The Transparency of the European Central Bank in the Single Supervisory Mechanism

Coman-Kund, Florin; Karatzia, Anastasia; Amtenbrink, Fabian Article The Transparency of the European Central Bank in the Single Supervisory Mechanism Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital Provided in Cooperation with: Duncker & Humblot, Berlin Suggested Citation: Coman-Kund, Florin; Karatzia, Anastasia; Amtenbrink, Fabian (2018) : The Transparency of the European Central Bank in the Single Supervisory Mechanism, Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital, ISSN 2199-1235, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, Vol. 51, Iss. 1, pp. 55-72, https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.51.1.55 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/293828 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Credit and Capital Markets 1 / 2018 The Transparency of the European Central Bank in the Single Supervisory Mechanism Florin Coman-Kund, Anastasia Karatzia and Fabian Amtenbrink* Abstract Not least due to the relatively short period of existence of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM), the transparency of the European Central Bank (ECB) in the SSM has not attracted significant attention from legal scholarship. This contribution seeks to close this gap to some extent by mapping out the ECB’s transparency regime within the SSM and illustrating, where relevant, the notable differences not only with the transparency regime applicable in the area of monetary policy, but also the general transparency regime of the EU. Die Transparenz der Europäischen Zentralbank im Einheitlichen Bankenaufsichtsmechanismus Zusammenfassung Rechtswissenschaftliche Abhandlungen haben den Transparenzbestimmungen des einheitlichen Aufsichtsmechanismus (Single Supervisory Mechanism– SSM) noch keine allzu große Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt. Dieser kurze Beitrag zielt darauf ab diese Lücke ein Stück weit zu schließen. Dazu werden die im Rahmen des SSM auf die EZB anzuwendenen Transparenzbestimmungen einer ersten Analyse unterzogen, sowie Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede zu den auf die europäische Währungspolitik anwendbaren Regelungen * Dr. Florin Coman-Kund, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Law, Department of International and EU Law, P.O. Box 1738, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands, E-mail: [email protected]. Dr. Anastasia Karatzia, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Law, Department of International and EU Law, P.O. Box 1738, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands, E-mail: [email protected]. Prof. Dr. Fabian Amtenbrink, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Law, Department of International and EU Law, P.O. Box 1738, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands, E-mail: [email protected]. We would like to thank the anonymous reviewer and the participants of the conference held at Universität Duisburg-Essen in April 2017, for their valuable comments. The usual disclaimer applies. Credit and Capital Markets, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp. 55–72 Scientific Papers OPEN ACCESS | Licensed under CC BY 4.0 | https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ DOI https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.51.1.55 | Generated on 2023-01-16 13:27:26 56 Florin Coman-Kund, Anastasia Karatzia and Fabian Amtenbrink Credit and Capital Markets 1 / 2018 und darüber hinaus auch zu den allgemeinen primär- und sekundärrechtlichen Bestimmungen der EU aufgezeigt. Keywords: Transparency, Banking Supervision, European Central Bank JEL Classification: K2, K4, G28 I. Introduction The establishment of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) by Regulation 1024 / 2013 (SSM Regulation) as a main pillar of the European Banking Union has seen the expansion of the tasks of the European Central Bank (ECB) beyond the sphere of monetary policy to also include banking supervision. In a nutshell, under the new EU system of banking supervision, the ECB is entrusted with direct supervisory powers over significant credit institutions, primarily in the euro area, whereas the National Supervisory Authorities (NSAs) are in principle in charge of the supervision of all other credit institutions. While the principle of transparency in the EU in general, as well as more specifically the ECB’s transparency in its monetary function, have attracted significant attention in legal and political-economy scholarship, less attention has been placed until now on the ECB’s transparency as a banking supervisor. This contribution aims at addressing this gap within the confines of the available space by critically reviewing the ECB’s transparency regime within the SSM. To this end, the difficulties with defining transparency in the context of Union law are identified first, followed by a brief tour d’horizon of the EU general transparency regime. Thereafter, the article examines the transparency requirements applicable to the ECB in the context of monetary policy as the lex generalis regarding ECB’s transparency regime, and then it focusses on the specific features that characterise the transparency of the ECB within the SSM. Overall, the aim of the evaluation is not only to map the ECB’s transparency regime within the SSM, but also to illustrate– where relevant– its specific features vis-à-vis the transparency regime applying to the ECB in monetary policy and the general EU transparency regime. In doing so, this contribution seeks to provide a starting point for further discussion and research on the topic of transparency in EU banking supervision. II. Transparency as a Legal Concept in Union Law: In Search of a Definition While the principle of transparency is undeniably part of the EU acquis, its precise meaning, content, and scope are difficult to determine with precision. To be sure, some core elements of transparency in EU law, such as access to doc- OPEN ACCESS | Licensed under CC BY 4.0 | https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ DOI https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.51.1.55 | Generated on 2023-01-16 13:27:26 The Transparency of the ECB in the Single Supervisory Mechanism 57 Credit and Capital Markets 1 / 2018 uments, transparency of proceedings of EU institutions and bodies, or the duty to state reasons, can be easily identified. Yet, the overall content and application of this principle remain elusive, context-based, and subject to variations (Alemanno 2014). Some authors have claimed that transparency gains concrete expression by the principle of openness (Lenaerts 2013; Alemanno 2014), while others have characterised transparency as “the biggest component and precondition of openness” (Alemanno 2014), “a general objective of the European Union” (Craig 2012), an essential element “for the exercise of the rule of law”, and even more broadly as a “precondition for establishing an accountable legal and political system” (Hofmann 2014). Transparency obligations for EU institutions are also connected with citizens’ individual rights in so far as these obligations determine “who has the right to know who decides, how, about what, and with what outcome” (Héritier 2003). The common denominator in the above definitions is that transparency is perceived– or at least is promoted– as a way to increase the visibility and accessibility of EU institutions to the public, allowing citizens to scrutinise policymaking, thereby contributing to the EU institutions’ accountability to the public and enhancing the legitimacy of the EU (Curtin / Meijer 2006). Turning to primary Union law, Article 15 TFEU refers to two dimensions of transparency (Alemanno 2014; Curtin / Meijer 2006). The first paragraph refers to the so-called ‘active transparency’: a generic obligation on the EU institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies to “conduct their work as openly as possible”. The second, passive dimension of transparency is articulated in the third paragraph of Article 15 TFEU and stands out in the discourse on EU institutions’ transparency. It concerns the right of access to documents, reinforced by Article 42 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is bestowed not only upon EU citizens but also on any natural or legal person living or having their registered office in a Member State. The details and limitations of the right of access to documents are governed by Regulation 1049 / 2001 (General ‘Access to Documents’ Regulation). This secondary Union law act, which emphasises “deliberativeness, legitimacy building and accountability” (Adamski 2014) as the objectives of openness, has become the point of reference for the transparency of EU institutions. Further details about the transparency framework applying to each institution, body, office or agency are provided in separate Rules of Procedure of the respective bodies, for example Decision ECB / 2004 / 3 or EBA DC 036 27 of 2011, which build on Regulation 1049 / 2001. Yet, despite the importance placed by primary Union law on the principle of transparency, the diversity stemming from the application of separate Rules of Procedure to each institution, as well as the largely contextual nature of the rules governing transparency, signal the absence of a single transparency regime across EU institutions, bodies, and agencies (Alemanno 2014). OPEN ACCESS | Licensed under CC BY 4.0 | https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ DOI https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.51.1.55 | Generated on 2023-01-16 13:27:26 58 Florin Coman-Kund, Anastasia Karatzia and Fabian Amtenbrink Credit and Capital Markets 1 / 2018 What is more, transparency cannot be perceived as an absolute principle, as in some circumstances it can be restricted or even put aside in order to prioritise conflicting norms or to protect fundamental rights. This rationale is reflected in Article 15 TFEU, which stipulates that the right of access to documents is not without limits, as well as in the limitations imposed by Regulation 1049 / 2001 and in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Labayle (2013) gives an overview of these cases. One of the most notable limits concerns the confidentiality mandated by data protection. According to Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049 / 2001, “[t]he privacy and integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data” is a ground to refuse access without even balancing these interests against a potentially overriding public interest in disclosure; the general EU personal data protection regime is laid down by Regulation (EU) 2016 / 679 (the General Data Protection Regulation), whilst Regulation (EC) 45 / 2001 ensures the protection of individuals regarding the processing of personal data by EU institutions and bodies. The specific features of the various EU policy areas and activities of EU institutions and bodies, as well as the different objectives of transparency lead to further complexity in mapping out transparency. For instance, transparency requirements are likely to be applied and assessed differently depending on whether they pertain to processes belonging to the ‘public sphere’, or to highly sensitive policy areas such as attainment of monetary policy objectives, preserving the stability of the EU financial system, combatting serious crime, or engaging in international diplomacy. For example, in Sophie in’t Veld v European Commission regarding access to documents about international agreements, the General Court dismissed the case by referring to the fact that the disclosure of documents would have a negative effect on the negotiating position of the EU. Similarly, as illustrated by Article 15(3) TFEU and Regulation 1049 / 2001, transparency requirements may fully apply to daily aspects of EU institutions’ activities and only marginally to core aspects entailing highly technical assessments or wide discretion by (certain) institutions. This distinction has been confirmed by the General Court specifically with regard to the ECB in Thesing and Bloom berg Finance v ECB (the Bloomberg case). As will be subsequently highlighted, transparency is lacking a precise definition also in the context of (EU) central banking (Crowe / Meade 2008). III. Transparency in (EU) Central Banking In central bank literature, transparency has been described as being instrumental for communicating monetary policy decisions to market participants (Issing 1999) and as being necessary to explain the decision-making process and OPEN ACCESS | Licensed under CC BY 4.0 | https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ DOI https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.51.1.55 | Generated on 2023-01-16 13:27:26 The Transparency of the ECB in the Single Supervisory Mechanism 59 Credit and Capital Markets 1 / 2018 its outcomes to the public (Buiter 1999). Policy-oriented literature refers to transparency in more specific terms, as a concept concerning either the provision of information from the central bank or the way in which the public understands monetary policy (De Haan / Amtenbrink 2003). A transparent central bank is seen as one that “provides at all times sufficient information for the public to understand the policy regime, to check whether the bank’s actions match the regime and to pass judgment on its performance” (ICMB 2001). The ECB itself describes transparency as entailing that “the central bank provides the general public and the markets with all relevant information on its strategy, assessments and policy decisions as well as its procedures in an open, clear and timely manner” (ECB website:Transparency). Various transparency elements, aspects and indicators have been advanced for the purpose of constructing an analytical framework or yardstick in order to measure the actual degree of central banking transparency both for individual central bank systems, but also in a comparative perspective. Thus, according to one view (Angeloni 2015) the essential elements of central banking transparency pertain to clarity (communication should be expressed in accessible language), substantive content (pertinent information should be given), and openness to public scrutiny (the reasoning behind policy actions should be communicated, including disclosure of models, methodologies, and data used by the central bank). Others identify various aspects of transparency depending on the need to provide information on the different elements of the policy-making process linked to monetary policy. According to a widely embraced view (Geraats 2001 and 2002; Dincer / Eichengreen 2014), a distinction can be drawn between political transparency (openness about policy objectives), economic transparency (openness about data models and forecasts), procedural transparency (openness about the way decisions are made), policy transparency (openness about policy implications), and operational transparency (openness about implementation of decisions of central banks). Some restrict the analysis of transparency only to few of the transparency aspects mentioned above (Braun 2017). Finally, De