Over the past decades the Union has made progress in creating an internal market for banking services. A better integrated internal market for banking services is essential in order to foster economic growth in the Union and adequate funding of the real economy. However, the financial and economic crisis has shown that the functioning of the internal market in this area is under threat and that there is an increasing risk of financial fragmentation. This is a real source of concern in an internal market in which banks should be able to carry out significant cross-border activities. Interbank markets have become less liquid and cross-border bank activities are decreasing due to fear of contagion, lack of confidence in other national banking systems and in the ability of Member States to support banks.

Divergences between national resolution rules in different Member States and corresponding administrative practices and the lack of a unified decision-making process for resolution in the banking union contribute to that lack of confidence and market instability, as they do not ensure predictability as to the possible outcome of a bank failure.

In particular, the different incentives and practices of Member States in the treatment of creditors of banks under resolution and in the bail-out of failing banks with tax payers' money have an impact on the perceived credit risk, financial soundness and solvency of their banks and thus create an unlevel playing field. This undermines public confidence in the banking sector and obstructs the exercise of the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services within the internal market because financing costs would be lower without such differences in practices of Member States.

Divergences between national resolution rules in different Member States and corresponding administrative practices may lead banks and customers to have higher borrowing costs only because of their place of establishment and irrespective of their real creditworthiness. In addition, customers of banks in some Member States face higher borrowing rates than customers of banks in other Member States, irrespective of their own creditworthiness.

The European Council on 18 October 2012 concluded that, ‘In the light of the fundamental challenges facing it, the Economic and Monetary Union needs to be strengthened to ensure economic and social welfare as well as stability and sustained prosperity’ and ‘that the process towards deeper economic and monetary union should build on the Union institutional and legal framework and be characterised by openness and transparency towards Member States whose currency is not the euro and by respect for the integrity of the internal market’. To that end a banking union is established, underpinned by a comprehensive and detailed single rulebook for financial services for the internal market as a whole. The process towards establishing a banking union is characterised by openness and transparency towards non-participating Member States and by respect for the integrity of the internal market.

The European Parliament, in its resolution of 7 July 2010 with recommendations to the Commission on Cross-Border Crisis Management in the Banking Sector, requested the Commission to submit ‘on the basis of Articles 50 and 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, one or more legislative proposals relating to an EU crisis-management framework, an EU financial stability fund, and a resolution unit’ and, in its resolution of 20 November 2012 with recommendations to the Commission on the report of the Presidents of the European Council, the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup ‘Towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union’, stated that ‘breaking up the negative feedback loops between sovereigns, banks and the real economy is crucial for a smooth functioning of the EMU’, stressed the ‘urgent need for additional and far-reaching measures to solve the crisis in the banking sector’ and for the ‘realisation of a fully operational European banking union’ while ensuring ‘the continued proper functioning of the internal market for financial services and the free movement of capital’.

More efficient resolution mechanisms are an essential instrument to avoid damages that have resulted from failures of banks in the past.

Ensuring effective resolution decisions for failing banks within the Union, including on the use of funding raised at Union level, is essential for the completion of the internal market in financial services. Within the internal market, the failure of banks in one Member State may affect the stability of the financial markets of the Union as a whole. Ensuring effective and uniform resolution rules and equal conditions of resolution financing across Member States is in the best interests not only of the Member States in which banks operate but also of all Member States in general as a means of ensuring a level competitive playing field and improving the functioning of the internal market. Banking systems in the internal market are highly interconnected, bank groups are international and banks have a large percentage of foreign assets. In the absence of the SRM, bank crises in Member States participating in the SSM would have a stronger negative systemic impact also in non-participating Member States. The establishment of the SRM will ensure a neutral approach in dealing with failing banks and therefore increase stability of the banks of the participating Member States and prevent the spill-over of crises into non-participating Member States and will thus facilitate the functioning of the internal market as a whole. The mechanisms for cooperation regarding institutions established in both participating and non-participating Member States should be clear, and no Member State or group of Member States should be discriminated against, directly or indirectly, as a venue for financial services.

In order to restore trust and credibility in the banking sector, the European Central Bank (ECB) is currently conducting a comprehensive balance sheet assessment of all banks supervised directly. Such an assessment should assure all stakeholders that banks entering the SSM, and therefore falling within the scope of the SRM, are fundamentally sound and trustworthy.

Following the establishment of the SSM by Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 pursuant to which banks in the participating Member States are supervised either centrally by the ECB or by the national competent authorities within the framework of the SSM, there is a misalignment between the Union supervision of such banks and the national treatment of those banks in the resolution proceedings pursuant to Directive 2014/59/EU which will be addressed by the establishment of the SRM.

This Regulation applies only in respect of banks whose home supervisor is the ECB or the national competent authority in Member States whose currency is the euro or in Member States whose currency is not the euro which have established a close cooperation in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013. The scope of application of this Regulation is linked to the scope of application of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013. Indeed, bearing in mind the significant level to which the supervisory tasks attributed to the SSM and resolution action are interwoven, the establishment of a centralised system of supervision operated under Article 127(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is fundamentally important to the process of harmonisation of resolution in participating Member States. The fact of being subject to supervision by the SSM constitutes a specific attribute that places the entities falling within the scope of application of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 in an objectively and characterised distinct position for resolution purposes. It is necessary to adopt measures to create an SRM for all Member States participating in the SSM in order to facilitate the proper and stable functioning of the internal market.

Whilst banks in Member States remaining outside the SSM are subject to supervision, resolution and financial backstop arrangements which are aligned at national level, banks in Member States participating in the SSM are subject to Union arrangements for supervision and national arrangements for resolution and financial backstops. Because supervision and resolution are at two different levels within the SSM, intervention and resolution in banks in the Member States participating in the SSM would not be as rapid, consistent and effective as in banks in the Member States outside of the SSM. Therefore, a centralised resolution mechanism for all banks operating in the Member States participating in the SSM is essential to guarantee a level playing field.

As long as supervision in a Member State remains outside the SSM, that Member State should remain responsible for the financial consequences of a bank failure. The SRM should therefore extend only to banks and financial institutions established in Member States participating in the SSM and subject to the supervision of the ECB and the national authorities within the framework of the SSM. Banks established in the Member States not participating in the SSM should not be subject to the SRM. Subjecting such Member States to the SRM would create the wrong incentives for them. In particular, supervisors in those Member States may become more lenient towards banks in their jurisdictions as they would not have to bear the full financial risk of their failures. Therefore, in order to ensure parallelism with the SSM, the SRM should apply to Member States participating in the SSM. As Member States join the SSM, they should also automatically become subject to the SRM. Ultimately, the SRM could potentially extend to the entire internal market.

In order to ensure a level playing field within the internal market as a whole, this Regulation is consistent with Directive 2014/59/EU. It therefore adapts the rules and principles of that Directive to the specificities of the SRM and ensures that appropriate funding is available to the latter. When the Board, the Council and the Commission exercise the powers conferred on them by this Regulation, they should be subject to the delegated acts, and regulatory and implementing technical standards, guidelines and recommendations adopted by EBA on the basis of respectively Articles 10 to 15 and Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 within the scope of Directive 2014/59/EU. The Board, the Council and the Commission, in their respective capacities, should also cooperate with EBA in accordance with Articles 25 and 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and respond to requests of collection of information addressed to them by EBA in accordance with Article 35 of that Regulation. It is recalled that, according to the last sentence of Recital 32 of that Regulation, ‘in cases where the relevant Union legislation confers discretion on […] competent authorities, decisions taken by the Authority cannot replace the exercise in compliance with Union law of that discretion’. The same principle should extend to this Regulation, while fully respecting the principles enshrined in primary Union law. In the light of those key elements EBA should be able to perform its tasks effectively and to secure the equality of treatment between the Board, the Council, the Commission and the national authorities when performing similar tasks.

A single resolution fund (‘Fund’) is an essential element without which the SRM could not work properly. If the funding of resolution were to remain national in the longer term, the link between sovereigns and the banking sector would not be fully broken, and investors would continue to establish borrowing conditions according to the place of establishment of the banks rather than to their creditworthiness. The Fund should help to ensure a uniform administrative practice in the financing of resolution and to avoid the creation of obstacles for the exercise of fundamental freedoms or the distortion of competition in the internal market due to divergent national practices. The Fund should be financed by bank contributions raised at national level and should be pooled at Union level in accordance with an intergovernmental agreement on the transfer and progressive mutualisation of those contributions (the ‘Agreement’), thus increasing financial stability and limiting the link between the perceived fiscal position of individual Member States and the funding costs of banks and undertakings operating in those Member States. To further break that link, decisions taken within the SRM should not impinge on the fiscal responsibilities of the Member States. In that regard, only extraordinary public financial support should be considered to be an impingement on the budgetary sovereignty and fiscal responsibilities of the Member States. In particular, decisions that require the use of the Fund or of a deposit guarantee scheme should not be considered to impinge on the budgetary sovereignty or fiscal responsibilities of the Member States.

This Regulation, together with Directive 2014/59/EU, establishes the modalities for the use of the Fund and the general criteria to determine the fixing and calculation of ex-ante and ex-post contributions. Participating Member States remain competent to levy the contributions from the entities located in their respective territories in accordance with Directive 2014/59/EU and with this Regulation. By means of the Agreement, the participating Member States will assume the obligation to transfer to the Fund the contributions that they raise at national level in accordance with Directive 2014/59/EU and this Regulation. During a transitional period, the contributions will be allocated to different compartments corresponding to each participating Member State (national compartments). Those compartments will be subject to a progressive merger so that they will cease to exist at the end of the transitional period. The Agreement will lay down the conditions upon which the parties thereto agree to transfer the contributions that they raise at national level to the Fund and to progressively merge the compartments. The entry into force of the Agreement will be necessary for the contributions raised by the parties to be transferred to the national compartments of the Fund. This Regulation lays down the powers of the Board for using and managing the Fund. The Agreement will determine how the Board is able to dispose of the national compartments that are progressively merged.

A centralised application of the resolution rules for institutions laid down in Directive 2014/59/EU by a single Union resolution authority in the participating Member States can be ensured only where the rules governing the establishment and functioning of the SRM are directly applicable in the Member States to avoid divergent interpretations across the Member States. Such direct applicability should bring benefits to the internal market as a whole because it will contribute to ensuring fair competition and to preventing obstacles to the free exercise of fundamental freedoms not only in the participating Member States but in the internal market as a whole.

Mirroring the scope of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, the SRM should cover all credit institutions established in the participating Member States. However, within the framework of the SRM, it should be possible to resolve directly any credit institution of a participating Member State in order to avoid asymmetries within the internal market in respect of the treatment of failing institutions and creditors during a resolution process. To the extent that parent undertakings, investment firms and financial institutions are included in the consolidated supervision by the ECB, they should be included in the scope of the SRM. Although the ECB will not supervise those institutions on a solo basis, it will be the only supervisor that will have a global perception of the risk which a group, and indirectly its individual members, is exposed to. To exclude entities which form part of the consolidated supervision within the scope of the ECB from the scope of the SRM would make it impossible to plan for the resolution of groups and to adopt a group resolution strategy, and would make any resolution decisions much less effective.

Within the SRM, decisions should be taken at the most appropriate level. When adopting decisions under this Regulation, the Board and the national resolution authorities should apply the same material rules.

Since only institutions of the Union may establish the resolution policy of the Union and since a margin of discretion remains in the adoption of each specific resolution scheme, it is necessary to provide for the adequate involvement of the Council and the Commission, as institutions which may exercise implementing powers, in accordance with Article 291 TFEU. The assessment of the discretionary aspects of the resolution decisions taken by the Board should be exercised by the Commission. Given the considerable impact of the resolution decisions on the financial stability of Member States and on the Union as such, as well as on the fiscal sovereignty of Member States, it is important that implementing power to take certain decisions relating to resolution be conferred on the Council. It should therefore be for the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, to exercise effective control on the assessment by the Board of the existence of a public interest and to assess any material change to the amount of the Fund to be used in a specific resolution action. Moreover, the Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts to specify further criteria or conditions to be taken into account by the Board in the exercise of its different powers. Such a conferral of resolution tasks should not in any way hamper the functioning of the internal market for financial services. EBA should therefore maintain its role and retain its existing powers and tasks: it should develop and contribute to the consistent application of the Union legislation applicable to all Member States and enhance convergence of resolution practices across the Union as a whole.

In order to ensure conformity with the principles established in Article 3(3) of Directive 2014/59/EU, the Union institutions, when performing the tasks conferred on them by this Regulation, should ensure that appropriate organisational arrangements are in place.

A change of 5 % or more to the amount of the Fund compared with the original proposal of the Board should be considered to be material. The Council should approve or object to the Commission's proposal without amending it. As an observer to the meetings of the Board, the Commission should, on an ongoing basis, check that the resolution scheme adopted by the Board complies fully with this Regulation, balances appropriately the different objectives and interests at stake, respects the public interest and that the integrity of the internal market is preserved. Considering that the resolution action requires a very speedy decision-making process, the Council and the Commission should cooperate closely and the Council should not duplicate the preparatory work already undertaken by the Commission. The Board should instruct the national resolution authorities which should take all necessary measures to implement the resolution scheme.

The production of a group resolution scheme should facilitate coordinated resolution that is more likely to deliver the best result for all entities of a group. The Board or, where relevant, the national resolution authorities should have the power to apply the bridge institution tool at group level (which may involve, where appropriate, burden-sharing arrangements) to stabilise a group as a whole. Ownership of subsidiaries could be transferred to the bridge institution with a view to onward sale, either as a package or individually, when market conditions are appropriate. In addition, the Board or, where relevant, the national resolution authority should have the power to apply the bail-in tool at parent level.

