EBA · 2015_2105 Final Q&A
Authorisation to breach large exposures requirements in the context of IGFS
- Regulation
- Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
- Article
- 23, para. 1
- Topic
- Intra-group financial support
- Submitted by
- Competent authority
- Submitted
- 2015-07-06
- Answered
- 2015-07-24
- Answer provided by
- ESAs (EBA, ESMA, EIOPA)
Question
How do national legislators transpose Article 23 (1) (h) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) in accordance with the CRR and the CRD IV?
Background
Article 23 (1) (h) BRRD states that “the group entity providing the support complies, at the time when the support is provided, with the requirements relating to large exposures laid down in Regulation 575/2013 and in Directive 2013/36/EU including any national legislation exercising the options provided therein, and the provision of the financial support shall not cause the group entity to infringe those requirements, unless authorised by the competent authority responsible for the supervision on an individual basis of the group entity providing the support”. Neither Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) nor Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD) provide competent authorities with any possibility to authorize a breach in advance. Article 396 CRR states that the competent authority can allow an institution that has reported a breach of the limit set out in Article 395 (1) CRR a limited period of time in which to comply with the limit. Hence competent authorities are not allowed to specify the duration and the conditions of an authorized breach since they cannot authorize a breach at all. Therefore it would appear that Article 23 (1) h BRRD is incompatible with the CRR / CRD IV.
Answer
Article 396 Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) does not entitle the competent authority to authorise a breach of the requirements under Article 395 (1) CRR; however Article 23 (1) (h) Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) contains such power. Within its scope of application, intragroup financial support in an early intervention scenario, this special provision therefore takes precedence over the provisions of the CRR (lex specialis). The same is true for authorisations to deviate from capital or liquidity requirements under Article 23 (1) (g) BRRD. Disclaimer: This question goes beyond matters of consistent and effective application of the regulatory framework. A Directorate General of the Commission (Directorate General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) has prepared the answer, albeit that only the Court of Justice of the European Union can provide definitive interpretations of EU legislation. This is an unofficial opinion of that Directorate General, which the European Banking Authority publishes on its behalf. The answers are not binding on the European Commission as an institution. You should be aware that the European Commission could adopt a position different from the one expressed in such Q&As, for instance in infringement proceedings or after a detailed examination of a specific case or on the basis of any new legal or factual elements that may have been brought to its attention.
Original source: European Banking Authority, Q&A ID 2015_2105
This Q&A is published by European Banking Authority and is non-binding. It does not constitute legal advice. Updated weekly from official ESA sources.
Similar Q&As
More Q&As on this topic
Changes to financial support agreements
Answered 2022-01-28
Notification requirements in the context of financial support
Answered 2022-01-28
Providing IGFS pursuant to Article 19(3)
Answered 2016-05-13
Interpretation of Article 19(2)
Answered 2016-02-05
Intra-group financial support consideration
Answered 2016-02-05
📋 Track EU financial regulation continuously
Forseti monitors EU financial regulation and delivers personalised alerts anchored to verified official sources.
14-day free trial. No credit card required.