Article 1 Subject matter and scope
1. This Directive lays down rules and procedures relating to the recovery and resolution of the following entities: (a) institutions that are established in the Union; (b) financial institutions that are established in the Union when the financial institution is a subsidiary of a credit institution or investment firm, or of a company referred to in point (c) or (d), and is covered by the supervision of the parent undertaking on a consolidated basis in accordance with Articles 6 to 17 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (c) financial holding companies, mixed financial holding companies and mixed-activity holding companies that are established in the Union; (d) parent financial holding companies in a Member State, Union parent financial holding companies, parent mixed financial holding companies in a Member State, Union parent mixed financial holding companies; (e) branches of institutions that are established outside the Union in accordance with the specific conditions laid down in this Directive. When establishing and applying the requirements under this Directive and when using the different tools at their disposal in relation to an entity referred to in the first subparagraph, and subject to specific provisions, resolution authorities and competent authorities shall take account of the nature of its business, its shareholding structure, its legal form, its risk profile, size and legal status, its interconnectedness to other institutions or to the financial system in general, the scope and the complexity of its activities, its membership of an institutional protection scheme (IPS) that meets the requirements of Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 or other cooperative mutual solidarity systems as referred to in Article 113(6) of that Regulation and whether it exercises any investment services or activities as defined in point (2) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU. 2. Member States may adopt or maintain rules that are stricter or additional to those laid down in this Directive and in the delegated and implementing acts adopted on the basis of this Directive, provided that they are of general application and do not conflict with this Directive and with the delegated and implementing acts adopted on its basis.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 1 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) establishes together with Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 2 (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) the prudential regulatory framework for credit institutions operating in the Union. The CRR and the CRD were adopted in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis to enhance the resilience of institutions operating in the EU financial sector, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners, in particular the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The CRR has been subsequently amended to tackle remaining weaknesses in the regulatory framework and to implement some outstanding elements of the global financial services reform that are essential to ensure institutions' resilience. A major revision was brought by t he ‘Risk Reduction Measures Package’ , which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 20 May 2019 and published in the Official Journal on 7 June 2019. Th at package include d inter alia changes to the Union bank resolution framework through Directive (EU) 2019/879 of the European Parliament an d of the Council 3 , amending Directive 2014/59/EU of the European P arliament and of the Council 4 (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) , Regulation (EU) 2019/87 7 of the European Parliament and of the Council 5 , amending Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 6 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR) and Regulation (EU) 2019/87 6 of the European Parliament and of the Council 7 , amending the CRR . This reform implement ed in the Union the international Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) standard for global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs) adopted by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in November 2015 8 and enhanced the application of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) for all institutions established in the Union. The TLAC standard requires G-SIIs to hold a sufficient amount of highly loss-absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in the event of resolution. The implementation of the TLAC standard in Union law, namely through amendments to the CRR, took into account the existing institution-specific minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), set out in the BRRD. 9 Moreover, both sets of rules are closely interconnected, particularly through cross-references from the BRRD and the SRMR to the CRR. For instance, the BRRD and the SRMR generally rel y on the total exposure measure and the total risk exposure amount as calculated under the CRR for calculating and expressing MREL . The refore, the two requirements should be understood as complementary elements of a common framework. 10 Th at revised framework should better ensure that ins t itutions’ loss absorption and recapitalisation occur s through private means once those institutions get into financial difficulties and are subsequently placed in resolution. TLAC and MREL are thus essential to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. TLAC and the revised rules on MREL became applicable in the Union on 2 7 June 2019 and 28 December 2020, respectively. In line with international standards , Union law recognises both the Single Point of Entry (SPE) resolution strategy and the Multiple Point of Entry (MPE) resolution strategy. 11 Under the SPE resolution strategy, only one group entity , typically the parent undertaking, is resolved (‘resolution entity’) , whereas o ther group entities, usually operating subsidiaries, are not subject to resolution action . Instead, the losses of those subsidiaries are transferred to the resolution entity and capital is down streamed to the subsidiary . This ensures that the subsidiaries can continue to operate smoothly even after they have reach ed the point of non-viability . Each resolution entity forms a ‘resolution group’ t ogether with the subsidiaries that belong to it and that are not themselves resolution entities . Under the MPE resolution strategy, more than one entity of the banking group may be resolved . C onsequently , more than one resolution entity and thus more than one resolution group may exist within the banking group . The underlying principle of the MPE resolution approach is to enable the resolution of a given resolution group in a feasible and credible way without undermining the resolvability of other resolution entities and resolution groups in the same consolidated banking group. The revised bank resolution framework provides that MREL for resolution entities should be set at the consolidated level of a resolution group ( ‘ external MREL ’ ). 12 In addition, that framework envisages how the loss absorption and recapitalisation capacity should be allocated within resolution groups ( ‘ internal MREL ’ ) 13 . According to the BRRD, as a rule, financial instruments that are eligible for internal MREL must be held by the resolution entity , i.e. typically the parent undertaking 14 . The rationale of this rule is to ensure that t he loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity of a subsidiary is provided by its parent, i.e. by the resolution entity . That parent may hold internal MREL eligible instruments either directly or indirectly through other entities in the same resolution group (see illustration below) . The possibility for instruments to be also indirectly subscribed by the parent through intermediate entities was justified by the fact that the obligation to comply with i nternal MREL should not unnecessarily alter the existing funding channels of banking groups where the funding for acquiring such instruments is structured around the chains of ownership and distributed to the s ubsidiaries across the group through intermediate entities and not directly by ultimate parents (resolution entities). Illustration: Subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments (directly or indirectly) To operationalise the approach of indirect subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments within resolution groups , also referred to as the ‘daisy chain’ approach, and to ensure that it i s prudentially sound, the co-legislators mandated the E uropean B anking A uthority (EBA) to develop draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) and the Commission to adopt on that basis a delegated act to specify a methodology for such an indirect issuance of eligible instruments . 15 According to the BRRD mandate that methodology should: · permit a proper transfer of losses from subsidiaries to their ultimate parent (resolution entity) and a proper transfer of capital from that parent to subsidiaries; · ensure that the loss-absorbing capacity of the subsidiary is not also counted for the purposes of compliance with internal MREL by the intermediate parent ; and · ensure that its outcome is equivalent to that of a direct subscription by the ultimate parent (resolution entity) of eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries. Since early 2020, t he EBA has been working on that draft RTS on the basis of a deduction regime , in line with the mandate set out in the BRRD and the recommend ations in the relevant international standards . 16 The deduction regime developed by the EBA envisages that i nternal MREL eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries to the resolution entity via an intermediate parent would have to be fully deducted from the amount of the intermediate parent’s own i nternal MREL capacity. Such a deduction approach was considered as the most consistent with the conditions set out in the BRRD mandate and conducive to the operationalisation of the i nternal MREL framework . 17 Th e methodology developed by the EBA was subject to a public consultation. 18 The consultation feedback showed general support to the draft RTS, but highlighted several inconsistencies of the requirements for the delegation laid down in the BRRD with the existing prudential rules laid down in the CRR. Hence, in a letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021 19 , the EBA outlined that the interactions between the BRRD and the CRR would not allow the application of the prudential treatment needed for the mandate to be fulfilled as originally intended. More precisely, the EBA noted that the CRR did not allow for the deduction of internal MREL eligible instruments and , subsequently, for the application of an appropriate risk weight of zero percent in all the cases relevant for the mandate under the BRRD . Similar issues were identified in the area of the CRR leverage ratio requirement. T his situation would not only generate an inconsistency between the prudential and resolution framework but would also go against the requirement of the BRRD mandate to generate an outcome equivalent to that of a direct subscription , according to the EBA. It was concluded that the BRRD requirements could not be fulfilled without additional provisions that the RTS could not bear on its own but need ed rather to rely on the Level 1 text to specify. Apart from the need to operationalise the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL, some other resolution related issues have been identified since the revised TLAC/MREL framework bec a me applicable in 2019. 20 Those issues mainly relate to the regulatory tr eatment of G-SII groups with a n MPE resolution strategy, including those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries . For instance, the CRR currently does not specify whether the various adjustments to TLAC 21 for G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy also cover those subsidiaries of a G-SII that are located in a third country . In addition, the formula 22 for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy relies on the risk-based TLAC/MREL requirement of the subsidiary only, while it was omitted to also take into account the non-risked - based TLAC/MREL. Further issues include some contradictions within the Level 1 text, notably with regard to the interplay of provisions in the CRR and the BRRD 23 that are relevant to address potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements . Lastly, some issues have been observed with regard to the criteria 24 for instruments to be eligible for compliance with the internal TLAC requirement, which is of relevance when addressing the failure of EU subsidiaries of non-EU global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs). Some targeted changes to specific resolution related aspects of the CRR are necessary to address the above issues. In particular, the regulatory treatment of G-SII groups with an MPE resolution strategy, including of those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries, needs to be better aligned with the treatment outlined in the TLAC standard. This would help to ensure that, in case of resolution, each resolution entity and group belonging to those G-SIIs can continue to perform critical functions without the risk of contagion. The amendments proposed would not alter the overall architecture of the framework but would ensure the proper application of TLAC and MREL. First, it is necessary to incorporate directly into the CRR a dedicated prudential treatment related to the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL (daisy chain approach). The proposed modifications to the CRR would address the identified inconsistencies between the CRR and the BRRD, which were outlined in the EBA’s letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021. More precisely, the deduction regime, which was developed by the EBA in the context of the draft RTS under the BRRD, would be incorporated directly into the CRR. This would ensure a proper functioning of the indirect subscription of internal MREL within resolution groups with several layers of ownership, in line with the political agreement reached during the negotiations of Directive (EU) 2019/879. In addition, the revisions would ensure that the treatment of holdings of internal MREL eligible instruments remains aligned in both the resolution and the prudential framework, thus enabling the operationalisation of the deduction methodology developed by the EBA and, at the same time, avoiding the introduction of undue complexity in the treatment of those exposures. Second , the CRR provisions on the comparison between the sum of the actual TLAC requirement s of all the resolution groups within a G-SII group with a n MPE resolution strategy with the theoretical SPE requirement of that G-SII group need to be clarified . 25 The changes proposed are needed to clarify the extent to which resolution authorities can address the potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements. This would be achieved by aligning the CRR treatment with the one envisaged under the BRRD 26 and the TLAC standard 27 . Th ird , it is necessary to amend th e formula for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy 28 to ensure that that formula takes into account both the risk-based and the non- risk- based TLAC/MREL requirement s of the subsidiary, in line with the TLAC standard. This would avoid that the TLAC/MREL surplus of a given subsidiary is overestimated. Fourth, some CRR provisions applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy should be clarified to allow for the consideration of subsidiaries established outside of the Union. This would align the CRR with the corresponding TLAC principle agreed internationally, which is applicable with respect to subsidiaries established in all FSB jurisdictions. Fifth, some targeted clarifications in the context of the r equirement for own funds and eligible liabilities for i nstitutions that are material subsidiaries of non-EU G-SIIs ( ‘ internal TLAC ’ ) are needed to ensure that debt instruments issued by those institutions could meet all eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments . The reason for this change is that currently the eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments are based on the assumption that those instruments are issued by a resolution entity, and not by subsidiaries subject to an internal TLAC requirement. The gap would be addressed by clarifying that the same eligibility conditions applicable to resolution entities apply also to non-resolution entities, mutatis mutandis . This, in turn, would enable those institutions to me e t their internal TLAC requirement inter alia with eligible liabilities, as originally intended by the co-legislators . 29 These proposed amendments to the CRR can play an essential role in improving an institution’s resolvability . Given that the corresponding provisions are already applicable in the Union, the proposed modifications would need to be made in a timely manner . The need for an expedited adoption is further amplified by the fact that banking groups need clarity on the daisy chain mechanism to decide how best to preposition their internal MREL capacity in view of the general MREL compliance deadline that is set to 1 January 2024 , with binding intermediate targets needing to be complied with by 1 January 2022 . 
Revised version (Article 1 Subject matter and scope):
This Directive lays down rules and procedures relating to the recovery and resolution of the following entities: (a) institutions that are established in the Union; (c) financial holding companies, mixed financial holding companies and mixed-activity holding companies that are established in the Union; (d) parent financial holding companies in a Member State, Union parent financial holding companies, parent mixed financial holding companies in a Member State, Union parent mixed financial holding companies; (e) branches of institutions that are established outside the Union in accordance with the specific conditions laid down in this Directive. When establishing and applying the requirements under this Directive and when using the different tools at their disposal in relation to an entity referred to in the first subparagraph, and subject to specific provisions, resolution authorities and competent authorities shall take account of the nature of its business, its shareholding structure, its legal form, its risk profile, size and legal status, its interconnectedness to other institutions or to the financial system in general, the scope and the complexity of its activities, its membership of an institutional protection scheme (IPS) that meets the requirements of Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 or other cooperative mutual solidarity systems as referred to in Article 113(6) of that Regulation and whether it exercises any investment services or activities as defined in point (2) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU. 2. Member States may adopt or maintain rules that are stricter or additional to those laid down in this Directive and in the delegated and implementing acts adopted on the basis of this Directive, provided that they are of general application and do not conflict with this Directive and with the delegated and implementing acts adopted on its basis. 3. This Directive shall not apply to entities that are also authorised in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.
