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
 Full text 
Procedure : 2013/0253(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0478/2013

Texts tabled :


Debates :

PV 04/02/2014 - 13
CRE 04/02/2014 - 13
PV 06/02/2014 - 7
CRE 06/02/2014 - 7

Votes :

PV 06/02/2014 - 9.1
CRE 06/02/2014 - 9.1
PV 15/04/2014 - 8.1
CRE 15/04/2014 - 8.1

Texts adopted :


Tuesday, 4 February 2014 - Strasbourg Revised edition

13. Resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Bank Resolution Fund (debate)
Video of the speeches

  Corien Wortmann-Kool, on behalf of the PPE Group . – Mr President, I would also like to start by wishing Elisa a swift recovery so that she can return to our negotiating team. There is a lot at stake, because Europe urgently needs a banking union to have a safe and stable financial system. We need better protection from failing banks for taxpayers’ money and better access to loans for our businesses and households.

This is crucial to speed up economic recovery throughout Europe. Commissioner Barnier presented himself today as the postillon d’amour and we really need the Commission to take that role, because the Council’s position on the last building block of the banking union is creating major problems, putting the credibility of the single resolution mechanism at risk already in the first years. With the current slow pace of negotiations we might not get it right before the European elections. With the vote this week, Parliament is putting pressure on the Council to move substantially on key areas of concern.

Let me be clear: it could all be done under the current Treaty, but I do understand to some extent the constitutional concerns of one Member State with regard to paying bank levies into a European fund, that an intergovernmental treaty is needed for that. But what started as a constitutional concern over a specific issue has now resulted in a complete overhaul of the governance of the resolution mechanism.

The system is overly complex, it leaves crucial decisions up to the Member States and makes resolutions dependent on national resources. This will not work when a bank needs to be resolved over the weekend. Therefore, substantial changes are needed because this could seriously undermine effective application of the resolution tools.

We want to ensure that bail-in will be applied to make sure that shareholders and investors pay. But it should be equally applied to failing banks, irrespective of the Member States in which they operate. There should be equal treatment too in regard, where needed, to access to the fund. Here too, the Councilʼs position falls short, because the fund is rigidly broken down into national compartments. This could even reinforce the damaging link between Member States and banks, instead of breaking this.

In the first years especially, there is a substantial risk of reputational damage for this new resolution authority. We cannot afford to allow that to happen. The single fund has to be up and running from the start and this cannot be achieved by simply changing ten years into five years. The Fund has to be operational in the first years too.

We will be firm but constructive in the negotiations, because what is at stake is completing the banking union. But we have to get it right.

Last updated: 1 April 2014Legal notice