Regulation of financial supervision in the European Union

This contribution offers a broad theory on the regulation of the financial supervisory architecture in the European Union. It discusses the macro- and micro-prudential competences of the specialised agencies that are now ranging from direct supervision of individual financial institutions to the ability to impose market-wide restrictions on financial activities. The regulatory response to the financial crisis of 2007/08 centralised and strengthened the EU competences of monitoring financial markets and enforcing cooperation between the national competent authorities, especially in cross-border situations. It is however observed that – with some notable exceptions – the supervisory model in the European Union remains fragmented. Lack of direct supervisory powers – especially in the securities and payments markets – means that many international institutions remain without appropriate supervision. This results not only in weaker consumer protection and increased systemic risk, but also in jurisdictional arbitrage and, ultimately, damaged competitiveness of the European financial sector.Jan Głuchowski: [email protected] Adam Górski: [email protected] Głuchowski - Kozminski UniversityKrzysztof Adam Górski - Kozminski UniversityDarvas Z., Wolff G. B. (2013), Should Non-Euro Area Countries Join the Single Supervisory Mechanism?, “Law and Economic Review” no. 4Farran E., Babis V. S. G. (2013), The European Single Supervisory Mechanism, “University of Cambridge Legal Studies Research Paper Series” no. 10.Ferran E., Babis V. S. G. (2013), The European Single Supervisory Mechanism, “Journal of Corporate Law Studies” no. 13(2).Głuchowski J. (2010), Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego oraz Urząd Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego, [in:] Głuchowski J. (ed.), System prawa finansowego, Prawo walutowe prawo dewizowe prawo rynku finansowego vol. IV, Oficyna a Wolters Kluwer business, Warszawa.Gortsos C.V. (2016), The Role of the European Banking Authority (EBA) After the Establishment of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM), [in:] M. Andenas, G. Deipenbrock (eds.), Regulating and Supervising European Financial Markets, Springer.Howell E. (2019), EU agencification and the rise of ESMA: are its governance arrangements fit for purpose?, “Cambridge Law Journal” no. 78(2).Jurkowska-Zeidler A. (2015), Stabilność finansowa i integracja prawna rynku finansowego UE jako przedmiot rozstrzygnięć Trybunału Sprawiedliwości, [in:] J. Gliniecka, A. Drywa, E. Juchniewicz, T. Sowiński (eds.), Prawo finansowe wobec wyzwań XXI wieku, CeDeWu.Pl.Kálman J. (2014), The ESMA Case and Its Impact on the Legal Framework of the European Agencies, [in:] C. Gömbös, J. Kálmán, B.A. Keserű (eds.), Global and Local Issues from the Aspects of Law and Economy.Kurowski L. (1968), Kontrola finansowa, PWE, Warszawa.Kurowski L. (1990), Kontrola finansowa organizacja i funkcjonowanie, PWE, Warszawa.Lamfalussy A., Herkströter C. (et al.) (2001), Final Report of the Committee of Wise Men on the Regulation of European Securities Markets, Committee of Wise Men, Brussels.de Larosière, J., Balcerowicz L. (et al.) (2009), The High-Level Group on Financial Supervision in the EU, Brussels.Moloney N. (2011), The European Securities and Markets Authority and Institutional Design for the EU Financial Market – A Tale of Two Competences: Part (1) Rule-Making, “European Business Organization Law Review” no. 12(1).Ringe W.G., Morais L.S., Muñoz D. R. (2019), A Holistic Approach to the Institutional Architecture of Financial Supervision and Regulation in the EU, “European Banking Institute Working Paper Series” no. 50.Ruśkowski E. (2021), Kontrola finansowa, Temida 2, Białystok.Ruśkowski E. (2001), Kontrola finansowa, [in:] Głuchowski J. (ed.), Leksykon finansów, PWE,Warszawa.Rybarski R. (1937), Program Gospodarczy, Drukarnia Społeczna, Warszawa.Simoncini M. (2015), Legal Boundaries of European Supervisory Authorities in the Financial Markets: Tensions in the Development of True Regulatory Agencies, “Oxford University Press Yearbook of Eurpoean Law” no. 34(1).Spendzharova A.B. (2017), Becoming a powerful regulator: The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in European financial sector governance, “Maastricht University Academic Research Network Working Paper” no. 8/2017.Wymeersch E. (2007), The Structure of Financial Supervision in Europe: About Single Financial Supervisors, Twin Peaks and Multiple Financial Supervisors, “European Business Organization Law Review” no. 8(2).Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (OJEU C 326 of 26 October 2012).Treaty on European Union (TEU) (OJEU C 326 of 26 October 2012.Regulation (EU) 2019/2176 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (OJEU L 334 of 27 December 2019).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 (OJEU L 331 of 15 December 2010).Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/79/EC (OJEU L 331 of 15 December 2010).Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (OJEU L 331 of 15 December 2010).Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (OJEU L 86 of 24 March 2012).Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential re quirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJEU L 176 of 27 June 2013).Regulation (EU) No 1022/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) as regards the conferral of specific tasks on the European Central Bank pursuant to Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (OJEU L 287 of 29 October 2013).Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJEU L 173 of 12 June 2014).Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJEU L 225 of 30 July 2014).Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJEU L 287 of 29 October 2013).Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (OJEU L 302 of 17 November 2009).Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010 (OJEU L 174 of 1 July 2011).Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (OJEU L 173 of 12 June 2014).Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ L 337 of 23 December 2015).Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament and the European Central Bank on the practical modalities of the exercise of democratic accountability and oversight over the exercise of the tasks conferred on the ECB within the framework of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (OJEU L 320 of 30 November 2013).Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of the European Union and the ECB on the cooperation on procedures related to the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM), MOU/2013/12111, 2013.Commission of the European Communities (2002), The op erating framework for the European Regulatory Agencies, COM (2002) 718 final version, Brussels.Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 January 2014, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (UK v EP and the Council) 2014, C-270/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:18.Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 May 2006, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, C-217/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:279.Judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 June 1958, Meroni & Co., Industrie Metallurgiche, SpA v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community (Meroni), C-9/56, ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:1958:7.European Central Bank (2018), SSM Supervisory Manual European banking supervision: functioning of the SSM and supervisory approach.European Central Bank (2019), Guide to assessments of licence applications. Licence applications in general, 2nd edition.European Central Bank (2020), Joining European banking supervision marks a key milestone for us, 18 November 2020 [online], https://www.bankingsupervision. europa.eu/press/interviews/date/2020/html/ssm.in201118~e25ed9a04e.en.html, access as of 14 December 2021.European Commission (2001), White Paper on Governance, COM (2001) 428 final version.European Commission (2014), European banking supervision taking shape — EBA and its changing context, Special Report no. 05.European Commission (2014), Report on the Operation of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) and the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS), COM (2014) 509 final version, Brussels.European Commission (2017), Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Single Supervisory Mechanism established pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, COM (2017) 591 final version, BrusselsEuropean Securities and Markets Authority (2020), Rules of procedure on breach of Union law investigations, ESMA43-318-5630.Jenkins P. (2020), Why Germany should shut down BaFin, Financial Times, 21 December 2020 [online], https://www.ft.com/content/99f034f1-0464-4e5f-9b7e-92ff90767b5c, access as of 14 December 2021Wielka Encyklopedia PWN (2003), vol. 18, Warszawa.14-15142

