2018年-EBA欧洲银行管理局_Report_on_the_peer_review_of_the_RTS_on_passport_notifications_47页_1mb

Summary of EBA Report on the Peer Review of the RTS on Passport Notifications

Core Content

This report presents the findings of a peer review exercise conducted by the European Banking Authority (EBA) on the implementation of the Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) and Implementing Technical Standards (ITS) related to passport notifications for credit institutions in the EU. The review was carried out between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2017, focusing on how competent authorities (CAs) manage the passporting process, ensure compliance, and facilitate cooperation between home and host CAs.

The peer review aimed to assess the effectiveness of CAs in handling passport notifications, including the completeness, granularity, and timeliness of the information received, as well as the use of this information by host authorities. It also evaluated the adequacy of resources and governance arrangements, and the level of convergence in supervisory practices across the EU.

Main Findings

1. Compliance and Implementation of RTS

• Most CAs strictly applied the RTS requirements.
• The self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) included three benchmarked questions focusing on:
  • Completeness and tracking of information received by home CAs.
  • Granularity of information received.
  • Use of information by host authorities.

2. Notification Volume and Distribution

• CAs received more notifications about services provided in another Member State than about the establishment of new branches.
• The highest ratio of service to branch notifications was more than 20 to 1.
• Only two CAs received more than 10 branch passport notifications during the reference period.
• Among 19 SSM countries, only six CAs shared notifications with the ECB/SSM, with one CA reporting 15 notifications and the others sending fewer than 3.

3. Additional Requirements from National Laws

• CAs applied additional requirements based on national law, but these were largely consistent with the RTS.
• Common additional requirements included:
  • Detailed description of cross-border services and risk management.
  • Thorough 3-year business plan.
  • Information on internal control systems, outsourcing, and compliance with host state regulations.

4. Tracking of Notifications

• Most CAs used internal systems or databases to track notifications.
• Some CAs maintained a dedicated register or published the information on their websites.
• A few CAs recorded notifications in Excel spreadsheets, which were then made public.

5. Use of Information by Host Authorities

• Host CAs generally used the information provided by credit institutions to prepare for supervision.
• The information was used to understand the nature of activities, risks, and compliance with local regulations.
• The level of detail required was considered suitable by most CAs, though suggestions were made to enhance it further.

6. Cooperation Between CAs

• The Review Panel identified inconsistencies in cooperation practices between home and host CAs.
• Issues included the timing and granularity of information exchanged.
• There was a call for better cooperation channels, especially in light of Brexit and the need for convergence in the single market.

7. Proportionality and Flexibility

• CAs expressed concerns about the lack of flexibility in the RTS/ITS framework regarding proportionality.
• The RTS require full harmonisation, which limits the ability of CAs to develop internal procedures based on the size or complexity of credit institutions.
• There were suggestions to introduce proportionality into operational arrangements and enhance interaction between home and host authorities.

8. Efficiency of the Process

• The process was considered efficient enough to ensure timely information sharing.
• CAs suggested improvements in cooperation and streamlining of passport notification procedures.
• The average time for CAs to request additional information was less than 2 weeks for 19 CAs, and up to 1 month for 9 CAs.

Key Information

• The peer review included 28 EBA voting members, the Single Supervisory Mechanism (ECB/SSM), and observers from EEA countries.
• The EBA used a benchmarking scale ranging from "fully comprehensive" to "non-contributing" to evaluate the implementation of the RTS.
• The Review Panel did not conduct on-site visits due to the nature of the topic.
• The ECB/SSM is responsible for monitoring passporting procedures, assessing compliance, and proposing decisions on branch establishment.
• CAs emphasized the importance of operational guidance, with some providing it through websites or direct dialogue with managers.

Recommendations and Best Practices

• The Review Panel identified best practices and suggested their dissemination to improve consistency and effectiveness.
• There is a need to enhance the granularity of information and align it with other relevant legislation such as MiFID, PSD, and MCD.
• The framework should allow for more flexibility in applying proportionality to passport notifications.
• Strengthening cooperation channels between CAs and improving information sharing could benefit the single market, especially in light of Brexit.