Article 2 Definitions
1. For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions apply: (1) ‘resolution’ means the application of a resolution tool or a tool referred to in Article 37(9) in order to achieve one or more of the resolution objectives referred to in Article 31(2); (2) ‘credit institution’ means a credit institution as defined in point (1) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, not including the entities referred to in Article 2(5) of Directive 2013/36/EU; (3) ‘investment firm’ means an investment firm as defined in point (2) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 that is subject to the initial capital requirement laid down in Article 28(2) of Directive 2013/36/EU; (4) ‘financial institution’ means a financial institution as defined in point (26) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (5) ‘subsidiary’ means a subsidiary as defined in point (16) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (6) ‘parent undertaking’ means a parent undertaking as defined in point (15)(a) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (7) ‘consolidated basis’ means the basis of the consolidated situation as defined in point (47) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (8) ‘institutional protection scheme’ or ‘IPS’ means an arrangement that meets the requirements laid down in Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (9) ‘financial holding company’ means a financial holding company as defined in point (20) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (10) ‘mixed financial holding company’ means a mixed financial holding company as defined in point (21) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (11) ‘mixed-activity holding company’ means a mixed-activity holding company as defined in point (22) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (12) ‘parent financial holding company in a Member State’ means a parent financial holding company in a Member State as defined in point (30) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (13) ‘Union parent financial holding company’ means an EU parent financial holding company as defined in point (31) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (14) ‘parent mixed financial holding company in a Member State’ means a parent mixed financial holding company in a Member State as defined in point (32) of Article 4(1)of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (15) ‘Union parent mixed financial holding company’ means an EU parent mixed financial holding company as defined in point (33) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (16) ‘resolution objectives’ means the resolution objectives referred to in Article 31(2); (17) ‘branch’ means a branch as defined in point (17) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (18) ‘resolution authority’ means an authority designated by a Member State in accordance with Article 3; (19) ‘resolution tool’ means a resolution tool referred to in Article 37(3); (20) ‘resolution power’ means a power referred to in Articles 63 to 72; (21) ‘competent authority’ means a competent authority as defined in point (40) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 including the European Central Bank with regard to specific tasks conferred on it by Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 ( 25 ) ; (22) ‘competent ministries’ means finance ministries or other ministries of the Member States which are responsible for economic, financial and budgetary decisions at the national level according to national competencies and which have been designated in accordance with Article 3(5); (23) ‘institution’ means a credit institution or an investment firm; (24) ‘management body’ means a management body as defined in point (7) of Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU; (25) ‘senior management’ means senior management as defined in point (9) of Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU; (26) ‘group’ means a parent undertaking and its subsidiaries; (27) ‘cross-border group’ means a group having group entities established in more than one Member State; (28) ‘extraordinary public financial support’ means State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, or any other public financial support at supra-national level, which, if provided for at national level, would constitute State aid, that is provided in order to preserve or restore the viability, liquidity or solvency of an institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) or of a group of which such an institution or entity forms part; (29) ‘emergency liquidity assistance’ means the provision by a central bank of central bank money, or any other assistance that may lead to an increase in central bank money, to a solvent financial institution, or group of solvent financial institutions, that is facing temporary liquidity problems, without such an operation being part of monetary policy; (30) ‘systemic crisis’ means a disruption in the financial system with the potential to have serious negative consequences for the internal market and the real economy. All types of financial intermediaries, markets and infrastructure may be potentially systemically important to some degree; (31) ‘group entity’ means a legal person that is part of a group; (32) ‘recovery plan’ means a recovery plan drawn up and maintained by an institution in accordance with Article 5; (33) ‘group recovery plan’ means a group recovery plan drawn up and maintained in accordance with Article 7; (34) ‘significant branch’ means a branch that would be considered to be significant in a host Member State in accordance with Article 51(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU; (35) ‘critical functions’ means activities, services or operations the discontinuance of which is likely in one or more Member States, to lead to the disruption of services that are essential to the real economy or to disrupt financial stability due to the size, market share, external and internal interconnectedness, complexity or cross-border activities of an institution or group, with particular regard to the substitutability of those activities, services or operations; (36) ‘core business lines’ means business lines and associated services which represent material sources of revenue, profit or franchise value for an institution or for a group of which an institution forms part; (37) ‘consolidating supervisor’ means consolidating supervisor as defined in point (41) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (38) ‘own funds’ means own funds as defined in point (118) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (39) ‘conditions for resolution’ means the conditions referred to in Article 32(1); (40) ‘resolution action’ means the decision to place an institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) under resolution pursuant to Article 32 or 33, the application of a resolution tool, or the exercise of one or more resolution powers; (41) ‘resolution plan’ means a resolution plan for an institution drawn up in accordance with Article 10; (42) ‘group resolution’ means either of the following: (a) the taking of resolution action at the level of a parent undertaking or of an institution subject to consolidated supervision, or (b) the coordination of the application of resolution tools and the exercise of resolution powers by resolution authorities in relation to group entities that meet the conditions for resolution; (43) ‘group resolution plan’ means a plan for group resolution drawn up in accordance with Articles 12 and 13; (44) ‘group-level resolution authority’ means the resolution authority in the Member State in which the consolidating supervisor is situated; (45) ‘group resolution scheme’ means a plan drawn up for the purposes of group resolution in accordance with Article 91; (46) ‘resolution college’ means a college established in accordance with Article 88 to carry out the tasks referred to in Article 88(1); (47) ‘normal insolvency proceedings’ means collective insolvency proceedings which entail the partial or total divestment of a debtor and the appointment of a liquidator or an administrator normally applicable to institutions under national law and either specific to those institutions or generally applicable to any natural or legal person; (48) ‘debt instruments’ referred to in points (g) and (j) of Article 63(1) means bonds and other forms of transferable debt, instruments creating or acknowledging a debt, and instruments giving rights to acquire debt instruments; (49) ‘parent institution in a Member State’ means a parent institution in a Member State as defined in point (28) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (50) ‘Union parent institution’ means an EU parent institution as defined in point (29) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (51) ‘own funds requirements’ means the requirements laid down in Articles 92 to 98 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (52) ‘supervisory college’ means a college of supervisors established in accordance with Article 116 of Directive 2013/36/EU; (53) ‘Union State aid framework’ means the framework established by Articles 107, 108 and 109 TFEU and regulations and all Union acts, including guidelines, communications and notices, made or adopted pursuant to Article 108(4) or Article 109 TFEU; (54) ‘winding up’ means the realisation of assets of an institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1); (55) ‘asset separation tool’ means the mechanism for effecting a transfer by a resolution authority of assets, rights or liabilities of an institution under resolution to an asset management vehicle in accordance with Article 42; (56) ‘asset management vehicle’ means a legal person that meets the requirements laid down in Article 42(2); (57) ‘bail-in tool’ means the mechanism for effecting the exercise by a resolution authority of the write-down and conversion powers in relation to liabilities of an institution under resolution in accordance with Article 43; (58) ‘sale of business tool’ means the mechanism for effecting a transfer by a resolution authority of shares or other instruments of ownership issued by an institution under resolution, or assets, rights or liabilities, of an institution under resolution to a purchaser that is not a bridge institution, in accordance with Article 38; (59) ‘bridge institution’ means a legal person that meets the requirements laid down in Article 40(2); (60) ‘bridge institution tool’ means the mechanism for transferring shares or other instruments of ownership issued by an institution under resolution or assets, rights or liabilities of an institution under resolution to a bridge institution, in accordance with Article 40; (61) ‘instruments of ownership’ means shares, other instruments that confer ownership, instruments that are convertible into or give the right to acquire shares or other instruments of ownership, and instruments representing interests in shares or other instruments of ownership; (62) ‘shareholders’ means shareholders or holders of other instruments of ownership; (63) ‘transfer powers’ means the powers specified in point (c) or (d) of Article 63(1) to transfer shares, other instruments of ownership, debt instruments, assets, rights or liabilities, or any combination of those items from an institution under resolution to a recipient; (64) ‘central counterparty’ means a CCP as defined in point (1) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012; (65) ‘derivative’, means a derivative as defined in point (5) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012; (66) ‘write-down and conversion powers’ means the powers referred to in Article 59(2) and in points (e) to (i) of Article 63(1); (67) ‘secured liability’ means a liability where the right of the creditor to payment or other form of performance is secured by a charge, pledge or lien, or collateral arrangements including liabilities arising from repurchase transactions and other title transfer collateral arrangements; (68) ‘Common Equity Tier 1 instruments’ means capital instruments that meet the conditions laid down in Article 28(1) to (4), Article 29(1) to (5) or Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (69) ‘Additional Tier 1 instruments’ means capital instruments that meet the conditions laid down in Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (70) ‘aggregate amount’ means the aggregate amount by which the resolution authority has assessed that eligible liabilities are to be written down or converted, in accordance with Article 46(1); (71) ‘eligible liabilities’ means the liabilities and capital instruments that do not qualify as Common Equity Tier 1, Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 instruments of an institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) that are not excluded from the scope of the bail-in tool by virtue of Article 44(2); (72) ‘deposit guarantee scheme’ means a deposit guarantee scheme introduced and officially recognised by a Member State pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2014/49/EU; (73) ‘Tier 2 instruments’ means capital instruments or subordinated loans that meet the conditions laid down in Article 63 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (74) ‘relevant capital instruments’ for the purposes of Section 5 of Chapter IV of Title IV and Chapter V of Title IV, means Additional Tier 1 instruments and Tier 2 instruments; (75) ‘conversion rate’ means the factor that determines the number of shares or other instruments of ownership into which a liability of a specific class will be converted, by reference either to a single instrument of the class in question or to a specified unit of value of a debt claim; (76) ‘affected creditor’ means a creditor whose claim relates to a liability that is reduced or converted to shares or other instruments of ownership by the exercise of the write down or conversion power pursuant to the use of the bail-in tool; (77) ‘affected holder’ means a holder of instruments of ownership whose instruments of ownership are cancelled by means of the power referred to in point (h) of Article 63(1); (78) ‘appropriate authority’ means authority of the Member State identified in accordance with Article 61 that is responsible under the national law of that State for making the determinations referred to in Article 59(3); (79) ‘relevant parent institution’ means a parent institution in a Member State, a Union parent institution, a financial holding company, a mixed financial holding company, a mixed-activity holding company, a parent financial holding company in a Member State, a Union parent financial holding company, a parent mixed financial holding company in a Member State, or a Union parent mixed financial holding company, in relation to which the bail-in tool is applied; (80) ‘recipient’ means the entity to which shares, other instruments of ownership, debt instruments, assets, rights or liabilities, or any combination of those items are transferred from an institution under resolution; (81) ‘business day’ means a day other than a Saturday, a Sunday or a public holiday in the Member State concerned; (82) ‘termination right’ means a right to terminate a contract, a right to accelerate, close out, set-off or net obligations or any similar provision that suspends, modifies or extinguishes an obligation of a party to the contract or a provision that prevents an obligation under the contract from arising that would otherwise arise; (83) ‘institution under resolution’ means an institution, a financial institution, a financial holding company, a mixed financial holding company, a mixed-activity holding company, a parent financial holding company in a Member State, a Union parent financial holding company, a parent mixed financial holding company in a Member State, or a Union parent mixed financial holding company, in respect of which a resolution action is taken; (84) ‘Union subsidiary’ means an institution which is established in a Member State and which is a subsidiary of a third-country institution or a third-country parent undertaking; (85) ‘Union parent undertaking’ means a Union parent institution, a Union parent financial holding company or a Union parent mixed financial holding company; (86) ‘third-country institution’ means an entity, the head office of which is established in a third country, that would, if it were established within the Union, be covered by the definition of an institution; (87) ‘third-country parent undertaking’ means a parent undertaking, a parent financial holding company or a parent mixed financial holding company, established in a third country; (88) ‘third-country resolution proceedings’ means an action under the law of a third country to manage the failure of a third-country institution or a third-country parent undertaking that is comparable, in terms of objectives and anticipated results, to resolution actions under this Directive; (89) ‘Union branch’ means a branch located in a Member State of a third-country institution; (90) ‘relevant third-country authority’ means a third-country authority responsible for carrying out functions comparable to those of resolution authorities or competent authorities pursuant to this Directive; (91) ‘group financing arrangement’ means the financing arrangement or arrangements of the Member State of the group-level resolution authority; (92) ‘back-to-back transaction’ means a transaction entered into between two group entities for the purpose of transferring, in whole or in part, the risk generated by another transaction entered into between one of those group entities and a third party; (93) ‘intra-group guarantee’ means a contract by which one group entity guarantees the obligations of another group entity to a third party; (94) ‘covered deposits’ means covered deposits as defined in point (5) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/49/EU; (95) ‘eligible deposits’ means eligible deposits as defined in point (4) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/49/EU; (96) ‘covered bond’ means an instrument as referred to in Article 52(4) of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 26 ) ; (97) ‘title transfer financial collateral arrangement’ means a title transfer financial collateral arrangement as defined in point (b) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 27 ) ; (98) ‘netting arrangement’ means an arrangement under which a number of claims or obligations can be converted into a single net claim, including close-out netting arrangements under which, on the occurrence of an enforcement event (however or wherever defined) the obligations of the parties are accelerated so as to become immediately due or are terminated, and in either case are converted into or replaced by a single net claim, including ‘close-out netting provisions’ as defined in point (n)(i) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2002/47/EC and ‘netting’ as defined in point (k) of Article 2 of Directive 98/26/EC; (99) ‘set-off arrangement’ means an arrangement under which two or more claims or obligations owed between the institution under resolution and a counterparty can be set off against each other; (100) ‘financial contracts’ includes the following contracts and agreements: (a) securities contracts, including: (i) contracts for the purchase, sale or loan of a security, a group or index of securities; (ii) options on a security or group or index of securities; (iii) repurchase or reverse repurchase transactions on any such security, group or index; (b) commodities contracts, including: (i) contracts for the purchase, sale or loan of a commodity or group or index of commodities for future delivery; (ii) options on a commodity or group or index of commodities; (iii) repurchase or reverse repurchase transactions on any such commodity, group or index; (c) futures and forwards contracts, including contracts (other than a commodities contract) for the purchase, sale or transfer of a commodity or property of any other description, service, right or interest for a specified price at a future date; (d) swap agreements, including: (i) swaps and options relating to interest rates; spot or other foreign exchange agreements; currency; an equity index or equity; a debt index or debt; commodity indexes or commodities; weather; emissions or inflation; (ii) total return, credit spread or credit swaps; (iii) any agreements or transactions that are similar to an agreement referred to in point (i) or (ii) which is the subject of recurrent dealing in the swaps or derivatives markets; (e) inter-bank borrowing agreements where the term of the borrowing is three months or less; (f) master agreements for any of the contracts or agreements referred to in points (a) to (e); (101) ‘crisis prevention measure’ means the exercise of powers to direct removal of deficiencies or impediments to recoverability under Article 6(6), the exercise of powers to address or remove impediments to resolvability under Article 17 or 18, the application of an early intervention measure under Article 27, the appointment of a temporary administrator under Article 29 or the exercise of the write down or conversion powers under Article 59; (102) ‘crisis management measure’ means a resolution action or the appointment of a special manager under Article 35 or a person under Article 51(2) or under Article 72(1); (103) ‘recovery capacity’ means the capability of an institution to restore its financial position following a significant deterioration; (104) ‘depositor’ means a depositor as defined in point (6) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/49/EU; (105) ‘investor’ means an investor within the meaning of point (4) of Article 1 of Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 28 ) ; (106) ‘designated national macroprudential authority’ means the authority entrusted with the conduct of macroprudential policy referred to in Recommendation B1 of the Recommendation of the European Systemic Risk Board of 22 December 2011 on the macroprudential mandate of national authorities (ESRB/2011/3); (107) ‘micro, small and medium-sized enterprises’ means micro, small and medium-sized enterprises as defined with regard to the annual turnover criterion referred to in Article 2(1) of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC ( 29 ) ; (108) ‘regulated market’ means a regulated market as defined in point (21) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU. 2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 115 in order to specify the criteria for the determination of the activities, services and operations referred to in point (35) of the first subparagraph as regards the definition of ‘critical functions’ and the criteria for the determination of the business lines and associated services referred to in point (36) of the first subparagraph as regards the definition of ‘core business lines’.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The proposed amendments to Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) are part of a legislative package that includes also amendments to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR), to Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) and to Regulation (EU) 806/2014 (the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR). Over the past years the EU implemented a substantial reform of the financial services regulatory framework to enhance the resilience of financial institutions in the EU, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners. In particular, the reform package included Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) and Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD), on prudential requirements for and supervision of institutions, Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD), on recovery and resolution of institutions and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 on the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM). These measures were taken in response to the financial crisis that unfolded in 2007-2008.The absence of adequate crisis management and resolution frameworks forced governments around the world to rescue banks following the financial crisis. The subsequent impact on public finances as well as the undesirable incentive of socialising the costs of bank failure have underscored that a different approach is needed to manage bank crises and protect financial stability. Within the Union and in line with the significant steps that have been agreed and taken at international level, Directive 2014/59/EU (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) 1 and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (SRMR) 2 have established a robust bank resolution framework to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. A cornerstone of the new resolution framework is the “bail-in” which consists of writing down debt or converting debt claims or other liabilities into equity according to a pre-defined hierarchy. The tool can be used to absorb losses of and internally recapitalise an institution that is failing or likely to fail, so that its viability is restored. Therefore, shareholders and other creditors will have to bear the burden of an institution's failure instead of taxpayers. In contrast to other jurisdictions, the Union bank recovery and resolution framework has already mandated resolution authorities to set for each credit institution or investment firm ('institution') a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities ('MREL'), which consist of highly bail-inable liabilities to be used to absorb losses and recapitalise institutions in case of failures. The delegated legislation concerning the practical implementation of this requirement has been adopted recently by the Commission 3 . At the global level, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) has published on 9 November 2015 the Total Loss-absorbing Capacity (TLAC) Term Sheet ('the TLAC standard') that was adopted a week later at the G20 summit in Turkey 4 . The TLAC standard requires global systemically important banks ('G-SIBs'), referred to as global systemically important institutions ('G-SIIs') in the Union legislation, to hold a sufficient amount of highly loss absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in resolution. In its Communication of 24 November 2015 5 , the Commission committed to bring forward a legislative proposal by the end of this year so that the TLAC standard can be implemented by the agreed deadline of 2019. In addition, the Commission committed to review the existing MREL rules with the view to provide full consistency with the internationally agreed TLAC standard by considering the findings of a report that the European Banking Authority (EBA) is required to provide to the Commission under Article 45(19) of the BRRD. An interim version of that report has already been published by the EBA on 19 July 2016 6 and the final report is expected to be submitted in the course of December 2016. While the general BRRD framework remains valid and sound, the main objective of this proposal is to implement the TLAC standard and to integrate the TLAC requirement into the general MREL rules by avoiding duplication by applying two parallel requirements. Although TLAC and MREL pursue the same regulatory objective, there are, nevertheless, some differences between them in the way they are constructed. The scope of application of MREL covers not only G-SIIs, but the entire Union banking industry. Differently from the TLAC standard, which contains a harmonised minimum level, the level of MREL is determined by resolution authorities on the basis of a case-by-case institution specific assessment. Finally, the minimum TLAC requirement should be met in principle with subordinated debt instruments, while for the purposes of MREL, subordination of debt instruments could be required by resolution authorities on a case-by-case basis to the extent it is needed to ensure that in a given case bailed in creditors are not treated worse than in a hypothetical insolvency scenario (which is a scenario that is counterfactual to resolution). In order to achieve a simple and transparent framework providing legal certainty and consistency, the Commission is proposing to integrate the TLAC standard into the existing MREL rules and ensure that both requirements are met with largely similar instruments. This approach requires introducing limited adjustments to the existing MREL rules ensuring technical consistency with the structure of any requirements for G-SIIs. In particular, further appropriate technical amendments to the existing rules on MREL are needed to align them with the TLAC standard as regards inter alia the denominators used for measuring loss-absorbing capacity, the interaction with capital buffer requirements, disclosure of risks to investors and their application in relation to different resolution strategies. While implementing the TLAC standard for G-SIIs, the Commission's approach will not materially affect the burden of institutions which are not G-SIIs to comply with the provisions on MREL. Operationally, the harmonised minimum level of the TLAC standard will be introduced in the Union through amendments to the Capital Requirements Regulation and Directive (CRR and CRD) 7 while the institution specific add-on for G-SIIs and the institution specific MREL for non-G-SIIs will be dealt with through targeted amendments to the BRRD and SRMR. This proposal covers specifically the targeted amendments to the BRRD related to the implementation of the TLAC standard in the Union. As such, this proposal is part of a wider review package of the Union financial legislation aiming at reducing risks in the financial sector (CRR/CRD review) and rendering it more resilient. In addition, based on views expressed by many respondents to the call for evidence to stakeholders published in September 2015 8 , this proposal amends the BRRD with the view to ease compliance costs of banks where their liabilities are governed by the laws of third countries. The current requirement has proven difficult to comply with in practice thus bringing limited added value to the resolvability of banks. It is thus necessary to introduce more flexibility in the contractual relationships of Union banks with third country entities by allowing resolution authorities to waive, subject to certain strict safeguards, the obligation to insert contractual clauses with the aim of recognising in third countries the effects of the bail-in of liabilities governed by the law of these third countries. In practice, the current rules are very difficult to enforce. Furthermore, at the invitation of the ECOFIN in its conclusions of 17 June 2016, this proposal amends the BRRD as regards the application by resolution authorities of moratorium tools in the course of resolution, i.e. powers to suspend the executions of bank commitments towards third parties. Harmonisation of such powers should contribute to the stabilisation by the relevant authorities of an institution in the period before, and possibly after, resolution. 
