The question is based on a situation, related to a credit institution which is part of a cross-border group, supervised on a consolidated basis by a competent authority from different Member State. In such case the resolution authority of the subsidiary shall take part in the resolution planning process through its membership in Resolution College. The former should be set up by the group level resolution authority in accordance with Article 88 of the BRRD. There are cases when the group level resolution authority has not established Resolution College due to different reasons. The provisions of the directive are unclear how the resolution authority of the subsidiary shall proceed in this situation in order to ensure proper and equal treatment of all institutions failing under its jurisdiction. Should it be interpreted so that: • the BRRD does not introduce harmonized rules on that issue, hence the respective resolution authorities should act under national law if any; or • the respective resolution authority should apply mutatis mutandis Article 13(6) of the BRRD and therefore make its own decision on a resolution plan for the subsidiary on an individual basis? Alternatively, should it be interpreted as the respective resolution authority is not entitled to initiate resolution planning procedure on an individual level and should wait for establishment of Resolution College. The question envisaged is not subject to changes under the BRRD 2 and therefore its answer will be applicable even in case the respective member state has not transposed the second directive yet.