Haan / Amtenbrink / Waller (2014) have suggested that transparency of central banks should be assessed by focussing on disclosure of the policymaking process, and by identifying specific indicators regarding the objectives, strategy and communication of central banks. One notable characteristic of central bank transparency scholarship as compared to generic analyses of transparency is that its comprehensive and analytical approach encompasses multifarious aspects of central banking activities, and attempts to define concrete criteria and indicators with a view to quantify transparency. Another specific feature consists of highlighting the limits and negative side-effects of transparency in central banking (Angeloni 2015; Lefort 2006). In OPEN ACCESS | Licensed under CC BY 4.0 | https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ DOI https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.51.1.55 | Generated on 2023-01-16 13:27:26 60 Florin Coman-Kund, Anastasia Karatzia and Fabian Amtenbrink Credit and Capital Markets 1 / 2018 this context, arguments pointing to the need to protect central banks from external interferences, the risk to provoke adverse market reactions or to endanger financial stability or other policy aims, the duty to protect sensitive and confidential information or to keep professional secrecy are routinely raised in order to justify limitations on access to information and on transparency duties in general. Against this background, the risk for central banks to unduly restrict the scope of their transparency obligations by excessively relying on conflicting interests and possible adverse consequences should not be discarded altogether. In this regard, a general commandment of the principle of transparency would require that, while acknowledging that there might be sound reasons for a central bank not to reveal certain information, “non-disclosure should be the exception rather than the rule” (Lefort 2006). It is presently submitted that such a requirement should be enshrined and reflected accordingly in the legal framework governing central bank’s transparency and access to information. IV. The ‘General Regime’ of the ECB’s Transparency Prior to the establishment of the SSM, the debate on the transparency of the ECB was naturally linked to the ECB’s primary function as laid down in Article 127(1) TFEU, that is the conduct of the single monetary policy for the euro area. Interestingly, compared to other Union institutions, the transparency regime applicable to the ECB is already limited by specific provisions in primary EU law. Article 15(3) TFEU, for example, includes a derogation from the general EU transparency regime in the case of the ECB. This provision limits the application of openness and transparency requirements to the exercise of the ECB’s administrative tasks, thus excluding the conduct of monetary policy as such (Curtin 2016). Nonetheless, the exact scope and meaning of ECB’s ‘administrative tasks’ in the context of transparency obligations is rather unclear. Unfortunately, in the Bloomberg case concerning the access to ECB’s documents, the General Court missed the opportunity to provide further clarifications on this point. Other primary Union law provisions further reveal that important aspects of the ECB’s transparency are ultimately left at the institution’s own discretion. For instance, Article 132(2) TFEU provides that the ECB “may decide” to publish its decisions, recommendations and opinions. In the same vein, Article 10(4) of the ECB Statute clearly states that the proceedings of the meetings of the Governing Council are confidential, whilst allowing this body to make the outcome of its deliberations public on its own will (Buiter 1999; critically on the lack of publication of minutes by the ECB see Amtenbrink 1999). In fact, it is only since 2015 that the ECB publishes the so-called monetary policy accounts of the decision-making meetings of its Governing Council. It is questionable whether in the longer term it remains justified for the ECB to be excluded from the provi- OPEN ACCESS | Licensed under CC BY 4.0 | https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ DOI https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.51.1.55 | Generated on 2023-01-16 13:27:26 The Transparency of the ECB in the Single Supervisory Mechanism 61 Credit and Capital Markets 1 / 2018 sions of the General ‘Access to Documents’ Regulation with regard to its policy-making and other tasks. The ECB has a duty to publish quarterly activity reports, weekly financial statements, its annual accounts (Article 26.2 ECB Statute), and annual activity reports on its activities and monetary policy to be circulated to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the European Council (Article 15 ECB Statute). Additionally, Article 284(3) TFEU requires the President of the ECB to present the annual report to the Council and the European Parliament, which may decide to hold a debate on that basis. According to the same provision, the President and other members of