Revised version (Article 2 Definitions):
1. For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions apply: (1) ‘resolution’ means the application of a resolution tool or a tool referred to in Article 37(9) in order to achieve one or more of the resolution objectives referred to in Article 31(2); (2) ‘credit institution’ means a credit institution as defined in point (1) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, not including the entities referred to in Article 2(5) of Directive 2013/36/EU; (3) ‘investment firm’ means an investment firm as defined in point (2) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 that is subject to the initial capital requirement laid down in Article 28(2) of Directive 2013/36/EU; (4) ‘financial institution’ means a financial institution as defined in point (26) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (5) ‘subsidiary’ means a subsidiary as defined in point (16) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, and for the purpose of applying Articles 7, 12, 17, 18, 45 to 45m, 59 to 62, 91 and 92 of this Directive to resolution groups referred to in point (b) of point (83b) of this paragraph, includes, where and as appropriate, credit institutions that are permanently affiliated to a central body, the central body itself, and their respective subsidiaries, taking into account the way in which such resolution groups comply with Article 45e(3) of this Directive; (5a) ‘material subsidiary’ means a material subsidiary as defined in point (135) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (6) ‘parent undertaking’ means a parent undertaking as defined in point (15)(a) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (7) ‘consolidated basis’ means the basis of the consolidated situation as defined in point (47) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (8) ‘institutional protection scheme’ or ‘IPS’ means an arrangement that meets the requirements laid down in Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (9) ‘financial holding company’ means a financial holding company as defined in point (20) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (10) ‘mixed financial holding company’ means a mixed financial holding company as defined in point (21) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (11) ‘mixed-activity holding company’ means a mixed-activity holding company as defined in point (22) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (12) ‘parent financial holding company in a Member State’ means a parent financial holding company in a Member State as defined in point (30) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (13) ‘Union parent financial holding company’ means an EU parent financial holding company as defined in point (31) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (14) ‘parent mixed financial holding company in a Member State’ means a parent mixed financial holding company in a Member State as defined in point (32) of Article 4(1)of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (15) ‘Union parent mixed financial holding company’ means an EU parent mixed financial holding company as defined in point (33) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (16) ‘resolution objectives’ means the resolution objectives referred to in Article 31(2); (17) ‘branch’ means a branch as defined in point (17) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (18) ‘resolution authority’ means an authority designated by a Member State in accordance with Article 3; (19) ‘resolution tool’ means a resolution tool referred to in Article 37(3); (20) ‘resolution power’ means a power referred to in Articles 63 to 72; (21) ‘competent authority’ means a competent authority as defined in point (40) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 including the European Central Bank with regard to specific tasks conferred on it by Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 ( 1 ); (22) ‘competent ministries’ means finance ministries or other ministries of the Member States which are responsible for economic, financial and budgetary decisions at the national level according to national competencies and which have been designated in accordance with Article 3(5); (23) ‘institution’ means a credit institution or an investment firm; (24) ‘management body’ means a management body as defined in point (7) of Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU; (25) ‘senior management’ means senior management as defined in point (9) of Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU; (26) ‘group’ means a parent undertaking and its subsidiaries; (27) ‘cross-border group’ means a group having group entities established in more than one Member State; (28) ‘extraordinary public financial support’ means State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, or any other public financial support at supra-national level, which, if provided for at national level, would constitute State aid, that is provided in order to preserve or restore the viability, liquidity or solvency of an institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) or of a group of which such an institution or entity forms part; (29) ‘emergency liquidity assistance’ means the provision by a central bank of central bank money, or any other assistance that may lead to an increase in central bank money, to a solvent financial institution, or group of solvent financial institutions, that is facing temporary liquidity problems, without such an operation being part of monetary policy; (30) ‘systemic crisis’ means a disruption in the financial system with the potential to have serious negative consequences for the internal market and the real economy. All types of financial intermediaries, markets and infrastructure may be potentially systemically important to some degree; (31) ‘group entity’ means a legal person that is part of a group; (32) ‘recovery plan’ means a recovery plan drawn up and maintained by an institution in accordance with Article 5; (33) ‘group recovery plan’ means a group recovery plan drawn up and maintained in accordance with Article 7; (34) ‘significant branch’ means a branch that would be considered to be significant in a host Member State in accordance with Article 51(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU; (35) ‘critical functions’ means activities, services or operations the discontinuance of which is likely in one or more Member States, to lead to the disruption of services that are essential to the real economy or to disrupt financial stability due to the size, market share, external and internal interconnectedness, complexity or cross-border activities of an institution or group, with particular regard to the substitutability of those activities, services or operations; (36) ‘core business lines’ means business lines and associated services which represent material sources of revenue, profit or franchise value for an institution or for a group of which an institution forms part; (37) ‘consolidating supervisor’ means consolidating supervisor as defined in point (41) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (38) ‘own funds’ means own funds as defined in point (118) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (39) ‘conditions for resolution’ means the conditions referred to in Article 32(1); (40) ‘resolution action’ means the decision to place an institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) under resolution pursuant to Article 32 or 33, the application of a resolution tool, or the exercise of one or more resolution powers; (41) ‘resolution plan’ means a resolution plan for an institution drawn up in accordance with Article 10; (42) ‘group resolution’ means either of the following: (a) the taking of resolution action at the level of a parent undertaking or of an institution subject to consolidated supervision, or (b) the coordination of the application of resolution tools and the exercise of resolution powers by resolution authorities in relation to group entities that meet the conditions for resolution; (43) ‘group resolution plan’ means a plan for group resolution drawn up in accordance with Articles 12 and 13; (44) ‘group-level resolution authority’ means the resolution authority in the Member State in which the consolidating supervisor is situated; (45) ‘group resolution scheme’ means a plan drawn up for the purposes of group resolution in accordance with Article 91; (46) ‘resolution college’ means a college established in accordance with Article 88 to carry out the tasks referred to in Article 88(1); (47) ‘normal insolvency proceedings’ means collective insolvency proceedings which entail the partial or total divestment of a debtor and the appointment of a liquidator or an administrator normally applicable to institutions under national law and either specific to those institutions or generally applicable to any natural or legal person; (48) ‘debt instruments’: (i) for the purpose of points (g) and (j) of Article 63(1), means bonds and other forms of transferrable debt, instruments creating or acknowledging a debt, and instruments giving rights to acquire debt instruments; and (ii) for the purpose of Article 108, means bonds and other forms of transferrable debt and instruments creating or acknowledging a debt; (49) ‘parent institution in a Member State’ means a parent institution in a Member State as defined in point (28) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (50) ‘Union parent institution’ means an EU parent institution as defined in point (29) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (51) ‘own funds requirements’ means the requirements laid down in Articles 92 to 98 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (52) ‘supervisory college’ means a college of supervisors established in accordance with Article 116 of Directive 2013/36/EU; (53) ‘Union State aid framework’ means the framework established by Articles 107, 108 and 109 TFEU and regulations and all Union acts, including guidelines, communications and notices, made or adopted pursuant to Article 108(4) or Article 109 TFEU; (54) ‘winding up’ means the realisation of assets of an institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1); (55) ‘asset separation tool’ means the mechanism for effecting a transfer by a resolution authority of assets, rights or liabilities of an institution under resolution to an asset management vehicle in accordance with Article 42; (56) ‘asset management vehicle’ means a legal person that meets the requirements laid down in Article 42(2); (57) ‘bail-in tool’ means the mechanism for effecting the exercise by a resolution authority of the write-down and conversion powers in relation to liabilities of an institution under resolution in accordance with Article 43; (58) ‘sale of business tool’ means the mechanism for effecting a transfer by a resolution authority of shares or other instruments of ownership issued by an institution under resolution, or assets, rights or liabilities, of an institution under resolution to a purchaser that is not a bridge institution, in accordance with Article 38; (59) ‘bridge institution’ means a legal person that meets the requirements laid down in Article 40(2); (60) ‘bridge institution tool’ means the mechanism for transferring shares or other instruments of ownership issued by an institution under resolution or assets, rights or liabilities of an institution under resolution to a bridge institution, in accordance with Article 40; (61) ‘instruments of ownership’ means shares, other instruments that confer ownership, instruments that are convertible into or give the right to acquire shares or other instruments of ownership, and instruments representing interests in shares or other instruments of ownership; (62) ‘shareholders’ means shareholders or holders of other instruments of ownership; (63) ‘transfer powers’ means the powers specified in point (c) or (d) of Article 63(1) to transfer shares, other instruments of ownership, debt instruments, assets, rights or liabilities, or any combination of those items from an institution under resolution to a recipient; (64) ‘central counterparty’ means a CCP as defined in point (1) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012; (65) ‘derivative’, means a derivative as defined in point (5) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012; (66) ‘write-down and conversion powers’ means the powers referred to in Article 59(2) and in points (e) to (i) of Article 63(1); (67) ‘secured liability’ means a liability where the right of the creditor to payment or other form of performance is secured by a charge, pledge or lien, or collateral arrangements including liabilities arising from repurchase transactions and other title transfer collateral arrangements; (68) ‘Common Equity Tier 1 instruments’ means capital instruments that meet the conditions laid down in Article 28(1) to (4), Article 29(1) to (5) or Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (68a) ‘Common Equity Tier 1 capital’ means Common Equity Tier 1 capital as calculated in accordance with Article 50 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (69) ‘Additional Tier 1 instruments’ means capital instruments that meet the conditions laid down in Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (70) ‘aggregate amount’ means the aggregate amount by which the resolution authority has assessed that bail-inable liabilities are to be written down or converted, in accordance with Article 46(1); (71) ‘bail-inable liabilities’ means the liabilities and capital instruments that do not qualify as Common Equity Tier 1, Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 instruments of an institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) and that are not excluded from the scope of the bail-in tool pursuant to Article 44(2); (71a) ‘eligible liabilities’ means bail-inable liabilities that fulfil, as applicable, the conditions of Article 45b or point (a) of Article 45f(2) of this Directive, and Tier 2 instruments that meet the conditions of point (b) of Article 72a(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (71b) ‘subordinated eligible instruments’ means instruments that meet all of the conditions referred to in Article 72a of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 other than paragraphs (3) to (5) of Article 72b of that Regulation; (72) ‘deposit guarantee scheme’ means a deposit guarantee scheme introduced and officially recognised by a Member State pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2014/49/EU; (73) ‘Tier 2 instruments’ means capital instruments or subordinated loans that meet the conditions laid down in Article 63 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (74) ‘relevant capital instruments’ for the purposes of Section 5 of Chapter IV of Title IV and Chapter V of Title IV, means Additional Tier 1 instruments and Tier 2 instruments; (75) ‘conversion rate’ means the factor that determines the number of shares or other instruments of ownership into which a liability of a specific class will be converted, by reference either to a single instrument of the class in question or to a specified unit of value of a debt claim; (76) ‘affected creditor’ means a creditor whose claim relates to a liability that is reduced or converted to shares or other instruments of ownership by the exercise of the write down or conversion power pursuant to the use of the bail-in tool; (77) ‘affected holder’ means a holder of instruments of ownership whose instruments of ownership are cancelled by means of the power referred to in point (h) of Article 63(1); (78) ‘appropriate authority’ means authority of the Member State identified in accordance with Article 61 that is responsible under the national law of that State for making the determinations referred to in Article 59(3); (79) ‘relevant parent institution’ means a parent institution in a Member State, a Union parent institution, a financial holding company, a mixed financial holding company, a mixed-activity holding company, a parent financial holding company in a Member State, a Union parent financial holding company, a parent mixed financial holding company in a Member State, or a Union parent mixed financial holding company, in relation to which the bail-in tool is applied; (80) ‘recipient’ means the entity to which shares, other instruments of ownership, debt instruments, assets, rights or liabilities, or any combination of those items are transferred from an institution under resolution; (81) ‘business day’ means a day other than a Saturday, a Sunday or a public holiday in the Member State concerned; (82) ‘termination right’ means a right to terminate a contract, a right to accelerate, close out, set-off or net obligations or any similar provision that suspends, modifies or extinguishes an obligation of a party to the contract or a provision that prevents an obligation under the contract from arising that would otherwise arise; (83) ‘institution under resolution’ means an institution, a financial institution, a financial holding company, a mixed financial holding company, a mixed-activity holding company, a parent financial holding company in a Member State, a Union parent financial holding company, a parent mixed financial holding company in a Member State, or a Union parent mixed financial holding company, in respect of which a resolution action is taken; (83a) ‘resolution entity’ means: (a) a legal person established in the Union, which, in accordance with Article 12, is identified by the resolution authority as an entity in respect of which the resolution plan provides for resolution action; or (b) an institution that is not part of a group that is subject to consolidated supervision pursuant to Articles 111 and 112 of Directive 2013/36/EU, in respect of which the resolution plan drawn up pursuant to Article 10 of this Directive provides for resolution action; (83b) ‘resolution group’ means: (a) a resolution entity and its subsidiaries that are not: (i) resolution entities themselves; (ii) subsidiaries of other resolution entities; or (iii) entities established in a third country that are not included in the resolution group in accordance with the resolution plan and their subsidiaries; or (b) credit institutions permanently affiliated to a central body and the central body itself when at least one of those credit institutions or the central body is a resolution entity, and their respective subsidiaries; (83c) ‘global systemically important institution’ or ‘G-SII’ means a G-SII as defined in point (133) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (84) ‘Union subsidiary’ means an institution which is established in a Member State and which is a subsidiary of a third-country institution or a third-country parent undertaking; (85) ‘Union parent undertaking’ means a Union parent institution, a Union parent financial holding company or a Union parent mixed financial holding company; (86) ‘third-country institution’ means an entity, the head office of which is established in a third country, that would, if it were established within the Union, be covered by the definition of an institution; (87) ‘third-country parent undertaking’ means a parent undertaking, a parent financial holding company or a parent mixed financial holding company, established in a third country; (88) ‘third-country resolution proceedings’ means an action under the law of a third country to manage the failure of a third-country institution or a third-country parent undertaking that is comparable, in terms of objectives and anticipated results, to resolution actions under this Directive; (89) ‘Union branch’ means a branch located in a Member State of a third-country institution; (90) ‘relevant third-country authority’ means a third-country authority responsible for carrying out functions comparable to those of resolution authorities or competent authorities pursuant to this Directive; (91) ‘group financing arrangement’ means the financing arrangement or arrangements of the Member State of the group-level resolution authority; (92) ‘back-to-back transaction’ means a transaction entered into between two group entities for the purpose of transferring, in whole or in part, the risk generated by another transaction entered into between one of those group entities and a third party; (93) ‘intra-group guarantee’ means a contract by which one group entity guarantees the obligations of another group entity to a third party; (94) ‘covered deposits’ means covered deposits as defined in point (5) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/49/EU; (95) ‘eligible deposits’ means eligible deposits as defined in point (4) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/49/EU; (96) ‘covered bond’ means an instrument as referred to in Article 52(4) of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 2 ); (97) ‘title transfer financial collateral arrangement’ means a title transfer financial collateral arrangement as defined in point (b) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 3 ); (98) ‘netting arrangement’ means an arrangement under which a number of claims or obligations can be converted into a single net claim, including close-out netting arrangements under which, on the occurrence of an enforcement event (however or wherever defined) the obligations of the parties are accelerated so as to become immediately due or are terminated, and in either case are converted into or replaced by a single net claim, including ‘close-out netting provisions’ as defined in point (n)(i) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2002/47/EC and ‘netting’ as defined in point (k) of Article 2 of Directive 98/26/EC; (99) ‘set-off arrangement’ means an arrangement under which two or more claims or obligations owed between the institution under resolution and a counterparty can be set off against each other; (100) ‘financial contracts’ includes the following contracts and agreements: (a) securities contracts, including: (i) contracts for the purchase, sale or loan of a security, a group or index of securities; (ii) options on a security or group or index of securities; (iii) repurchase or reverse repurchase transactions on any such security, group or index; (b) commodities contracts, including: (i) contracts for the purchase, sale or loan of a commodity or group or index of commodities for future delivery; (ii) options on a commodity or group or index of commodities; (iii) repurchase or reverse repurchase transactions on any such commodity, group or index; (c) futures and forwards contracts, including contracts (other than a commodities contract) for the purchase, sale or transfer of a commodity or property of any other description, service, right or interest for a specified price at a future date; (d) swap agreements, including: (i) swaps and options relating to interest rates; spot or other foreign exchange agreements; currency; an equity index or equity; a debt index or debt; commodity indexes or commodities; weather; emissions or inflation; (ii) total return, credit spread or credit swaps; (iii) any agreements or transactions that are similar to an agreement referred to in point (i) or (ii) which is the subject of recurrent dealing in the swaps or derivatives markets; (e) inter-bank borrowing agreements where the term of the borrowing is three months or less; (f) master agreements for any of the contracts or agreements referred to in points (a) to (e); (101) ‘crisis prevention measure’ means the exercise of powers to direct removal of deficiencies or impediments to recoverability under Article 6(6), the exercise of powers to address or remove impediments to resolvability under Article 17 or 18, the application of an early intervention measure under Article 27, the appointment of a temporary administrator under Article 29 or the exercise of the write down or conversion powers under Article 59; (102) ‘crisis management measure’ means a resolution action or the appointment of a special manager under Article 35 or a person under Article 51(2) or under Article 72(1); (103) ‘recovery capacity’ means the capability of an institution to restore its financial position following a significant deterioration; (104) ‘depositor’ means a depositor as defined in point (6) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/49/EU; (105) ‘investor’ means an investor within the meaning of point (4) of Article 1 of Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 4 ); (106) ‘designated national macroprudential authority’ means the authority entrusted with the conduct of macroprudential policy referred to in Recommendation B1 of the Recommendation of the European Systemic Risk Board of 22 December 2011 on the macroprudential mandate of national authorities (ESRB/2011/3); (107) ‘micro, small and medium-sized enterprises’ means micro, small and medium-sized enterprises as defined with regard to the annual turnover criterion referred to in Article 2(1) of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC ( 5 ); (108) ‘regulated market’ means a regulated market as defined in point (21) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU; (109) ‘combined buffer requirement’ means combined buffer requirement as defined in point (6) of Article 128 of Directive 2013/36/EU. 2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 115 in order to specify the criteria for the determination of the activities, services and operations referred to in point (35) of the first subparagraph as regards the definition of ‘critical functions’ and the criteria for the determination of the business lines and associated services referred to in point (36) of the first subparagraph as regards the definition of ‘core business lines’.
Article 3 Designation of authorities responsible for resolution
1. Each Member State shall designate one or, exceptionally, more resolution authorities that are empowered to apply the resolution tools and exercise the resolution powers. 2. The resolution authority shall be a public administrative authority or authorities entrusted with public administrative powers. 3. Resolution authorities may be national central banks, competent ministries or other public administrative authorities or authorities entrusted with public administrative powers. Member States may exceptionally provide for the resolution authority to be the competent authorities for supervision for the purposes of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36/EU. Adequate structural arrangements shall be in place to ensure operational independence and avoid conflicts of interest between the functions of supervision pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36/EU or the other functions of the relevant authority and the functions of resolution authorities pursuant to this Directive, without prejudice to the exchange of information and cooperation obligations as required by paragraph 4. In particular, Member States shall ensure that, within the competent authorities, national central banks, competent ministries or other authorities there is operational independence between the resolution function and the supervisory or other functions of the relevant authority. The staff involved in carrying out the functions of the resolution authority pursuant to this Directive shall be structurally separated from, and subject to, separate reporting lines from the staff involved in carrying out the tasks pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36/EU or with regard to the other functions of the relevant authority. For the purposes of this paragraph, the Member States or the resolution authority shall adopt and make public any necessary relevant internal rules including rules regarding professional secrecy and information exchanges between the different functional areas. 4. Member States shall require that authorities exercising supervision and resolution functions and persons exercising those functions on their behalf cooperate closely in the preparation, planning and application of resolution decisions, both where the resolution authority and the competent authority are separate entities and where the functions are carried out in the same entity. 5. Each Member State shall designate a single ministry which is responsible for exercising the functions of the competent ministry under this Directive. 6. Where the resolution authority in a Member State is not the competent ministry it shall inform the competent ministry of the decisions pursuant to this Directive and, unless otherwise laid down in national law, have its approval before implementing decisions that have a direct fiscal impact or systemic implications. 7. Decisions taken by competent authorities, resolution authorities and EBA in accordance with this Directive shall take into account the potential impact of the decision in all the Member States where the institution or the group operate and minimise the negative effects on financial stability and negative economic and social effects in those Member States. Decisions of EBA are subject to Article 38 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. 8. Member States shall ensure that each resolution authority has the expertise, resources and operational capacity to apply resolution actions, and is able to exercise their powers with the speed and flexibility that are necessary to achieve the resolution objectives. 9. EBA, in cooperation with competent authorities and resolution authorities, shall develop the required expertise, resources and operational capacity and shall monitor the implementation of paragraph 8, including through periodical peer reviews. 10. Where, in accordance with paragraph 1, a Member State designates more than one authority to apply the resolution tools and exercise the resolution powers, it shall provide a fully reasoned notification to EBA and the Commission for doing so and shall allocate functions and responsibilities clearly between those authorities, ensure adequate coordination between them and designate a single authority as a contact authority for the purposes of cooperation and coordination with the relevant authorities of other Member States. 11. Member States shall inform EBA of the national authority or authorities designated as resolution authorities and the contact authority and, where relevant, their specific functions and responsibilities. EBA shall publish the list of those resolution authorities and contact authorities. 12. Without prejudice to Article 85, Member States may limit the liability of the resolution authority, the competent authority and their respective staff in accordance with national law for acts and omissions in the course of discharging their functions under this Directive.
Article 4 Simplified obligations for certain institutions
1. Having regard to the impact that the failure of the institution could have, due to the nature of its business, its shareholding structure, its legal form, its risk profile, size and legal status, its interconnectedness to other institutions or to the financial system in general, the scope and the complexity of its activities, its membership of an IPS or other cooperative mutual solidarity systems as referred to in Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and any exercise of investment services or activities as defined in point (2) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU, and whether its failure and subsequent winding up under normal insolvency proceedings would be likely to have a significant negative effect on financial markets, on other institutions, on funding conditions, or on the wider economy, Member States shall ensure that competent and resolution authorities determine: (a) the contents and details of recovery and resolution plans provided for in Articles 5 to 12; (b) the date by which the first recovery and resolution plans are to be drawn up and the frequency for updating recovery and resolution plans which may be lower than that provided for in Article 5(2), Article 7(5), Article 10(6) and Article 13(3); (c) the contents and details of the information required from institutions as provided for in Article 5(5), Article 11(1) and Article 12(2) and in Sections A and B of the Annex; (d) the level of detail for the assessment of resolvability provided for in Articles 15 and 16, and Section C of the Annex. 2. Competent authorities and, where relevant, resolution authorities shall make the assessment referred to in paragraph 1 after consulting, where appropriate, the national macroprudential authority. 3. Member States shall ensure that where simplified obligations are applied the competent authorities and, where relevant, resolution authorities can impose full, unsimplified obligations at any time. 4. Member States shall ensure that the application of simplified obligations shall not, per se, affect the competent authority’s and, where relevant, the resolution authority’s powers to take a crisis prevention measure or a crisis management measure. 5. EBA shall, by 3 July 2015, issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 to specify the criteria referred to in paragraph 1, for assessing, in accordance with that paragraph, the impact of an institution’s failure on financial markets, on other institutions and on funding conditions. 6. Taking into account, where appropriate, experience acquired in the application of the guidelines referred to in paragraph 5, EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the criteria referred to in paragraph 1, for assessing, in accordance with that paragraph, the impact of an institution’s failure on financial markets, on other institutions and on funding conditions. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2017. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. 7. Competent authorities and resolution authorities shall inform EBA of the way they have applied paragraphs 1, 8, 9 and 10 to institutions in their jurisdiction. EBA shall submit a report to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Commission by 31 December 2017 on the implementation of paragraphs 1, 8, 9 and 10. In particular, that report shall identify any divergences regarding the implementation at national level of paragraphs 1, 8,9 and 10. 8. Subject to paragraphs 9 and 10, Member States shall ensure that competent authorities and, where relevant, resolution authorities may waive the application of: (a) the requirements of Sections 2 and 3 of this Chapter to institutions affiliated to a central body and wholly or partially exempted from prudential requirements in national law in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (b) the requirements of Section 2 to institutions which are members of an IPS. 9. Where a waiver pursuant to paragraph 8 is granted, Member States shall: (a) apply the requirements of Sections 2 and 3 of this Chapter on a consolidated basis to the central body and institutions affiliated to it within the meaning of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (b) require the IPS to fulfil the requirements of Section 2 in cooperation with each of its waived members. For that purpose, any reference in Sections 2 and 3 of this Chapter to a group shall include a central body and institutions affiliated to it within the meaning of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and their subsidiaries, and any reference to parent undertakings or institutions that are subject to consolidated supervision pursuant to Article 111 of Directive 2013/36/EU shall include the central body. 10. Institutions subject to direct supervision by the European Central Bank pursuant to Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 or constituting a significant share in the financial system of a Member State shall draw up their own recovery plans in accordance with Section 2 of this Chapter and shall be the subject of individual resolution plans in accordance with Section 3. For the purposes of this paragraph, the operations of an institution shall be considered to constitute a significant share of that Member State’s financial system if any of the following conditions are met: (a) the total value of its assets exceeds EUR 30 000 000 000; or (b) the ratio of its total assets over the GDP of the Member State of establishment exceeds 20 %, unless the total value of its assets is below EUR 5 000 000 000. 11. EBA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to specify uniform formats, templates and definitions for the identification and transmission of information by competent authorities and resolution authorities to EBA for the purposes of paragraph 7, subject to the principle of proportionality. EBA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 1 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) establishes together with Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 2 (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) the prudential regulatory framework for credit institutions operating in the Union. The CRR and the CRD were adopted in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis to enhance the resilience of institutions operating in the EU financial sector, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners, in particular the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The CRR has been subsequently amended to tackle remaining weaknesses in the regulatory framework and to implement some outstanding elements of the global financial services reform that are essential to ensure institutions' resilience. A major revision was brought by t he ‘Risk Reduction Measures Package’ , which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 20 May 2019 and published in the Official Journal on 7 June 2019. Th at package include d inter alia changes to the Union bank resolution framework through Directive (EU) 2019/879 of the European Parliament an d of the Council 3 , amending Directive 2014/59/EU of the European P arliament and of the Council 4 (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) , Regulation (EU) 2019/87 7 of the European Parliament and of the Council 5 , amending Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 6 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR) and Regulation (EU) 2019/87 6 of the European Parliament and of the Council 7 , amending the CRR . This reform implement ed in the Union the international Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) standard for global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs) adopted by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in November 2015 8 and enhanced the application of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) for all institutions established in the Union. The TLAC standard requires G-SIIs to hold a sufficient amount of highly loss-absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in the event of resolution. The implementation of the TLAC standard in Union law, namely through amendments to the CRR, took into account the existing institution-specific minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), set out in the BRRD. 9 Moreover, both sets of rules are closely interconnected, particularly through cross-references from the BRRD and the SRMR to the CRR. For instance, the BRRD and the SRMR generally rel y on the total exposure measure and the total risk exposure amount as calculated under the CRR for calculating and expressing MREL . The refore, the two requirements should be understood as complementary elements of a common framework. 10 Th at revised framework should better ensure that ins t itutions’ loss absorption and recapitalisation occur s through private means once those institutions get into financial difficulties and are subsequently placed in resolution. TLAC and MREL are thus essential to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. TLAC and the revised rules on MREL became applicable in the Union on 2 7 June 2019 and 28 December 2020, respectively. In line with international standards , Union law recognises both the Single Point of Entry (SPE) resolution strategy and the Multiple Point of Entry (MPE) resolution strategy. 11 Under the SPE resolution strategy, only one group entity , typically the parent undertaking, is resolved (‘resolution entity’) , whereas o ther group entities, usually operating subsidiaries, are not subject to resolution action . Instead, the losses of those subsidiaries are transferred to the resolution entity and capital is down streamed to the subsidiary . This ensures that the subsidiaries can continue to operate smoothly even after they have reach ed the point of non-viability . Each resolution entity forms a ‘resolution group’ t ogether with the subsidiaries that belong to it and that are not themselves resolution entities . Under the MPE resolution strategy, more than one entity of the banking group may be resolved . C onsequently , more than one resolution entity and thus more than one resolution group may exist within the banking group . The underlying principle of the MPE resolution approach is to enable the resolution of a given resolution group in a feasible and credible way without undermining the resolvability of other resolution entities and resolution groups in the same consolidated banking group. The revised bank resolution framework provides that MREL for resolution entities should be set at the consolidated level of a resolution group ( ‘ external MREL ’ ). 12 In addition, that framework envisages how the loss absorption and recapitalisation capacity should be allocated within resolution groups ( ‘ internal MREL ’ ) 13 . According to the BRRD, as a rule, financial instruments that are eligible for internal MREL must be held by the resolution entity , i.e. typically the parent undertaking 14 . The rationale of this rule is to ensure that t he loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity of a subsidiary is provided by its parent, i.e. by the resolution entity . That parent may hold internal MREL eligible instruments either directly or indirectly through other entities in the same resolution group (see illustration below) . The possibility for instruments to be also indirectly subscribed by the parent through intermediate entities was justified by the fact that the obligation to comply with i nternal MREL should not unnecessarily alter the existing funding channels of banking groups where the funding for acquiring such instruments is structured around the chains of ownership and distributed to the s ubsidiaries across the group through intermediate entities and not directly by ultimate parents (resolution entities). Illustration: Subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments (directly or indirectly) To operationalise the approach of indirect subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments within resolution groups , also referred to as the ‘daisy chain’ approach, and to ensure that it i s prudentially sound, the co-legislators mandated the E uropean B anking A uthority (EBA) to develop draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) and the Commission to adopt on that basis a delegated act to specify a methodology for such an indirect issuance of eligible instruments . 15 According to the BRRD mandate that methodology should: · permit a proper transfer of losses from subsidiaries to their ultimate parent (resolution entity) and a proper transfer of capital from that parent to subsidiaries; · ensure that the loss-absorbing capacity of the subsidiary is not also counted for the purposes of compliance with internal MREL by the intermediate parent ; and · ensure that its outcome is equivalent to that of a direct subscription by the ultimate parent (resolution entity) of eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries. Since early 2020, t he EBA has been working on that draft RTS on the basis of a deduction regime , in line with the mandate set out in the BRRD and the recommend ations in the relevant international standards . 16 The deduction regime developed by the EBA envisages that i nternal MREL eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries to the resolution entity via an intermediate parent would have to be fully deducted from the amount of the intermediate parent’s own i nternal MREL capacity. Such a deduction approach was considered as the most consistent with the conditions set out in the BRRD mandate and conducive to the operationalisation of the i nternal MREL framework . 17 Th e methodology developed by the EBA was subject to a public consultation. 18 The consultation feedback showed general support to the draft RTS, but highlighted several inconsistencies of the requirements for the delegation laid down in the BRRD with the existing prudential rules laid down in the CRR. Hence, in a letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021 19 , the EBA outlined that the interactions between the BRRD and the CRR would not allow the application of the prudential treatment needed for the mandate to be fulfilled as originally intended. More precisely, the EBA noted that the CRR did not allow for the deduction of internal MREL eligible instruments and , subsequently, for the application of an appropriate risk weight of zero percent in all the cases relevant for the mandate under the BRRD . Similar issues were identified in the area of the CRR leverage ratio requirement. T his situation would not only generate an inconsistency between the prudential and resolution framework but would also go against the requirement of the BRRD mandate to generate an outcome equivalent to that of a direct subscription , according to the EBA. It was concluded that the BRRD requirements could not be fulfilled without additional provisions that the RTS could not bear on its own but need ed rather to rely on the Level 1 text to specify. Apart from the need to operationalise the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL, some other resolution related issues have been identified since the revised TLAC/MREL framework bec a me applicable in 2019. 20 Those issues mainly relate to the regulatory tr eatment of G-SII groups with a n MPE resolution strategy, including those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries . For instance, the CRR currently does not specify whether the various adjustments to TLAC 21 for G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy also cover those subsidiaries of a G-SII that are located in a third country . In addition, the formula 22 for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy relies on the risk-based TLAC/MREL requirement of the subsidiary only, while it was omitted to also take into account the non-risked - based TLAC/MREL. Further issues include some contradictions within the Level 1 text, notably with regard to the interplay of provisions in the CRR and the BRRD 23 that are relevant to address potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements . Lastly, some issues have been observed with regard to the criteria 24 for instruments to be eligible for compliance with the internal TLAC requirement, which is of relevance when addressing the failure of EU subsidiaries of non-EU global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs). Some targeted changes to specific resolution related aspects of the CRR are necessary to address the above issues. In particular, the regulatory treatment of G-SII groups with an MPE resolution strategy, including of those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries, needs to be better aligned with the treatment outlined in the TLAC standard. This would help to ensure that, in case of resolution, each resolution entity and group belonging to those G-SIIs can continue to perform critical functions without the risk of contagion. The amendments proposed would not alter the overall architecture of the framework but would ensure the proper application of TLAC and MREL. First, it is necessary to incorporate directly into the CRR a dedicated prudential treatment related to the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL (daisy chain approach). The proposed modifications to the CRR would address the identified inconsistencies between the CRR and the BRRD, which were outlined in the EBA’s letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021. More precisely, the deduction regime, which was developed by the EBA in the context of the draft RTS under the BRRD, would be incorporated directly into the CRR. This would ensure a proper functioning of the indirect subscription of internal MREL within resolution groups with several layers of ownership, in line with the political agreement reached during the negotiations of Directive (EU) 2019/879. In addition, the revisions would ensure that the treatment of holdings of internal MREL eligible instruments remains aligned in both the resolution and the prudential framework, thus enabling the operationalisation of the deduction methodology developed by the EBA and, at the same time, avoiding the introduction of undue complexity in the treatment of those exposures. Second , the CRR provisions on the comparison between the sum of the actual TLAC requirement s of all the resolution groups within a G-SII group with a n MPE resolution strategy with the theoretical SPE requirement of that G-SII group need to be clarified . 25 The changes proposed are needed to clarify the extent to which resolution authorities can address the potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements. This would be achieved by aligning the CRR treatment with the one envisaged under the BRRD 26 and the TLAC standard 27 . Th ird , it is necessary to amend th e formula for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy 28 to ensure that that formula takes into account both the risk-based and the non- risk- based TLAC/MREL requirement s of the subsidiary, in line with the TLAC standard. This would avoid that the TLAC/MREL surplus of a given subsidiary is overestimated. Fourth, some CRR provisions applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy should be clarified to allow for the consideration of subsidiaries established outside of the Union. This would align the CRR with the corresponding TLAC principle agreed internationally, which is applicable with respect to subsidiaries established in all FSB jurisdictions. Fifth, some targeted clarifications in the context of the r equirement for own funds and eligible liabilities for i nstitutions that are material subsidiaries of non-EU G-SIIs ( ‘ internal TLAC ’ ) are needed to ensure that debt instruments issued by those institutions could meet all eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments . The reason for this change is that currently the eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments are based on the assumption that those instruments are issued by a resolution entity, and not by subsidiaries subject to an internal TLAC requirement. The gap would be addressed by clarifying that the same eligibility conditions applicable to resolution entities apply also to non-resolution entities, mutatis mutandis . This, in turn, would enable those institutions to me e t their internal TLAC requirement inter alia with eligible liabilities, as originally intended by the co-legislators . 29 These proposed amendments to the CRR can play an essential role in improving an institution’s resolvability . Given that the corresponding provisions are already applicable in the Union, the proposed modifications would need to be made in a timely manner . The need for an expedited adoption is further amplified by the fact that banking groups need clarity on the daisy chain mechanism to decide how best to preposition their internal MREL capacity in view of the general MREL compliance deadline that is set to 1 January 2024 , with binding intermediate targets needing to be complied with by 1 January 2022 . 
