Question ID
2025_7494
Legal act
Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD)
Topic
Remuneration
Article
94
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations
EBA/GL/2021/04 - Guidelines on sound remuneration policies under CRD (repealing EBA/GL/2015/22)
Article/Paragraph
151
Type of submitter
Credit institution
Subject matter
Discretionary pension benefits
Question

According to Section 151 of the EBA Guidelines on sound remuneration policies under CRD (EBA/GL/2021/04) (“EBA Guidelines”), pension benefits that are not performance-based and are consistently granted to a category of staff as part of the company’s pension scheme should be regarded as routine employment packages.

How should the concept of a “company’s pension scheme,” as referred to in Section 151 of the EBA Guidelines, be interpreted? For instance, can an established and consistently applied long-term practice qualify as a pension scheme, even in the absence of a formal written policy or documented scheme? 

Background on the question

Some banks have taken the position that pension benefits granted to the Chief Executive Officer and/or the Deputy Chief Executive Officer should be considered routine employment packages within the meaning of the EBA Guidelines (Section 151 and the definitions therein). Consequently, these banks have classified such benefits as fixed remuneration.

However, other banks have adopted a different view, arguing that such pension benefits should not be regarded as routine employment packages due to uncertainty surrounding the interpretation of the term “company’s pension scheme.”

The submitter considers this issue relevant considering the divergent interpretations adopted by different banks. It is therefore deemed essential to obtain a correct and authoritative interpretation of the matter.

Submission date
Rejected publishing date
Rationale for rejection

This question has been rejected because the matter it refers to is in the process of being answered in Q&A 7493.

Status
Rejected question