Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica (AUCI) is the main journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University. It has been published since 1954 and is one of the traditional law journals with a theoretical focus.
As a general law journal, it publishes longer studies and shorter articles on any relevant issues in legal theory and international, European and national law. AUCI also publishes material relating to current legislative issues. AUCI is a peer-reviewed journal and accepts submissions from both Czech and international authors. Contributions by foreign authors are published in their original language – Slovak, English, German, French.
AUCI is a theoretical journal for questions of state and law. It is published by Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Law, through Karolinum Press. It is published four times a year, the dates of publication can be found here.
Articles published in AUCI undergo an independent peer review process, which is anonymous on both sides. Reviewers from the field give their opinion on the scientific quality of the paper and the suitability of publication in the journal. In the case of comments, the opinion is sent back to the author with the possibility of revising the text (see Guidelines for Authors – Per Review Process for more details).
The AUCI journal (ISSN 0323-0619) is registered in the Czech National Bibliography (kept by the National Library of the Czech Republic) and in the Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (kept by the American Association of Law Libraries). AUCI has been assigned a periodical registration number MK E 18585.
In 2021 the journal AUCI was the first journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University to be included in the prestigious international database Scopus. This Elsevier database is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature in the world. The editors of the journal expect from the inclusion in the elite Scopus database not only an increase in the readership of the journal, but also an increase in interest in the publication of papers by both Czech and foreign authors.
AUCI is an open journal and all its content is published both on the faculty website and on the Karolinum Press website. Access to it is free of charge. The homepage of AUCI is on the Karolinum Press website.
The AUCI journal uses the Creative Commons license: CC BY 4.0.
Long-term archiving of the digital content of the journal is provided by Portico.
AUC IURIDICA, Vol 66 No 4 (2020), 173–197
Limits of resolution tools under the BRRD and the Czech act on recovery procedures and the financial market crisis resolution
[Limits of resolution tools under the BRRD and the Czech act on recovery procedures and the financial market crisis resolution]
Martin Šerák
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2020.38
published online: 16. 12. 2020
abstract
Given the unique position of credit institutions and their systemic importance for the financial stability, their resolution has been traditionally entrusted to supervisory authorities rather than courts. As a result, credit institutions are essentially excluded from the scope of “traditional” insolvency procedure and fall under the resolution regime constituting specific form of administrative proceedings. Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (known as the BRRD) is of a particular consequence here as it harmonized the resolution process at the level of the European Union and the European Economic Area, inter alia through the implementation of specific resolution tools. This article deals with conditions for applicability of such resolution tools, their fundamental mechanics as well as legal implications arising thereunder, considering also the Act on Recovery Procedures and the Financial Market Crisis Resolution under which the BRRD has been implemented into Czech law.
keywords: resolution tools; credit institutions; insolvency; resolution; financial crisis
references (34)
1. ARMOUR, J. Making Bank Resolution Credible. s. 453 a násl. In: MOLONEY, N.- FERRAN, N. E.- PAYNE, J. The Oxford handbook of financial regulation. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2015.
2. AVGOULEAS, E. Governance of Global Financial Markets. Cambridge University Press, 2012. CrossRef
3. BINDER, J. H. Resolution Planning and Structural Bank Reform within the Banking Union. SAFE Working Paper. No. 81. 2014. CrossRef
4. BINDER, J. H. Bankeninsolvenzen im Spannungsfeld zwischen Bankaufsichts- und Insolvenzrecht: Regelungsziele, Anwendungsprobleme und Reformansätze, dargestellt am Beispiel des deutschen und des englischen Rechts. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2005. CrossRef
5. BINDER, J. H. Institutionalisierte Krisenbewältigung bei Kreditinstituten. Zeitschrift für Bankrecht und Bankwirtschaft, 2009. CrossRef
6. BLINDER, A. S. After the music stopped: the financial crisis, the response, and the work ahead. New York: Penguin Press, 2013.
7. COLIN, J.- COWE, S.- TREVILLION, E. Property boom and banking bust: the role of commercial lending in the bankruptcy of banks. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.
8. DALVINDER, S. U.K. Approach to Financial Crisis Management. Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems. Vol. 19, 2010.
9. DIAMOND, D. W.- RAJAN, R. G. A theory of bank capital. The Journal of Finance. 2000, Issue 55. CrossRef
10. DONG, H.- INGVES, S.- SEELIG, S. Issues in the Establishment of Asset Management Companies. International Monetary Fund. 2006, s. 23 a násl. Dostupné online z WWW:< https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304636044_Issues_in_the_Establishment_of_Asset_Management_Companies>.
11. GLEESON, S.- RANDALL D. G. Bank resolution and crisis management: law and practice. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2016.
12. <bez popisu> CrossRef
13. HAVEMANN, R. Can Creditor Bail-in Trigger Contagion? The Experience of an Emerging Market. Review of Finance. 23(6), 2019. CrossRef
14. HÜBNER, L.- LEUNERT, S. Sanierung und Abwicklung von Banken nach SAG und SRMVO', Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht. 2015, Issue 47, s. 2263.
15. CHATTOPADHYAY, R. Bridge Banks in Deutschland - Abwicklung und Restrukturierung systemrelevanter Banken durch Vermögensübertragung. Springer, 2015.
16. JEMELKA, L.- PONDĚLÍČKOVÁ, K.- BOHADLO, D. Správní řád. Komentář. 6. vydání. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2019.
17. KENADJIAN, P. S. Too big to fail - brauchen wir ein Sonderinsolvenzrecht für Banken? Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. CrossRef
18. LABROSSE, J. - OLIVARES-CAMINAL, R. - SINGH, D. Financial crisis management and bank resolution. London: Informa Law. Lloyd's commercial law library, 2009.
19. MITCHELL, CH. Saving the market from itself: the politics of financial intervention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. CrossRef
20. NEUBAUER, J. Veřejná podpora bankám ve světle směrnice o ozdravných postupech a řešení krize na finančním trhu? Obchodněprávní revue. Č.3, 2018.
21. OLSON, G. N. Government Intervention: The Inadequacy of Bank Insolvency Resolution - Lessons from the American Experience. In: LASTRA, R. M.- SCHIFFMAN, H. N. Bank failures and bank insolvency law in economies in transition. Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999.
22. RICHTER, T. Insolvenční právo. Praha: ASPI, Wolters Kluwer, 2008.
23. RINGE, W.G. Bail-in between liquidity and solvency. University of Oxford Legal Research Paper Series. No. 33/2016. CrossRef
24. SERIÈRE, D. V.- HOUWEN, D.V.D. No Creditor Worse Off' in Case of Bank Resolution: Food for Litigation. Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation. 2016, Issue 7.
25. SCHIAVO, G. The role of financial stability in EU law and policy. Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands: Kluwer Law International B. V. European monographs, volume 101, 2017, kapitola 8.03 a násl.
26. SCHILLIG, M. Resolution and insolvency of banks and financial institutions. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2016.
27. SCHELO, S. Bank recovery and resolution. Kluwer Law International, 2015.
28. SCHÖNFELD, J. Ekonomický pohled na definici úpadku korporace. Buletin Advokacie (el. forma časopisu). 2017. Dostupné online z WWW: <http://www.bulletin-advokacie.cz/ekonomicky-pohled-na-definici-upadku-korporace >.
29. SJÖBERG, G. Banking Special Resolution Regimes as a Governance Tool. In: RINGE, W. G.- HUBER, P. M. Legal Challenges in the Global Financial Crisis: Bail-Outs, the Euro and Regulation. Oxford & Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2014.
30. SOMMER, J. H. Why Bail-in? And How? Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Economic Policy Review, Vol. 20, Special Issue: Large and Complex Banks. 2014. In: GOODHART, CH.- AVGOULEAS, E. A Critical Evaluation of Bail-Ins as Bank Recapitalisation Mechanisms. 2014. Dostupné online z WWW: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2478647>.
31. STEPHAN, M. Bank Failure and Pre-Emptive Planning: The Special Requirements of a Bank Resolution and a Default Resolution Option. 2013. Dostupné online z WWW: < https://ssrn.com/abstract=2277452 >.
32. STUTTS, W. F. Of Herring and Sausage: Nordic Responses to Banking Crises as Examples for the United States. Texas International Law Journal. 2009, Issue 44.
33. VOJTEK, R. Sláb jen ten, kdo (ne)ztratil v řešení finanční krize víru aneb selhání banky, resoluce a veřejná podpora? Obchodněprávní revue. 11-12, 2017.
34. WIHLBORG, C. Bail-ins: Issues of Credibility and Contagion. SUERF Policy Note, Issue No. 10. 2017. Dostupné online z WWW: <https://www.suerf.org/policynotes/883/bail-ins-issues-of-credibility-and-contagion/html>.
Limits of resolution tools under the BRRD and the Czech act on recovery procedures and the financial market crisis resolution is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
230 x 157 mm
periodicity: 4 x per year
print price: 65 czk
ISSN: 0323-0619
E-ISSN: 2336-6478