Revised version (Article 4 Simplified obligations for certain institutions):
(a) the contents and details of recovery and resolution plans provided for in Articles 5 to 12; (d) the level of detail for the assessment of resolvability provided for in Articles 15 and 16, and Section C of the Annex. 2. Competent authorities and, where relevant, resolution authorities shall make the assessment referred to in paragraph 1 after consulting, where appropriate, the national macroprudential authority. 3. Member States shall ensure that where simplified obligations are applied the competent authorities and, where relevant, resolution authorities can impose full, unsimplified obligations at any time. 4. Member States shall ensure that the application of simplified obligations shall not, per se, affect the competent authority’s and, where relevant, the resolution authority’s powers to take a crisis prevention measure or a crisis management measure. 5. EBA shall, by 3 July 2015, issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 to specify the criteria referred to in paragraph 1, for assessing, in accordance with that paragraph, the impact of an institution’s failure on financial markets, on other institutions and on funding conditions. 6. Taking into account, where appropriate, experience acquired in the application of the guidelines referred to in paragraph 5, EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the criteria referred to in paragraph 1, for assessing, in accordance with that paragraph, the impact of an institution’s failure on financial markets, on other institutions and on funding conditions. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2017. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. 7. Competent authorities and resolution authorities shall inform EBA of the way they have applied paragraphs 1, 8, 9 and 10 to institutions in their jurisdiction. EBA shall submit a report to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Commission by 31 December 2017 on the implementation of paragraphs 1, 8, 9 and 10. In particular, that report shall identify any divergences regarding the implementation at national level of paragraphs 1, 8,9 and 10. 8. Subject to paragraphs 9 and 10, Member States shall ensure that competent authorities and, where relevant, resolution authorities may waive the application of: (a) the requirements of Sections 2 and 3 of this Chapter to institutions affiliated to a central body and wholly or partially exempted from prudential requirements in national law in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (b) the requirements of Section 2 to institutions which are members of an IPS. 9. Where a waiver pursuant to paragraph 8 is granted, Member States shall: (a) apply the requirements of Sections 2 and 3 of this Chapter on a consolidated basis to the central body and institutions affiliated to it within the meaning of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (b) require the IPS to fulfil the requirements of Section 2 in cooperation with each of its waived members. For that purpose, any reference in Sections 2 and 3 of this Chapter to a group shall include a central body and institutions affiliated to it within the meaning of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and their subsidiaries, and any reference to parent undertakings or institutions that are subject to consolidated supervision pursuant to Article 111 of Directive 2013/36/EU shall include the central body. 10. Institutions subject to direct supervision by the European Central Bank pursuant to Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 or constituting a significant share in the financial system of a Member State shall draw up their own recovery plans in accordance with Section 2 of this Chapter and shall be the subject of individual resolution plans in accordance with Section 3. For the purposes of this paragraph, the operations of an institution shall be considered to constitute a significant share of that Member State’s financial system if any of the following conditions are met: (a) the total value of its assets exceeds EUR 30 000 000 000 ; or (b) the ratio of its total assets over the GDP of the Member State of establishment exceeds 20 %, unless the total value of its assets is below EUR 5 000 000 000 . 11. EBA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to specify uniform formats, templates and definitions for the identification and transmission of information by competent authorities and resolution authorities to EBA for the purposes of paragraph 7, subject to the principle of proportionality. EBA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Article 5 Recovery plans
1. Member States shall ensure that each institution, that is not part of a group subject to consolidated supervision pursuant to Articles 111 and 112 of Directive 2013/36/EU, draws up and maintains a recovery plan providing for measures to be taken by the institution to restore its financial position following a significant deterioration of its financial situation. Recovery plans shall be considered to be a governance arrangement within the meaning of Article 74 of Directive 2013/36/EU. 2. Competent authorities shall ensure that the institutions update their recovery plans at least annually or after a change to the legal or organisational structure of the institution, its business or its financial situation, which could have a material effect on, or necessitates a change to, the recovery plan. Competent authorities may require institutions to update their recovery plans more frequently. 3. Recovery plans shall not assume any access to or receipt of extraordinary public financial support. 4. Recovery plans shall include, where applicable, an analysis of how and when an institution may apply, in the conditions addressed by the plan, for the use of central bank facilities and identify those assets which would be expected to qualify as collateral. 5. Without prejudice to Article 4, Member States shall ensure that the recovery plans include the information listed in Section A of the Annex. Member States may require that additional information is included in the recovery plans. Recovery plans shall also include possible measures which could be taken by the institution where the conditions for early intervention under Article 27 are met. 6. Member States shall require that recovery plans include appropriate conditions and procedures to ensure the timely implementation of recovery actions as well as a wide range of recovery options. Member States shall require that recovery plans contemplate a range of scenarios of severe macroeconomic and financial stress relevant to the institution’s specific conditions including system-wide events and stress specific to individual legal persons and to groups. 7. EBA, in close cooperation with the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), shall, by 3 July 2015, issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 to specify further the range of scenarios to be used for the purposes of paragraph 6 of this Article. 8. Member States may provide that competent authorities have the power to require an institution to maintain detailed records of financial contracts to which the institution concerned is a party. 9. The management body of the institution referred to in paragraph 1 shall assess and approve the recovery plan before submitting it to the competent authority. 10. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards further specifying, without prejudice to Article 4, the information to be contained in the recovery plan referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Article 6 Assessment of recovery plans
1. Member States shall require institutions that are required to draw up recovery plans under Article 5(1) and Article 7(1) to submit those recovery plans to the competent authority for review. Member States shall require institutions to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority that those plans meet the criteria of paragraph 2. 2. The competent authorities shall, within six months of the submission of each plan, and after consulting the competent authorities of the Member States where significant branches are located insofar as is relevant to that branch, review it and assess the extent to which it satisfies the requirements laid down in Article 5 and the following criteria: (a) the implementation of the arrangements proposed in the plan is reasonably likely to maintain or restore the viability and financial position of the institution or of the group, taking into account the preparatory measures that the institution has taken or has planned to take; (b) the plan and specific options within the plan are reasonably likely to be implemented quickly and effectively in situations of financial stress and avoiding to the maximum extent possible any significant adverse effect on the financial system, including in scenarios which would lead other institutions to implement recovery plans within the same period. 3. When assessing the appropriateness of the recovery plans, the competent authority shall take into consideration the appropriateness of the institution’s capital and funding structure to the level of complexity of the organisational structure and the risk profile of the institution. 4. The competent authority shall provide the recovery plan to the resolution authority. The resolution authority may examine the recovery plan with a view to identifying any actions in the recovery plan which may adversely impact the resolvability of the institution and make recommendations to the competent authority with regard to those matters. 5. Where the competent authority assesses that there are material deficiencies in the recovery plan, or material impediments to its implementation, it shall notify the institution or the parent undertaking of the group of its assessment and require the institution to submit, within two months, extendable with the authorities’ approval by one month, a revised plan demonstrating how those deficiencies or impediments are addressed. Before requiring an institution to resubmit a recovery plan the competent authority shall give the institution the opportunity to state its opinion on that requirement. Where the competent authority does not consider the deficiencies and impediments to have been adequately addressed by the revised plan, it may direct the institution to make specific changes to the plan. 6. If the institution fails to submit a revised recovery plan, or if the competent authority determines that the revised recovery plan does not adequately remedy the deficiencies or potential impediments identified in its original assessment, and it is not possible to adequately remedy the deficiencies or impediments through a direction to make specific changes to the plan, the competent authority shall require the institution to identify within a reasonable timeframe changes it can make to its business in order to address the deficiencies in or impediments to the implementation of the recovery plan. If the institution fails to identify such changes within the timeframe set by the competent authority, or if the competent authority assesses that the actions proposed by the institution would not adequately address the deficiencies or impediments, the competent authority may direct the institution to take any measures it considers to be necessary and proportionate, taking into account the seriousness of the deficiencies and impediments and the effect of the measures on the institution’s business. The competent authority may, without prejudice to Article 104 of Directive 2013/36/EU, direct the institution to: (a) reduce the risk profile of the institution, including liquidity risk; (b) enable timely recapitalisation measures; (c) review the institution’s strategy and structure; (d) make changes to the funding strategy so as to improve the resilience of the core business lines and critical functions; (e) make changes to the governance structure of the institution. The list of measures referred to in this paragraph does not preclude Member States from authorising competent authorities to take additional measures under national law. 7. When the competent authority requires an institution to take measures according to paragraph 6, its decision on the measures shall be reasoned and proportionate. The decision shall be notified in writing to the institution and subject to a right of appeal. 8. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the minimum criteria that the competent authority is to assess for the purposes of the assessment of paragraph 2 of this Article and of Article 8(1). EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 1 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) establishes together with Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 2 (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) the prudential regulatory framework for credit institutions operating in the Union. The CRR and the CRD were adopted in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis to enhance the resilience of institutions operating in the EU financial sector, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners, in particular the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The CRR has been subsequently amended to tackle remaining weaknesses in the regulatory framework and to implement some outstanding elements of the global financial services reform that are essential to ensure institutions' resilience. A major revision was brought by t he ‘Risk Reduction Measures Package’ , which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 20 May 2019 and published in the Official Journal on 7 June 2019. Th at package include d inter alia changes to the Union bank resolution framework through Directive (EU) 2019/879 of the European Parliament an d of the Council 3 , amending Directive 2014/59/EU of the European P arliament and of the Council 4 (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) , Regulation (EU) 2019/87 7 of the European Parliament and of the Council 5 , amending Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 6 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR) and Regulation (EU) 2019/87 6 of the European Parliament and of the Council 7 , amending the CRR . This reform implement ed in the Union the international Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) standard for global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs) adopted by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in November 2015 8 and enhanced the application of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) for all institutions established in the Union. The TLAC standard requires G-SIIs to hold a sufficient amount of highly loss-absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in the event of resolution. The implementation of the TLAC standard in Union law, namely through amendments to the CRR, took into account the existing institution-specific minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), set out in the BRRD. 9 Moreover, both sets of rules are closely interconnected, particularly through cross-references from the BRRD and the SRMR to the CRR. For instance, the BRRD and the SRMR generally rel y on the total exposure measure and the total risk exposure amount as calculated under the CRR for calculating and expressing MREL . The refore, the two requirements should be understood as complementary elements of a common framework. 10 Th at revised framework should better ensure that ins t itutions’ loss absorption and recapitalisation occur s through private means once those institutions get into financial difficulties and are subsequently placed in resolution. TLAC and MREL are thus essential to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. TLAC and the revised rules on MREL became applicable in the Union on 2 7 June 2019 and 28 December 2020, respectively. In line with international standards , Union law recognises both the Single Point of Entry (SPE) resolution strategy and the Multiple Point of Entry (MPE) resolution strategy. 11 Under the SPE resolution strategy, only one group entity , typically the parent undertaking, is resolved (‘resolution entity’) , whereas o ther group entities, usually operating subsidiaries, are not subject to resolution action . Instead, the losses of those subsidiaries are transferred to the resolution entity and capital is down streamed to the subsidiary . This ensures that the subsidiaries can continue to operate smoothly even after they have reach ed the point of non-viability . Each resolution entity forms a ‘resolution group’ t ogether with the subsidiaries that belong to it and that are not themselves resolution entities . Under the MPE resolution strategy, more than one entity of the banking group may be resolved . C onsequently , more than one resolution entity and thus more than one resolution group may exist within the banking group . The underlying principle of the MPE resolution approach is to enable the resolution of a given resolution group in a feasible and credible way without undermining the resolvability of other resolution entities and resolution groups in the same consolidated banking group. The revised bank resolution framework provides that MREL for resolution entities should be set at the consolidated level of a resolution group ( ‘ external MREL ’ ). 12 In addition, that framework envisages how the loss absorption and recapitalisation capacity should be allocated within resolution groups ( ‘ internal MREL ’ ) 13 . According to the BRRD, as a rule, financial instruments that are eligible for internal MREL must be held by the resolution entity , i.e. typically the parent undertaking 14 . The rationale of this rule is to ensure that t he loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity of a subsidiary is provided by its parent, i.e. by the resolution entity . That parent may hold internal MREL eligible instruments either directly or indirectly through other entities in the same resolution group (see illustration below) . The possibility for instruments to be also indirectly subscribed by the parent through intermediate entities was justified by the fact that the obligation to comply with i nternal MREL should not unnecessarily alter the existing funding channels of banking groups where the funding for acquiring such instruments is structured around the chains of ownership and distributed to the s ubsidiaries across the group through intermediate entities and not directly by ultimate parents (resolution entities). Illustration: Subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments (directly or indirectly) To operationalise the approach of indirect subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments within resolution groups , also referred to as the ‘daisy chain’ approach, and to ensure that it i s prudentially sound, the co-legislators mandated the E uropean B anking A uthority (EBA) to develop draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) and the Commission to adopt on that basis a delegated act to specify a methodology for such an indirect issuance of eligible instruments . 15 According to the BRRD mandate that methodology should: · permit a proper transfer of losses from subsidiaries to their ultimate parent (resolution entity) and a proper transfer of capital from that parent to subsidiaries; · ensure that the loss-absorbing capacity of the subsidiary is not also counted for the purposes of compliance with internal MREL by the intermediate parent ; and · ensure that its outcome is equivalent to that of a direct subscription by the ultimate parent (resolution entity) of eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries. Since early 2020, t he EBA has been working on that draft RTS on the basis of a deduction regime , in line with the mandate set out in the BRRD and the recommend ations in the relevant international standards . 16 The deduction regime developed by the EBA envisages that i nternal MREL eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries to the resolution entity via an intermediate parent would have to be fully deducted from the amount of the intermediate parent’s own i nternal MREL capacity. Such a deduction approach was considered as the most consistent with the conditions set out in the BRRD mandate and conducive to the operationalisation of the i nternal MREL framework . 17 Th e methodology developed by the EBA was subject to a public consultation. 