Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-15-Speech-1-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010115.5.1-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, the European Commission tabled a proposal for a directive on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the reorganisation and the winding-up of credit institutions back in 1985. That so much time has lapsed, is largely down to the Gibraltar issue.
The purpose of the directive is to ensure that a credit institution and its branches in other Member States are reorganised or wound up according to the principles of unity and universality. This means that the administrative authorities of the home Member State have sole jurisdiction in carrying out the reorganisation or winding up of a credit institution and its branches across the EU. This applies to all cases, except where Article 20 of this directive specifies otherwise. The aim of the directive is, thus, not to harmonise but to ensure equal treatment of all creditors and a consistent approach across the whole of Europe.
As rapporteur, I can completely identify with the thrust of this report. In tandem with the Council and Commission, I have tried to make a few improvements to this report in the shape of two types of amendment. The first type is related to the fact that the wording of the Council’s common position was not consistent with the existing insolvency directive and the directive on the winding up and reorganisation of insurance companies, which is to be voted on next week within the Economic Commission. This kind of discrepancy in directives which cover the same subject matter is unacceptable, unless there is a good reason for it.
As rapporteur, I have taken great pride in rendering legislation on this particularly important subject matter as clearly and transparently as possible. All our amendments pertain to Article 20, which deals with the exceptions to the rule. Some amendments bring the directive into line with other directives, such as the insolvency directive and the winding up of insurance companies, as I mentioned a moment ago. These are Articles 20(1)(h) and 20(2). By means of Articles 20a to 20d, they are re-introduced in the report, but this time by using the same wording as in the other two directives.
The second type of amendment pertains to the deletion of a number of exceptions to the main rule. These exceptions had been worded in an ambiguous manner and were open to interpretation. Also, there was the risk, in the article on the regulated markets, that the exception was more comprehensive than the main rule. Despite this, the articles on regulated markets, repurchase agreements, netting agreements and debt renewal were included as such in the common position.
In the first instance, I wanted to see these articles deleted. The only problem was that certain parties within the Council could not live with completely deleting these articles. For this reason, I have tried to reach agreement with the Council, and this was done at the eleventh hour last Wednesday. The compromise still prescribes the deletion of the three articles, but three other articles will be inserted instead. Broadly speaking, the compromise articles do not prejudice legislation of the Member State to which the contract pertains. These articles also clarify that the bankruptcy rules of the home Member State of the credit institution in question are not prejudiced. That means, therefore, that if contracts are concluded with regulated institutions, the proceeds from those contracts are still included in the estate. That is what this is about, and that was the reason behind my original proposal to delete.
Everything is now spelled out loud and clear, everyone is happy and I am delighted that, by joining forces, we have probably avoided a lengthy conciliation procedure.
We are thus tabling two types of amendment. One type is introducing harmonisation with respect to other directives, the other deleting a number of exceptions. I hope from the bottom of my heart that this legislation, which I believe Parliament has upgraded in terms of quality, will never have to take effect."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples