- Question ID
-
2018_4253
- Legal act
- Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD)
- Topic
- MREL
- Article
-
45, 45c, 45f
- Paragraph
-
1
- COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations
- Not applicable
- Article/Paragraph
-
n.a.
- Name of institution / submitter
-
RGF Division of Financial and Capital Market Commission
- Country of incorporation / residence
-
Latvia
- Type of submitter
-
Resolution authority
- Subject matter
-
MREL requirement if resolution strategy is liquidation (no bail-in tool used)
- Question
-
Question 1:
Should the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) requirement be set for a bank if its resolution strategy is liquidation and there is no plan to use a bail-in tool?
Question 2:
What is the legal basis and the rationale for setting the MREL for the bank if its resolution strategy is liquidation and there is no plan to use a bail-in tool?
- Background on the question
-
It is not clear what the legal basis or the rationale would be for setting the MREL requirement for a small sized bank if the proposed resolution strategy is liquidation and there is no plan to use a bail-in tool and so far no MREL has been set.
- Submission date
- Final publishing date
-
- Final answer
-
Article 45(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) requires Member States to ensure that all institutions meet their minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL).Article 45(6) clarifies that MREL for each institution shall be determined by the resolution authority, after consulting the competent authority.Hence, resolution authorities shall set MREL for all institutions, including institutions that have liquidation under normal insolvency proceedings as their resolution strategy, except for institutions that are explicitly exempted from compliance with the requirement in accordance with Article 45(3) BRRD or that benefit from the waiver in accordance with Articles 45(11) or (12) BRRD.A combined reading of Articles 45(1), 45c and 45f of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD), clarifies that MREL should be set even for institutions whose preferred strategy is liquidation.
Article 45(1) provides that institutions and entities referred to in Article 1(1), points (b), (c) and (d) are to meet MREL at all times, where required by and in accordance with Articles 45 to 45i.
In this respect, Article 45c(1) requires that the resolution authority set MREL for each institution, after consulting the competent authority and based on criteria that aim at tailoring MREL to the specific situation of the concerned institution. Furthermore, Article 45c(2), second subparagraph, prescribes the resolution authority to assess whether it is appropriate to limit MREL to an amount sufficient to absorb losses for entities whose preferred strategy is liquidation.
Hence, resolution authorities are to set MREL for all institutions, including institutions that have liquidation under normal insolvency proceedings as their resolution strategy. The exception to this rule are the institutions that are explicitly exempted from compliance with the requirement in accordance with Article 45a or that benefit from a waiver in accordance with Articles 45f(3) or (4) and 45g BRRD. For the entities referred to in Article 1(1), points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 1(1), the setting of MREL is mandatory when they have been identified as resolution entities, pursuant to Article 45e, but discretionary when they are not resolution entities in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 45f(1) – unless the exception in the third subparagraph of that provision applies.
Disclaimer:The answers clarify provisions already contained in the applicable legislation. They do not extend in any way the rights and obligations deriving from such legislation nor do they introduce any additional requirements for the concerned operators and competent authorities. The answers are merely intended to assist natural or legal persons, including competent authorities and Union institutions and bodies in clarifying the application or implementation of the relevant legal provisions. Only the Court of Justice of the European Union is competent to authoritatively interpret Union law. The views expressed in the internal Commission Decision cannot prejudge the position that the European Commission might take before the Union and national courts. - Status
-
Final Q&A
- Answer prepared by
-
Answer prepared by the European Commission because it is a matter of interpretation of Union law.
- Note to Q&A
-
Update 26.03.2021: This Q&A has not yet been reviewed by the European Commission in the light of the changes introduced to Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD).
Update 02.12.2021: This Q&A has been updated in the light of the changes introduced to Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD).
Disclaimer
The Q&A refers to the provisions in force on the day of their publication. The EBA does not systematically review published Q&As following the amendment of legislative acts. Users of the Q&A tool should therefore check the date of publication of the Q&A and whether the provisions referred to in the answer remain the same.