Answers to the European Commission on the ... - Eiopa - Europa

Background
17.1 This document aims <strong>to</strong> introduce a methodology which will provide
guidance for assessing <strong>the</strong> implementation of CEIOPS standards and
o<strong>the</strong>r level 3 measures.
CEIOPS seeks <strong>to</strong> promote <strong>the</strong> consistent practical implementation of
<strong>the</strong> regula<strong>to</strong>ry framework across all <strong>the</strong> Member States of its members
on issues concerning insurance supervision.
CEIOPS members are committed <strong>to</strong> implementing CEIOPS measures.
Article 2(2).4 th bullet point, of <strong>the</strong> CEIOPS’ Articles of Association
states: “(CEIOPS) may draw up guidelines, recommendations and
standards which <strong>the</strong> Member States may adopt in <strong>the</strong>ir supervisory
practices on a voluntary basis.” Article 4(3) states: “All agreements,
standards, commitments and work agreed within <strong>the</strong> Conference of
Insurance Supervisory Authorities of <strong>the</strong> Member States will be taken
over by <strong>the</strong> members (of CEIOPS)”.
The following methodology must be read in <strong>the</strong> context of <strong>the</strong> relevant
CEIOPS measures, in particular <strong>the</strong> CEIOPS Articles of Association.
Explana<strong>to</strong>ry text
Introduc<strong>to</strong>ry remarks
17.2 The insurance acquis (Article 10.1 of <strong>the</strong> Recast Life Directive and
Article 9 of <strong>the</strong> Third Non-life Directive) specifies that <strong>the</strong> “financial
supervision of an insurance undertaking shall be <strong>the</strong> sole responsibility
of <strong>the</strong> home Member State”.
17.3 Supervision of an individual insurance undertaking is clearly a national
competence. The regula<strong>to</strong>ry framework in Europe allows national
authorities some flexibility in interpreting and transposing directives
within national legislation. This can, however, potentially result in
regula<strong>to</strong>ry arbitrage and divergent supervisory practices.
17.4 While each Member State has its own supervisory practices, it is very
important that <strong>the</strong>se practices can be compared <strong>to</strong> one ano<strong>the</strong>r <strong>to</strong>
ensure continuing confidence in <strong>the</strong> system of mutual recognition under
which insurance undertakings authorised in a Member State may
benefit from <strong>the</strong> <strong>European</strong> passport.
17.5 The Lamfalussy conclusions also recognised <strong>the</strong> need for a more
flexible and expedient way of amending <strong>the</strong> technical detail in <strong>the</strong>
legislative framework in order <strong>to</strong> better respond in a more timely
fashion <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> changes in <strong>the</strong> fast-moving financial markets, <strong>to</strong>
consequences of progressing integration and <strong>to</strong> respond <strong>to</strong> new risks
that may arise as a result. In practice, co-operation between EU
supervisors has several dimensions. A number of CEIOPS’ bodies (e.g.
Working Groups, future 'Review Panel' etc.) provide fora and channels
195