Brussels, 03/10/2006 (Agence Europe) - The Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS), the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) and the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors (CEIOPS) addressed a joint letter to the European institutions at the end of September, criticising three elements in the revised draft “banking” directive presented by the Commission at the beginning of September (EUROPE 9263).
The three committees consider that “the speed of the decision-making process, while undoubtedly important, should not be the overriding factor”. They believe that for “more complex cases” the reduction from three months to 30 days for a maximum deadline during which national regulators could oppose a merger or acquisition, as inadequate. They are therefore proposing to differentiate for “simple cases”, whose treatment would be done within a reasonable time schedule and the “most complex cases…ideally within 65 working days”.
In its draft revision, the Commission is suggesting the inclusion of five criteria in the European legislation that national regulators should take into account when approving or opposing a merger. The three committees support this initiative but consider it essential to “maintain the equilibrium between the requirements for authorisation and the requirements for acquisition”. They also believe it essential “to take into account of the need to ensure the sound and prudent management of the institution”. They therefore believe that it is possible to improve the wording in the criteria.
The three European and national regulators committees believe that the provision on access by the Commission to confidential information is “too vaguely defined”. There is already a possibility of submitting an appeal to the courts opposing one of their decisions and they consider that the draft directive is not “proportionate if it seeks to ensure that all confidential prudential information in the hands of the competent authorities is open to the Commission”.
The CEBS is not convinced that the extension of the revision to the regulated markets is justified, given that operators on these markets are of a “completely different nature”. (mb)