Preamble

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 53(1) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, Having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1), After consulting the European Economic and Social Committee, After consulting the Committee of the Regions, Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2), Whereas: (1) In accordance with Article 19(5) and (6) of Directive 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), the Commission has reviewed the application and the scope of that Directive and concluded that the objective of protection of depositors in the Union through the establishment of deposit guarantee schemes (DGSs) has mostly been met. However, the Commission also concluded that there is a need to address the remaining gaps in depositor protection and to enhance the functioning of DGSs, while harmonising rules for DGSs’ interventions other than payout proceedings. (2) The review of the Union’s crisis management and deposit insurance framework is intended to pave the way towards progress on deepening the banking union. Therefore, the functioning of DGSs should be further harmonised. (3) The Union’s crisis management and deposit insurance framework should consistently uphold the principles that losses are to be borne by shareholders and creditors and that taxpayer resources are not to be employed to aid or rescue credit institutions in difficulty. (4) A failure by credit institutions to comply with their obligations to pay contributions to DGSs or to provide information to depositors and DGSs could undermine the objective of depositor protection. DGSs or, where relevant, designated authorities should charge the statutory interest rate on the amount of contributions due for late payment of contributions. It is important to improve coordination between DGSs and designated and competent authorities in taking enforcement action against a credit institution that does not comply with its obligations. It is necessary to ensure that DGSs or, where relevant, designated authorities inform the competent authorities in time about any infringement of the obligations of credit institutions under deposit protection rules, so that the competent authorities can use their supervisory powers under Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (4). In addition, in order to ensure that credit institutions comply with the rules laid down in this Directive, Member States should provide for appropriate penalties in cases of infringement of those rules. (5) To support further convergence of DGSs’ practices and assist DGSs in testing their resilience, the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (‘EBA’), established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), should issue guidelines on the performing of stress tests of deposit guarantee schemes. (6) Pursuant to Directive 2014/49/EU, deposits of certain financial institutions, including investment firms, are excluded from coverage by DGSs. However, the funds that those financial institutions receive from their clients and that they deposit in a credit institution on behalf of their clients in the exercise of the services they offer should be protected subject to certain conditions. (7) The categories of depositors that are protected by a DGS are based on the objective of protecting non-professional investors, whereas professional investors are deemed not to need such protection. For that reason, public authorities have been excluded from coverage to date. However, most public authorities, which in some Member States include schools and hospitals, cannot be considered to be professional investors. It is therefore necessary to ensure that deposits of non-professional investors, such as local authorities, small public entities and non-profit institutions controlled by central government or state government, can benefit from the protection offered by a DGS. (8) To ensure that deposits taken for the purpose of compliance with the minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities under Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) are used in their entirety to bear losses and contribute to the recapitalisation of a credit institution in the event of its failure, they should be excluded from coverage by DGSs. In order to ensure equal treatment of such deposits based on objective criteria, they should be excluded from coverage by DGSs regardless of whether the resolution authority has authorised their inclusion in the amount of own funds and eligible liabilities. (9) Deposits resulting from certain events, including real estate transactions by a natural person relating to private residential properties or the payout of certain insurance benefits, can temporarily lead to large deposits. For that reason, Directive 2014/49/EU obliges Member States to ensure that deposits resulting from those events are protected above EUR 100 000 for at least three months, but for no longer than 12 months from the moment the amount has been credited or from the moment when such deposits become legally transferable. To harmonise depositor protection in the Union and to reduce the administrative complexity and legal uncertainty related to the scope of protection of such deposits, it is necessary to align their protection to a minimum amount of EUR 500 000 for all temporary high balances, and for deposits related to real estate transactions to a maximum amount of EUR 2 500 000, for a harmonised duration of six months, in addition to the coverage level of EUR 100 000. After their transposition by Member States, these amounts should be reviewed periodically, and at least once every five years. If appropriate, the Commission should submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a proposal for a Directive to adjust those amounts, taking into account the evolution of real estate prices in different Member States and the need to ensure proportionality and a level playing field across the Union. (10) During a real estate transaction, funds can pass through different accounts prior to the actual settlement of the transaction. Therefore, to protect depositors going through real estate transactions in a homogenous manner, protection of temporary high balances should apply to the proceeds of a sale as well as to the funds deposited for a purchase of a private residential property within a predefined short-term period. (11) To ensure legal certainty, where a Member State allows for the deduction of a depositor’s liabilities to the credit institution when calculating the repayable amount, it is necessary to clarify that only liabilities that have fallen due before the deposits became unavailable may be deducted from the depositor’s eligible deposits, and only to the extent that such set-off is permissible under the applicable statutory and contractual provisions. (12) It is necessary to optimise the operational capacities of DGSs and to reduce their administrative burden. For that reason, it should be established that when it comes to the identification of depositors that are entitled to deposits in beneficiary accounts or to the assessment of whether depositors are eligible for temporary high-balances safeguards, it remains the depositors’ or account holders’ responsibility to demonstrate, by their own means, their entitlement to such deposits. (13) While the repayable amount, as a rule, should be available within seven working days, certain deposits might be subject to a longer repayment period because they require DGSs to verify the claim for repayment. To harmonise the rules across the Union, that longer repayment period should be limited to 20 working days from the date of the receipt by the DGS concerned of the relevant information or documentation. The situations in which that longer repayment period applies should be distinguished from situations where receipt of amounts made available by the DGS within the deadlines laid down in this Directive takes longer due to any operational steps the depositor needs to take. (14) To ensure consistency with, and the implementation of, Union restrictive measures, credit institutions should earmark deposits subject to such measures and DGSs should suspend the repayment of such deposits for as long as those measures apply. (15) The administrative cost related to the repayment of small amounts on dormant accounts can outweigh the benefits for the depositor. It is therefore necessary to specify that DGSs should not be obliged to take active steps to repay deposits held in such accounts below certain thresholds that should be set at national level. The right of depositors to claim such amount should, however, be preserved. In addition, where the same depositor also has other active accounts, DGSs should include the amounts on those accounts in the calculation of the amount to be repaid. (16) DGSs have diverse methods to repay depositors, ranging from cash payouts to electronic transfers. However, to ensure the traceability of the repayment process from DGSs and to stay in line with the objectives of the Union framework on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, depositor repayments via credit transfers should be the default payout method when repayment exceeds the amount of EUR 10 000. (17) Financial institutions are excluded from deposit protection. However, certain financial institutions, including e-money institutions, payment institutions and investment firms, also deposit the funds received from their clients in bank accounts, often on a temporary basis, in order to comply with safeguarding obligations in line with sectorial legislation, including Directives 2009/110/EC (7), 2014/65/EU (8) and (EU) 2015/2366 (9) of the European Parliament and of the Council. Considering the growing role of those financial institutions, DGSs should protect such deposits under the condition that those clients are identified or identifiable. (18) Clients of financial institutions do not always know with which credit institution their financial institution has chosen to deposit their funds. DGSs should therefore not aggregate such deposits with a deposit that the same clients might have in the same credit institution where the financial institution has placed their deposits. Credit institutions may not know the clients entitled to the sums held in the client accounts or be able to check and record individual data of those clients. Depending on the type and business model of the financial institution, there might be circumstances where repaying the client directly could endanger the account holder. Therefore, DGSs should be able to repay amounts to a client account opened by the account holder in another credit institution for the benefit of each client when certain criteria are met. To avoid the risk of double payment in those situations, any claims clients have in relation to sums held on their behalf by the account holder should be reduced by the amount repaid by the DGS to those clients directly. EBA should therefore develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the technical details related to the identification of clients for the purpose of repayment, the criteria for repayment to the account holder for the benefit of each client or to the client directly, and the rules to avoid multiple claims for payouts to the same beneficiary. (19) When repaying depositors, DGSs may encounter situations that give rise to money laundering concerns. DGSs should therefore withhold the payout to a depositor when notified that a financial intelligence unit has suspended a bank or payment account in accordance with the applicable anti-money laundering rules. (20) Directive 2014/49/EU provides that where a DGS makes payments in the context of resolution proceedings, the DGS should have a claim against the credit institution concerned for an amount equal to its payments and that claim should rank pari passu with covered deposits. That provision does not distinguish between a DGS’s contribution when an open-bank bail-in tool is used, and a DGS’s contribution to the financing of a transfer strategy followed by the liquidation of the residual entity. To ensure clarity and legal certainty with respect to the existence and amount of a DGS’s claim in different scenarios, it is necessary to specify that when the DGS contributes to the financing of a transfer strategy in resolution, such as the application of the sale of business tool or of the bridge institution tool, or to the financing of alternative measures, whereby a set of assets, rights and liabilities, including deposits, of the credit institution are transferred to a recipient, that DGS should have a claim against the residual entity in subsequent winding-up proceedings under national law. In order to ensure that the shareholders and creditors of the credit institution remaining in the residual entity effectively absorb the losses of that credit institution, and to improve the possibility of repayments in insolvency to the DGS, the DGS claim should have the same ranking as covered deposits. In the event that the open bank bail-in tool is applied, i.e. the credit institution continues its operations, the DGS is to contribute the amount by which covered deposits would have been written down or converted to absorb the losses in that credit institution, had covered deposits been included within the scope of bail-in. Therefore, the DGS’s contribution to resolution should not result in a claim against the institution under resolution as it would negate the purpose of the DGS’s contribution. (21) To ensure convergence of DGS practices and legal certainty for depositors claiming deposits, and to avoid operational hurdles for DGSs, it is important to set an adequately long period within which depositors can claim the repayment of their deposits where the DGS has not repaid depositors within the deadlines laid down in Directive 2014/49/EU in the case of a payout. Any such claim should be considered by the DGS, including in cases where the claimant has not yet been recognised as a depositor by means of a court decision. (22) Pursuant to Directive 2014/49/EU, Member States were to ensure that by 3 July 2024, the available financial means of a DGS reach a target level of 0,8 % of the amount of the covered deposits of its members. In order to objectively assess whether DGSs fulfil that requirement, a clear reference period should be established to determine the amount of covered deposits and DGSs’ available financial means. (23) In order to ensure the resilience of DGSs, their funds should derive from stable and irrevocable contributions. Certain sources of DGS financing, such as expected recoveries against DGS claims deriving from its interventions, are too contingent to be accounted as available financial means that qualify for the DGS’ target level. In order to harmonise DGSs’ conditions for the fulfilment of their target level and to ensure that DGSs’ available financial means are financed by contributions from the industry, funds that qualify to reach the target level should be distinguished from funds that are considered to be complementary sources of financing, such as borrowed funds resulting in debt liabilities of the DGS. However, foreseeable loan repayments can be planned and factored in regular contributions from DGS members, and debt liabilities of the DGS should therefore not be deducted in full from the available financial means that qualify for the target level. To foster the single market for banking by incentivising liquidity support between DGSs and to facilitate the use of the available financial means of an institutional protection scheme (IPS) recognised as a DGS under Directive 2014/49/EU for IPS measures to prevent the failure of its member institutions while avoiding double counting, an outstanding claim on a loan provided to another DGS or on financial means otherwise made available to the IPS account of that IPS recognised as a DGS should count exclusively for the target level of the lending DGS or of the DGS account of the IPS recognised as a DGS. (24) To ensure predictability and legal certainty concerning the time to reach the DGS target level following the use of DGS funds or an increase of the amount of covered deposits, it is necessary to specify the replenishment period, not only in the event of a substantial reduction in the available financial means which results in the available financial means being less than two thirds of the target level, but also in the event of a smaller reduction which results in the available financial means falling below the target level but still being at more than two thirds of the target level. To avoid the procyclical effects of imposing a high financial burden on banks, the six-year replenishment period in the event of larger reductions should be maintained regardless of whether the cause of those reductions is DGS intervention or a substantial increase of the amount of covered deposits. In the event of smaller reductions, the replenishment period should be two years. However, if the reduction of the target level is very small in proportion to the cost of collecting the relevant contributions, the DGS should be able to extend that two-year period by one year. (25) To ensure consistent application, EBA should develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the methodology for the calculation of the available financial means qualifying for the DGS target level and the