Germany

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Moss QC ◽  
Bob Wessels ◽  
Matthias Haentjens
Keyword(s):  
Senior Management ◽  
Supervisory Authority ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
National Bank ◽  
Financial Groups ◽  
Credit Institutions

Within Germany, the harmonization of the national bank insolvency laws by Directive 2014/59/EU establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms (the BRRD) has rendered an already complex legislative landscape considerably more confusing. For credit institutions, there are now no less than three different statutes that lay down the procedures and substantive provisions available to supervisory and resolution authorities, and the procedural framework for cross-border coordination and recognition is to be found in two of them (with some overlap in terms of scope and content). While the BRRD has been transposed within a separate new statute (the Act on the Recovery and Resolution of Institutions and Financial Groups), the provisions transposing Directive 2001/24/EC on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (the Credit Institutions Directive) continue to be included in the German Banking Act. Section 46 of the Banking Act also continues to lay down administrative powers, including the closure of a failing institution, the imposition of a freeze of assets and stay of payments (known as the ‘moratorium’), as well as the removal of senior management for the German financial supervisory authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, BaFin).

Article 60 Cooperation between the lead supervisory authority and the other supervisory authorities concerned

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Tosoni
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
International Cooperation ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The Other ◽  
Mutual Assistance ◽  
Supervisory Authority ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Joint Operations ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Article 50

Article 4(16) (Definition of ‘main establishment’) (see too recital 36); Article 4(22) (Definition of ‘supervisory authority concerned’) (see also recital 36); Article 4(23) (Definition of ‘cross-border processing’); Article 4(24) (Definition of ‘relevant and reasoned objection’) (see too recital 124); Article 50 (International cooperation for the protection of personal data) (see too recitals 102 and 116); Article 55 (Competence of the supervisory authorities) (see too recitals 122 and 128); Article 56 (Competence of the lead supervisory authority) (see also recitals 124–128); Article 57(1)(g) (Supervisory authorities’ task to cooperate with other supervisory authorities) (see too recitals 123 and 133); Article 58 (Powers of supervisory authorities) (see too recitals 122 and 129); Article 61 (Mutual assistance) (see too recitals 123 and 133); Article 62 (Joint operations of supervisory authorities) (see too recital 134); Article 63 (Consistency mechanism) (see too recitals 13, 136 and 138); Article 64 (Opinion of the Board) (see also recitals 135–136); Article 65 (Dispute resolution by the Board) (see too recitals 136 and 143); and Article 66 (Urgency procedure) (see too recitals 137–138).

Article 56 Competence of the lead supervisory authority

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hielke Hijmans
Keyword(s):  
Supervisory Authority ◽  
Article 59 ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Definition Of

Article 4(16) (Definition of ‘main establishment’); Article 4(22) (Definition of ‘supervisory authority concerned’); Article 4(23) (Definition of ‘cross-border processing’); Article 57 (Tasks of supervisory authorities) (see too recitals 122–123 and 132–133); Article 58 (Powers of supervisory authorities) (see too recital 129); Article 59 (Activity reports); Articles 60–67 (Cooperation and Consistency) (see also recitals 126 and 130–138).

Part III The EU Resolution Regime, 11 Institutional and Cross-Border Issues

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gleeson Simon ◽  
Guynn Randall
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Single Resolution Mechanism ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Credit Institutions

This chapter examines how the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive is implemented in international and cross-border situations, both within the EU and between the EU and third countries. The BRRD requires each member state to recognize in their law the effect of resolution actions taken by other member states. This means that as regards foreign resolution action which purports to transfer assets located in their jurisdiction, or rights or liabilities governed by their law, or write-down or convert liabilities governed by their law or owed to creditors in their jurisdictions, their law must make provision for such transfers or conversions to take effect automatically and cannot be prevented, challenged, or set aside under their law. The chapter covers the scope of the Single Resolution Mechanism, cross-border branching, and the relevant changes to the Credit Institutions (Winding-Up) Directive.

Freedom to Provide Services as a Form of the Cross-Border Activity of Foreign Insurance Undertakings in Poland

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (101) ◽  
pp. 48-58
Author(s):  
Piotr Przecherski
Keyword(s):  
New Technologies ◽  
European Economic Area ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Supervisory Authority ◽  
General Overview ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Economic Area ◽  
Insurance Business ◽  
The Cross

This paper discusses a number of aspects related to the conducting of insurance activity under the freedom to provide services regime in Poland by insurance undertakings based in the European Economic Area, requirements for undertaking such an activity, as well as criteria for distinguishing between the freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment as two regimes for carrying out cross-border insurance activity. The development of new technologies will result in a growing interest in the freedom to provide services as a model of offering insurance products in other EEA countries. This is a consequence of the procedural straightforwardness of the freedom to provide services regime which introduces the notification of intention to engage in cross-border business to the home supervisory authority as the only entry requirement. In this context, the existing criteria for distinguishing between the two freedoms may prove to be insufficient. Therefore, further distinguishing criteria pertaining to the cross-border sales of online insurance are likely to be developed in the coming years.The purpose of this paper is to provide a general overview of the issues related to the insurance business pursued by the EEA insurers in Poland under the freedom to provide services regime, in particular with regard to the mass insurance products. This paper also presents a brief description of likely directions of future legislative developments in this area.