The Board should, in particular, be empowered to take decisions in relation to significant entities or groups, entities or groups directly supervised by the ECB or cross-border groups. The national resolution authorities should assist the Board in resolution planning and in the preparation of resolution decisions. For entities and groups which are not significant and not cross-border, the national resolution authorities should be responsible, in particular, for resolution planning, the assessment of resolvability, the removal of impediments to resolvability, the measures that the resolution authorities are entitled to take during early intervention, and resolution actions. Under certain circumstances the national resolution authorities should perform their tasks on the basis of and in accordance with this Regulation while exercising the powers conferred on them by, and in accordance with, the national law transposing Directive 2014/59/EU in so far as it is not in conflict with this Regulation.

It is essential for the good functioning of the internal market that the same rules apply to all resolution actions, regardless of whether they are taken by the resolution authorities under Directive 2014/59/EU or within the framework of the SRM. The Commission should assess those measures under Article 107 TFEU.

Where resolution action would involve the granting of State aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU or as Fund aid, a resolution decision can be adopted after the Commission has adopted a positive or conditional decision concerning the compatibility of the use of such aid with the internal market. The decision of the Commission on Fund aid may impose conditions, commitments or undertakings in respect of the beneficiary. The conditions which may be imposed by the Commission may include, but are not limited to, burden-sharing requirements, including a requirement that losses are first absorbed by equity, and requirements as to contributions by hybrid capital holders, subordinated debt holders and senior creditors, including in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2014/59/EU; restrictions on the payment of dividends on shares or coupons on hybrid capital instruments, on the repurchase of own shares or hybrid capital instruments, or on capital management transactions; restrictions on acquisitions of stakes in any undertaking either through an asset or share transfer; prohibitions against aggressive commercial practices or strategies, or advertising support from public aid; requirements concerning market shares, pricing, product features or other behavioural requirements; requirements for restructuring plans; governance requirements; reporting and disclosure requirements, including as regards compliance with such conditions as may be specified by the Commission; requirements relating to the sale of the beneficiary or of all or part of its assets, rights and liabilities; requirements relating to the liquidation of the beneficiary.

In order to ensure a swift and effective decision-making process in resolution, the Board should be a specific Union agency with a specific structure, corresponding to its specific tasks, and which departs from the model of all other agencies of the Union. Its composition should ensure that due account is taken of all relevant interests at stake in resolution procedures. Taking into account the missions of the Board, a Chair, a Vice-Chair and four further full-time members of the Board should be appointed on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of banking and financial matters, and experience relevant to financial supervision, regulation and resolution of institutions. The Chair, the Vice-Chair and the four further full-time members of the Board should be chosen on the basis of an open selection procedure of which the European Parliament and the Council should be kept duly informed and which should respect the principle of gender balance, experience and qualification. The Commission should provide the competent committee of the European Parliament with the shortlist of candidates for the positions of Chair, Vice-Chair and the four further full-time members of the Board. The Commission should submit a proposal for the appointment of the Chair, the Vice-Chair and the four further full-time members of the Board to the European Parliament for approval. Following the European Parliament's approval of that proposal, the Council should adopt an implementing decision to appoint the Chair, the Vice-Chair and the four further full-time members of the Board.

The Board should operate in executive and plenary sessions. In its executive session, it should be composed of its Chair, its four further independent full-time members, which should act independently and objectively in the interest of the Union as a whole, and permanent observers appointed by the Commission and by the ECB. When deliberating on the resolution of an institution or group established within a single participating Member State, the executive session of the Board should convene and involve in the decision-making process the member appointed by the Member State concerned representing its national resolution authority. When deliberating on a cross-border group, the members appointed by the home and all host Member States concerned representing the relevant national resolution authorities should be convened and involved in the decision-making process of the executive session of the Board.

The Board, in its executive session, should prepare all decisions concerning resolution procedure and, to the fullest extent possible, adopt those decisions. Because of the institution-specific nature of the information contained in the resolution plans, decisions concerning the drawing up, assessment, and approval of the resolution plans should be taken by the Board in its executive session. Regarding the use of the Fund, it is important that there is no first-mover advantage and that the outflows of the Fund are monitored. In order to ensure corresponding decision making by the Board, where resolution action is required above the threshold of EUR 5 000 000 000, any member of the plenary should be able, within a strict deadline, to request that the plenary session decide. Where liquidity support involves no or significantly less risk than other forms of support, in particular in the case of a short-term, one-off extension of credit to solvent institutions against adequate collateral of high quality, it is justified to give such a form of support a lower weight of only 0,5. Once the net accumulated use of the Fund in the previous consecutive 12 months reaches the threshold of EUR 5 000 000 000 per year, the plenary session should evaluate the application of the resolution tools, including the use of the Fund, and should provide guidance which the executive session should follow in subsequent resolution decisions. Guidance to the executive session should, in particular, focus on ensuring the non-discriminatory application of resolution tools, on avoiding a depletion of the Fund and differentiating appropriately between no-risk or low-risk liquidity and other forms of support.

Since the participants in the decision-making process of the Board in its executive sessions would change depending on the Member State where the relevant institution or group operates, the permanent participants should ensure that the decisions throughout the different formations of the executive sessions of the Board are consistent, appropriate and proportionate.

The Board should be able to invite observers to its meetings. The conferral of resolution tasks on the Board should be consistent with the framework of the European System of Financial Supervision (‘ESFS’) and its underlying objective to develop the single rulebook and enhance convergence of supervisory and resolution practices across the Union as a whole. In particular, EBA should assess and coordinate initiatives, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, on resolution plans with a view to promoting convergence in that area. Therefore, as a general rule, the Board should always invite EBA when matters are discussed for which, in accordance with Directive 2014/59/EU, EBA is required to develop technical standards or to issue guidelines. Other observers, such as a representative of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), may, where appropriate, also be invited to attend the meetings of the Board.

The observers should be subject to the same requirements of professional secrecy as the members and the staff of the Board and staff exchanged with or seconded by participating Member States carrying out resolution duties.

The Board should be able to establish internal resolution teams composed of its own staff and staff of the national resolution authorities, including, where appropriate, observers from non-participating Member States. Those internal resolution teams should be headed by coordinators appointed from the Board's senior staff, who might be invited as observers to participate in the executive sessions of the Board.

The Board and the resolution authorities and competent authorities of the non-participating Member States should conclude memoranda of understanding describing in general terms how they will cooperate with one another in the performance of their tasks under Directive 2014/59/EU. The memoranda of understanding could, inter alia, clarify the consultation relating to decisions of the Board that have effect on subsidiaries established or branches located in the non-participating Member States, where the parent undertaking is established in a participating Member State. The memoranda should be reviewed on a regular basis.

