BETA

10 Amendments of Luděk NIEDERMAYER related to 2023/0112(COD)

Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) The objective of this Directive is to better safeguard taxpayers’ money and establish mechanisms for addressing situations of potential insolvency of some institutions and entities not covered by the existing resolution framework. That framework is designed to curtail the economic burden on society by reducing the overall costs associated with bank failures. The use of taxpayers’ money should, with the introduction of a new framework, be significantly reduced in order to ensure that the resolution financing arrangement is more often and more effectively used.
2023/11/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) The resolution framework is meant to be applied to potentially any institution or entity, irrespective of its size and business model, if the tools available under national law are not adequate to manage its failure. To ensure such outcome, the criteria to apply the public interest assessment to a failing institution or entity should be specified. In particular, it is necessary to clarify that, depending on the specific circumstances, certain functions of the institution or entity can be considered critical even if their discontinuance would impact financial stability or critical services only at regional level. . To ensure that the assessment of the impact at a regional level can be based on data that is available in a consistent way across the Union, regional level should be understood with reference to the level 1 or the level 2 territorial units of the Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS level 1 or 2) within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council*; * Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) (OJ L 154, 21.6.2003, p. 1).
2023/11/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) Extraordinary public financial support to institutions and entities provided by Member States from taxpayers’ money or other State resources should be granted, if at all, only in extraordinary circumstances of a systemic nature or pertaining to very large economic turmoil, as it imposes a significant burden on public finances and disrupts the level playing field in the internal market.
2023/11/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 115 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38
(38) The ranking of all deposits should be fully harmonised through the implementation of a general depositor preference with a singletwo-tiered approach, whereby all deposits benefit from a higher priority ranking over ordinary unsecured claims, without any differentiation between different types of deposits. At the same time, the use of the deposit guarantee schemes in resolution, insolvency and in preventive measures should always remain subject to compliance with the relevant conditionality, in particular the so-called ‘least cost test’.
2023/11/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 127 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 40 a (new)
(40a) The two-tier priority system, as reflected in the amendments in this Directive to Article 108 of Directive 2014/59/EU, ensures that deposits excluded from coverage under Directive 2014/49/EU, as well as certain deposits of large corporates that are used for compliance with MREL, enjoy a higher priority ranking compared to ordinary unsecured creditors, but one that is lower than covered deposits, eligible deposits of natural persons and SMEs exceeding the coverage level, deposits of large corporates that do not count towards MREL, as well as claims by the DGS subrogating for covered deposits. That tiered approach is designed to provide enhanced protection for a wide range of depositors, reflecting the unique characteristics of their deposits, while opening up the possibility of resolution to entities not covered by the current framework.
2023/11/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 149 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 35
(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 at national level, or regional level on a significant scale, 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;;. For the purposes of this point, the regional level shall be assessed with reference to the territorial unit corresponding to level 1 or level 2 territorial units of the Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS level 1 or 2) within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council*; * Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) (OJ L 154, 21.6.2003, p. 1).
2023/11/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 227 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 30 a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
After having received the notification referred to in the first subparagraph, resolution authorities shall assess, in close cooperation with competent authorities, what constitutes a reasonable timeframe for the purposes of the assessment of the condition referred to in Article 32(1), point (b), taking. Resolution authorities should take into account the speed of the deterioration of the conditions of the institution or entity referred to in Article 1(1), points (b), (c) or (d), the potential impact on the financial system and protection of depositors and client funds, need to implement effectively the resolution strategy and any other relevant considerations. Resolution authorities shall communicate that assessment to competent authorities as early as possible.
2023/11/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 280 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 17 – point c
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 32 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. EBA shall contribute to monitoring and promoting the effective and consistent application of the public interest assessment referred to in paragraph 5. By ... [three years after the date of entry into force of this amending Directive], EBA shall provide a report on the scope and application of paragraph 5 across the Union. That report shall be shared with the Commission in order to assess the effectiveness of the measures outlined in paragraph 5 and their impact on the level playing field. Based on the outcomes of the review, proposals or guidelines may be developed with the aim of converging practices and levelling the playing field among Member States.
2023/11/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 323 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 19
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 32c – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
The competent authority should make its best efforts to ensure that the quantification is based on the market value of the institution or entity’s assets, liabilities and off-balance sheet items.
2023/11/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 437 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 55 – point a
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 108 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) (i) deposits that are excluded from coverage under Article 5 of Directive 2014/49/EU; and (ii) deposits of legal entities that are not micro, small and medium-sized enterprises that qualify as eligible liabilities for the purposes of the requirement referred to in Article 45(1);
2023/11/06
Committee: ECON