the ECB’s Executive Board may be heard by the European Parliament’s competent committees. The ECB’s transparency obligations are counterbalanced by professional secrecy duties imposed on its staff, as follows from Article 284(3) TFEU and Article 37 of the ECB Statute. The ECB’s Rules of Procedure (RoP) provide further details regarding the way in which the ECB should pursue active transparency through general communications and announcements of its decisions, and about the applicable confidentiality and professional secrecy requirements (Articles 22 and 23 RoP). With regard to the latter, it is interesting to note that, as compared to Article 10.4 of the ECB Statute, the ECB RoP extend confidentiality of proceedings to all of the ECB’s decision-making bodies, including any committee or group established by them. In all cases, the outcomes of deliberations can be made public by the President of the ECB upon prior authorization by the Governing Council (Article 23(1) RoP). Additional limitations to ECB’s transparency are stipulated in the ECB’s Decision on access to documents (Decision ECB / 2004 / 3). As such, a question arises concerning the relation between this Decision and the General ‘Access to Documents’ Regulation, in particular since the former includes an extended list of exceptions on the ground of protecting the public interest as compared to Regulation 1049 / 2001 (Article 4(1)(a) Decision ECB / 2004 / 3; Braun 2017). This is all the more so given that the Preamble to the ECB’s Decision on access to documents states that the principles and limits set out by Regulation 1049 / 2001 were established at the moment when the ECB was not yet a Union institution. Technically speaking, therefore, the ECB was initially not covered by that Regulation. It can be argued though that, post-Lisbon, the scope of Regulation 1049 / 2001 extends fully to the ECB as a Union institution. Consequently, in so far as the ECB’s Decision on access to documents can be considered as lex specialis by reference to Regulation 1049 / 2001, it should still comply with the principles and provisions of the latter Union legislative act, at least with regard to ECB’s administrative tasks pursuant to Article 15(3) TFEU (Bloomberg case, para.44). In practice, the ECB has been praised for increasing its transparency and even going beyond what is required by its legal framework (Braun 2017). The ECB OPEN ACCESS | Licensed under CC BY 4.0 | https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ DOI https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.51.1.55 | Generated on 2023-01-16 13:27:26 62 Florin Coman-Kund, Anastasia Karatzia and Fabian Amtenbrink Credit and Capital Markets 1 / 2018 ranks high in some transparency indexes, being included in the group with the most transparent central banks in the world, whilst others offer a more nuanced assessment of ECB’s transparency practices (De Haan / Amtenbrink / Waller 2014). In line with its formal legal framework, the ECB publishes weekly financial statements, its annual accounts, as well as quarterly and annual activity reports. As mentioned previously, the ECB currently publishes ‘monetary policy accounts’ of the decision-making meetings of its Governing Council. Furthermore, the President and members of the ECB’s Executive Board attend hearings before the European Parliament throughout the year. The practice of quarterly appearances of the ECB president before the European Parliament’s economic and monetary affairs committee (monetary dialogue), which has been taking place since the coming into operation of the ECB, is also noteworthy (Eijffinger / Mujagic 2004; Amtenbrink / Van Duin 2009; Collignon / Diessner 2016). Other examples of transparency practices include, but are not limited to, the publication of the calendar of the Governing Council’s monetary policy and non-mon- etary policy meetings, the publication of an Economic Bulletin, which presents economic and monetary information upon which the Governing Council’s policy decisions are based, and the publication of the diaries of the members of the Executive Board (Braun 2017). Even though the steps taken by the ECB to multiply communication and reporting channels suggest overall increased transparency in the area of monetary policy, it has also been pointed out that the quality of the information disclosed by the ECB (e. g. the content and clarity of the information) might actually hamper transparency thereby affecting the predictability of ECB’s policy decisions (De Haan / Amtenbrink / Waller 2014). What is more, as regards the ECB practice regarding access to documents, whilst no detailed statistics are publicly available on this issue, it appears that few requests actually lead to documents being disclosed (Braun 2017). V. Unpacking ECB’s Transparency in the SSM Whilst the issue of transparency in banking supervision may not yet have attracted the same amount of attention as in the case of monetary policy, this is not to say that it has been neglected by standard setters or in the academic literature. In fact, half