18 The consultation feedback showed general support to the draft RTS, but highlighted several inconsistencies of the requirements for the delegation laid down in the BRRD with the existing prudential rules laid down in the CRR. Hence, in a letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021 19 , the EBA outlined that the interactions between the BRRD and the CRR would not allow the application of the prudential treatment needed for the mandate to be fulfilled as originally intended. More precisely, the EBA noted that the CRR did not allow for the deduction of internal MREL eligible instruments and , subsequently, for the application of an appropriate risk weight of zero percent in all the cases relevant for the mandate under the BRRD . Similar issues were identified in the area of the CRR leverage ratio requirement. T his situation would not only generate an inconsistency between the prudential and resolution framework but would also go against the requirement of the BRRD mandate to generate an outcome equivalent to that of a direct subscription , according to the EBA. It was concluded that the BRRD requirements could not be fulfilled without additional provisions that the RTS could not bear on its own but need ed rather to rely on the Level 1 text to specify. Apart from the need to operationalise the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL, some other resolution related issues have been identified since the revised TLAC/MREL framework bec a me applicable in 2019. 20 Those issues mainly relate to the regulatory tr eatment of G-SII groups with a n MPE resolution strategy, including those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries . For instance, the CRR currently does not specify whether the various adjustments to TLAC 21 for G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy also cover those subsidiaries of a G-SII that are located in a third country . In addition, the formula 22 for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy relies on the risk-based TLAC/MREL requirement of the subsidiary only, while it was omitted to also take into account the non-risked - based TLAC/MREL. Further issues include some contradictions within the Level 1 text, notably with regard to the interplay of provisions in the CRR and the BRRD 23 that are relevant to address potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements . Lastly, some issues have been observed with regard to the criteria 24 for instruments to be eligible for compliance with the internal TLAC requirement, which is of relevance when addressing the failure of EU subsidiaries of non-EU global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs). Some targeted changes to specific resolution related aspects of the CRR are necessary to address the above issues. In particular, the regulatory treatment of G-SII groups with an MPE resolution strategy, including of those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries, needs to be better aligned with the treatment outlined in the TLAC standard. This would help to ensure that, in case of resolution, each resolution entity and group belonging to those G-SIIs can continue to perform critical functions without the risk of contagion. The amendments proposed would not alter the overall architecture of the framework but would ensure the proper application of TLAC and MREL. First, it is necessary to incorporate directly into the CRR a dedicated prudential treatment related to the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL (daisy chain approach). The proposed modifications to the CRR would address the identified inconsistencies between the CRR and the BRRD, which were outlined in the EBA’s letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021. More precisely, the deduction regime, which was developed by the EBA in the context of the draft RTS under the BRRD, would be incorporated directly into the CRR. This would ensure a proper functioning of the indirect subscription of internal MREL within resolution groups with several layers of ownership, in line with the political agreement reached during the negotiations of Directive (EU) 2019/879. In addition, the revisions would ensure that the treatment of holdings of internal MREL eligible instruments remains aligned in both the resolution and the prudential framework, thus enabling the operationalisation of the deduction methodology developed by the EBA and, at the same time, avoiding the introduction of undue complexity in the treatment of those exposures. Second , the CRR provisions on the comparison between the sum of the actual TLAC requirement s of all the resolution groups within a G-SII group with a n MPE resolution strategy with the theoretical SPE requirement of that G-SII group need to be clarified . 25 The changes proposed are needed to clarify the extent to which resolution authorities can address the potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements. This would be achieved by aligning the CRR treatment with the one envisaged under the BRRD 26 and the TLAC standard 27 . Th ird , it is necessary to amend th e formula for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy 28 to ensure that that formula takes into account both the risk-based and the non- risk- based TLAC/MREL requirement s of the subsidiary, in line with the TLAC standard. This would avoid that the TLAC/MREL surplus of a given subsidiary is overestimated. Fourth, some CRR provisions applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy should be clarified to allow for the consideration of subsidiaries established outside of the Union. This would align the CRR with the corresponding TLAC principle agreed internationally, which is applicable with respect to subsidiaries established in all FSB jurisdictions. Fifth, some targeted clarifications in the context of the r equirement for own funds and eligible liabilities for i nstitutions that are material subsidiaries of non-EU G-SIIs ( ‘ internal TLAC ’ ) are needed to ensure that debt instruments issued by those institutions could meet all eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments . The reason for this change is that currently the eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments are based on the assumption that those instruments are issued by a resolution entity, and not by subsidiaries subject to an internal TLAC requirement. The gap would be addressed by clarifying that the same eligibility conditions applicable to resolution entities apply also to non-resolution entities, mutatis mutandis . This, in turn, would enable those institutions to me e t their internal TLAC requirement inter alia with eligible liabilities, as originally intended by the co-legislators . 29 These proposed amendments to the CRR can play an essential role in improving an institution’s resolvability . Given that the corresponding provisions are already applicable in the Union, the proposed modifications would need to be made in a timely manner . The need for an expedited adoption is further amplified by the fact that banking groups need clarity on the daisy chain mechanism to decide how best to preposition their internal MREL capacity in view of the general MREL compliance deadline that is set to 1 January 2024 , with binding intermediate targets needing to be complied with by 1 January 2022 . 
Revised version (Article 6 Assessment of recovery plans):
1. Member States shall require institutions that are required to draw up recovery plans under Article 5(1) and Article 7(1) to submit those recovery plans to the competent authority for review. Member States shall require institutions to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority that those plans meet the criteria of paragraph 2. 2. The competent authorities shall, within six months of the submission of each plan, and after consulting the competent authorities of the Member States where significant branches are located insofar as is relevant to that branch, review it and assess the extent to which it satisfies the requirements laid down in Article 5 and the following criteria: (a) the implementation of the arrangements proposed in the plan is reasonably likely to maintain or restore the viability and financial position of the institution or of the group, taking into account the preparatory measures that the institution has taken or has planned to take; (b) the plan and specific options within the plan are reasonably likely to be implemented quickly and effectively in situations of financial stress and avoiding to the maximum extent possible any significant adverse effect on the financial system, including in scenarios which would lead other institutions to implement recovery plans within the same period. The competent authorities shall, within six months of the submission of each plan, and after consulting the competent authorities of the Member States where significant branches are located insofar as is relevant to that branch, review it and assess the extent to which it satisfies the requirements laid down in Article 5 and the following criteria: (a) the implementation of the arrangements proposed in the plan is reasonably likely to maintain or restore the viability and financial position of the institution or of the group, taking into account the preparatory measures that the institution has taken or has planned to take; (b) the plan and specific options within the plan are reasonably likely to be implemented quickly and effectively in situations of financial stress and avoiding to the maximum extent possible any significant adverse effect on the financial system, including in scenarios which would lead other institutions to implement recovery plans within the same period. 3. When assessing the appropriateness of the recovery plans, the competent authority shall take into consideration the appropriateness of the institution’s capital and funding structure to the level of complexity of the organisational structure and the risk profile of the institution. 4. The competent authority shall provide the recovery plan to the resolution authority. The resolution authority may examine the recovery plan with a view to identifying any actions in the recovery plan which may adversely impact the resolvability of the institution and make recommendations to the competent authority with regard to those matters. 5. Where the competent authority assesses that there are material deficiencies in the recovery plan, or material impediments to its implementation, it shall notify the institution or the parent undertaking of the group of its assessment and require the institution to submit, within two months, extendable with the authorities’ approval by one month, a revised plan demonstrating how those deficiencies or impediments are addressed. Before requiring an institution to resubmit a recovery plan the competent authority shall give the institution the opportunity to state its opinion on that requirement. Where the competent authority does not consider the deficiencies and impediments to have been adequately addressed by the revised plan, it may direct the institution to make specific changes to the plan. 6. If the institution fails to submit a revised recovery plan, or if the competent authority determines that the revised recovery plan does not adequately remedy the deficiencies or potential impediments identified in its original assessment, and it is not possible to adequately remedy the deficiencies or impediments through a direction to make specific changes to the plan, the competent authority shall require the institution to identify within a reasonable timeframe changes it can make to its business in order to address the deficiencies in or impediments to the implementation of the recovery plan. If the institution fails to identify such changes within the timeframe set by the competent authority, or if the competent authority assesses that the actions proposed by the institution would not adequately address the deficiencies or impediments, the competent authority may direct the institution to take any measures it considers to be necessary and proportionate, taking into account the seriousness of the deficiencies and impediments and the effect of the measures on the institution’s business. The competent authority may, without prejudice to Article 104 of Directive 2013/36/EU, direct the institution to: (a) reduce the risk profile of the institution, including liquidity risk; (b) enable timely recapitalisation measures; (c) review the institution’s strategy and structure; (d) make changes to the funding strategy so as to improve the resilience of the core business lines and critical functions; (e) make changes to the governance structure of the institution. The list of measures referred to in this paragraph does not preclude Member States from authorising competent authorities to take additional measures under national law. 7. When the competent authority requires an institution to take measures according to paragraph 6, its decision on the measures shall be reasoned and proportionate. The decision shall be notified in writing to the institution and subject to a right of appeal. 8. EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the minimum criteria that the competent authority is to assess for the purposes of the assessment of paragraph 2 of this Article and of Article 8(1). EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Article 7 Group recovery plans
1. Member States shall ensure that Union parent undertakings draw up and submit to the consolidating supervisor a group recovery plan. Group recovery plans shall consist of a recovery plan for the group headed by the Union parent undertaking as a whole. The group recovery plan shall identify measures that may be required to be implemented at the level of the Union parent undertaking and each individual subsidiary. 2. In accordance with Article 8, competent authorities may require subsidiaries to draw up and submit recovery plans on an individual basis. 3. The consolidating supervisor shall, provided that the confidentiality requirements laid down in this Directive are in place, transmit the group recovery plans to: (a) the relevant competent authorities referred to in Articles 115 and 116 of Directive 2013/36/EU; (b) the competent authorities of the Member States where significant branches are located insofar as is relevant to that branch; (c) the group- level resolution authority; and (d) the resolution authorities of subsidiaries. 4. The group recovery plan shall aim to achieve the stabilisation of the group as a whole, or any institution of the group, when it is in a situation of stress so as to address or remove the causes of the distress and restore the financial position of the group or the institution in question, at the same time taking into account the financial position of other group entities. The group recovery plan shall include arrangements to ensure the coordination and consistency of measures to be taken at the level of the Union parent undertaking, at the level of the entities referred to in points (c) and (d) of Article 1(1) as well as measures to be taken at the level of subsidiaries and, where applicable, in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU at the level of significant branches. 5. The group recovery plan, and any plan drawn up for an individual subsidiary, shall include the elements specified in Article 5. Those plans shall include, where applicable, arrangements for intra-group financial support adopted pursuant to an agreement for intra-group financial support that has been concluded in accordance with Chapter III. 6. Group recovery plans shall include a range of recovery options setting out actions to address those scenarios provided for in Article 5(6). For each of the scenarios, the group recovery plan shall identify whether there are obstacles to the implementation of recovery measures within the group, including at the level of individual entities covered by the plan, and whether there are substantial practical or legal impediments to the prompt transfer of own funds or the repayment of liabilities or assets within the group. 7. The management body of the entity drawing up the group recovery plan pursuant to paragraph 1 shall assess and approve the group recovery plan before submitting it to the consolidating supervisor.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The establishment of a European Single Access Point (ESAP) by 2024 is a flagship action of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) Action Plan adopted by the European Commission in September 2020 1 . ESAP will contribute to the achievement of the CMU’s objectives by providing EU-wide access to information published by entities that is relevant to capital markets, financial services and sustainable finance, i.e. mainly information about their economic activities and products. ESAP will provide access to this information in an efficient and non-discriminatory manner. Information about entities’ activities and products is essential for decision-making by providers of capital. ESAP will contribute to further integrating the financial services and capital markets in the single market, to allocating capital more efficiently across the EU and promoting the development of smaller national capital markets and economies by giving them greater visibility. ESAP will also allow non-listed entities including Small and Medium-Sized enterprises (SMEs) to make available information on a voluntary basis. This will facilitate their access to capital. This proposal is part of a package comprised of: · a proposal for a Regulation establishing a European Single Access Point; · a proposal for a Directive amending certain Directives (this proposal); and · a proposal for a Regulation amending certain Regulations. Amendments to certain Directives are necessary to achieve the above objectives to contribute to the integration of the single market, particularly as regards the collection of information to be made available to ESAP. 
Revised version (Article 7 Group recovery plans):
1. Member States shall ensure that Union parent undertakings draw up and submit to the consolidating supervisor a group recovery plan. Group recovery plans shall consist of a recovery plan for the group headed by the Union parent undertaking as a whole. The group recovery plan shall identify measures that may be required to be implemented at the level of the Union parent undertaking and each individual subsidiary. 2. In accordance with Article 8, competent authorities may require subsidiaries to draw up and submit recovery plans on an individual basis. 4. The group recovery plan shall aim to achieve the stabilisation of the group as a whole, or any institution of the group, when it is in a situation of stress so as to address or remove the causes of the distress and restore the financial position of the group or the institution in question, at the same time taking into account the financial position of other group entities. The group recovery plan shall include arrangements to ensure the coordination and consistency of measures to be taken at the level of the Union parent undertaking, at the level of the entities referred to in points (c) and (d) of Article 1(1) as well as measures to be taken at the level of subsidiaries and, where applicable, in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU at the level of significant branches. 5. The group recovery plan, and any plan drawn up for an individual subsidiary, shall include the elements specified in Article 5. Those plans shall include, where applicable, arrangements for intra-group financial support adopted pursuant to an agreement for intra-group financial support that has been concluded in accordance with Chapter III. 6. Group recovery plans shall include a range of recovery options setting out actions to address those scenarios provided for in Article 5(6). For each of the scenarios, the group recovery plan shall identify whether there are obstacles to the implementation of recovery measures within the group, including at the level of individual entities covered by the plan, and whether there are substantial practical or legal impediments to the prompt transfer of own funds or the repayment of liabilities or assets within the group. 7. The management body of the entity drawing up the group recovery plan pursuant to paragraph 1 shall assess and approve the group recovery plan before submitting it to the consolidating supervisor.
