Home > All journals > European Business Law Review > 30(4) >
$25.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$49.00 - Article (PDF) *
Danny Busch, Marije Louisse, Mirik B.J. van Rijn
European Business Law Review
Volume 30, Issue 4 (2019) pp. 577 – 615
https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2019025
Abstract
Since the first of January 2016, the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) has become fully operational. For the Member States of the European Banking Union the new regime entails a transferral of the decision-making on failing banks to the European level, specifically the Single Resolution Board (SRB). The political sensitivity hereof is illustrated by the European and Italian reaction to the mounting troubles in some parts of the Italian banking sector. The new European regime raises the question if, and if so to what degree, Member States participating in the European Banking Union (EBU Member States) retain discretion in determining the course of action for, and future of, a troubled bank. This question is explored along three lines of inquiry. First, we analyse the degree of harmonisation provided for by the BBRD and SRM. The second line of inquiry analyses EBU Member States’ influence in the SRB’s decisionmaking process. The third line of inquiry considers the possibilities (if any) for a public recapitalisation of troubled banks without applying the new general bail-in standard.
Our first line of inquiry leads us to conclude that the EBU Member States have surrendered the decision-making on bank resolution to the EBU level, specifically to the SRB. The SRM regulation, consequently, provides for maximum harmonisation, leaving no room for national resolution tools. National resolution powers which operate and compete in the same area as the SRM, such as the Dutch nationalisation law, must thus be held as inapplicable.
In the second line of inquiry we found that the SRM has both a supranational and an intergovernmental dimension. While the SRB in its executive session has a strong supranational character Member State influence in bank resolution decision remains present through the involvement of the Council and the SRB in plenary session in key decisions.
In the third line we conclude that the rules imposed by the BRRD and SRM Regulation in combination with the State aid regime have rendered public recapitalisation without a bail-in virtually impossible.
Extract
This article reflects on the EU’s strategy towards the Western Balkans. It identifies the lack of a coherent and consistent strategy intended for stabilization and integration. In principle, the Western Balkan states’ road towards Europe is driven by the belief that regional stabilization and EU membership are mutually constitutive and reinforcing objectives. Progress in one is expected to lay the ground for advancements in the other. In practice, however, we claim the Union capitalizes on the prospect of accession to attain transformation. The problem is that it has so far failed to set out what is the ultimate aim and stake of its strategy. It appears both reluctant to concert its declarations with its intentions and unprepared and unable to implement its pronounced will. As a result, it finds much difficulty in relating means to achieve the ends in view, and this strips its current strategy of an important part of its value.
European Foreign Affairs Review