The Board should act independently. It should have the capacity to deal with large groups and to act swiftly and impartially. The Board should ensure that appropriate account is taken of national financial stability, financial stability of the Union and the internal market. Members of the Board should have the necessary expertise on bank restructuring and insolvency.

When making decisions or taking actions in the exercise of the powers conferred by this Regulation, due account should be given to the importance for the internal market of the exercise of the right of establishment provided for in the TFEU, and, in particular, where possible, to the effects on the continuation of cross-border activities.

In the light of the Board's missions and the resolution objectives which include the protection of public funds, the functioning of the SRM should be financed from contributions paid by the institutions established in the participating Member States.

The Board, the Council where relevant, and the Commission should replace the national resolution authorities designated under Directive 2014/59/EU in respect of all aspects relating to the resolution decision-making process. The national resolution authorities designated under that Directive should continue to carry out activities relating to the implementation of resolution schemes adopted by the Board. In order to ensure transparency and democratic control, as well as to safeguard the rights of the Union institutions, the Board should be accountable to the European Parliament and to the Council for any decisions taken on the basis of this Regulation. For reasons of transparency and democratic control, national parliaments should have certain rights to obtain information about the activities of, and to engage in a dialogue with, the Board.

The national parliament of a participating Member State, or the competent committee thereof, should be able to invite the Chair to participate in an exchange of views in relation to the resolution of institutions in that Member State together with a representative of the national resolution authority. Such a role for national parliaments is appropriate given the potential impact that resolution actions may have on public finances, institutions, their customers and employees, and the markets in the participating Member States. The Chair and the national resolution authorities should respond positively to such invitations to exchange views with the national parliaments.

To ensure a uniform approach for institutions and groups the Board should be empowered to draw up resolution plans for such institutions and groups, after consulting the national competent and resolution authorities. It should be the general rule that the group resolution plans are prepared for the group as a whole and identify measures in relation to a parent undertaking as well as all individual subsidiaries that are part of a group. The group resolution plans should take into account the financial, technical and business structure of the relevant group. If individual resolution plans for entities that are a part of a group are prepared, the Board or, where relevant, the national resolution authorities should aim to achieve, to the extent possible, consistency with resolution plans for the rest of the group. The Board or, where relevant, the national resolution authorities should transmit the resolution plans and any changes thereto to the competent authority, in order to permanently keep it fully informed. The Board should assess the resolvability of institutions and groups, and take measures aimed at removing impediments to resolvability, if any. The Board should require the national resolution authorities to apply such appropriate measures designed to remove impediments to resolvability in order to ensure consistency and the resolvability of the institutions concerned. Given the sensitivity of the information contained in them, resolution plans should be subject to the requirements of professional secrecy laid down in this Regulation.

When applying resolution tools and exercising resolution powers, the principle of proportionality and the particularities of the legal form of an institution should be taken into account.

Due to the potentially systemic nature of all institutions, it is crucial that the Board, where appropriate in cooperation with the national resolution authorities, is able to adopt resolution plans, assess the resolvability of any institution and group and, where necessary, take measures to address or remove impediments to the resolvability of any institution in the participating Member States. The failure of systemically important institutions, including those referred to in Article 131 of Directive 2013/36/EU, could pose a considerable risk to the functioning of the financial markets and could have a negative impact on financial stability. The Board should take due care, as a matter of priority, to establish the resolution plans of those systemically important institutions, as well as to assess their resolvability and to take all action necessary to address or remove all of the impediments to their resolvability, without prejudice to its independence and to its obligation to plan for the resolution and assess the resolvability of all of the institutions subject to its powers.

Resolution plans should include procedures for informing and consulting employee representatives throughout the resolution processes where appropriate. Where applicable, collective agreements or other arrangements provided for by social partners, as well as by Union and national law on the involvement of trade unions and workers' representatives in company restructuring processes, should be complied with in that regard.

In relation to the obligation of drafting resolution plans, the Board, or, where relevant, the national resolution authorities, in the context of resolution plans and when using the different powers and tools at their disposal, should take into account the nature of an entity's business, shareholding structure, legal form, risk profile, size and legal status and interconnectedness to other institutions or to the financial system in general, the scope and complexity of its activities, whether it is a member of an institutional protection scheme (IPS) or other cooperative mutual solidarity systems, whether it exercises any investment services or activities and whether its failure and subsequent winding up under normal insolvency proceedings would be likely to have a significant negative effect on financial markets, on other institutions, on funding conditions, or on the wider economy, ensuring that the regime is applied in an appropriate and proportionate way and that the administrative burden relating to resolution plan preparation obligations is minimised. Whereas the contents and information specified in Section A of the Annex to Directive 2014/59/EU establish a minimum standard for entities with evident systemic relevance, it is permitted to apply different or significantly reduced resolution planning and information requirements on an institution-specific basis, and at a lower frequency for updates than one year. For a small entity of little interconnectedness and complexity, the resolution plan could be reduced. Further, the regime should be applied so as not to jeopardise the stability of financial markets. In particular, in situations characterised by broader problems or even doubts about the resilience of many entities, it is essential to consider the risk of contagion from the actions taken in relation to any individual entity.

Where Directive 2014/59/EU provides for the possibility of applying simplified obligations or waivers by the national resolution authorities in relation to the requirement of drafting resolution plans, a procedure should be provided for whereby the Board or, where relevant, the national resolution authorities could authorise the application of such simplified obligations.

In line with the capital structure of entities affiliated to a central body, for the purposes of this Regulation, the Board, or, where relevant, the national resolution authorities, should not be obliged to draw up separate resolution plans solely on the grounds that the central body to which those entities are affiliated is under direct supervision of the ECB. In the case of group resolution plans, the potential impact of the resolution actions in all the Member States where the group operates should be specifically taken into account in the drawing up of the plans.

The SRM should be based on the frameworks of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 and of Directive 2014/59/EU. Therefore, the Board should be empowered to intervene at an early stage where the financial situation or the solvency of an entity is deteriorating. The information that the Board receives from the national resolution authorities or the ECB at that stage is instrumental in making a determination on the action it might take in order to prepare for the resolution of the entity concerned.

In order to ensure rapid resolution action when it becomes necessary, the Board should closely monitor, in cooperation with the ECB or with the relevant national competent authority, the situation of the entities concerned and the compliance of those entities with any early intervention measure taken in their respect. In determining whether a private sector action could prevent within a reasonable timeframe the failure of an entity, the appropriate authority should take into account the effectiveness of early intervention measures undertaken within a timeframe set by the competent authority.

The Board, the national resolution authorities and the competent authorities, including the ECB, should, where necessary, conclude a memorandum of understanding describing in general terms how they will cooperate with one another in the performance of their respective tasks under Union law. The memorandum should be reviewed on a regular basis.

