Skip to main content

Proportionality in the Single Rule Book

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of European Banking Union Law

Abstract

This chapter will discuss the principle of proportionality in the Single Rule Book and the pros and cons of diverging regulatory and supervisory rules for different types of institutions. It will do so in light of the current capital requirements by analysing the provisions of the CRR and the CRDIV, as well as relevant Level 2 and 3 acts developed by the European Banking Authority (EBA). It will present and criticise the current plethora of rules and their complexity, which weighs heavily on small and medium-sized institutions. Against this background, the chapter will explore possibilities for a more differentiated approach to regulation and supervision of firms, such as a small banking box or a two-tier banking law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Governmental Publications: Policy Documents

  • Alexy, R. (2014), Constitutional Rights and Proportionality. Revus – Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, 22, 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • BCBS (December 2010a), Capital, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Basel III: A global regulatory framework for more resilient banks and banking systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • BCBS (December 2010b), Liquidity, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Basel III: International framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2009), Presidency Conclusions, Brussels, 18/19 June 2009, 11225/2/09 REV 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Larosière Report (2009), Report of the High-Level Group chaired by Jacques de Larosière dated 25 February 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutch Central Bank (2018), Dutch Central Bank, Proportional and effective supervision, Report, July 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • FSB (2010), Financial Stability Board, Intensity and Effectiveness of SIFI Supervision, Recommendations for enhanced supervision (2 November 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Call for Evidence, European Commission, Call For Evidence; EU Regulatory Framework for Financial Services, 30 September 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Call for Evidence Report, Communication from the Commission, Call for Evidence – EU regulatory framework for financial services, 23 November 2016 (COM(2016) 855 final).

    Google Scholar 

  • CRR2: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, 23 November 2016, COM.

    Google Scholar 

  • CRDV: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2013/36/EU, 23 November 2016, COM.

    Google Scholar 

  • EBA SREP Guidelines: Common procedures and methodologies for the supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP) and supervisory stress testing, EBA/GL/2014/13 as revised and published by EBA in a consolidated version in July 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • ECB (2017), SSM SREP Methodology Booklet 2018, published 19 December 2017 and to be consulted via www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu.

  • ECB (2018), SSM LSI SREP Methodology 2018 edition, published 15 August 2018 and to be consulted via www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu.

  • IFR/IFD: European Commission, Proposal for a regulation on the prudential requirements of investment firms and amending Regulations (EU) No 575/2013, (EU) No 600/2014 and (EU) No 1093/2010 and Proposal for a directive on the prudential supervision of investment firms and amending Directives 2013/36/EU and 2014/65/EU, 20 December 2017.

    Google Scholar 

Academic Literature

  • Boss M., Lederer G., Mujic N. and Schwaiger M. (2018), Proportionality in Banking Regulation, Monetary Policy & the Economy, Q2:2018, 51–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns Ch., Clifton J. and Quaglia L. (2018), Explaining policy change in the EU: financial reform after the crisis, Journal of European Public Policy, 25:5, 728–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Búrca G. (1993), The Principle of Proportionality and its Application in EC Law, Yearbook of European Law, 13, 105–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Dombret A.(19 October 2017), Sometimes small is beautiful, and less is more – a Small Banking Box in EU banking regulation, Speech at a lunch debate on proportionality in banking regulation at the Representation of the State of Hesse to the European Union, Brussels, available at https://www.bis.org/review/r171020e.htm (last visited 19 October 2018)

  • Howarth D. and Quaglia L. (2016), Internationalised banking, alternative banks and the Single Supervisory Mechanism, West European Politics, 39:3, 438–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jans J. H. (2000), Proportionality Revisited, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 27, 239–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joosen B., Lamandini M., Lehmann M, Lieverse K. and Tirado I. (2018), Stability, Flexibility and Proportionality: Towards a Two-Tiered European Banking Law?, European Banking Institute Working Paper Series 2018, no. 20

    Google Scholar 

  • Lautenschläger S. (2017), Is Small Beautiful? Supervision, regulation and the size of banks, Statement at an IMF seminar, Washington DC, 14 October 2017, available at https://www.bis.org/review/r171018b.htm (last visited 19 October 2018)

  • Moloney N. (2014), European Banking Union: Assessing its Risks and Resilience, Common Market Law Review, 51, 1609–1670

    Google Scholar 

  • Riles A. (2014), Managing Regulatory Arbitrage: A Conflict of Laws Approach, Cornell International Law Journal, 47, 63, 68–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringe W.-G. (2016), Regulatory Competition in Global Financial Markets — The Case for a Special Resolution Regime, Annals of Corporate Governance, 1, 175–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh D. (2015), The Centralisation of European Financial Regulation and Supervision: Is There a Need for a Single Enforcement Handbook?, European Business Organization Law Review, 16, 439–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Zetzsche D. (2016), Competitiveness of Financial Centers in Light of Financial and Tax Law Equivalence Requirements, E. Avgouleas, R. P. Buckley, D. W. Arner, Reconceptualizing Global Finance and Its Regulation, Cambridge University Press, p. 390–418

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Bart Joosen or Matthias Lehmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Joosen, B., Lehmann, M. (2019). Proportionality in the Single Rule Book. In: Chiti, M.P., Santoro, V. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of European Banking Union Law. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13475-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13475-4_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-13474-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-13475-4

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics