,
7 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Latest update on my arcane legal query. The legal basis is indeed articles 70-72 TUB (Consolidated Italian Banking Law), as confirmed by the ECB and indicated by Carige itself: gruppocarige.it/grpwps/wcm/con…. So my tweet of yesterday was not inaccurate after all. Phew!
BUT there's still something I don't quite get. Communications from both the ECB (bankingsupervision.europa.eu/press/pr/date/…) & Carige (gruppocarige.it/grpwps/wcm/con…) refer to a decision by the ECB, & don't mention the Bank of Italy. While the text of TUB suggests the BoI is formally the decision-maker.
So my question is: is there formally a BoI decision, and if so, why does nobody refer to it (I found nothing on the BoI's own website)? or if not, how exactly is the @ecb empowered to make the decision directly? (N.B. TUB is here bancaditalia.it/compiti/vigila….)
I'm aware that the SSM Reg (eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex…) explicitly substitutes the ECB for NCAs "under the relevant Union law" (Art. 9(1)). But does that unambiguously also apply to national law transposing an EU directive (BRRD in this case)?
Most probably I'm tying myself in knots for nothing here, and these questions are trivial or irrelevant or both - again, I'm not a lawyer. Anyway, any insight from y'all finance & law tweeps would be gratefully received.
Coda: there's a very informative letter Nouy sent a year ago, explaining the legal issues with SSM early intervention (h/t @gilles2008): bankingsupervision.europa.eu/ecb/pub/pdf/ss…. Still, it does not entirely answer my above question on who (ECB or BoI) formally made the decision on #Carige.
Update - puzzle solved now! Thanks to @griforiseup. See my other recent tweet(s).
