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 25kWORD 22k
12 June 2019
Answer given by Ms Vestager on behalf of the European Commission
Question reference: P-001486/2019

The Commission sets out in guidelines how it intends to assess aid measures in line with the Treaty, taking into account case practice and economic developments. Before its adoption in 2013, a draft of the Banking Communication(1) was discussed with the Member States, the European Central Bank and central banks in the Council Economic and Financial Committee.

Already in 2012, the principles of the 2013 Banking Communication were applied by Spain on a wide scale and subsequently in many other countries, contributing to financial stability and the return to health of the banking sector while protecting competition.

At the same time, the European Parliament and Member States were discussing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), on which they agreed in 2014.(2) This included the principle of creditor bail-in going further than that of the 2013 Banking Communication.

The role of bank supervisors and financial markets authorities is to ensure that banks and markets operate on a safe and sound basis. The Commission is in regular contact with the authorities on topical issues. It is only when the State intends to give aid to an ailing bank, that the application of state aid rules becomes necessary as provided by the Treaty.

The Commission has always supported the protection of depositors under state aid rules and worked constructively with Italy and other Member States to find solutions to enable the compensation of victims of mis-selling practices of failed banks in line with EU rules.

In the case of Banca Tercas, the Commission first opened a formal investigation to give interested parties, the Member State and regulatory and supervisory authorities the possibility to comment. In its decision of December 2015(3), the Commission provided its detailed assessment of the facts of the case and responded to the comments received in the investigation.

(1)OJ C 216, 30.7.2013, p. 1
(2)OJ L 173/190, 12.6.2014
(3)OJ L 203,28.07.2016, p. 1.

Last updated: 13 June 2019Legal notice