Article 8 Assessment of group recovery plans
1. The consolidating supervisor shall, together with the competent authorities of subsidiaries, after consulting the competent authorities referred to in Article 116 of Directive 2013/36/EU and with the competent authorities of significant branches insofar as is relevant to the significant branch, review the group recovery plan and assess the extent to which it satisfies the requirements and criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7. That assessment shall be made in accordance with the procedure established in Article 6 and with this Article and shall take into account the potential impact of the recovery measures on financial stability in all the Member States where the group operates. 2. The consolidating supervisor and the competent authorities of subsidiaries shall endeavour to reach a joint decision on: (a) the review and assessment of the group recovery plan; (b) whether a recovery plan on an individual basis shall be drawn up for institutions that are part of the group; and (c) the application of the measures referred to in Article 6(5) and (6). The parties shall endeavour to reach a joint decision within four months of the date of the transmission by the consolidating supervisor of the group recovery plan in accordance with Article 7(3). EBA may, at the request of a competent authority, assist the competent authorities in reaching a joint decision in accordance with Article 31(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. 3. In the absence of a joint decision between the competent authorities, within four months of the date of transmission, on the review and assessment of the group recovery plan or on any measures the Union parent undertaking is required to take in accordance with Article 6(5) and (6), the consolidating supervisor shall make its own decision with regard to those matters. The consolidating supervisor shall make its decision having taken into account the views and reservations of the other competent authorities expressed during the four-month period. The consolidating supervisor shall notify the decision to the Union parent undertaking and to the other competent authorities. If, at the end of that four-month period, any of the competent authorities referred to in paragraph 2 has referred a matter mentioned in paragraph 7 to EBA in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, the consolidating supervisor shall defer its decision and await any decision that EBA may take in accordance with Article 19(3) of that Regulation, and shall take its decision in accordance with the decision of EBA. The four-month period shall be deemed to be the conciliation period within the meaning of the Regulation. EBA shall take its decision within one month. The matter shall not be referred to EBA after the end of the four-month period or after a joint decision has been reached. In the absence of an EBA decision within one month, the decision of the consolidating supervisor shall apply. 4. In the absence of a joint decision between the competent authorities within four months of the date of transmission on: (a) whether a recovery plan on an individual basis is to be drawn up for the institutions under its jurisdiction; or (b) the application at subsidiary level of the measures referred to in Article 6(5) and (6); each competent authority shall make its own decision on that matter. If, at the end of the four-month period, any of the competent authorities concerned has referred a matter mentioned in paragraph 7 to EBA in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, the competent authority of the subsidiary shall defer its decision and await any decision that EBA may take in accordance with Article 19(3) of that Regulation, and shall take its decision in accordance with the decision of EBA. The four-month period shall be deemed to be the conciliation period within the meaning of that Regulation. EBA shall take its decision within one month. The matter shall not be referred to EBA after the end of the four-month period or after a joint decision has been reached. In the absence of an EBA decision within one month, the decision of the competent authority responsible for the subsidiary at an individual level shall apply. 5. The other competent authorities which do not disagree under paragraph 4 may reach a joint decision on a group recovery plan covering group entities under their jurisdictions. 6. The joint decision referred to in paragraph 2 or 5 and the decisions taken by the competent authorities in the absence of a joint decision referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be recognised as conclusive and applied by the competent authorities in the Member States concerned. 7. Upon request of a competent authority in accordance with paragraph 3 or 4, EBA may only assist the competent authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with Article 19(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 in relation to the assessment of recovery plans and implementation of the measures of point (a), (b) and (d) of Article 6(6).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The establishment of a European Single Access Point (ESAP) by 2024 is a flagship action of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) Action Plan adopted by the European Commission in September 2020 1 . ESAP will contribute to the achievement of the CMU’s objectives by providing EU-wide access to information published by entities that is relevant to capital markets, financial services and sustainable finance, i.e. mainly information about their economic activities and products. ESAP will provide access to this information in an efficient and non-discriminatory manner. Information about entities’ activities and products is essential for decision-making by providers of capital. ESAP will contribute to further integrating the financial services and capital markets in the single market, to allocating capital more efficiently across the EU and promoting the development of smaller national capital markets and economies by giving them greater visibility. ESAP will also allow non-listed entities including Small and Medium-Sized enterprises (SMEs) to make available information on a voluntary basis. This will facilitate their access to capital. This proposal is part of a package comprised of: · a proposal for a Regulation establishing a European Single Access Point; · a proposal for a Directive amending certain Directives (this proposal); and · a proposal for a Regulation amending certain Regulations. Amendments to certain Directives are necessary to achieve the above objectives to contribute to the integration of the single market, particularly as regards the collection of information to be made available to ESAP. 
Revised version (Article 8 Assessment of group recovery plans):
1. The consolidating supervisor shall, together with the competent authorities of subsidiaries, after consulting the competent authorities referred to in Article 116 of Directive 2013/36/EU and with the competent authorities of significant branches insofar as is relevant to the significant branch, review the group recovery plan and assess the extent to which it satisfies the requirements and criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7. That assessment shall be made in accordance with the procedure established in Article 6 and with this Article and shall take into account the potential impact of the recovery measures on financial stability in all the Member States where the group operates. The parties shall endeavour to reach a joint decision within four months of the date of the transmission by the consolidating supervisor of the group recovery plan in accordance with Article 7(3). EBA may, at the request of a competent authority, assist the competent authorities in reaching a joint decision in accordance with Article 31(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. 3. In the absence of a joint decision between the competent authorities, within four months of the date of transmission, on the review and assessment of the group recovery plan or on any measures the Union parent undertaking is required to take in accordance with Article 6(5) and (6), the consolidating supervisor shall make its own decision with regard to those matters. The consolidating supervisor shall make its decision having taken into account the views and reservations of the other competent authorities expressed during the four-month period. The consolidating supervisor shall notify the decision to the Union parent undertaking and to the other competent authorities. If, at the end of that four-month period, any of the competent authorities referred to in paragraph 2 has referred a matter mentioned in paragraph 7 to EBA in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, the consolidating supervisor shall defer its decision and await any decision that EBA may take in accordance with Article 19(3) of that Regulation, and shall take its decision in accordance with the decision of EBA. The four-month period shall be deemed to be the conciliation period within the meaning of the Regulation. EBA shall take its decision within one month. The matter shall not be referred to EBA after the end of the four-month period or after a joint decision has been reached. In the absence of an EBA decision within one month, the decision of the consolidating supervisor shall apply. 4. If, at the end of the four-month period, any of the competent authorities concerned has referred a matter mentioned in paragraph 7 to EBA in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, the competent authority of the subsidiary shall defer its decision and await any decision that EBA may take in accordance with Article 19(3) of that Regulation, and shall take its decision in accordance with the decision of EBA. The four-month period shall be deemed to be the conciliation period within the meaning of that Regulation. EBA shall take its decision within one month. The matter shall not be referred to EBA after the end of the four-month period or after a joint decision has been reached. In the absence of an EBA decision within one month, the decision of the competent authority responsible for the subsidiary at an individual level shall apply. 5. The other competent authorities which do not disagree under paragraph 4 may reach a joint decision on a group recovery plan covering group entities under their jurisdictions. 6. The joint decision referred to in paragraph 2 or 5 and the decisions taken by the competent authorities in the absence of a joint decision referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be recognised as conclusive and applied by the competent authorities in the Member States concerned. 7. Upon request of a competent authority in accordance with paragraph 3 or 4, EBA may only assist the competent authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with Article 19(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 in relation to the assessment of recovery plans and implementation of the measures of point (a), (b) and (d) of Article 6(6).
Article 9 Recovery Plan Indicators
1. For the purpose of Articles 5 to 8, competent authorities shall require that each recovery plan includes a framework of indicators established by the institution which identifies the points at which appropriate actions referred to in the plan may be taken. Such indicators shall be agreed by competent authorities when making the assessment of recovery plans in accordance with Articles 6 and 8. The indicators may be of a qualitative or quantitative nature relating to the institution’s financial position and shall be capable of being monitored easily. Competent authorities shall ensure that institutions put in place appropriate arrangements for the regular monitoring of the indicators. Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, an institution may: (a) take action under its recovery plan where the relevant indicator has not been met, but where the management body of the institution considers it to be appropriate in the circumstances; or (b) refrain from taking such an action where the management body of the institution does not consider it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the situation. A decision to take an action referred to in the recovery plan or a decision to refrain from taking such an action shall be notified to the competent authority without delay. 2. EBA shall, by 3 July 2015, issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 to specify the minimum list of qualitative and quantitative indicators as referred to in paragraph 1.
Article 10 Resolution plans
1. The resolution authority, after consulting the competent authority and after consulting the resolution authorities of the jurisdictions in which any significant branches are located insofar as is relevant to the significant branch shall draw up a resolution plan for each institution that is not part of a group subject to consolidated supervision pursuant to Articles 111 and 112 of Directive 2013/36/EU. The resolution plan shall provide for the resolution actions which the resolution authority may take where the institution meets the conditions for resolution. Information referred to paragraph 7(a) shall be disclosed to the institution concerned. 2. When drawing up the resolution plan, the resolution authority shall identify any material impediments to resolvability and, where necessary and proportionate, outline relevant actions for how those impediments could be addressed, according to Chapter II of this Title. 3. The resolution plan shall take into consideration relevant scenarios including that the event of failure may be idiosyncratic or may occur at a time of broader financial instability or system wide events. The resolution plan shall not assume any of the following: (a) any extraordinary public financial support besides the use of the financing arrangements established in accordance with Article 100; (b) any central bank emergency liquidity assistance; or (c) any central bank liquidity assistance provided under non-standard collateralisation, tenor and interest rate terms. 4. The resolution plan shall include an analysis of how and when an institution may apply, in the conditions addressed by the plan, for the use of central bank facilities and shall identify those assets which would be expected to qualify as collateral. 5. Resolution authorities may require institutions to assist them in the drawing up and updating of the plans. 6. Resolution plans shall be reviewed, and where appropriate updated, at least annually and after any material changes to the legal or organisational structure of the institution or to its business or its financial position that could have a material effect on the effectiveness of the plan or otherwise necessitates a revision of the resolution plan. For the purpose of the revision or update of the resolution plans referred to in the first subparagraph, the institutions and the competent authorities shall promptly communicate to the resolution authorities any change that necessitates such a revision or update. 7. Without prejudice to Article 4, the resolution plan shall set out options for applying the resolution tools and resolution powers referred to in Title IV to the institution. It shall include, quantified whenever appropriate and possible: (a) a summary of the key elements of the plan; (b) a summary of the material changes to the institution that have occurred after the latest resolution information was filed; (c) a demonstration of how critical functions and core business lines could be legally and economically separated, to the extent necessary, from other functions so as to ensure continuity upon the failure of the institution; (d) an estimation of the timeframe for executing each material aspect of the plan; (e) a detailed description of the assessment of resolvability carried out in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article and with Article 15; (f) a description of any measures required pursuant to Article 17 to address or remove impediments to resolvability identified as a result of the assessment carried out in accordance with Article 15; (g) a description of the processes for determining the value and marketability of the critical functions, core business lines and assets of the institution; (h) a detailed description of the arrangements for ensuring that the information required pursuant to Article 11 is up to date and at the disposal of the resolution authorities at all times; (i) an explanation by the resolution authority as to how the resolution options could be financed without the assumption of any of the following: (i) any extraordinary public financial support besides the use of the financing arrangements established in accordance with Article 100; (ii) any central bank emergency liquidity assistance; or (iii) any central bank liquidity assistance provided under non-standard collateralisation, tenor and interest rate terms; (j) a detailed description of the different resolution strategies that could be applied according to the different possible scenarios and the applicable timescales; (k) a description of critical interdependencies; (l) a description of options for preserving access to payments and clearing services and other infrastructures and, an assessment of the portability of client positions; (m) an analysis of the impact of the plan on the employees of the institution, including an assessment of any associated costs, and a description of envisaged procedures to consult staff during the resolution process, taking into account national systems for dialogue with social partners where applicable; (n) a plan for communicating with the media and the public; (o) the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities required pursuant to Article 45(1) and a deadline to reach that level, where applicable; (p) where applicable, the minimum requirement for own funds and contractual bail-in instruments pursuant to Article 45(1), and a deadline to reach that level, where applicable; (q) a description of essential operations and systems for maintaining the continuous functioning of the institution’s operational processes; (r) where applicable, any opinion expressed by the institution in relation to the resolution plan. 8. Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities have the power to require an institution and an entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) to maintain detailed records of financial contracts to which it is a party. The resolution authority may specify a time-limit within which the institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) is to be capable of producing those records. The same time-limit shall apply to all institutions and all entities referred to in point (b), (c) and (d) of Article 1(1) under its jurisdiction. The resolution authority may decide to set different time-limits for different types of financial contracts as referred to in Article 2(100). This paragraph shall not affect the information gathering powers of the competent authority. 9. EBA, after consulting the ESRB, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards further specifying the contents of the resolution plan. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The proposed amendments to Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) are part of a legislative package that includes also amendments to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR), to Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) and to Regulation (EU) 806/2014 (the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR). Over the past years the EU implemented a substantial reform of the financial services regulatory framework to enhance the resilience of financial institutions in the EU, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners. In particular, the reform package included Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) and Directive 2013/36/EU (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD), on prudential requirements for and supervision of institutions, Directive 2014/59/EU (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD), on recovery and resolution of institutions and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 on the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM). These measures were taken in response to the financial crisis that unfolded in 2007-2008. The absence of adequate crisis management and resolution frameworks forced governments around the world to rescue banks following the financial crisis. The subsequent impact on public finances as well as the undesirable incentive of socialising the costs of bank failure have underscored that a different approach is needed to manage bank crises and protect financial stability. Within the Union in line with the significant steps that have been taken in international fora, Directive 2014/59/EU (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) 1 and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (SRMR) 2 have established a robust bank resolution framework to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. A cornerstone tool of a robust resolution framework is the “bail-in” which consists of writing down debt or converting debt claims or other liabilities into equity according to a pre-defined hierarchy. The tool can be used to absorb losses of and internally recapitalise an institution that is failing or likely to fail, so that its viability is restored. Therefore, shareholders and other creditors will have to bear the burden of an institution's failure instead of taxpayers. One of the key objectives of the BRRD is to facilitate private sector loss absorbency in the event of a bank crisis. To achieve this objective, all banks are required to meet a Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities ('MREL') to ensure that sufficient financial resources are available for write down or conversion into equity. Under the BRRD, MREL does not generally require mandatory subordination of eligible instruments for MREL. This means, in practical terms, that a liability eligible for MREL may rank in insolvency at the same level ( pari passu ) with certain other liabilities which are not bail-inable in accordance with the BRRD, such as operational liabilities like short-term inter-bank loans, or certain other liabilities which are bail-inable, but could be excluded from bail-in on a discretionary basis if the resolution authority can justify that they are difficult to bail-in for reasons of operational execution or systemic contagion risk (e.g. derivatives). This could lead to situations where bailed-in bondholders may claim they have been treated worse under resolution than under a hypothetical insolvency. In such case, they would need to be compensated by financial means of the resolution fund. To avoid this risk, resolution authorities may decide that the MREL requirement should be met with instruments that rank in insolvency below other liabilities that are either not bail-inable by law or difficult to bail-in (“subordination requirement”). At the global level, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) has published on 9 November 2015 the Total Loss-absorbing Capacity (TLAC) Term Sheet ('the TLAC standard') that was adopted a week later at the G20 summit in Turkey 3 . The TLAC standard requires global systemically important banks (G-SIBs), referred as global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs) in the Union legislation, to hold a sufficient minimum amount of highly loss absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities ('TLAC minimum requirement') to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in resolution. In its Communication of 24 November 2015 4 , the Commission committed to bring forward a legislative proposal by the end of this year so as the TLAC standard can be implemented by the agreed deadline of 2019. This proposal is part of the Commission's efforts to implement the TLAC standard in the Union together with a number of other proposals amending the existing Union recovery and resolution framework. The proposal covers specifically the targeted amendments to the BRRD related to the insolvency ranking of holders of debt instruments issued by Union banks for the purposes of complying with the BRRD and TLAC requirements concerning loss absorption and recapitalisation capacity of banks. In order to enhance the operational execution and robustness of bail-in powers and to avoid legal uncertainty, the TLAC standard requires that liabilities may be eligible for TLAC only if they are subordinated to other liabilities, i.e. if they absorb losses in insolvency or in resolution prior to other “preferred” liabilities that are explicitly excluded from TLAC eligibility, such as derivatives, covered deposits or tax liabilities. The TLAC standard provides, therefore, for a subordination requirement subject to certain exemptions, but it is not prescriptive on the way to achieve it. The TLAC requirement to hold subordinated instruments combined with the potential discretionary request by Union resolution authorities to meet the MREL also with subordinated instruments have driven some Member States to re-assess their national insolvency ranking. A number of Member States have amended (or are in the process of amending) the insolvency ranking of certain bank creditors under their national insolvency law to operationalise the possible application of the bail-in tool under the BRRD and to ensure that their G-SIIs comply with the “subordination requirement” of the TLAC standard. Under some national approaches, the existing stock of unsecured senior debt have been subordinated with immediate effect to allow banks to comply with any subordination requirement stemming from the BRRD or the TLAC standard. Under other approaches, banks would need to issue new debt, which meets the subordination criterion. As the national rules adopted so far diverge significantly, there is a broad agreement among stakeholders and Member States that having divergent approaches to the statutory insolvency ranking of bank creditors provides uncertainty for issuers and investors alike and makes more difficult the application of the bail-in tool for cross-border institutions. This uncertainty could also result in competitive distortions in the sense that unsecured debt holders could be treated differently in different Member States and the costs to comply with the TLAC and MREL requirements for banks may be different from Member State to Member State. Additionally, the creditors of banks under such divergent national insolvency regimes would be treated very differently when buying debt instruments issued by banks falling under different national creditor hierarchy regimes. For the above reasons, in its Report on Banking Union 5 , the European Parliament calls on the Commission to present proposals to further reduce the legal risks of claims under the no-creditor-worse-off principle, and, in its conclusions of 17 June 2016 6 , the ECOFIN invited the Commission to put forward a proposal on a common approach to the bank creditors' hierarchy. A specific proposal on bank creditors' hierarchy is justified in view of the distinct nature of the matters concerned and the urgency of harmonised Union rules to prevent any further competitive distortions on the internal market. 