Teacher numbers (SPICe Briefing; 11/08)

"This briefing summarises trends in teacher numbers, probationer employment and related policy regarding intake targets for student teachers." - Cover

The EU and Bosnia and Herzegovina: Democracy promotion within the limits of the "ethnic conflict" paradigm

Seeking to contribute to the emerging debate about the substance of EU democracy promotion policies, this paper takes as its focus Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the EU‟s current democracy promotion efforts are primarily focused on reform of the country‟s constitution. Bosnia‟s current constitution, established by the 1995 Dayton Agreement, provides for consociational power-sharing and extensive territorial decentralisation. While EU officials have stressed the inadequacies of the present constitutional arrangements, over time the reforms demanded have become more limited in scope. As such, I suggest that the outcome of any successful constitutional reform negotiations will be technical fixes to the present constitution, allowing the country to meet the obligations of future EU membership, rather than its wholesale redesign. Rather than promoting liberal democracy as it has elsewhere, then, in Bosnia the EU supports the perpetuation of consociational structures, which EU officials regard as the most realistic option given the country‟s post-conflict political context. Faced with the lack of a constitutional norm within the Union, let alone a consociational one, EU policy-makers have instead chosen to refer to a particular reading of the history of the European integration project itself in order to lend support to their approach in Bosnia, which continues to privilege group over individual rights. I highlight how notions of a „union of diversity‟ or a „union of minorities‟ are used to legitimise an approach to democracy promotion that is predicated on a view of Bosnia as composed of a patchwork of ethnic groups with discrete and discernable interests and identities

The issue of data protection and data security in the (pre-Lisbon) EU third pillar

