중동부유럽

As a result of the crisis it now seems that jurisdictions feel the need to have a special framework to deal with insolvent banks. Banking Union is a key part of the policy, economics, legal measures to put Europe back on the path of economic recovery and growth. It is a crucial step to overcome the current financial fragmentation and uncertainty, also to break the link between the sovereigns and the banks. 2013 July the Commission proposed a Regulation on a Single Resolution Mechanism . It also could be said that SRM is a crucial step re-lunch cross-border banking activity in the Single Market to the benefit of both Euro Area and non-Euro Area Member States. The SRM will apply the single rulebook on bank resolution set out in the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive in respect of ailing banks of the participating Member States in the mechanism. However, notwithstanding the fact that European finance ministers approved a general approach on the single resolution mechanism (under the Lithuania Presidency period) it’s still one of the most sensitive and complicated files in EU co-legislators history. The paper reviews the file on the Single Resolution Mechanism (general approach), the legal perspective of that file in the context of Banking Union and identifies a legal perspective of SRM. This paper seeks to provide an overview and preliminary legal assessment of the SRM proposal from the legal perspective. Purpose– to review the file on the Single Resolution Mechanism in the context of Banking union, the influence of that file and identify legal issues by implementing SRM. Design/methodology/approach– purposely to explore the actual meaning of legal norms and legislations as well as content and to analyze the literature the systematic and document analyses, synthesis, comparative, critical thought methods were used. Findings– potential legal basis problems might go from the degree of the centralization and the appropriation with the primary law. First, SRM proposal might require changes to primary law. Second, it is unclear is proposal in line with the legal basis of Article 114 TFEU (especially suggested comprehensive transfer of executive competences from Member States to the Commission) which allows for the harmonization of law in the EU; Also it could cause the interest of conflict with state of primary law. Another possible legal issue- boundary between the Commission becoming the Resolution Authority. Further, legal risk pertains to resolution decisions that may factually impact on national budgets, it is reliable that much stronger budget protection must be given to participating Member States in order to ensure legitimacy and compliances with constitutional requirements of Member States; Last but not least, the legal issue might be in the context, whether the delegation of powers to the Board envisaged in the proposal is compatible with EU treaties and the general principles of EU law, as interpreted by so-called “Meroni” case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union etc. Practical implications –Single Resolution Mechanism consisting of a Single Resolution Authority and a Single Resolution Fund, established to operate in tandem with the Single Supervisory Mechanism. resolution, single resolution mechanism. Research type: research paper.