Revised version (Article 10 Resolution plans):
1. The resolution authority, after consulting the competent authority and after consulting the resolution authorities of the jurisdictions in which any significant branches are located insofar as is relevant to the significant branch shall draw up a resolution plan for each institution that is not part of a group subject to consolidated supervision pursuant to Articles 111 and 112 of Directive 2013/36/EU. The resolution plan shall provide for the resolution actions which the resolution authority may take where the institution meets the conditions for resolution. Information referred to paragraph 7(a) shall be disclosed to the institution concerned. 2. When drawing up the resolution plan, the resolution authority shall identify any material impediments to resolvability and, where necessary and proportionate, outline relevant actions for how those impediments could be addressed, according to Chapter II of this Title. 3. The resolution plan shall take into consideration relevant scenarios including that the event of failure may be idiosyncratic or may occur at a time of broader financial instability or system wide events. The resolution plan shall not assume any of the following: (a) any extraordinary public financial support besides the use of the financing arrangements established in accordance with Article 100; (b) any central bank emergency liquidity assistance; or (c) any central bank liquidity assistance provided under non-standard collateralisation, tenor and interest rate terms. 4. The resolution plan shall include an analysis of how and when an institution may apply, in the conditions addressed by the plan, for the use of central bank facilities and shall identify those assets which would be expected to qualify as collateral. 5. Resolution authorities may require institutions to assist them in the drawing up and updating of the plans. 6. Resolution plans shall be reviewed, and where appropriate updated, at least annually and after any material changes to the legal or organisational structure of the institution or to its business or its financial position that could have a material effect on the effectiveness of the plan or otherwise necessitates a revision of the resolution plan. For the purpose of the revision or update of the resolution plans referred to in the first subparagraph, the institutions and the competent authorities shall promptly communicate to the resolution authorities any change that necessitates such a revision or update. 7. Without prejudice to Article 4, the resolution plan shall set out options for applying the resolution tools and resolution powers referred to in Title IV to the institution. It shall include, quantified whenever appropriate and possible: (a) a summary of the key elements of the plan; (b) a summary of the material changes to the institution that have occurred after the latest resolution information was filed; (c) a demonstration of how critical functions and core business lines could be legally and economically separated, to the extent necessary, from other functions so as to ensure continuity upon the failure of the institution; (d) an estimation of the timeframe for executing each material aspect of the plan; (e) a detailed description of the assessment of resolvability carried out in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article and with Article 15; (f) a description of any measures required pursuant to Article 17 to address or remove impediments to resolvability identified as a result of the assessment carried out in accordance with Article 15; (g) a description of the processes for determining the value and marketability of the critical functions, core business lines and assets of the institution; (h) a detailed description of the arrangements for ensuring that the information required pursuant to Article 11 is up to date and at the disposal of the resolution authorities at all times; (i) an explanation by the resolution authority as to how the resolution options could be financed without the assumption of any of the following: (j) a detailed description of the different resolution strategies that could be applied according to the different possible scenarios and the applicable timescales; (k) a description of critical interdependencies; (l) a description of options for preserving access to payments and clearing services and other infrastructures and, an assessment of the portability of client positions; (m) an analysis of the impact of the plan on the employees of the institution, including an assessment of any associated costs, and a description of envisaged procedures to consult staff during the resolution process, taking into account national systems for dialogue with social partners where applicable; (n) a plan for communicating with the media and the public; (o) the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities required pursuant to Article 45(1) and a deadline to reach that level, where applicable; (p) where applicable, the minimum requirement for own funds and contractual bail-in instruments pursuant to Article 45(1), and a deadline to reach that level, where applicable; (q) a description of essential operations and systems for maintaining the continuous functioning of the institution’s operational processes; (r) where applicable, any opinion expressed by the institution in relation to the resolution plan. 8. Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities have the power to require an institution and an entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) to maintain detailed records of financial contracts to which it is a party. The resolution authority may specify a time-limit within which the institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) is to be capable of producing those records. The same time-limit shall apply to all institutions and all entities referred to in point (b), (c) and (d) of Article 1(1) under its jurisdiction. The resolution authority may decide to set different time-limits for different types of financial contracts as referred to in Article 2(100). This paragraph shall not affect the information gathering powers of the competent authority. 9. EBA, after consulting the ESRB, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards further specifying the contents of the resolution plan. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Article 11 Information for the purpose of resolution plans and cooperation from the institution
1. Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities have the power to require institutions to: (a) cooperate as much as necessary in the drawing up of resolution plans; (b) provide them, either directly or through the competent authority, with all of the information necessary to draw up and implement resolution plans. In particular the resolution authorities shall have the power to require, among other information, the information and analysis specified in Section B of the Annex. 2. Competent authorities in the relevant Member States shall cooperate with resolution authorities in order to verify whether some or all of the information referred to in paragraph 1 is already available. Where such information is available, competent authorities shall provide that information to the resolution authorities. 3. EBA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to specify procedures and a minimum set of standard forms and templates for the provision of information under this Article. EBA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 1 (the Capital Requirements Regulation or CRR) establishes together with Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 2 (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) the prudential regulatory framework for credit institutions operating in the Union. The CRR and the CRD were adopted in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis to enhance the resilience of institutions operating in the EU financial sector, largely based on global standards agreed with the EU’s international partners, in particular the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The CRR has been subsequently amended to tackle remaining weaknesses in the regulatory framework and to implement some outstanding elements of the global financial services reform that are essential to ensure institutions' resilience. A major revision was brought by t he ‘Risk Reduction Measures Package’ , which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 20 May 2019 and published in the Official Journal on 7 June 2019. Th at package include d inter alia changes to the Union bank resolution framework through Directive (EU) 2019/879 of the European Parliament an d of the Council 3 , amending Directive 2014/59/EU of the European P arliament and of the Council 4 (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive or BRRD) , Regulation (EU) 2019/87 7 of the European Parliament and of the Council 5 , amending Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 6 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation or SRMR) and Regulation (EU) 2019/87 6 of the European Parliament and of the Council 7 , amending the CRR . This reform implement ed in the Union the international Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) standard for global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs) adopted by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in November 2015 8 and enhanced the application of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) for all institutions established in the Union. The TLAC standard requires G-SIIs to hold a sufficient amount of highly loss-absorbing (bail-inable) liabilities to ensure smooth and fast absorption of losses and recapitalisation in the event of resolution. The implementation of the TLAC standard in Union law, namely through amendments to the CRR, took into account the existing institution-specific minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), set out in the BRRD. 9 Moreover, both sets of rules are closely interconnected, particularly through cross-references from the BRRD and the SRMR to the CRR. For instance, the BRRD and the SRMR generally rel y on the total exposure measure and the total risk exposure amount as calculated under the CRR for calculating and expressing MREL . The refore, the two requirements should be understood as complementary elements of a common framework. 10 Th at revised framework should better ensure that ins t itutions’ loss absorption and recapitalisation occur s through private means once those institutions get into financial difficulties and are subsequently placed in resolution. TLAC and MREL are thus essential to effectively manage bank crises and reduce their negative impact on financial stability and public finances. TLAC and the revised rules on MREL became applicable in the Union on 2 7 June 2019 and 28 December 2020, respectively. In line with international standards , Union law recognises both the Single Point of Entry (SPE) resolution strategy and the Multiple Point of Entry (MPE) resolution strategy. 11 Under the SPE resolution strategy, only one group entity , typically the parent undertaking, is resolved (‘resolution entity’) , whereas o ther group entities, usually operating subsidiaries, are not subject to resolution action . Instead, the losses of those subsidiaries are transferred to the resolution entity and capital is down streamed to the subsidiary . This ensures that the subsidiaries can continue to operate smoothly even after they have reach ed the point of non-viability . Each resolution entity forms a ‘resolution group’ t ogether with the subsidiaries that belong to it and that are not themselves resolution entities . Under the MPE resolution strategy, more than one entity of the banking group may be resolved . C onsequently , more than one resolution entity and thus more than one resolution group may exist within the banking group . The underlying principle of the MPE resolution approach is to enable the resolution of a given resolution group in a feasible and credible way without undermining the resolvability of other resolution entities and resolution groups in the same consolidated banking group. The revised bank resolution framework provides that MREL for resolution entities should be set at the consolidated level of a resolution group ( ‘ external MREL ’ ). 12 In addition, that framework envisages how the loss absorption and recapitalisation capacity should be allocated within resolution groups ( ‘ internal MREL ’ ) 13 . According to the BRRD, as a rule, financial instruments that are eligible for internal MREL must be held by the resolution entity , i.e. typically the parent undertaking 14 . The rationale of this rule is to ensure that t he loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity of a subsidiary is provided by its parent, i.e. by the resolution entity . That parent may hold internal MREL eligible instruments either directly or indirectly through other entities in the same resolution group (see illustration below) . The possibility for instruments to be also indirectly subscribed by the parent through intermediate entities was justified by the fact that the obligation to comply with i nternal MREL should not unnecessarily alter the existing funding channels of banking groups where the funding for acquiring such instruments is structured around the chains of ownership and distributed to the s ubsidiaries across the group through intermediate entities and not directly by ultimate parents (resolution entities). Illustration: Subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments (directly or indirectly) To operationalise the approach of indirect subscription of internal MREL eligible instruments within resolution groups , also referred to as the ‘daisy chain’ approach, and to ensure that it i s prudentially sound, the co-legislators mandated the E uropean B anking A uthority (EBA) to develop draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) and the Commission to adopt on that basis a delegated act to specify a methodology for such an indirect issuance of eligible instruments . 15 According to the BRRD mandate that methodology should: · permit a proper transfer of losses from subsidiaries to their ultimate parent (resolution entity) and a proper transfer of capital from that parent to subsidiaries; · ensure that the loss-absorbing capacity of the subsidiary is not also counted for the purposes of compliance with internal MREL by the intermediate parent ; and · ensure that its outcome is equivalent to that of a direct subscription by the ultimate parent (resolution entity) of eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries. Since early 2020, t he EBA has been working on that draft RTS on the basis of a deduction regime , in line with the mandate set out in the BRRD and the recommend ations in the relevant international standards . 16 The deduction regime developed by the EBA envisages that i nternal MREL eligible instruments issued by subsidiaries to the resolution entity via an intermediate parent would have to be fully deducted from the amount of the intermediate parent’s own i nternal MREL capacity. Such a deduction approach was considered as the most consistent with the conditions set out in the BRRD mandate and conducive to the operationalisation of the i nternal MREL framework . 17 Th e methodology developed by the EBA was subject to a public consultation. 18 The consultation feedback showed general support to the draft RTS, but highlighted several inconsistencies of the requirements for the delegation laid down in the BRRD with the existing prudential rules laid down in the CRR. Hence, in a letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021 19 , the EBA outlined that the interactions between the BRRD and the CRR would not allow the application of the prudential treatment needed for the mandate to be fulfilled as originally intended. More precisely, the EBA noted that the CRR did not allow for the deduction of internal MREL eligible instruments and , subsequently, for the application of an appropriate risk weight of zero percent in all the cases relevant for the mandate under the BRRD . Similar issues were identified in the area of the CRR leverage ratio requirement. T his situation would not only generate an inconsistency between the prudential and resolution framework but would also go against the requirement of the BRRD mandate to generate an outcome equivalent to that of a direct subscription , according to the EBA. It was concluded that the BRRD requirements could not be fulfilled without additional provisions that the RTS could not bear on its own but need ed rather to rely on the Level 1 text to specify. Apart from the need to operationalise the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL, some other resolution related issues have been identified since the revised TLAC/MREL framework bec a me applicable in 2019. 20 Those issues mainly relate to the regulatory tr eatment of G-SII groups with a n MPE resolution strategy, including those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries . For instance, the CRR currently does not specify whether the various adjustments to TLAC 21 for G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy also cover those subsidiaries of a G-SII that are located in a third country . In addition, the formula 22 for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy relies on the risk-based TLAC/MREL requirement of the subsidiary only, while it was omitted to also take into account the non-risked - based TLAC/MREL. Further issues include some contradictions within the Level 1 text, notably with regard to the interplay of provisions in the CRR and the BRRD 23 that are relevant to address potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements . Lastly, some issues have been observed with regard to the criteria 24 for instruments to be eligible for compliance with the internal TLAC requirement, which is of relevance when addressing the failure of EU subsidiaries of non-EU global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs). Some targeted changes to specific resolution related aspects of the CRR are necessary to address the above issues. In particular, the regulatory treatment of G-SII groups with an MPE resolution strategy, including of those MPE groups that have subsidiaries in third countries, needs to be better aligned with the treatment outlined in the TLAC standard. This would help to ensure that, in case of resolution, each resolution entity and group belonging to those G-SIIs can continue to perform critical functions without the risk of contagion. The amendments proposed would not alter the overall architecture of the framework but would ensure the proper application of TLAC and MREL. First, it is necessary to incorporate directly into the CRR a dedicated prudential treatment related to the indirect subscription of instruments eligible for internal MREL (daisy chain approach). The proposed modifications to the CRR would address the identified inconsistencies between the CRR and the BRRD, which were outlined in the EBA’s letter to the European Commission dated 25 January 2021. More precisely, the deduction regime, which was developed by the EBA in the context of the draft RTS under the BRRD, would be incorporated directly into the CRR. This would ensure a proper functioning of the indirect subscription of internal MREL within resolution groups with several layers of ownership, in line with the political agreement reached during the negotiations of Directive (EU) 2019/879. In addition, the revisions would ensure that the treatment of holdings of internal MREL eligible instruments remains aligned in both the resolution and the prudential framework, thus enabling the operationalisation of the deduction methodology developed by the EBA and, at the same time, avoiding the introduction of undue complexity in the treatment of those exposures. Second , the CRR provisions on the comparison between the sum of the actual TLAC requirement s of all the resolution groups within a G-SII group with a n MPE resolution strategy with the theoretical SPE requirement of that G-SII group need to be clarified . 25 The changes proposed are needed to clarify the extent to which resolution authorities can address the potential inconsistencies between SPE and MPE requirements. This would be achieved by aligning the CRR treatment with the one envisaged under the BRRD 26 and the TLAC standard 27 . Th ird , it is necessary to amend th e formula for the calculation of the TLAC/MREL surplus of a subsidiary in the context of the general deduction regime applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy 28 to ensure that that formula takes into account both the risk-based and the non- risk- based TLAC/MREL requirement s of the subsidiary, in line with the TLAC standard. This would avoid that the TLAC/MREL surplus of a given subsidiary is overestimated. Fourth, some CRR provisions applicable to G-SIIs with an MPE resolution strategy should be clarified to allow for the consideration of subsidiaries established outside of the Union. This would align the CRR with the corresponding TLAC principle agreed internationally, which is applicable with respect to subsidiaries established in all FSB jurisdictions. Fifth, some targeted clarifications in the context of the r equirement for own funds and eligible liabilities for i nstitutions that are material subsidiaries of non-EU G-SIIs ( ‘ internal TLAC ’ ) are needed to ensure that debt instruments issued by those institutions could meet all eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments . The reason for this change is that currently the eligibility criteria for eligible liabilities instruments are based on the assumption that those instruments are issued by a resolution entity, and not by subsidiaries subject to an internal TLAC requirement. The gap would be addressed by clarifying that the same eligibility conditions applicable to resolution entities apply also to non-resolution entities, mutatis mutandis . This, in turn, would enable those institutions to me e t their internal TLAC requirement inter alia with eligible liabilities, as originally intended by the co-legislators . 29 These proposed amendments to the CRR can play an essential role in improving an institution’s resolvability . Given that the corresponding provisions are already applicable in the Union, the proposed modifications would need to be made in a timely manner . The need for an expedited adoption is further amplified by the fact that banking groups need clarity on the daisy chain mechanism to decide how best to preposition their internal MREL capacity in view of the general MREL compliance deadline that is set to 1 January 2024 , with binding intermediate targets needing to be complied with by 1 January 2022 . 
Revised version (Article 11 Information for the purpose of resolution plans and cooperation from the institution):
1. Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities have the power to require institutions to: (a) cooperate as much as necessary in the drawing up of resolution plans; (b) provide them, either directly or through the competent authority, with all of the information necessary to draw up and implement resolution plans. Member States shall ensure that resolution authorities have the power to require institutions to: (a) cooperate as much as necessary in the drawing up of resolution plans; (b) provide them, either directly or through the competent authority, with all of the information necessary to draw up and implement resolution plans. In particular the resolution authorities shall have the power to require, among other information, the information and analysis specified in Section B of the Annex. 2. Competent authorities in the relevant Member States shall cooperate with resolution authorities in order to verify whether some or all of the information referred to in paragraph 1 is already available. Where such information is available, competent authorities shall provide that information to the resolution authorities. 3. EBA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to specify procedures and a minimum set of standard forms and templates for the provision of information under this Article. EBA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.