details of the process to be followed in order to reach the DGS target level following reduction. (26) The available financial means of a DGS should be immediately usable to face sudden events of payout or other interventions. In view of various practices across the Union, it is appropriate to lay down requirements for DGSs’ funds investment strategies in order to mitigate any negative impact on the ability of any DGS to fulfil its mandate. Where a DGS is not competent to set the investment strategy, the authority, body or entity in the Member State that is responsible for setting the investment strategy should, when setting that investment strategy, also respect the principles of diversification and investment in low-risk assets. To preserve full operational independence and flexibility of the DGS in terms of access to its funds, where Member States allow DGS funds to be deposited with their national central bank or national treasury, those funds should clearly be earmarked and separated for accounting purposes and should be readily available for use by the DGS. (27) To ensure adequately diversified investment of DGS funds and convergent practices, EBA should issue guidelines to DGSs in that respect. (28) The possibility set out in Directive 2014/49/EU to raise the available financial means of a DGS through mandatory contributions paid by member institutions to existing schemes of mandatory contributions established by a Member State to cover the costs related to systemic risk has never been used and should therefore be removed. (29) It is necessary to enhance depositor protection, while avoiding the need for a fire sale of the assets of a DGS and limiting possible negative pro-cyclical effects across the banking sector being caused by the collection of extraordinary contributions. Member States should therefore have the option to allow their DGSs to use alternative funding arrangements from private sources that enable them to obtain at any time short-term funding from sources other than contributions, including before using their available financial means and funds collected through extraordinary contributions. Because credit institutions should primarily bear the cost and responsibility for financing DGSs, alternative funding arrangements from public funds should be allowed only in the form of guarantees or loans to a DGS with maturities not exceeding six years, used as a last resort and only in the event of payout or DGS contribution to resolution. This should not prevent the use of short-term loans from public sources before other alternative funding arrangements in exceptional circumstances to ensure timely repayment to depositors or contribution to resolution. (30) While the primary role of DGSs is the repayment of covered depositors, interventions outside payout can prove more cost-effective for DGSs and ensure uninterrupted access to deposits by facilitating transfer strategies. DGSs may be required to contribute to the resolution of credit institutions. In addition, in some Member States, DGSs may finance preventive measures to restore the long-term viability of credit institutions, or alternative measures in insolvency. Such preventive and alternative measures can play an effective role in the continuum of crisis-management tools, in order to maintain depositor confidence and financial stability. Member States which have not provided for preventive and alternative measures in their national law prior to the date of entry into force of this Directive should therefore consider building the necessary capacity of their DGSs and other relevant authorities in order to implement such measures in the future. Following an assessment of the preparedness of Member States and the experience of the application of preventive and alternative measures, the Commission should present its assessment to the European Parliament and to the Council accompanied, where relevant, by a legislative proposal. While such preventive and alternative measures can significantly improve the protection of deposits, it is necessary to subject such measures to adequate safeguards, including in the form of a harmonised least-cost test, in order to ensure a level playing field and the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of such measures. Such safeguards should only apply to interventions financed with the DGS’s available financial means regulated under this Directive. (31) To ensure a consistent approach to the application of preventive measures by DGSs across the Union, EBA should issue guidelines specifying the conditions to be imposed on credit institutions benefiting from preventive measures, the systems that DGSs are to have in place in order to adequately select and implement preventive measures and monitor their risks, and the detailed arrangements of cooperation between resolution authorities, designated authorities and competent authorities. (32) Measures to prevent the failure of a credit institution through sufficiently early interventions can play an effective role in the continuum of crisis-management tools used to maintain depositor confidence and financial stability. Those measures can take various forms such as capital support measures through own–funds instruments, including Common Equity Tier 1 instruments, or other capital instruments, guarantees, or loans. DGSs have had heterogeneous recourse to those measures. To ensure the continuum of crisis-management tools and recourse to preventive measures in a manner consistent with the resolution framework and State aid rules, it is necessary to specify the timing and conditions for their application. Preventive measures should be used early to prevent deterioration of the financial situation of a credit institution. They are not appropriate once the resolution authority has taken a decision