10 Amendments of Wolf KLINZ related to 2011/2010(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas insurance guarantee schemes can be a valuable tool in reducing the risks facing policyholders or beneficiaries in the event of the failure of an insurance entity,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas under Solvency II policyholder and beneficiary claims are secure when an insurer enters into insolvency (when the insurer breaches its Solvency Capital Requirement), and only become at risk if the insurer becomes bankrupt (when assets are insufficient to cover liabilities),
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission after Solvency II becoming fully operational to come forward with proposals for a minimum harmonisation directive establishing a coherent and consistent cross-border framework for insurance guarantee schemes (IGS) across Member States providing exclusively last resort protection to consumers when insurance undertakings are unable to fulfil their contractual commitments due to its insolvency;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Insists that the model of designing, functioning 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 againsto advocatinge an ex-ante approach to funding given the absence of compelling arguments in favour of such an approach and the disruption it could cause, whereby funding systems must be transparent in the way that different insurance companies may take on different levels of risk which should be reflected in their required contributions or premiums; requesting the Commission to set a final date, in order to facilitate the implementation of an ex-ante funding, which also takes into account those Member States which do not have an IGS in place so far and have to make the necessary arrangements;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Insists that Member States ensure that tests of their Insurance Guarantee Schemes are performed and that they are informed in case that the competent authorities detect problems in an insurance company that are likely to give rise to the intervention of the respective scheme; suggests that such tests shall take place at least every three years or when the circumstances require it; considers furthermore that the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) should periodically conduct peer reviews to examine the long-term financial sustainability and to claim a need for improvement wherever necessary;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Recognises that there are different ways of consumer protection which have to be applicable and which have to reflect the diverging size, concentration, product designs and respective insurance lines of the national markets: – Compensation: losses of policy holders or beneficiaries in the event of insolvency of an insurer are directly compensated following an orderly claims settlement process; – Continuity: the continuity of insurance contracts is secured through portfolio transfers to the remaining insurers in the market or a special entity created for this purpose; recommends that in case of compensation, national authorities within the Member States shall have provisions in place which ensure that policy holders in advance obtain a pay-out up to 5000 Euro within five working days to avoid that policy holders encounter financial difficulties in the event of a failure of an insurer;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that the ‘home’ country approach to IGS can only be credible from a consumer perspective if there is consistency of consumer experience; calls on the Commission to require a single own-language process and point of contact for consumers within their national supervisor for all insurance guarantee claims regardless of the location of the ‘home’ IGS; recommends that EIOPA develop a harmonised approach for both IGS functions (portfolio transfer and policyholder compensation claims) on the basis of simplicity and best practice, if necessary through binding technical standards, following the minimum harmonisation approach;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that ‘home’ and ‘host’ supervisors should cooperate fully with the concerned national 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;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Asks the Commission to look into the possibility 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 the scheme by allowing compensation limits or other reductions in benefits;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recognises that market concentration issues could place strains on the ability of an IGS to absorb all policyholder claims resulting from the bankruptcy of one or a number of insurers; believes that in order to avoid taxpayer exposure to such claims it is incumbent upon the responsible ‘home’ supervisor to ensure the robustness of the national IGS, if necessary employing additional supervisory standards to account for additional risks, which may include establishing an ex-ante IGS or additional capital requirements for certain insurers; foresees an oversight role for EIOPA in coordinating market-specific stress testing by national authorities and in conducting Europe-wide stress testing of IGS, issuing recommendations where appropriate, and in conducting regular peer reviews to ensure sharing of best practice approaches;