Consistency between Early intervention measures in BRRD and CRD IV

There is no contradiction between the two sets of measures mentioned in Article 27 of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) and those already envisaged in Article 104 of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD IV). The powers available under Article 27 of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) do not preclude the use of powers under Article 104 of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD IV). Both can coexist, and give a wider range of power to the supervisory authorities, keeping in mind proportionality: therefore, once a measure is imposed, subsequent measures could complement, but not duplicate it. Regarding the triggers mentioned, Article 27 of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) was aligned with the language in Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD IV) so that the trigger is that the institution "infringes or […] is likely in the near future to infringe the requirements" of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) / Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD IV). 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.