EBA欧洲银行-Presentation-Alexander-Turk_9页_144kb

Summary of "Regulatory Tools and the EU Institutional Architecture for the Financial Sector: The 'New Regulatory Tools'"

Core Content

The document explores the regulatory tools and institutional architecture of the European Union (EU) in the context of financial sector governance, focusing on the "New Regulatory Tools" introduced to enhance efficiency and coordination. It analyzes the legal, constitutional, and institutional challenges associated with these tools, particularly in relation to the balance of power, democratic legitimacy, and the separation of powers within the EU framework.

Main Views

Constitutional and Institutional Framework

The EU financial regulatory system is governed by a set of constitutional and institutional principles, including:

• Principle of conferral: The EU can only exercise powers conferred by the member states.
• Legal basis constraint: Regulatory tools must be based on specific legal provisions.
• Institutional balance: A balance must be maintained between the European Commission (COM), the European Parliament, and the Council.
• Meroni constraint: The EU must respect the autonomy of national authorities.
• Democratic legitimacy: Decisions must reflect the will of the EU citizens.
• Process constraints: Regulatory processes must be transparent and follow established procedures.

These principles serve as the foundation for evaluating the legality and legitimacy of new regulatory tools.

Regulatory Tools

The document outlines several categories of regulatory tools used in the EU financial sector:

1. Technical Standards

• Draft Regulatory Technical Standards (DRTS): Provide detailed rules for implementing EU legislation.
• Draft Implementing Technical Standards (DITS): Further specify how DRTS should be applied.
• Concerns:
  • Legal basis concerns (e.g., Article 291(1) TFEU)
  • Institutional balance and process concerns
  • Divergence between formal responsibility (Commission) and actual responsibility (national agencies)
  • Political prerogative vs. regulatory efficiency
  • Executive polyarchy vs. institutional integration (e.g., elimination of comitology)

2. Guidelines and Recommendations

• Article 16 guidelines: Focus on the application of EU legislation.
• Other guidelines: May vary in scope and effect.
• Practical Importance:
  • Diverse functions and effects
  • Distinction between implementation guidelines and technical standards
• Issues:
  • Comply or explain effect in Article 16
  • Indirect effect of guidelines in Articles 17 and 19
  • Conferral concerns
  • Institutional balance and process concerns

3. Systemic Risk Tools

• Peer review: A process to assess the effectiveness of national regulatory frameworks.
• Regulation through information management and reporting: Enhances transparency and oversight.

4. Methodological Tools

• Warnings, advice, and opinions: Provide guidance but do not have binding legal force.

European Supervisory Handbook

• Purpose: Enhance supervisory efficiency by providing a centralized framework.
• Issues:
  • Indirect effects of the handbook
  • Institutional balance concerns
  • Tension between technical expertise and political prerogative
  • The relationship between the handbook, guidelines, technical standards, and Union legislation

Key Information

• The EU financial regulatory system relies on a combination of legal instruments, including technical standards, guidelines, and supervisory tools.
• The principle of conferral is central to the legitimacy of these tools, requiring that they be based on clear legal authority.
• Meroni constraint and institutional balance are critical in ensuring that national authorities retain autonomy while the EU provides harmonized rules.
• The European Supervisory Handbook aims to improve efficiency but raises concerns about the balance between technical expertise and political decision-making.
• Accountability and democratic legitimacy are major concerns, particularly in relation to the Commission's political prerogative and the fragmentation of the Union's executive.

Conclusion

The document concludes that the current system of regulatory tools in the EU financial sector is output-oriented, with limited input from democratic institutions. It highlights the need for sufficient consultation and participation to ensure the representation of Union interest and democratic legitimacy. Furthermore, it raises concerns about conflicts of interest, multiple actors, and weak legal fora in the regulatory process. The elimination of comitology and the shift toward institutional integration are seen as potential solutions to enhance the effectiveness and legitimacy of the EU financial regulatory framework.