EBA欧洲银行-EBA-Peer-Review-Report-on-suitability_59页_1mb

Summary of the EBA Peer Review Report on Guidelines for Suitability Assessment

Core Content

This report presents the findings of the European Banking Authority (EBA) peer review on the Guidelines on the assessment of the suitability of members of the management body and key function holders (EBA/GL/2012/06). The review involved 31 EU/EEA-EFTA countries, including the EEA-EFTA countries (IS, LI, NO), and was conducted in accordance with the EBA Review Panel Methodology (EBA/BS/2012/107).

The main objective of the peer review was to assess the application of the EBA Guidelines in national supervisory frameworks and to evaluate the degree of convergence in supervisory practices across member states. The EBA also identified best practices and recommended further harmonisation of supervisory approaches.

Main Findings

Overall Application of Guidelines

• Most competent authorities (CAs) have largely or fully applied the EBA Guidelines.
• Only a few CAs deemed the application of some criteria to be partially applied or not applied.
• Non-contributing CAs were not reported.

Summary of Self-Assessment Results

Key Areas of Assessment

1. Implementation of EBA Guidelines

• Legal framework: Most CAs have implemented the EBA Guidelines through binding or non-binding instruments, such as laws, decrees, circulars, and internal procedures.
• Transposition of CRD IV: Some CAs reported that their national legal frameworks were already compliant with the guidelines, reducing the need for further implementation.
• Soft law use: Many CAs have used soft law tools like guidelines, standards, and communications to inform institutions about suitability requirements.

2. Suitability Assessment

• Assessment criteria: CAs have generally applied the EBA's criteria for suitability, including reputation, knowledge, experience, ethics, financial soundness, and independence.
• Divergences observed: Differences in the interpretation of suitability, time commitment, and independence were noted. Some CAs used alternative terms such as 'fitness and probity' or 'trustworthiness'.
• Sanctions: All jurisdictions provide administrative penalties for credit institutions, and some impose sanctions on individual members.

3. Key Function Holders (KFH)

• Designation: In most cases, KFHs are defined by national legislation or CA interpretation. Some CAs allow credit institutions to designate KFHs internally.
• Assessment: In some jurisdictions, suitability assessment of KFHs is not required, while others require it and apply it systematically.

4. Governance Framework

• Board structures: Most CAs have a unitary or dual board structure, but two jurisdictions use a three-tier governance model.
• Supervisory role: The role of supervisors in the assessment process varies, with some requiring mandatory interviews and others not.

Best Practices Identified

• Mandatory periodic re-assessment: Several CAs have implemented annual or regular re-assessments of suitability, which is considered a best practice.
• Interview methodologies: The use of interviews to assess candidates is a recommended practice, with some CAs using panels and structured methodologies.
• Collective knowledge assessment: CAs have shown convergence in assessing collective knowledge, skills, and experience of management bodies.
• Reputation screening: Some CAs use specific criteria to assess reputation, including checking for criminal convictions related to financial crimes.

Recommendations

• The EBA recommends enhanced convergence of supervisory practices to address divergences in the interpretation of suitability and other related criteria.
• A list of minimum criteria should be established to improve the quality and effectiveness of the general provisions in CRD IV.
• The EBA proposes to submit an opinion to the European Commission for a legislative initiative to further harmonise prudential rules.
• The EBA is also developing guidelines on internal governance that will incorporate outcomes from this peer review.

Conclusion

The peer review found that most CAs have implemented the EBA Guidelines, but significant divergences in supervisory practice remain. The EBA highlights the need for greater harmonisation and recommends further guidance and legislative action to ensure consistent and effective suitability assessments across the EU.