When making decisions or taking actions, in particular regarding entities established both in participating Member States and in non-participating Member States, possible adverse effects on those Member States, such as threats to the financial stability of their financial markets, and on the entities established in those Member States, should also be taken into consideration.

When providing a guarantee, a Member State should ensure that the guarantee is sufficiently remunerated by the entity. Furthermore, the provision of extraordinary public financial support should not trigger resolution where, as a precautionary measure, a Member State takes an equity stake in an entity, including an entity which is publicly owned, which complies with its capital requirements. That may be the case, for example, where an entity is required to raise new capital due to the outcome of a scenario-based stress test or of the equivalent exercise conducted by macroprudential authorities which includes a requirement that is set to maintain financial stability in the context of a systemic crisis, but the entity is unable to raise capital privately in markets. An entity should not be considered to be failing or likely to fail solely on the basis that extraordinary public financial support was provided before the entry into force of this Regulation. Finally, access to liquidity facilities including emergency liquidity assistance by central banks may constitute State aid pursuant to the State aid framework.

Liquidation of a failing entity under normal insolvency proceedings could jeopardise financial stability, interrupt the provision of essential services, and affect the protection of depositors. In such a case there is a public interest in applying resolution tools. The objectives of resolution should therefore be to ensure the continuity of essential financial services, to maintain the stability of the financial system, to reduce moral hazard by minimising reliance on public financial support to failing entities, and to protect depositors.

However, the winding up of an insolvent entity through normal insolvency proceedings should always be considered before a decision is taken to maintain the entity as a going concern. An insolvent entity should be maintained as a going concern for financial stability purposes and with the use, to the extent possible, of private funds. That may be achieved either through sale to or merger with a private sector purchaser, or after having written down the liabilities of the entity, or after converting its debt to equity in order to effect a recapitalisation.

When taking or preparing decisions relating to resolution powers, the Board, the Council and the Commission should ensure that resolution action is taken in accordance with certain principles, including that shareholders and creditors bear an appropriate share of the losses, that the management should in principle be replaced, that the costs of the resolution of the entity are minimised, and that creditors of the same class are treated in an equitable manner. In particular, where creditors within the same class are treated differently in the context of resolution action, such distinctions should be justified in the public interest and should be neither directly nor indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of nationality.

The limitations on the rights of shareholders and creditors should comply with Article 52 of the Charter. The resolution tools should therefore be applied only to those entities that are failing or likely to fail, and only where necessary to pursue the objective of financial stability in the general interest. In particular, resolution tools should be applied where the entity cannot be wound up under normal insolvency proceedings without destabilising the financial system and the measures are necessary in order to ensure the rapid transfer and continuation of systemically important functions and where there is no reasonable prospect for any alternative private solution, including any increase of capital by the existing shareholders or by any third party, sufficient to restore the full viability of the entity.

Interference with property rights should not be disproportionate. As a consequence, affected shareholders and creditors should not incur greater losses than those which they would have incurred had the entity been wound up at the time that the resolution decision is taken. In the event of partial transfer of assets of an institution under resolution to a private purchaser or to a bridge institution, the residual part of the institution under resolution should be wound up under normal insolvency proceedings. In order to protect shareholders and creditors of the entity during the winding up proceedings, they should be entitled to receive in payment of their claims not less than what it is estimated they would have recovered if the entity as a whole had been wound up under normal insolvency proceedings.

For the purpose of protecting the rights of shareholders and creditors, clear obligations should be laid down concerning the valuation of the assets and liabilities of the institution under resolution and, where required under this Regulation, the valuation of the treatment that shareholders and creditors would have received if the entity had been wound up under normal insolvency proceedings. It should be possible to commence a valuation already in the early intervention phase. Before any resolution action is taken, a fair, prudent and realistic valuation of the assets and liabilities of the entity should be carried out. Such valuation should be subject to a right of appeal only together with the resolution decision. In addition, where required under this Regulation, an ex-post comparison between the treatment that shareholders and creditors have received and the treatment they would have received under normal insolvency proceedings should be carried out after resolution tools have been applied. If it is determined that shareholders and creditors have received, in payment of their claims, less than the amount that they would have received under normal insolvency proceedings, they should be entitled to the payment of the difference where required under this Regulation. That difference, if any, should be paid by the Fund established in accordance with this Regulation.

It is important that losses be recognised upon failure of the entity. The valuation of assets and liabilities of failing entities should be based on fair, prudent and realistic assumptions at the moment when the resolution tools are applied. The value of liabilities should not, however, be affected in the valuation by the entity's financial state. It should be possible, for reasons of urgency, that the Board makes a rapid valuation of the assets or the liabilities of a failing entity. That valuation should be provisional and should apply until an independent valuation is carried out.

In order to ensure that the resolution process remains objective and certain, it is necessary to lay down the order in which unsecured claims of creditors against an institution under resolution should be written down or converted. In order to limit the risk of creditors incurring greater losses than if the institution had been wound up under normal insolvency proceedings, the order to be laid down should be applicable both in normal insolvency proceedings and in the write-down or conversion process under resolution. This would also facilitate the pricing of debt.

The Board should decide on the detailed resolution scheme. The relevant resolution tools should include the sale of business tool, the bridge institution tool, the bail-in tool and the asset separation tool, which are also provided for in Directive 2014/59/EU. The scheme should also make it possible to assess whether the conditions for the write-down and conversion of capital instruments are met.

When taking resolution actions, the Board should take into account and follow the measures provided for in the resolution plans unless the Board assesses, taking into account the circumstances of the case, that resolution objectives will be achieved more effectively by taking actions which are not provided for in those resolution plans.

The resolution tools should include the sale of the business or shares of the institution under resolution, the setting up of a bridge entity, the separation of the performing assets from the impaired or under-performing assets of the failing entity, and the bail-in of the shareholders and creditors of the failing entity.

Where the resolution tools have been used to transfer the systemically important services or viable business of an entity to a sound entity such as a private sector purchaser or bridge entity, the residual part of the entity should be liquidated.

The sale of business tool should enable the sale of the entity or parts of its business to one or more purchasers without the consent of shareholders.

Any net proceeds from the transfer of assets or liabilities of the institution under resolution when applying the sale of business tool should benefit the entity left in the winding-up proceedings. Any net proceeds from the transfer of instruments of ownership issued by the institution under resolution when applying the sale of business tool should benefit the owners of those instruments of ownership in the entity left in the winding up proceedings. Proceeds should be calculated net of the costs arisen from the failure of the entity and from the resolution process.

The asset separation tool should enable authorities to transfer assets, rights or liabilities of an institution under resolution to a separate vehicle. That tool should be used only in conjunction with other tools to prevent an undue competitive advantage for the failing entity.

