11 Amendments of Andreas SCHWAB related to 2011/2010(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the adoption of a common Insurance Guarantee Scheme (IGS) at EU level and the adjustment of the diverse IGS regimes existing in Member States would effectively improve citizens' confidence, protect consumers' and taxpayers' rights and enhance market stability, in the insurance sector in particular and in internal market and financial services in general; therefore welcomes the Commission's initiative to establish an IGS at European level minimum harmonisation framework regarding IGS;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the necessity, function and structure of insurance guarantee schemes are not analogous with either deposit guarantee schemes or investor compensation schemes on account of the different business model of insurers and the different risk exposure of consumers in the event of the failure of an insurer,
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges that the most realistic and useful approach at the moment is the establishment of a coherent and legally binding framework of IGS protection based on minimum harmonisation, which should not undermine the protection already offered by some Member States, with a view to achieving maximum harmonisation at a later stage;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Argues that in order to ensure comprehensive protection for policyholders and beneficiaries, the IGS should not be the last-resupervisorty mechanism, and asurges the Commission to retain and take into account other existing protectionallowed under Solvency II should be applied first and IGS should be the last- resort mechanisms;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that future IGSs should be based on the home Member State principle and provide a high degree and equal level of consumer protection for all natural persons – whether policyholders or other beneficiaries – covered by all type; recommends that certain kinds of insurance contract (life and non-life), especially in the event of insurer bankruptcy, insurer or intermediary mis- selling, or fraud(among them marine and aviation insurance, business interruption insurance, product liability insurance, recall cost insurance and export credit and fidelity guarantee insurance) should not be included in the scope of a guarantee framework; further recommends not to include motor insurance and private health insurance as efficient solutions are already in place;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission, in coherence with the definition of relevant details of Solvency II, to come forward with proposals for a minimum harmonisation directive establishing a coherent and consistent cross-border framework for national insurance guarantee schemes (IGS) across Member States providing last-resort protection to consumers exclusively in case insurance untertakings, due to their insolvency, are unable to fulfil their contractual commitments;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Notes that there is no guarantee scheme for second pillar pensions managed by pension funds whilst insurers providing pensions would be subject to an IGS; therefore insists that second pillar pension products shall be covered by distinct and separate schemes leading to equivalence levels of protection for pensioners;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that thea European framework for IGSs should give policyholders an opportunity to choose between financial compensation and transfer of their insurance contract; considers that EU law on IGSs should ensure swift maximum provide either for the continuation of insurance contracts by portfolio transfer or compensation for losses in the event of insurer default; recompmensation or a portfolio transfer whereby the policyholder would not suffer any lds to introduce limits to the contributions of the insurers to the scheme as otherwise the requirements of Solvency II could not be met; recommends further to limit the costs of rights and privileges emanating from the policythe scheme by allowing compensation limits or other reductions in benefits;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Supports the adoption of the ‘home’ country principle – whereby all policies written by an insurer, regardless of location of sale, are covered by the ‘home’ IGS – recognising both that: A) under Solvency II the cross-border provision of insurance services will increase; and, B) the failure of an insurer will be linked to the inadequacy of supervision by the ‘home’ supervisor, and thus the burden of responsibility for failure should be borne by the ‘home’ IGS;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Insists that the model of function, design and funding for national IGS be a matter of subsidiarity, reflecting the ‘home’ country principle of supervision and the divergence of models used by existing IGS; urges the Commission against advocating an ex-ante approach to funding given the absence of compelling arguments in favour of such an approach and the disruption it could cause;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that ‘home’ and ‘host’ supervisors should cooperate fully with the concerned IGS to ensure minimised disruption for the policyholder in a ‘host’ country in the event of the failure of an insurer, acting through the college with the participation of EIOPA to ensure consistency of approach between schemes;