The key functional operability in the pre-Lisbon PJCCM pillar of the EU is the exchange of intelligence and information amongst the law enforcement bodies of the EU. The twin issues of data protection and data security within what was the EU’s third pillar legal framework therefore come to the fore. With the Lisbon Treaty reform of the EU, and the increased role of the Commission in PJCCM policy areas, and the integration of the PJCCM provisions with what have traditionally been the pillar I activities of Frontex, the opportunity for streamlining the data protection and data security provisions of the law enforcement bodies of the post-Lisbon EU arises. This is recognised by the Commission in their drafting of an amending regulation for Frontex , when they say that they would prefer “to return to the question of personal data in the context of the overall strategy for information exchange to be presented later this year and also taking into account the reflection to be carried out on how to further develop cooperation between agencies in the justice and home affairs field as requested by the Stockholm programme.” The focus of the literature published on this topic, has for the most part, been on the data protection provisions in Pillar I, EC. While the focus of research has recently sifted to the previously Pillar III PJCCM provisions on data protection, a more focused analysis of the interlocking issues of data protection and data security needs to be made in the context of the law enforcement bodies, particularly with regard to those which were based in the pre-Lisbon third pillar. This paper will make a contribution to that debate, arguing that a review of both the data protection and security provision post-Lisbon is required, not only in order to reinforce individual rights, but also inter-agency operability in combating cross-border EU crime. The EC’s provisions on data protection, as enshrined by Directive 95/46/EC, do not apply to the legal frameworks covering developments within the third pillar of the EU. Even Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, which is supposed to cover data protection provisions within PJCCM expressly states that its provisions do not apply to “Europol, Eurojust, the Schengen Information System (SIS)” or to the Customs Information System (CIS). In addition, the post Treaty of Prüm provisions covering the sharing of DNA profiles, dactyloscopic data and vehicle registration data pursuant to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA, are not to be covered by the provisions of the 2008 Framework Decision. As stated by Hijmans and Scirocco, the regime is “best defined as a patchwork of data protection regimes”, with “no legal framework which is stable and unequivocal, like Directive 95/46/EC in the First pillar”. Data security issues are also key to the sharing of data in organised crime or counterterrorism situations. This article will critically analyse the current legal framework for data protection and security within the third pillar of the EU

The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010

This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ

The role and current status of IFRS in the completion of national rules: Evidence from Greece

Law 4308/2014 is the main regulation that transposed Accounting Directive 2013/34 of the EU into national law in Greece. This short paper summarises the underlying background and the process followed up to the issuance of this Law. It also outlines the key accounting principles introduced with this Law and how they compare with IFRS. This brief analysis indicates that, to a large extent, Greek accounting standards have now been aligned with IFRS. Given the preceding substantial differences between Greek accounting Laws and IFRS, this Law introduced significant changes to the accounting environment for non-listed companies in Greece, aiming at improving accounting quality and enhancing accounting comparability between listed and non-listed companies

The post-Lisbon role of the European Parliament in the EU's Common Commercial Policy: Implications for bilateral trade negotiations. EU Diplomacy Paper 05/2012, July 2012

This paper sets out to conduct an empirical analysis of the post-Lisbon role of the European Parliament (EP) in the EU’s Common Commercial Policy through an examination of the ‘deep and comprehensive’ bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) currently negotiated as part of the EU’s Global Europe strategy. The EU-Korea and EU-India FTAs are used as case studies in order to determine the implications of the EP’s enhanced trade powers on the processes, actors and outcomes of EU bilateral trade policy. The EP is now endowed with the ‘hard power’ of consent in the ratification phase of FTAs, acting as a threat to strengthen its ‘soft power’ to influence negotiations. The EP is developing strategies to influence the mandate and now plays an important role in the implementation of FTAs. The entry of this new player on the Brussels trade policy field has brought about a shift in the institutional balance of power and opened up the EP as a new point of access for trade policy lobbyists. Finally, increased EP involvement in EU trade policy has brought about a politicisation of EU trade policy and greater normative outcomes of FTAs

Teacher training and employment

This briefing gives an overview of developments relating to teacher education and career long learning stemming from the 2010 Donaldson review of teacher education. It also looks at the changes to terms and conditions originating in the 2010 spending review agreement between COSLA and the Scottish Government, the 2011 McCormac review of teachers’ terms and conditions and public sector pension reform

The development of the external dimension of the AFSJ: new challenges of the EU legal and policy framework

The Stockholm Programme sets new challenges for the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ). The development of external relationships with European Neighbourhood Policy and the Euro-Mediterranean Economic Area countries will prove problematic. The treaty boundary lines between the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the AFSJ will need to be negotiated. In addition, the full range of EU provisions with regard to policing, investigation and prosecution, and fundamental and due process rights, all required to obtain safe convictions, which will need to be part of the EU external relations legal framework for the AFSJ. EU legal agreements for the AFSJ could be either directly with a particular third country, or via Europol. Europol counterparts could be the South-East European Law Enforcement Centre (SELEC) or the Central Asian Regional Information and Coordination Centre (CARICC). This paper will critically analyse the problems likely from an EU legal framework and policy perspective