The So Called Pan-European Depositors' Protection Scheme: A Further Euro Own-Goal? A Critical Analysis of Directive 2014/49

Pierre de Gioia-Carabellese, Corrado Chessa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This article focuses on the legal provisions of Directive 2014/49 on deposit guarantee schemes (the DGS Directive) and discusses how the national schemes financially support each another by offering a critical analysis to demonstrate that the new legal framework is far from satisfactory. This is because the new 'safety net', still hinged on depositors' protections schemes that operate at the national level, is fettered by the quantitative limits and legal constraints of mutual borrowing. This ultimately still leaves the EU/EEA depositors with an element of uncertainty. This contribution also seeks to illustrate that the recent mass withdrawal from bank deposits in Greece (in June/July 2015) was an unsuccessful test case for the new legislation, which was ironically already in force at the time the crisis unfolded. This case study of Greece is coupled with the important Landslaki dictum which is given equal attention in this article. Together they give significant credibility to the view that the DGS Directive, seemingly not fully aware of the lessons to be learnt from the 2011 Eurozone crisis, is obsolete and should be amended as soon as possible.
LanguageEnglish
Pages241-260
Number of pages20
JournalMaastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
Volume23
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Euro
Greece
EEA
legal provision
Eurozone
withdrawal
credibility
guarantee
bank
EU
legislation
uncertainty
time

Cite this

@article{42d42166000b4ca29346e0f8fb64c58b,
title = "The So Called Pan-European Depositors' Protection Scheme: A Further Euro Own-Goal? A Critical Analysis of Directive 2014/49",
abstract = "This article focuses on the legal provisions of Directive 2014/49 on deposit guarantee schemes (the DGS Directive) and discusses how the national schemes financially support each another by offering a critical analysis to demonstrate that the new legal framework is far from satisfactory. This is because the new 'safety net', still hinged on depositors' protections schemes that operate at the national level, is fettered by the quantitative limits and legal constraints of mutual borrowing. This ultimately still leaves the EU/EEA depositors with an element of uncertainty. This contribution also seeks to illustrate that the recent mass withdrawal from bank deposits in Greece (in June/July 2015) was an unsuccessful test case for the new legislation, which was ironically already in force at the time the crisis unfolded. This case study of Greece is coupled with the important Landslaki dictum which is given equal attention in this article. Together they give significant credibility to the view that the DGS Directive, seemingly not fully aware of the lessons to be learnt from the 2011 Eurozone crisis, is obsolete and should be amended as soon as possible.",
keywords = "depositor's protection schemes, mutual borrowing",
author = "Gioia-Carabellese, {Pierre de} and Corrado Chessa",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1023263X1602300203",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "241--260",
journal = "Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law",
issn = "2399-5548",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "2",

}

The So Called Pan-European Depositors' Protection Scheme : A Further Euro Own-Goal? A Critical Analysis of Directive 2014/49. / Gioia-Carabellese, Pierre de; Chessa, Corrado.

In: Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Vol. 23, No. 2, 01.04.2016, p. 241-260.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The So Called Pan-European Depositors' Protection Scheme

T2 - Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law

AU - Gioia-Carabellese, Pierre de

AU - Chessa, Corrado

PY - 2016/4/1

Y1 - 2016/4/1

N2 - This article focuses on the legal provisions of Directive 2014/49 on deposit guarantee schemes (the DGS Directive) and discusses how the national schemes financially support each another by offering a critical analysis to demonstrate that the new legal framework is far from satisfactory. This is because the new 'safety net', still hinged on depositors' protections schemes that operate at the national level, is fettered by the quantitative limits and legal constraints of mutual borrowing. This ultimately still leaves the EU/EEA depositors with an element of uncertainty. This contribution also seeks to illustrate that the recent mass withdrawal from bank deposits in Greece (in June/July 2015) was an unsuccessful test case for the new legislation, which was ironically already in force at the time the crisis unfolded. This case study of Greece is coupled with the important Landslaki dictum which is given equal attention in this article. Together they give significant credibility to the view that the DGS Directive, seemingly not fully aware of the lessons to be learnt from the 2011 Eurozone crisis, is obsolete and should be amended as soon as possible.

AB - This article focuses on the legal provisions of Directive 2014/49 on deposit guarantee schemes (the DGS Directive) and discusses how the national schemes financially support each another by offering a critical analysis to demonstrate that the new legal framework is far from satisfactory. This is because the new 'safety net', still hinged on depositors' protections schemes that operate at the national level, is fettered by the quantitative limits and legal constraints of mutual borrowing. This ultimately still leaves the EU/EEA depositors with an element of uncertainty. This contribution also seeks to illustrate that the recent mass withdrawal from bank deposits in Greece (in June/July 2015) was an unsuccessful test case for the new legislation, which was ironically already in force at the time the crisis unfolded. This case study of Greece is coupled with the important Landslaki dictum which is given equal attention in this article. Together they give significant credibility to the view that the DGS Directive, seemingly not fully aware of the lessons to be learnt from the 2011 Eurozone crisis, is obsolete and should be amended as soon as possible.

KW - depositor's protection schemes

KW - mutual borrowing

U2 - 10.1177/1023263X1602300203

DO - 10.1177/1023263X1602300203

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 241

EP - 260

JO - Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law

JF - Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law

SN - 2399-5548

IS - 2

ER -