EBA欧洲银行-ESBG_CP01rev_4页_52kb

ESBG Position Paper on CEBS Consultation Guidelines Amendments

Core Content

The European Savings Banks Group (ESBG) has submitted a position paper in response to the CEBS (Committee of European Banking Supervisors) proposal to amend its consultation guidelines. The paper highlights ESBG's overall support for CEBS' initiative to enhance the efficiency and transparency of the consultation process. However, it also raises several concerns and suggestions regarding the specific amendments proposed.

Main Points and Key Information

1. Support for Impact Assessments

• ESBG welcomes the proposal to increase the use of ex-ante impact assessments.
• It emphasizes that these assessments should focus on the costs of new regulation, rather than analyzing the costs of old regulation.
• The shortened impact assessment period (Annex, 5 a) is viewed as potentially limiting the ability to foresee regulatory impacts, thus reinforcing the need for thorough impact assessments.

2. Drafting Amendments

• ESBG considers the approach to typos or doublings as appropriate.
• It suggests that omissions should not be treated as simple additions without considering their potential to alter the original meaning of the guidelines.
• If an omission leads to a different interpretation, a standard consultation procedure should be conducted.
• The necessity of drafting amendments should be reconsidered. In cases where the amendment is obvious, clarifying the spirit and purpose of the regulation may not be required. However, when clarification is needed, interpretation should be prioritized over drafting amendments.

3. Limited Amendments

• ESBG recommends defining key terms such as "technical changes," "precising or completing the existing guidelines," and "material change."
• It points out that the current distinction between "limited" and "standard" amendments is controversial and politically sensitive.
• The Consultative Panel may not always be capable of evaluating complex and technical changes, suggesting that the grouping of amendments should be avoided.
• The paper raises concerns about legal uncertainty due to the lack of definitions for:
  • "Experts" (Annex 5 c)
  • "Critical matter" (Annex 5 d)
  • "Further action" (Annex 5 d)
  • "Further revision" (Annex 5 e)
• It concludes that a further model of consultation is not mandatory, and that either precising is obligatory or amendment can be substituted by interpretation, depending on the context.

4. Suggestions for the Consultative Panel

• ESBG highlights the increasing influence of the Consultative Panel but notes a lack of transparency, especially in informal expert meetings.
• It recommends that CEBS determine the procedure for expert nominations to ensure broad involvement of all relevant economic circles.
• A suggested revision for paragraph 7 of the Annex is:

  "The Committee will give the Consultative Panel sufficient notice in the run-up to forming (expert-) groups and give all members the opportunity to nominate qualified experts. The Committee and Consultative Panel will make sure that there is a broad involvement of all prospectively concerned economic circles in those groups."

About ESBG

• ESBG is an international not-for-profit association representing a significant portion of the European retail banking market.
• It comprises about one third of the retail banking market in Europe, with total assets of €5215 billion as of 1 January 2006.
• ESBG members are typically savings and retail banks or associations, often operating in decentralized networks.
• These banks are known for their responsible reinvestment and serve as a benchmark for corporate social responsibility in Europe and globally.