1

2

European Systemic Risk Board

Governance: Steering Committee: 3 central bankers, 3 chairs of

ESAs, 1 Commissioners, 1 Finance Minister delegate General Board Only consultative

Tasks: define, identify and prioritise all macro-financial risks; issue risk warnings and give recommendations to policy

makers, supervisors and public; monitor follow-up of the risk warnings; liaise with international counterparts;

Based within ECB

3

European Supervisory Authorities

Governance: 1 Steering Committee of chairs of 3 ESAs Per authority: Chairs of 27 national functional

supervisors Tasks:

single rulebook; harmonise supervisory practices; strengthen the oversight of cross-border groups

(participate and mediate in colleges) and supervise pan-European entities (CRAs, CSDs, CCPs);

establish a central European supervisory database. Upgrade of CEBS, CESR, CEIOPS

4

Legal basis

Best would be EU Treaty change, but this is excluded

Within current Treaty: Art. 95: to complete single market, can be

adopted in QMV, but with EP co-decision Art. 308: unanimity, only EP consent Art. 105.6: to extend ECB powers for banking

supervision, but with unanimity Pushes to limits of EU competence In pract. 4 regulations and 1 Council decision

5

EU agencies

28 EU regulatory agencies exist today e.g. Food agency, Pharmaceutical agency,

Eurocontrol No general rule regarding their powers,

governance, funding, etc. Average employment 200 persons Legal base could be challenged:

the authorities could never have more competences than the delegating authority

See Meroni (1958) & Enisa (2004) ECJ cases

6

Evaluation

ESRB: Main problem is of conceptual and institutional

nature Better to have it as consultative only committee,

reduces conflicts with central bank (and supervisors) difficulty of predicting systemic risks

Cfr. debate on US Systemic Risk Council

ESFS: Enormous workload ahead: main problem is of

organisational and operational nature Will member states accept supervisory powers? Mediation in colleges has fiscal implications

7

Comparing EU and US debate

US: Debate mainly focused on Systemic Risk Council Strengthening of supervisory powers of Fed other reforms disappointing

EU: Debate mainly focused on ESFS No formal increase in powers of ECB, maintains clear

distinction btw. supervisory and monetary Could in long term lead to more unified structure, but

maintains too much of a functional approach