of community law has evolved, also for the euro, which is dominated, in a spectrum from high to low legislative influence, by notions such as unification, harmonisation, approximation, implementation and self - regulation. the road towards unification, if achievable at all, is of an evolutionary nature, where each legal action is determined on a case - by - case basis. this is not a bad development. after all, unification is not a goal in itself. legal action should have a well - balanced relation to the objectives to be achieved. particularly in the area of monetary and financial law, we have created such a well - balanced legal structure which ensures the fulfilment of the monetary union ’ s objectives at present. let me, without the pretension of being exhaustive, briefly touch on several aspects of this new corpus iuris monetae and explain how we, at a community level, have tried to strike a balance between unification on the one hand, and differentiation on the other. institutionally, legal convergence has taken place with regard to the statutes of the eu ncbs. the eu treaty prescribes that the escb ncbs are independent and that the eurosystem ncbs are fully integrated into the eurosystem. this requires the adaptation of statutes of ncbs. however, the legal requirements for central bank independence and integration in the eurosystem are not precisely defined in the treaty. therefore, the ecb and its predecessor, the european monetary institute, have done so themselves in their so - called convergence reports. these reports assess whether a member state qualifies for the introduction of the euro and they also contain a chapter on legal convergence. they develop features of institutional, personal and financial independence. in addition, they identify areas in which statutes of ncbs are likely to require adaptation in view of the integration of ncbs in the eurosystem. these reports thus gave guidance to national legislators in the process of adapting such statutes. as a result, new statutes of ncbs have come into existence, which, as far as eurosystem - related tasks are concerned, often contain very similar provisions. yet, the treaty does not prescribe harmonisation of statutes and ncbs may perform own, non - eurosystem related tasks, as long as such tasks do not interfere with the objectives and tasks of the eurosystem. overall, statutes of ncbs therefore still differ considerably from one another. in conclusion, there has not been harmonisation

the good work accomplished so far. i would also like to thank the t2s advisory group. in the next phase of the project, this group will retain its important function of ensuring that t2s delivers in line with market needs. the group has provided invaluable advice to the programme board and to the governing council over the past few years. the level of transparency on the t2s project through the advisory group has been – i believe – unprecedented. this has certainly been one of the key drivers of the project ’ s acceptance amongst csds, market participants and political authorities. finally, i wish to thank the high level group t2s as well as the t2s teams both at the ecb and the 4cb. their work is not always visible, but it is invaluable. indeed it is thanks to their work “ backstage ” that the construction of the t2s platform is well on track. the system is now over halfway to delivery point and the development and testing of the application are proceeding on a firm footing. on this basis, and with the signature of the t2s contracts, we now have the solid foundations to continue building t2s and to transform post - trading in europe, making it both more efficient and safer. we have taken a major step today towards making t2s happen. in years to come, we will see the eurosystem, participating csds, and market participants more widely working together to make this project a success. thank you very much. bis central bankers ’ speeches