Financial Institutions

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Haentjens
Keyword(s):  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Financial Institution ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Solvency Ii ◽  
European Regulation ◽  
Supervisory Authority ◽  
Insolvency Proceedings ◽  
Credit Institutions

This chapter considers the Insurance Directive and the Solvency II Directive, directives that concern the reorganization and winding-up of insurance undertakings. It examines how European regulation has been adopted so that financial institutions can and must make use of a single authorization granted by the home Member State’s supervisory authority. Both of the Directives apply to insolvency proceedings concerning national and legal persons; however, four categories of financial institutions are excluded: the insurance undertakings; credit institutions; investment firms and other firms, institutions and undertakings to the extent that they are covered by Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council; and collective investment undertakings. The chapter also discusses the Settlement Finality and Collateral Directive and the Credit Institutions Directive, where settlement in effect represents the satisfaction or payment of a monetary obligation owed or owing by a counterparty to a financial institution.

The International Dimension: Cross-border Groups

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Schillig
Keyword(s):  
Global Financial Crisis ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The Us ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Model Law ◽  
The Global Financial Crisis ◽  
Financial Groups ◽  
Group Law

The difficulties associated with the supervision and failure resolution of cross-border financial groups were among the key issues that came into renewed focus as a result of the global financial crisis. The cross-border dimension affects the recovery and resolution process in its entirety from the initial planning phase right through to liquidation. The chapter summarizes the elements of cross-border group law mentioned in previous chapters. It looks briefly at the US framework and the changes introduced through the Dodd–Frank Act. It discusses international jurisdiction of authorities and courts, the applicable law that governs proceedings, and the recognition and effects of foreign proceedings, in particular, in accordance with Directive 2001/24/EC on the reorganization and winding up of credit institutions and investment firms and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. It also analyses the new European framework for co-operation in the cross-border group resolution context.

Article 4(23). Cross-border processing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Tosoni
Keyword(s):  
Supervisory Authority ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Joint Operations ◽  
Definition Of

Article 4(2) (Definition of ‘processing’); Article 56 (Competence of the lead supervisory authority); Article 62(2) (Joint operations of supervisory authorities); Article 63 (Consistency mechanism) (see too recital 135).

scholarly journals Assesment of the Interest Rates in the Serbian Banking Sector

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 21-35
Author(s):  
Lidija Barjaktarović ◽  
Maja Dimić ◽  
Dejan Ječmenica
Keyword(s):  
Interest Rates ◽  
Risk Premium ◽  
Banking Sector ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Country Risk ◽  
Return On Assets ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Strong Relation ◽  
National Bank ◽  
Country Risk Premium

Abstract Lending interest rates (IR) in the Serbian market are generally viewed as high. In accordance with the official NBS (National bank of Serbia) data for 2010: lending (IR) was 10.4% p.a., deposit IR was 4.2% p.a., and spread was 6.3% p.a. At the same time, IR on cross-border loans was 3.7% p.a. It means that the use of cross-border loans was a better solution for companies which were in position to take them. The indicator of IR spread in Serbia got worse and came down to 106th position (it used to be ranked 90th in 2009; WEF). If we analyse the structure of IR spread, we can notice that there is room for decreasing the level of active IR in the area of country risk premium and funding spread. Pearson Correlation shows that IR has strong relation with return on assets and volume of collected deposits i.e. profit margin per product.

scholarly journals Cross-Border Flow of Personal Data in the Context of Emigration of the Faithful of the Catholic Church from Poland

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-149
Author(s):  
Piotr Kroczek
Keyword(s):  
Data Processing ◽  
Catholic Church ◽  
Canon Law ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Supervisory Authority ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Data Controller ◽  
The Catholic Church

The increased emigration of Poles has caused numerous problems of legal and canonical nature, also relating to the activity of the Catholic Church. The article concerns the cross-border processing of personal data carried out by the Catholic Church entities in the context of the emigration of the faithful. Processing of the data of believers takes place, for example, in the formalities related to preparation for entering marriage. From the point of view of canon law the article deals with such issues as: the legality of the process of cross-border data processing, the obligations of the data controller carrying out such a process and the role of the supervisory authority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document