2017
DOI: 10.1007/s40804-017-0081-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Administrative Board of Review of the European Central Bank: Experience After 2 Years

Abstract: This article examines the administrative remedy provided by the Administrative Board of Review (ABoR) of the European Central Bank (ECB), as part of the broader issue of the right of defence of natural and legal persons vis-à-vis ECB supervisory decisions within the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM). After presenting an overview of the review panels established in the financial sector in the EU, the article describes the experience with the ABoR by analysing its composition, its mandate and scope of review, t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 20 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On December 2021, the ECB published a new Guide to fit and proper assessments, ECB ( 2021 ). Furthermore, the ECB has expressed the request that the current lack of uniformity in the verification of the FAP requirements be overcome by updating the CRD IV: indeed, ‘while the guide will help to make such assessments in a more harmonised manner, discrepancies are set to remain on account of the application of national laws’, ECB ( 2018c ), p 77; in the same sense, Brescia Morra et al ( 2017 ), p 585.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On December 2021, the ECB published a new Guide to fit and proper assessments, ECB ( 2021 ). Furthermore, the ECB has expressed the request that the current lack of uniformity in the verification of the FAP requirements be overcome by updating the CRD IV: indeed, ‘while the guide will help to make such assessments in a more harmonised manner, discrepancies are set to remain on account of the application of national laws’, ECB ( 2018c ), p 77; in the same sense, Brescia Morra et al ( 2017 ), p 585.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%