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

Review Panel would be a permanent group comprising CEIOPS member
representatives. It should be a standalone body, responsible <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong>
CEIOPS Managing Board and CEIOPS’ Members’ Meeting (supported by
<strong>the</strong> CEIOPS Secretariat).
17.15 Any particular detailed mandate for <strong>the</strong> Review Panel is <strong>to</strong> be discussed
and decided at a later stage, especially so since <strong>the</strong> establishment of
<strong>the</strong> Review Panel will become more timely once CEIOPS members start
implementing <strong>the</strong> future Solvency II framework.
17.16 The peer review process, as organised by <strong>the</strong> Review Panel is an
overview instrument for CEIOPS. There are no regulations prescribing
which elements of peer review will be applied or how <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>to</strong> be
implemented. In view of <strong>the</strong> desired result, CEIOPS can decide whe<strong>the</strong>r
<strong>the</strong> information base is sufficient for extending CEIOPS standards and
guidelines or whe<strong>the</strong>r it is necessary <strong>to</strong> collect fur<strong>the</strong>r information.
Before <strong>the</strong> peer review can be introduced as a system, a prepara<strong>to</strong>ry
period is needed.
Procedural framework of <strong>the</strong> Peer Review
17.17 Based on adequate information, <strong>the</strong> peer review should serve CEIOPS
in developing, extending and improving its standards and guidelines. As
an ultimate aim, <strong>the</strong>se can be used <strong>to</strong> help <strong>to</strong> promote convergent
interpretation of standards, guidelines and <strong>the</strong> experiences of o<strong>the</strong>r
supervisory authorities <strong>to</strong> reflect best practices.
17.18 The peer review is not a warning system. It could be used as an
instrument through which <strong>the</strong> supervisory authorities can learn from
one ano<strong>the</strong>r, enabling <strong>the</strong>m <strong>to</strong> achieve high-quality, consistent
supervisory practices.
17.19 The peer review should be assigned a particularly important role in <strong>the</strong>
development of moni<strong>to</strong>ring procedures for implementing <strong>the</strong> new
solvency system.
17.20 The main idea is <strong>to</strong> develop agreement on common standards;
differences between <strong>the</strong> practices of individual supervisory authorities
should be avoided if <strong>the</strong>y risk prompting supervisory arbitrage.
17.21 Peer review is intended <strong>to</strong> go beyond fact-finding and includes an
assessment of <strong>the</strong> practices of <strong>the</strong> reviewed supervisory authorities.
17.22 At <strong>the</strong> beginning of <strong>the</strong> peer review process for a particular issue, <strong>the</strong>
Review Panel will, if necessary, develop a questionnaire and detailed
assessment criteria relating <strong>to</strong> a measure that is <strong>to</strong> be reviewed. 129
17.23 Those CEIOPS members <strong>to</strong> be reviewed will perform a self-assessment
(e.g. with <strong>the</strong> aid of a questionnaire and detailed assessment criteria)
in line with agreed CEIOPS methodology, within a timeframe agreed
beforehand, and will provide <strong>the</strong> assessment team with <strong>the</strong> resulting
129 CESR: GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA.
197