An effective resolution regime should minimise the costs of the resolution of a failing entity borne by the taxpayers. It should also ensure that systemic entities can be resolved without jeopardising financial stability. The bail-in tool achieves that objective by ensuring that shareholders and creditors of the failing entity suffer appropriate losses and bear an appropriate part of the costs arising from the failure of the entity. The bail-in tool will therefore give shareholders and creditors of entities a stronger incentive to monitor the health of an entity during normal circumstances. It also meets the Financial Stability Board recommendation that statutory debt write-down and conversion powers be included in a framework for resolution, as an additional option in conjunction with other resolution tools.

In order to ensure the necessary flexibility to allocate losses to creditors in a range of circumstances, it is appropriate that the bail-in tool be applicable both where the objective is to resolve the failing entity as a going concern if there is a realistic prospect that the entity viability may be restored, and where systemically important services are transferred to a bridge entity and the residual part of the entity ceases to operate and is wound down.

Where the bail-in tool is applied with the objective of restoring the capital of the failing entity to enable it to continue to operate as a going concern, the resolution through bail-in should be accompanied by replacement of management, except where retention of management is appropriate and necessary for the achievement of the resolution objectives, and a subsequent restructuring of the entity and its activities in a way that addresses the reasons for its failure. That restructuring should be achieved through the implementation of a business reorganisation plan. Where applicable, such plans should be compatible with the restructuring plan that the entity is required to submit to the Commission under the Union State aid framework. In particular, in addition to measures aiming at restoring the long term viability of the entity, the plan should include measures limiting the aid to the minimum burden sharing, and measures limiting distortions of competition.

It is not appropriate to apply the bail-in tool to claims in so far as they are secured, collateralised or otherwise guaranteed. However, in order to ensure that the bail-in tool is effective and achieves its objectives, it is desirable that it can be applied to as wide a range of the unsecured liabilities of a failing entity as possible. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to exclude certain kinds of unsecured liability from the scope of application of the bail-in tool. In order to protect holders of covered deposits, the bail-in tool should not apply to those deposits that are protected under Directive 2014/49/EU. In order to ensure continuity of critical functions, the bail-in tool should not apply to certain liabilities to employees of the failing entity or to commercial claims that relate to goods and services critical for the daily functioning of the entity. In order to honour pension entitlements and pension amounts owed or owing to pension trusts and pension trustees, the bail-in tool should not apply to the failing entity's liabilities to a pension scheme, except for liabilities for pension benefits attributable to variable remuneration which do not arise from collective bargaining agreements. To reduce risk to systemic contagion, the bail-in tool should not apply to liabilities arising from a participation in payment systems which have a remaining maturity of less than seven days, or liabilities to entities, excluding entities that are part of the same group, with an original maturity of less than seven days.

It should be possible to exclude or partially exclude liabilities in a number of circumstances, including where it is not possible to bail-in such liabilities within a reasonable timeframe, where the exclusion is strictly necessary and is proportionate to achieving the continuity of critical functions and core business lines, or where the application of the bail-in tool to liabilities would cause a destruction in value such that losses borne by other creditors would be higher than if those liabilities were not excluded from bail-in. It should also be possible to exclude or partially exclude liabilities where necessary to avoid the spreading of contagion and financial instability which may cause serious disturbance to the economy of a Member State. When carrying out the assessments, the Board or, where relevant, the national resolution authorities should give consideration to the consequences of a potential bail-in of liabilities stemming from eligible deposits held by natural persons and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises above the coverage level provided for in Directive 2014/49/EU.

Where those exclusions are applied, the level of write-down or conversion of other eligible liabilities may be increased to take account of such exclusions subject to the ‘no creditor worse off than under normal insolvency proceedings’ principle being respected. Where the losses cannot be passed to other creditors, the Fund may make a contribution to the institution under resolution subject to a number of strict conditions including the requirement that losses totalling not less than 8 % of total liabilities including own funds have already been absorbed, and the funding provided by the Fund is limited to the lower of 5 % of total liabilities including own funds or the means available to the Fund and the amount that can be raised through ex-post contributions within three years.

In extraordinary circumstances, where liabilities have been excluded and the Fund has been used to contribute to bail-in in lieu of those liabilities up to the permissible cap, the Board should be able to seek funding from alternative funding means.

The minimum amount of bail-in of 8 % of total liabilities referred to in this Regulation should be calculated based on the valuation conducted in accordance with this Regulation. Historical losses which have already been absorbed by shareholders through a reduction in own funds prior to that valuation should not be included in that percentage.

As the protection of covered depositors is one of the most important objectives of resolution, covered deposits should not be subject to the exercise of the bail-in tool. The deposit guarantee scheme, however, contributes to funding the resolution process by absorbing losses to the extent of the net losses that it would have had to suffer after compensating depositors in normal insolvency proceedings. The exercise of the bail-in powers would ensure that depositors continue to have access to their deposits which is the main reason why the deposit guarantee schemes have been established. Not providing for the involvement of those schemes in such cases would constitute an unfair advantage with respect to the remaining creditors which would be subject to the exercise of the powers by the resolution authority.

Where deposits are transferred to another entity in the context of the resolution of an entity, depositors should not be insured beyond the coverage level provided for in Directive 2014/49/EU. Therefore, claims with regard to deposits remaining in the institution under resolution should be limited to the difference between the funds transferred and the coverage level provided for in Directive 2014/49/EU. Where transferred deposits are superior to the coverage level, the depositor should have no claim against the deposit guarantee scheme with regard to deposits remaining in the institution under resolution.

To avoid entities structuring their liabilities in a manner that impedes the effectiveness of the bail-in tool, it is appropriate to establish that the entities should meet at all times a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities which may be subject to the bail-in tool, expressed as a percentage of the total liabilities and own funds of the entity.

This Regulation should allow for a multiple-point-of-entry or a single-point-of-entry resolution. The minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities should reflect the resolution strategy which is appropriate to a group in accordance with the resolution plan. In particular, the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities should be required at the appropriate level in the group in order to reflect a multiple-point-of-entry or a single-point-of-entry approach contained in the resolution plan while keeping in mind that there could be circumstances where an approach different from that contained in the plan is used as it would allow, for instance, reaching the resolution objectives more efficiently. Against that background, regardless of whether a group has chosen the multiple-point-of entry or the single-point-of-entry approach, all entities of the group should have at any time a robust minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities so as to avoid the risk of contagion or of a bank run.

The best method of resolution should be chosen depending on the circumstances of the case and, for that purpose, all of the resolution tools provided for in Directive 2014/59/EU should be available. When deciding on the resolution scheme, the Board, the Council and the Commission should, to the extent possible, respectively opt for the scheme that is the least costly for the Fund.

Directive 2014/59/EU confers power on the national resolution authorities to write down and convert capital instruments, since the conditions for the write-down and conversion of capital instruments may coincide with the conditions for resolution and in such a case, an assessment is to be made of whether the sole write-down and conversion of the capital instruments is sufficient to restore the financial soundness of the entity concerned or whether it is also necessary to take resolution action. As a rule, it will be used in the context of resolution. The Board, under the control of the Commission or, where relevant, of the Council, should replace the national resolution authorities also in that function and should therefore be empowered to assess whether the conditions for the write-down and conversion of capital instruments are met and to decide whether to place an entity under resolution, if the requirements for resolution are also fulfilled.

