Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Single Supervisory Mechanism
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Should Non-Euro Area Countries Join the Single Supervisory Mechanism?

100%
Darvas Z., Wolff G. B.
DANUBE: Law and Economics Review
|
2013
|
vol. 4
|
issue 2
141-163
EN
Irrespective of the euro crisis, a European banking union makes sense, including for non-euro area countries, because of the extent of European Union financial integration. The Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) is the first element of the banking union. From the point of view of non-euro countries, the draft SSM regulation as amended by the EU Council includes strong safeguards relating to decision-making, accountability, attention to financial stability in small countries and the applicability of national macroprudential measures. Non-euro countries will also have the right to leave the SSM and thereby exempt themselves from a supervisory decision. The SSM by itself cannot bring the full benefits of the banking union, but would foster financial integration, improve the supervision of cross-border banks, ensure greater consistency of supervisory practices, increase the quality of supervision, avoid competitive distortions and provide ample supervisory information. While the decision to join the SSM is made difficult by uncertainty surrounding other elements of the banking union, including possible burden sharing, we conclude that non-euro EU members should stand ready to join the SSM and be prepared for negotiations on the other elements of the banking union.
2

Struktura i funkcjonowanie jednolitego mechanizmu restrukturyzacji i uporządkowanej likwidacji w europejskiej unii bankowej

88%
Junevièius A., Puidokas M.
International Business and Global Economy
|
2014
|
vol. Volume 33
77–88
EN
The recent financial crisis showed that the institutions of the European Union (EU) and its member states are poorly prepared for solving current problems of banks, which are experiencing financial difficulties in European markets. In order to be able to further provide services for citizens and companies, member states’ governments had to support banks with public finances and provide guarantees on an unprecedented scale. It did help to avoid a collapse of banks and a disturbance of the economy, but only by putting the burden on taxpayers and thereby causing deterioration in public finances. An agreement about the right course of action in the face of these difficulties experienced by cross-national banks has not been reached either. The major situation changer should be the European Banking Union (EBU), also called the Integrated Financial System, which is in the process of being created. The foundations for it have been laid during Lithuanian presidency of the Council of the EU in the second half of 2013. For Lithuania and all other EU member states, joining the banking union will mean handing over important national state powers to the European Union institutions.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

AN OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF THE BANKING UNION

88%
Podgórski M.
Review of European and Comparative Law
|
2018
|
vol. 33
|
issue 2
95-118
PL
The article provides an overview of the legal structure of the Banking Union consisting of two pillars – the Single Supervisory Mechanism and the Single Resolution Mechanism. As a point of departure, it discusses the reasons for the creation of the Banking Union. Then, it analyses the legal structure of the Single Supervisory Mechanism in order to compare it to the legal framework of the Single Resolution Mechanism and shows that the differences in their design are a corollary of disparate legal bases for both instruments. Finally, it argues that the disputed legal basis for the regulation establishing the Single Resolution Mechanism is sufficient in light of Meroni doctrine as formulated in the Short-selling case.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The European system of financial supervision – regulatory impact assessment

75%
Szpringer M., Szpringer W.
Journal of Banking and Financial Economics
|
2017
|
issue 2(8)
84–104
EN
Complexity and uncertainty in the application of the regulations of the European system of financial supervision are due to the fact that its particular elements were implemented over a period of time. First, it was a system of European financial supervision authorities i.e. the European Banking Authority (EBA), the European Insurance and the Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), whose main objective was to coordinate national actions. Then there were established the European Banking Union, including the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM), the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM), as well as the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which constitutes also a part of the system of support for endangered banks. Legal interpretation problems are a result of differences in the scope of competences of these entities. For example, there is uncertainty whether the regulations refer to the eurozone or the whole European Union and if they refer to banks only or to other financial institutions as well. An analysis of the SSM, the SRM or the ESM does not always offer a clear answer to questions such as: who, when and using what tools should act; when, for example, the ECB may and should correct the decisions of national supervisors; what is the role of the ESRB, if we take account of the enhanced competences of the ECB in the banking union; if and when banks may question supervisory decisions concerning, for example, establishing a buffer or classifying an institution as SIFI, etc. Similarly, the role of the EBA or the ESM is unclear in the context of the establishment of the banking union, the SSM, the SRM, the ESM and the delegation of power of the ECB and the European Commission to regulatory agencies (Meroni doctrine) or the practice of establishing regulatory agencies outside the bounds of the treaty (Pringle doctrine). Therefore the regulatory landscape in this context requires impact assessment.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.