determining that the credit institution is failing or is likely to fail and that there are no measures that could prevent its failure, regardless of the assessment of whether the resolution is in the public interest or not. Designated authorities should confirm whether the conditions for such DGS intervention have been fulfilled. (33) To ensure that preventive measures achieve their objective, credit institutions should be required to present to the competent authority a note outlining the measures that they commit to undertake. That note should contain all elements which aim at preventing the outflow of funds and strengthening the capital and liquidity positions of the credit institution, enabling the credit institution to comply with all the relevant prudential and other regulatory requirements on a forward-looking basis. The note should therefore contain capital-raising measures, including rules on the issuance of rights, the voluntary conversion of subordinated debt instruments, liability-management exercises, capital-generating sales of assets, the securitisation of portfolios, and earnings retention, including dividend bans and bans on the acquisition of stakes in undertakings. Additionally, the note should detail the credit institution’s initial capital shortfall. During the implementation of the measures envisaged in the note, credit institutions should also strengthen their liquidity positions and refrain from aggressive commercial practices, from the distribution of dividends or of variable remuneration, from the repurchasing of own shares, and from calling hybrid capital instruments. The note should also contain a strategy for exiting from the support measures received. Within a reasonable timeframe, the credit institution should provide the competent authority with a business reorganisation plan to secure long-term viability. Competent authorities and resolution authorities are best positioned to assess the relevance and credibility of the measures envisaged in a business reorganisation plan. To ensure that the designated authority of the DGS that is requested by the credit institution to finance a preventive measure is in a position to assess whether all the conditions for preventive measures are fulfilled, the competent authority should cooperate with the designated authority. The further provision of funds to a credit institution should be suspended where the competent authority is not satisfied that the business reorganisation plan is credible and feasible. To ensure a consistent approach to the application of preventive measures across the Union, EBA should issue guidelines to assist credit institutions to draft business reorganisation plans. (34) To ensure that credit institutions receiving support from DGSs in the form of preventive measures deliver on their commitments, competent authorities should request a remediation plan from credit institutions that have failed to fulfil the commitments outlined in their note or business reorganisation plan, failed to repay the amount contributed under the preventive measures, or failed to comply with the exit strategy. Where a competent authority considers that the measures in the remediation plan are not capable of achieving the credit institution’s long-term viability, or where the credit institution fails to comply with the remediation plan, the DGS should not provide any further preventive support to the credit institution and the relevant authorities should carry out an assessment pursuant to Directive 2014/59/EU of whether the institution is failing or is likely to fail. To ensure a consistent approach to the application of preventive measures across the Union, EBA should issue guidelines to assist credit institutions to draft remediation plans. (35) It is necessary to subject a DGS contribution to alternative measures to adequate safeguards in order to ensure a level playing field and the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of such measures. The DGS can only be used to finance the transfer of non-covered deposits and other unsecured liabilities to a recipient if the transfer is strictly necessary and proportionate to avoid contagion, if the transfer would maximise the value of the assets upon sale, or if the preservation of client relationships would maintain confidence. The DGS should not be used to transfer own funds or liabilities ranking below ordinary unsecured liabilities in the national laws governing normal insolvency proceedings. (36) To avoid detrimental effects on competition and on the internal market, it is necessary to lay down that in the case of alternative measures in insolvency, relevant bodies representing a credit institution, such as a liquidator, a receiver, an administrator or another body, or the relevant national authority should make arrangements for the marketing of the business of the credit institution or part of it in an open, transparent and non-discriminatory process, while aiming to maximise, as far as possible, the sale price. The credit institution or the relevant national authority, or any intermediary acting on behalf of that credit institution or relevant national authority, should apply rules that are adequate for the marketing of the assets, rights and liabilities that are to be transferred to potential purchasers. In any event, the use of Member State resources should remain subject to the relevant State aid rules under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), where applicable. (37) Since the main aim of DGSs is to protect covered deposits, DGSs should only be allowed to finance interventions other than payouts where the total amount of such interventions is less than the amount of covered deposits in the credit institution concerned. (38) To further account for the specificities of IPSs recognised as DGSs and