The efficiency and uniformity of resolution action should be ensured in all of the participating Member States. For that purpose, where a national resolution authority has not applied or has not complied with a decision by the Board pursuant to this Regulation or has applied it in a way which poses a threat to any of the resolution objectives or to the efficient implementation of the resolution scheme, the Board should be empowered to transfer to another person specified rights, assets or liabilities of an institution under resolution, to require the conversion of debt instruments which contain a contractual term for conversion in certain circumstances or to adopt any necessary action which significantly addresses the threat to the relevant resolution objective. Any action by a national resolution authority that would restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Board should be excluded.

The relevant entities, bodies and authorities involved in the application of this Regulation should cooperate with each other in accordance with the duty of sincere cooperation enshrined in the Treaties.

When applying resolution tools and exercising resolution powers, the Board should instruct the national resolution authorities to ensure that the representatives of the employees of the entities concerned are informed and, where appropriate, are consulted, as provided for in Directive 2014/59/EU.

Since the Board replaces the national resolution authorities of the participating Member States in their resolution decisions, the Board should also replace those authorities for the purposes of the cooperation with non-participating Member States, including in the resolution colleges as referred to in Directive 2014/59/EU as far as the resolution functions are concerned.

As many institutions operate not only within the Union, but internationally, an effective resolution mechanism needs to set out principles of cooperation with the relevant third-country authorities. Support to third-country authorities should be provided in accordance with the legal framework provided for in Article 88 of Directive 2014/59/EU. In order to ensure a coherent approach vis-à-vis third countries, the taking of divergent decisions in the participating Member States with respect to the recognition of resolution proceedings conducted in third countries in relation to institutions or parent undertakings which have subsidiaries or other assets, rights or liabilities located in the participating Member States should be avoided as far as possible. The Board should therefore be enabled to issue recommendations in that regard.

In order to perform its tasks effectively, the Board should have appropriate investigatory powers. It should be able to require all necessary information either through the national resolution authorities, or directly, after informing them, and to conduct investigations and on-site inspections, where appropriate in cooperation with national competent authorities, making full use of all information available to the ECB and the national competent authorities. In the context of resolution, on-site inspections should be available for the Board to ensure that decisions are taken on the basis of fully accurate information and to monitor implementation by national authorities effectively.

In order to ensure that the Board has access to all relevant information, the relevant entities and their employees or third parties to whom the entities concerned have outsourced functions or activities should not be able to invoke the requirements of professional secrecy to prevent the disclosure of information to the Board. At the same time, the disclosure of such information to the Board should not be deemed to infringe the requirements of professional secrecy.

In order to ensure compliance with decisions adopted within the framework of the SRM, proportionate and dissuasive fines should be imposed in the event of an infringement. The Board should be entitled to impose fines or periodic penalty payments on undertakings for failure to comply with its decisions addressed to them.

Where a national resolution authority infringes the rules of the SRM by not using the powers conferred on it under national law to implement an instruction by the Board, the Member State concerned may be liable to make good any damage caused to individuals, including, where applicable, to the institution or group under resolution, or any creditor of any part of that entity or group in any Member State, in accordance with the relevant case-law.

In order to guarantee its full autonomy and independence, the Board should have an autonomous budget with revenues from obligatory contributions from the institutions in the participating Member States. Appropriate rules should be laid down governing the budget of the Board, the preparation of the budget, the adoption of internal rules specifying the procedure for the establishment and implementation of the budget, and the internal and external audit of the accounts.

This Regulation should be without prejudice to the ability of Member States to levy fees to cover the administrative expenses of their national resolution authorities.

Participating Member States have jointly agreed to ensure that non-participating Member States are to be reimbursed promptly and with interest for the amount that a non-participating Member State has paid in own resources in respect of any application of the Union budget for the purposes of meeting non-contractual liabilities and costs relating thereto in relation to the performance of tasks under this Regulation. Participating Member States have concluded an agreement to implement that commitment.

There are circumstances in which the effectiveness of the resolution tools applied may depend on the availability of short-term funding for the entity or a bridge entity, the provision of guarantees to potential purchasers, or the provision of capital to the bridge entity. Notwithstanding the role of central banks in providing liquidity to the financial system even in times of stress, it is therefore important to set up a fund to avoid that the funds needed for such purposes come from the national budgets. It should be the financial industry, as a whole, that finances the stabilisation of the financial system.

It is necessary to ensure that the Fund is fully available for the purpose of the resolution of failing institutions. Therefore, the Fund should not be used for any other purpose than the efficient implementation of resolution tools and resolution powers. Furthermore, it should be used only in accordance with the applicable resolution objectives and principles. Accordingly, the Board should ensure that any losses, costs or other expenses incurred in connection with the use of the resolution tools are first borne by the shareholders and the creditors of the institution under resolution. Only where the resources from shareholders and creditors are exhausted should the losses, costs or other expenses incurred with the resolution tools be borne by the Fund.

As a principle, contributions should be collected from the industry prior to, and independently of, any operation of resolution. When prior funding is insufficient to cover the losses or costs incurred by the use of the Fund, additional contributions should be collected to bear the additional cost or loss. Moreover, the Fund should be able to contract borrowings or other forms of support from institutions, financial institutions or other third parties in the event that the ex-ante and ex-post contributions are not immediately accessible or do not cover the expenses incurred by the use of the Fund in relation to resolution actions.

In order to avoid double payments, Member States should be able to make use of available financial means resulting from national bank levies, taxes or resolution contributions established between 17 June 2010 and 2 July 2014 for the purpose of the ex-ante contributions.

In order to reach a critical mass and to avoid pro-cyclical effects which would arise if the Fund had to rely solely on ex-post contributions in a systemic crisis, it is indispensable that the ex-ante available financial means of the Fund amount at least to a certain minimum target level.

The target level of the Fund should be established as a percentage of the amount of covered deposits of all credit institutions authorised in the participating Member States. However, since the amount of the total liabilities of those institutions would be, taking into account the functions of the Fund, a more adequate benchmark, the Commission should assess whether covered deposits or total liabilities is a more appropriate basis and if a minimum absolute amount for the Fund should be introduced in the future, maintaining a level playing field with Directive 2014/59/EU.

An appropriate time frame should be set to reach the target level for the Fund. However, it should be possible for the Board to adjust the contribution period to take into account significant disbursements made from the Fund.

