Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 103kWORD 16k
11 July 2017
Question for written answer E-004642-17
to the Commission
Rule 130
Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE) , Cora van Nieuwenhuizen (ALDE) , Thierry Cornillet (ALDE) , Nils Torvalds (ALDE) , Michael Theurer (ALDE)

 Subject:  Credibility of EU bank bail-in rules
 Answer in writing 

The Commission has approved EUR 16.785 billion in state aid to Banca Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto Banca under Italian insolvency laws. Initially, the Italian authorities had made a request for precautionary recapitalisation under EC law arguing that state aid was necessary to preserve financial stability. This request was based on the ECB assessment that the two banks were solvent. On 23 June 2017 the ECB stated that the banks were failing or likely to fail. However, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) decided that resolution action under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) is not warranted in the public interest in both cases because their failure was not likely to result in significant adverse effects on financial stability paving the way for the use of Italian taxpayers’ money.

Can the Commission explain what has caused the sudden insolvency of the two banks, whether the delay in resolving the banks has made the rescue more costly for the taxpayer and whether other options to protect small retailers were available?

Can the Commission explain its assessment that the specific choice of Intesa as buyer was in conformity with EU competition rules and whether this has had any negative effects on financial stability?

Does the Commission believe that this case is a good example of how the Banking Union and particularly the BRRD works?

Legal notice