Should the national provisions which are going to transpose Article 96 only provide for the resolution of branches of a third-country institution located in the same Member State?
Even though “Union branch”, as provided in Article 2(1)(89) of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD), means a branch located in a Member state of a third-country institution, the national provisions which are going to transpose Article 96 should only provide for the resolution of branches located in the same Member State country of a third-country institution. Is this interpretation correct?
The national provisions which are going to transpose Article 96 of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) shall only provide for the resolution of branches of a third-country institution which are located in the Member State transposing the BRRD provision.
This question goes beyond matters of consistent and effective application of the regulatory framework. A Directorate General of the Commission (Directorate General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) has prepared the answer, albeit that only the Court of Justice of the European Union can provide definitive interpretations of EU legislation. This is an unofficial opinion of that Directorate General, which the European Banking Authority publishes on its behalf. The answers are not binding on the European Commission as an institution. You should be aware that the European Commission could adopt a position different from the one expressed in such Q&As, for instance in infringement proceedings or after a detailed examination of a specific case or on the basis of any new legal or factual elements that may have been brought to its attention.