Ensuring effective and sufficient financing of the Fund is of paramount importance to the credibility of the SRM. The capacity of the Board to contract alternative funding means for the Fund should be enhanced in a manner that optimises the cost of funding and preserves the creditworthiness of the Fund. Immediately after the entry into force of this Regulation, the necessary steps should be taken by the Board in cooperation with the participating Member States to develop the appropriate methods and modalities permitting the enhancement of the borrowing capacity of the Fund that should be in place by the date of application of this Regulation.

Where participating Member States have already established national resolution financing arrangements, they should be able to provide that the national resolution financing arrangements use their available financial means, collected from entities in the past by way of ex-ante contributions, to compensate entities for the ex-ante contributions which those entities should pay into the Fund. Such restitution should be without prejudice to the obligations of Member States under Directive 2014/49/EU.

In order to ensure a fair calculation of contributions and provide incentives to operate under a model which presents less risk, contributions to the Fund should take account of the degree of risk incurred by the credit institution in accordance with Directive 2014/59/EU and with the delegated acts adopted pursuant thereto.

In order to ensure the proper sharing of resolution costs between deposit guarantee schemes and the Fund, the deposit guarantee scheme to which an institution under resolution is affiliated should be required to make a contribution not greater than the amount of losses that it would have had to bear if the entity had been wound up under normal insolvency proceedings.

So as to protect the value of the amounts held in the Fund, those amounts should be invested in sufficiently safe, diversified and liquid assets.

Where close cooperation of a participating Member State whose currency is not the euro with the ECB is terminated in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, a fair partition of the cumulated contributions of the participating Member State concerned should be decided taking into account the interests of the participating Member State concerned and the Fund.

The Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in order to determine the rules for the calculation of the interest rate to be applied in the event of a decision on the recovery of misused amounts from the Fund and to guarantee the rights to good administration and of access to documents of beneficiaries in procedures in respect of such a recovery; determine the type of contributions to the Fund and the matters for which contributions are due, and the manner in which the amount of the contributions is calculated and the way in which they are to be paid; specify registration, accounting, reporting and other rules necessary to ensure that the contributions are paid fully and in a timely manner; determine the annual contributions necessary to cover the administrative expenditure of the Board before it becomes fully operational; determine the contribution system for institutions that have been authorised to operate after the Fund has reached its target level; determine the criteria for the spreading out in time of the contributions; determine the criteria for determining the number of years by which the initial period for reaching the target level can be extended; determine the criteria for establishing the annual contributions when the available financial means of the Fund diminishes below its target level after the initial period; determine the measures to specify the circumstances and conditions under which ex-post contributions may be temporarily deferred for individual institutions; and determine the detailed rules for the administration of the Fund and general principles and criteria for its investment strategy.

The Council should, within the framework of the delegated acts adopted under Directive 2014/59/EU, adopt implementing acts to specify the application of the methodology for the calculation of individual contributions to the Fund, as well as the technical modalities for computing the flat contribution and the risk-adjusted contribution. That methodology should ensure that both the flat and the risk-adjusted elements in the formula for the calculation of individual contributions are accounted in a way that is consistent with resolution principles and in line with the delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU. The methodology should take into account the principle of proportionality, without creating distortions between banking sector structures of the Member States.

As reflected in the Declaration No 39 on Article 290 of the TFEU, the Commission, in accordance with the established practice, in preparation of draft delegated acts provided for in this Regulation, should continue to consult experts appointed by the Member States. It is also of particular importance in this area that the Commission, where relevant, carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work with the ECB and the Board in their fields of competence.

Resolution actions should be properly notified and, subject to the limited exceptions laid down in this Regulation, made public. However, as information obtained by the Board, the national resolution authorities and their professional advisers during the resolution process is likely to be sensitive, before the resolution decision is made public, that information should be subject to the requirements of professional secrecy. The fact that information on the contents and details of resolution plans and the result of any assessment of those plans may have far-reaching effects, in particular on the undertakings concerned, must be taken into account. Any information provided in respect of a decision before it is taken, be it on whether the conditions for resolution are satisfied, on the use of a specific tool or of any action during the proceedings, must be presumed to have effects on the public and private interests concerned by the action. However, information that the Board and the national resolution authorities are examining a specific entity could be enough to have negative effects on that entity. It is therefore necessary to ensure that there are appropriate mechanisms for maintaining the confidentiality of such information, such as the content and details of resolution plans and the result of any assessment carried out in that context.

To preserve the confidentiality of the work of the Board, its members and its staff, including the staff exchanged with or seconded by participating Member States for the purpose of carrying out resolution duties, should be subject to requirements of professional secrecy, even after their duties have ceased. Those requirements should also apply to other persons authorised by the Board, to persons authorised or appointed by the national resolution authorities of the Member States to conduct on-site inspections, and to observers invited to attend the plenary and executive sessions' meetings of the Board and to observers from non-participating Member States that take part in internal resolution teams. For the purpose of performing the tasks conferred on it by this Regulation, the Board should be authorised, subject to conditions, to exchange information with national or Union authorities and bodies.

In order to ensure that the Board is assimilated in the ESFS, Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 should be amended in order to include the Board in the concept of competent authorities established by that Regulation. Such assimilation of the Board and competent authorities pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 is consistent with the functions attributed to EBA pursuant to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 to contribute to and participate actively in the development and coordination of recovery and resolution plans and to aim to facilitate the resolution of failing entities and in particular cross-border groups.

Until the Board is fully operational, the Commission should be responsible for the initial operations including the designation of an interim Chair to authorise all necessary payments on behalf of the Board.

The SRM brings together the Board, the Council, the Commission and the resolution authorities of the participating Member States. The Court of Justice has jurisdiction to review the legality of decisions adopted by the Board, the Council and the Commission, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, as well as for determining their non-contractual liability. Furthermore, the Court of Justice has, in accordance with Article 267 TFEU, competence to give preliminary rulings upon request of national judicial authorities on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies or agencies of the Union. National judicial authorities should be competent, in accordance with their national law, to review the legality of decisions adopted by the resolution authorities of the participating Member States in the exercise of the powers conferred on them by this Regulation, as well as to determine their non-contractual liability.

This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the rights, freedoms and principles recognised in particular by the Charter, and, in particular, the right to property, the protection of personal data, the freedom to conduct a business, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the right of defence, and should be implemented in accordance with those rights and principles.

Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely setting up an efficient and effective single European framework for the resolution of entities and ensuring the consistent application of resolution rules, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather be better achieved at the Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

The Commission should review the application of this Regulation in order to assess its impact on the internal market and to determine whether any modifications or further developments are needed in order to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of the SRM, in particular whether the banking Union needs to be completed with the harmonisation at Union level of insolvency proceedings for failed institutions.

The transfer of contributions raised at national level under this Regulation should allow the Fund to operate and thus the resolution tools to be applied in an effective manner. Therefore, the provisions of this Regulation relating to resolution tools and the contributions should apply from 1 January 2016. From December 2015, it should be possible to postpone that date by periods of one month where the conditions allowing the transfer of the contributions raised at national level have not been met,