of the IMF’s ‘Code of Good Practices on Transparency in Monetary and Financial Policies: Declaration of Principles’ is dedicated to the ‘Good Transparency Practices for Financial Policies by Financial Agencies’. The code thus defines standards for the clarity of roles, tasks and objectives of financial agencies responsible for financial policies, the open process for formulating and reporting of financial policies, and the public availability of information on financial policies (IMF 1999). In the literature, the transparency of fi- OPEN ACCESS | Licensed under CC BY 4.0 | https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ DOI https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.51.1.55 | Generated on 2023-01-16 13:27:26 The Transparency of the ECB in the Single Supervisory Mechanism 69 Credit and Capital Markets 1 / 2018 function. Whereas factors specific to banking supervision may justify some of the peculiarities and variations in the ECB’s transparency regime within the SSM, a more elaborated legal-analytical framework is needed in order to explain and assess the transparency of the ECB as a banking supervisor. Such a legal-analytical blueprint should enable a more thorough examination of the ECB’s transparency regime within the SSM vis-à-vis the general EU transparency regime. At the same time, it should take into consideration the instrumental value of transparency, as well as the extent to which the objectives sought by transparency and the different recipients of the ECB’s various transparency initiatives can determine the scope and the application of the relevant legal framework. References 1. Literature Adamski, D. (2014): Access to Documents, Accountability and the Rule of Law– Do Private Watchdogs matter? European Law Journal, Vol. 20(4) pp. 520–543. Alemanno, A. (2014): Unpacking the principle of openness in EU law: transparency, participation and democracy. European Law Review, Vol. 39(1) pp. 72–90. Amtenbrink, F. (1999): The Democratic Accountability of Central Banks (Bloomsbury: Hart). Amtenbrink, F. / Lastra, M. R. (2008): Securing Democratic Accountability of Financial Regulatory Agencies– a Theoretical Framework in De Mulder (ed.), Mitigating Risk in the Context of Safety and Security– How Relevant is a Rationale Approach? (Rotterdam: ESL / OMV) pp. 115–132. Amtenbrink, F. / Markakis, M. (2017): Towards a Meaningful Prudential Supervision Dialogue in the Euro Area? A Study of the Interaction between the European Parliament and the European Central Bank in the Single Supervisory Mechanism. ADEMU Working Paper Series, WP 2017/081. Amtenbrink, F. / Van Duin, K. (2009): The European Central Bank before the European Parliament: Theory and Practice after Ten Years of Monetary Dialogue. European Law Review, Vol. 34(4) pp. 561–583. Angeloni, I. (2015): Transparency and Banking Supervision <www.bankingsupervision. europa.eu / press / speeches / date / 2015 / html / se150127.en.html>, last accessed on 5 February 2018. Blinder, A. / Goodhart, C. / Hildebrand, P. / Lipton, D. / Wyplosz, C. (2001): International Centre for Monetary and Banking Studies (ICHB) Report: How Do Central Banks Talk? <http: / / www.icmb.ch / ICHB / Publications_files / Geneva%203%20.pdf>, last accessed on 5 February 2018. Braun, B. (2017): Transparency International EU Report: Two sides of the same coin? Independence and Accountability of the European Central Bank. OPEN ACCESS | Licensed under CC BY 4.0 | https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ DOI https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.51.1.55 | Generated on 2023-01-16 13:27:26 70 Florin Coman-Kund, Anastasia Karatzia and Fabian Amtenbrink Credit and Capital Markets 1 / 2018 Buiter, W. H. (1999): Alice in Euroland. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 37(2) pp. 181–209. Collignon, S. / Diessner, S. (2016): The ECB’s Monetary Dialogue with the European Parliament: Efficiency and Accountability during the Euro Crisis? Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 54 pp. 1296–1312. Craig, P. (2012): EU Administrative Law (Oxford: OUP). Crowe, C. / Meade, E. E. (2008): Central Bank Independence and Transparency: Evolution and Effectiveness. IMF Working Paper 08 / 119. Curtin, D. (2016): Openness, Transparency and the Right of Access to Documents in the EU. In-depth Study for the European Parliament, DG Internal Policies, Policy Department C. Curtin, D. / Meijer, A. J. (2006): Does Transparency Strengthen Legitimacy? Information Polity, Vol. 11 pp. 109–122. De Haan, J. / Amtenbrink, F. (2003): A Non-transparent ECB: Who is to Blame? SSRN Working Paper Series. De Haan, J. / Amtenbrink, F. / Waller, S. (2014): The Transparency and Credibility of the European Central Bank. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 42(4) pp. 777–782. Dincerl N. N. / Eichengreen, B. (2014): Central Bank Transparency and Independence: Updates and New Measures. International Journal of Central Banking, Vol. 10(1) pp. 189–253. Eijffinger, S. C. W. / Mujagic, E. (2004): An Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Monetary Dialogue on the ECB’s Accountability and Transparency: A Qualitative Approach. Intereconomics, Vol.39(4) pp. 190–203. Geraats, P. (2002): Central Bank Transparency. Economic Journal, Vol. 112(483) 532–565. – (2001): Why adopt transparency? The Publication of Central Bank Forecasts. ECB Working Paper No 41 / 2001. Goodhart, C. (2001): Regulating the Regulator– An Economist’s Perspective on Accountability and Control in Ferran E. and Goodhart C. (eds), Regulating Financial Services and Markets in the 21st Century (Bloomsbury: Hart) pp. 151–164. Héritier, A. (2003): Composite Democracy in Europe: the Role of Transparency and Access to Information. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 10(5) pp. 814–833. Hofmann, H. C. H. (2014) General principles of EU law and EU administrative law in S. Peers C. Barnard (eds) (2014) European Union Law (Oxford: OUP) pp. 196–225. International Monetary Fund (1999): Code of Good Practices on Transparency in Monetary and Financial Policies: Declaration of Principles. <www.imf.org / external / np / mae / mft / code / #goodtrans2>, last accessed on 5 February 2018. Issing, O. (1999): The Eurosystem: Transparent and Accountable or ‘Willem in Euroland’. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 37(3) pp. 503–519. Labayle, H. (2013): Openness, Transparency and Access to Documents and Information in the European Union. Study for the European Parliament Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs Civil Liberties, Justice And Home Affairs. OPEN ACCESS | Licensed under CC BY 4.0 | https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ DOI https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.51.1.55 | Generated on 2023-01-16 13:27:26 The Transparency of the ECB in the Single Supervisory Mechanism 71 Credit and Capital Markets 1 / 2018 Lefort, D. (2006): Transparency and Accountability of Central Banks <www.cemla.org / le gales / docs / leg-06-lefort.pdf >, last accessed on 5 February 2018. Lenaerts, K. (2013): The Principle of Democracy in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 62(2) pp. 271–315. Liedorp, F. / Mosch, R. / van der Cruijsen, C. / De Haan, J. (2013): Transparency of Banking Supervisors. IMF Economic Review, Vol. 61(2) pp. 310–335. Masciandaro, D. / Quintyn, M. / Taylor, M. (2007): Financial Supervisory Independence and Accountability– Exploring the Determinants. IMF Working Paper WP / 08 / 147. 2. Legislation and Other Official Documents Regulation (EU) 2016 / 679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95 / 46 / EC (2016) OJ L 119 / 1 (General Data Protectioin Regulation). ECB Annual Report on supervisory activities 2016, p. 63 <www.bankingsupervision. europa.eu / ecb / pub / pdf / ssmar2016.en.pdf?e6209395b9450c2655f04a4e24ffa463>, last accessed on 5 Februar 2018. Regulation (EU) 468 / 2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (ECB / 2014 / 17) (2014) OJ L 141 / 1. Regulation (EU) 1024 / 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, Council and Commission documents (2013) OJ L 287 / 63 (SSM Regulation). Directive 2013 / 36 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit insitutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002 / 87 / EC and repealing Directives 2006 / 48 / EC and 2006 / 49 / EC [2013] OJ L 176 / 338 (Capital Requirements Directive or CRO IV). Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament and the European Central Bank on the practical modalities of the exercise of democratic accountability and oversight over the exercise of the tasks conferred on the ECB within the framework of the Single Super visory Mechanism (2013 / 694 / EU). Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of the European Union and the ECB on the cooperation on procedures related to the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM)11.12.2013. European Banking Authority Decision on Access to Documents (2011) EBA DC 036 27. Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on Public Access to European Central Bank Documents (ECB / 2004 / 3) (2004) OJ L 80 / 42. Decision of the ECB of 19 February 2004 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank (ECB / 2004 / 2) (2004) OJ L 80 / 33. OPEN ACCESS | Licensed under CC BY 4.0 | https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ DOI https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.51.1.55 | Generated on 2023-01-16 13:27:26 72 Florin Coman-Kund, Anastasia Karatzia and Fabian Amtenbrink Credit and Capital Markets 1 / 2018 Regulation (EC) 1049 / 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (2001) OJ L 145 / 43. Regulation (EC) 45 / 2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (2001) OJ L 8 / 1. 3. Case Law Case T-301 / 10, Sophie in’t Veld v European Commission EU:T:2013:135. Case T-590 / 10, Thesing and Bloomberg Finance v ECB EU:T:2012:635. OPEN ACCESS | Licensed under CC BY 4.0 | https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ DOI https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.51.1.55 | Generated on 2023-01-16 13:27:26