to strengthen their effectiveness, Directive 2014/49/EU should provide for the possibility for a DGS to provide a loan or otherwise temporarily transfer the funds regulated by that Directive to the IPS account, which is separate from the DGS account for accounting purposes, for the purpose of granting financial support to a member and in particular to ensure its liquidity and solvency to avoid bankruptcy where necessary, in fulfilment of the objectives of Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10). That should be possible in cases where the provided means are needed to supplement the other means dedicated to ensuring the liquidity and solvency of an affiliated institution in order to avoid its bankruptcy and should be subject to the condition that repayment to the DGS within seven working days, if needed, is a credible prospect. (39) To enhance the harmonised protection of depositors and to specify responsibilities in cross-border situations across the Union, the DGS of the home Member State should ensure the payout to depositors located in Member States where the credit institutions that are its member take deposits and accept other repayable funds by offering deposit services on a cross-border basis without being established in the host Member State. To facilitate the payout operations by the provision of information to depositors and the collection and forwarding of relevant documents, the DGS of the host Member State should be allowed to operate as a point of contact for depositors at credit institutions that exercise the freedom to provide services. (40) Cooperation between DGSs across the Union is vital to ensure fast and cost-efficient depositor repayment where credit institutions conduct banking services through branches in other Member States. In view of technological advancements that promote the use of cross-border transfers and remote identification, the DGS of the home Member State should be allowed to make the repayments directly to depositors at branches located in another Member State, provided that the administrative burden and costs are lower than if the repayment were carried out by the DGS of the host Member State. That flexibility should complement the current cooperation mechanism which requires the DGS of the host Member State to repay depositors in branches on behalf of the DGS of the home Member State. To preserve depositor confidence in both host and home Member State DGSs, EBA should issue guidelines to assist DGSs to participate in such cooperation, inter alia by including a list of circumstances and conditions under which a DGS of the home Member State could decide to repay depositors at branches located in the host Member State. (41) Credit institutions may change affiliation to a DGS or some of their activities may be transferred and thus become subject to another DGS. Directive 2014/49/EU requires that the contributions of a credit institution paid during the 12 months preceding a change of DGS membership, or transfer of activities, are transferred from the DGS of origin to the other DGS in proportion to the amount of covered deposits transferred. To ensure that the transfer of contributions to the receiving DGS is not dependent on divergent national rules regarding invoicing or on the actual date of payment of contributions, the DGS of origin should calculate the amount to be transferred on the basis of contributions due rather than contributions paid. (42) It is necessary to ensure equal protection of depositors across the Union that cannot be fully guaranteed by an equivalence assessment regime of depositor protection in third countries. For that reason, branches in the Union of a credit institution that has its head office in a third country should join a DGS in the Member State where they perform their deposit-taking activity. That requirement would also ensure consistency with Directives 2013/36/EU and 2014/59/EU which aim to introduce a more robust prudential and resolution framework for third-country groups providing banking services in the Union. Conversely, exposure of DGSs to the economic and financial risks of third countries should be avoided. Deposits in branches established in third countries by Union credit institutions should therefore not be protected, unless Member States decide that deposits in those branches are to be covered. (43) Standardised and regular information disclosure enhances awareness among depositors of deposit protection. To align disclosure requirements with technological developments, those requirements should take into account the new digital communication channels whereby credit institutions interact with depositors. Depositors should obtain clear and homogenous information that explains deposit protection while limiting the related administrative burden for credit institutions or DGSs. EBA should develop draft implementing technical standards to specify the content and format of the depositor information sheet to be communicated to depositors and the template information that DGSs, designated authorities or credit institutions are required to communicate to depositors in specific situations, including mergers of credit institutions, determinations that deposits are unavailable, or the repayment of client funds deposits. (44) The merger of credit institutions or the conversion of a subsidiary into a branch or vice versa, might affect the key features of depositor protection. To avoid adverse impacts on depositors with deposits in both merging credit institutions and whose claims to deposit coverage would be reduced by changes to DGS affiliation, all depositors should be informed about such changes and should have the right to withdraw their funds or transfer them to another credit institution up to an amount equal to the lost coverage of their deposits without