirmation by the European Parliament. Where the Chairperson no longer fulfils the conditions referred to in Article 49 or has been found guilty of serious misconduct, the Council may, acting on a proposal from the Commission which has been approved by the European Parliament, adopt a decision to remove him or her from office. The Board of Supervisors shall also elect, from among its members, a Vice-Chairperson who shall carry out the functions of the Chairperson in the absence of the Chairperson. That Vice-Chairperson shall not be elected from among the members of the Management Board. 3. The Chairperson’s term of office shall be 5 years and may be extended once. 4. In the course of the 9 months preceding the end of the 5-year term of office of the Chairperson, the Board of Supervisors shall evaluate: (a) the results achieved in the first term of office and the way they were achieved; (b) the Authority’s duties and requirements in the coming years. For the purpose of the evaluation referred to in the first subparagraph, the tasks of the Chairperson shall be carried out by the Vice-Chairperson. The Council, acting on a proposal from the Board of Supervisors and with the assistance of the Commission, and taking into account the evaluation referred to in the first subparagraph, may extend the term of office of the Chairperson once. 5. The Chairperson may be removed from office only on serious grounds. He or she may only be removed by the European Parliament following a decision of the Council, adopted after consulting the Board of Supervisors.
Article 49 Independence
Without prejudice to the role of the Board of Supervisors in relation to the tasks of the Chairperson, the Chairperson shall neither seek nor take instructions from the Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body. Neither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the Chairperson in the performance of his tasks. In accordance with the Staff Regulations referred to in Article 68, the Chairperson shall, after leaving service, continue to be bound by the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance of certain appointments or benefits.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission. 
Revised version (Article 49 Independence of the Chairperson):
Without prejudice to the role of the Board of Supervisors in relation to the tasks of the Chairperson, the Chairperson shall neither seek nor take instructions from the Union institutions or bodies, from any government or from any other public or private body. Neither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the Chairperson in the performance of his tasks. In accordance with the Staff Regulations referred to in Article 68, the Chairperson shall, after leaving service, continue to be bound by the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance of certain appointments or benefits.
Article 50 Report
1. The European Parliament and the Council may invite the Chairperson or his alternate to make a statement, while fully respecting his independence. The Chairperson shall make a statement before the European Parliament and answer any questions put by its members, whenever so requested. 2. The Chairperson shall report in writing on the main activities of the Authority to the European Parliament when requested and at least 15 days before making the statement referred to in paragraph 1. 3. In addition to the information referred to in Articles 11 to 18 and Articles 20 and 33, the report shall also include any relevant information requested by the European Parliament on an ad-hoc basis.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission.
Article 51 Appointment
1. The Authority shall be managed by an Executive Director, who shall be a full-time independent professional. 2. The Executive Director shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, after confirmation by the European Parliament, on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of financial institutions and markets, and experience relevant to financial supervision and regulation and managerial experience, following an open selection procedure. 3. The Executive Director’s term of office shall be 5 years and may be extended once. 4. In the course of the 9 months preceding the end of the Executive Director’s term of office, the Board of Supervisors shall evaluate in particular: (a) the results achieved in the first term of office and the way they were achieved; (b) the Authority’s duties and requirements in the coming years. The Board of Supervisors, taking into account the evaluation referred to in the first subparagraph, may extend the term of office of the Executive Director once. 5. The Executive Director may be removed from office only upon a decision of the Board of Supervisors.
Article 52 Independence
Without prejudice to the respective roles of the Management Board and the Board of Supervisors in relation to the tasks of the Executive Director, the Executive Director shall neither seek nor take instructions from the Union institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other public or private body. Neither Member States, the Union institutions or bodies, nor any other public or private body shall seek to influence the Executive Director in the performance of his tasks. In accordance with the Staff Regulations referred to in Article 68, the Executive Director shall, after leaving service, continue to be bound by the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance of certain appointments or benefits.
Article 53 Tasks
1. The Executive Director shall be in charge of the management of the Authority and shall prepare the work of the Management Board. 2. The Executive Director shall be responsible for implementing the annual work programme of the Authority under the guidance of the Board of Supervisors and under the control of the Management Board. 3. The Executive Director shall take the necessary measures, notably the adoption of internal administrative instructions and the publication of notices, to ensure the functioning of the Authority, in accordance with this Regulation. 4. The Executive Director shall prepare a multi-annual work programme, as referred to in Article 47(2). 5. Each year, by 30 June, the Executive Director shall prepare a work programme for the following year, as referred to in Article 47(2). 6. The Executive Director shall draw up a preliminary draft budget of the Authority pursuant to Article 63 and shall implement the budget of the Authority pursuant to Article 64. 7. Each year the Executive Director shall prepare a draft report with a section on the regulatory and supervisory activities of the Authority and a section on financial and administrative matters. 8. The Executive Director shall exercise in respect to the Authority’s staff the powers laid down in Article 68 and manage staff matters.