CHAPTER I
SUBJECT MATTER AND DEFINITIONS
Article 1
Subject matter
Article 2
Definitions
CHAPTER II
JOINT DECISION PROCESS
Article 3
Involvement of third country supervisory authorities in the assessment process
Article 4
Assessment of the completeness of the application
Article 5
Planning of the steps of the joint decision process
Article 6
Preparation of the assessment reports
Article 7
Preparation of the draft joint decision
Article 8
Reaching of the joint decision
Article 9
Communication of the joint decision
CHAPTER III
DISAGREEMENTS AND DECISIONS TAKEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A JOINT DECISION
Article 10
Decision process in the absence of joint decision
Article 11
Drafting of the decisions taken in the absence of a joint decision
Article 12
Communication of the decisions taken in the absence of joint decision
CHAPTER IV
UPDATE OF DECISIONS IN CASE OF MATERIAL MODEL EXTENSIONS OR CHANGES AND ENTRY INTO FORCE
Article 13
Material model extensions or changes
Article 14
Entry into force
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/100
of 16 October 2015
laying down implementing technical standards specifying the joint decision process with regard to the application for certain prudential permissions pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 , and in particular Article 20(8) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
When assessing the completeness of the application for certain prudential permissions, before deciding on whether or not to grant the permissions referred to in Article 20(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, the consolidating supervisor and the relevant competent authorities should ensure timely and efficient mutual cooperation and develop a shared understanding on the receipt of a complete application or on the aspects of the application which are considered to be incomplete.
(2)
The consolidating supervisor should confirm to the applicant and the relevant competent authorities the date of receipt of the complete application to ensure clarity on the exact starting date of the 6-month period for reaching the joint decision and minimise the risks of possible disputes on this starting point.
(3)
The assessment of completeness of the application should be performed on the basis of the matters which the competent authorities are required to assess when deciding whether to grant the permission sought. The link between the assessment to be performed by the competent authorities and the information expected to be contained in the submitted applications is essential to improve the quality of the applications and ensures consistency across supervisory colleges both of the content of applications and of the assessment of completeness.
(4)
In order to ensure a consistent application of the process for reaching a joint decision, it is important that each step is well defined. A clearly outlined process facilitates timely information exchange, provides proportionate allocation and efficient management of supervisory resources, promotes mutual understanding, develops relationships of trust between supervisory authorities and promotes effective supervision.
(5)
The assessment of completeness of the application should not extend to the assessment of the application that competent authorities perform while developing their opinion on whether to grant the permission. The time allocated to each step of the joint decision process should therefore be proportionate to the complexity and scope of that step, bearing in mind that the time period for reaching a joint decision cannot be extended or suspended.
(6)
The consolidating supervisor should be in a position to assess whether and how the model for which permission is sought captures the exposures in jurisdictions outside the Union. In this context, interaction between competent authorities and third country supervisors should be promoted in order to enable competent authorities to develop a complete assessment of the performance of the model.
(7)
Timely and realistic planning for the joint decision process is essential. Every competent authority involved should provide the consolidating supervisor with its contribution in the joint decision in a timely and efficient way.
(8)
To ensure uniform condition of application, the steps to be followed for the performance of the assessment and the reaching of the joint decision should be established, recognising that some tasks of the process may be performed in parallel and others sequentially.
(9)
To facilitate the reaching of joint decisions, it is important that the competent authorities involved in the decision-making process engage in a dialogue with each other, in particular before finalising the joint decisions.
(10)
To ensure that an effective process is established, the consolidating supervisor should have ultimate responsibility for determining the steps to be followed for reaching a joint decision on approval of internal models.
(11)
Establishing clear provisions for the content of the joint decisions should ensure that joint decisions are fully reasoned and contribute to efficient monitoring of any terms and conditions.
(12)
In order to clarify the process to be followed once the joint decision is reached, provide transparency on the treatment of the outcome of the decision and facilitate appropriate follow-up actions where needed, standards regarding the communication of the joint decision should be established.
(13)
The timeline of the process for reaching a joint decision on applications for permissions which relate to material model extensions or changes and the division of work between the consolidating supervisor and relevant competent authorities should be proportionate to the scope of those material model extensions or changes.
(14)
The joint decision process under Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 includes the process to be followed where no joint decision is reached. To ensure uniform conditions of application of this aspect of the process and in particular to ensure the articulation of fully reasoned decisions and to clarify the treatment of any views and reservations expressed by relevant competent authorities, standards covering the timeline for taking decisions in the absence of a joint decision, and their communication should be established.
(15)
This Regulation is based on the draft implementing technical standards submitted by the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (EBA) to the European Commission.
(16)
The EBA has conducted open public consultations on the draft implementing technical standards on which this Regulation is based, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the opinion of the Banking Stakeholder Group established in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council ,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 1.
Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 12).
The “appropriate regulator” has power to make such provision as they consider appropriate by means of an instrument in writing to prevent, remedy or mitigate any failure of the provisions of this Regulation to operate effectively or any other deficiency arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, see The Financial Regulators' Powers (Technical Standards etc.) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/1115), regs. 2, 3, Sch. Pt. 4 (with saving on IP completion day by S.I. 2019/680, regs. 1(2), 11; 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1))
Regulation: power to modify conferred (11.7.2023) by Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (c. 29), ss. 3, 86(3), Sch. 1 Pts. 1, 3; S.I. 2023/779, reg. 2(d)