incurring a penalty. (45) To preserve financial stability, avoid contagion and enable depositors to exercise their rights to claim deposits when applicable, designated authorities, DGSs and credit institutions concerned should inform depositors about deposits becoming unavailable. (46) To increase transparency for depositors and to promote financial robustness and trust among DGSs when fulfilling their mandates, the current reporting requirements should be improved. Building on the current requirements that enable DGSs to request all necessary information from their member institutions to prepare for a payout, DGSs should also be able to request information necessary to prepare for a payout in the context of cross-border cooperation. Upon the request from a DGS, member institutions should be required to provide general information about any material cross-border business in other Member States or, where relevant, also in third countries. Likewise, in order to provide EBA with the suitable range of information on the evolution of the DGSs’ available financial means and on the use of those means, Member States should ensure that DGSs inform EBA on a yearly basis of the amount of covered deposits and available financial means and notify EBA about the circumstances that led to the use of DGS funds either for payouts or for other measures. Finally, to reflect the strengthening of the role of DGSs in banking crisis management in order to facilitate the use of DGS funds in resolution, resolution authorities should provide DGSs with a summary of the resolution plans of credit institutions to increase the general preparedness of those DGSs to make the funds available, to the extent necessary. (47) Technical standards in financial services should facilitate consistent harmonisation and the adequate protection of depositors across the Union. As a body with highly specialised expertise, it is efficient and appropriate to entrust EBA with the development of draft regulatory and implementing technical standards which do not involve policy choices, for adoption by the Commission. (48) Where provided for in this Directive, the Commission should adopt draft regulatory technical standards developed by EBA by means of delegated acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. Such draft regulatory technical standards should specify the technical details related to the identification of clients of financial institutions for payout of client funds deposits, the criteria and circumstances for repayment to the account holder for the benefit of each client or to the client directly, and the rules for avoiding multiple claims for payouts to the same beneficiary. The draft regulatory technical standards should also specify the methodology for the calculation of available financial means qualifying for the target level and the process for DGS replenishment. (49) Where provided for in this Directive, the Commission should adopt draft implementing technical standards developed by EBA by means of implementing acts pursuant to Article 291 TFEU, in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. Such draft implementing technical standards should specify the content and format of the depositor information sheet and the procedure for and content of the information that should be communicated to depositors. The draft implementing technical standards should also specify the procedures to be followed when a credit institution provides information to its DGS and where a DGS or designated authority provides information to EBA, as well as the templates for providing such information. (50) To allow branches in Member States of credit institutions having their head offices outside the Union that are not members of a DGS established in the Union to meet the requirement to join a Union DGS, such branches should be given sufficient time to take the necessary steps to comply with that requirement. (51) Directive 2014/49/EU allows Member States to recognise an IPS as a DGS if it fulfils the criteria laid down in Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and complies with Directive 2014/49/EU. To take into account the specific business model of those IPSs, in particular the relevance of preventive measures at the core of their mandate, it is appropriate to provide for the possibility of Member States to allow for a longer period for IPSs to adapt to the new rules. That possibility for a longer compliance period takes into account the time that IPSs recognised as DGSs need to build financial means on a separate account for accounting purposes dedicated to granting financial support to a member and in particular to ensure its liquidity and solvency to avoid bankruptcy where necessary. (52) To allow DGSs and designated authorities to build up the necessary operational capacity to apply the new rules set out in this Directive on the use of preventive measures, it is appropriate to provide for a deferred application of those rules. (53) Since the objective of this Directive, namely to ensure uniform protection of depositors in the Union, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States due to the risks that diverging national approaches might entail for the integrity of the single market but can rather, by amending rules that are already laid down at Union level, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective. (54) The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11) and delivered an opinion on 12 June 2023 (12). (55) Directive 2014/49/EU should therefore be amended accordingly, HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

← (Text with EEA relevance) · All articles · pbl_1__para →

Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-10-08 · Text as adopted (Official Journal); later amendments are not incorporated in this text.