Skip to main content

A Comparative Analysis of Transparency in Insurance Regulation and Supervisory Law of Selected European Jurisdictions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transparency in Insurance Regulation and Supervisory Law

Part of the book series: AIDA Europe Research Series on Insurance Law and Regulation ((ERSILR,volume 4))

Abstract

Solvency II Directive and Insurance Distribution Directive have introduced harmonised rules across the European Union. This chapter compares the transparency as outlined in these Directives and the insurance regulation and supervisory laws in the EU Member States, which are included in the analysis made in this book. The different harmonisation pursued by the above Directives—maximum v. minimum—could result in differences in the transposition of the principle of transparency in these Member States.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    On the use of hard law and soft law in the insurance regulation in the European Union, see Marano (2017), p. 12 ff.

  2. 2.

    See Recital No. 16 of Solvency II, which adds: ‘The term beneficiary is intended to cover any natural or legal person who is entitled to a right under an insurance contract. Financial stability and fair and stable markets are other objectives of insurance and reinsurance regulation and supervision which should also be taken into account but should not undermine the main objective’.

  3. 3.

    See Article 31. See also CEIOPS, Recommendations on Independence and Accountability, May 2006, p. 10.

  4. 4.

    According to Article 34(4) of Solvency II, ‘Member States shall ensure that supervisory authorities have the power to develop, in addition to the calculation of the Solvency Capital Requirement and where appropriate, necessary quantitative tools under the supervisory review process to assess the ability of the insurance or reinsurance undertakings to cope with possible events or future changes in economic conditions that could have unfavourable effects on their overall financial standing. The supervisory authorities shall have the power to require that corresponding tests are performed by the undertakings’.

  5. 5.

    On the supervisory review process, i.e. the overall process conducted by the supervisory authority in reviewing the situation of undertakings subject to its supervision, see Van Hulle (2019), p. 387 ff.

  6. 6.

    See Article 31.

  7. 7.

    See Article 371 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35.

  8. 8.

    See Van Hulle (2019), p. 376.

  9. 9.

    Better Regulation Guidelines and the associated ‘Toolbox’ are available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-why-and-how/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en.

  10. 10.

    See Commission Staff Working Document, Better Regulation Guidelines, 2017, p. 4.

  11. 11.

    The Agreement replaces the previous Agreement from 2003 and the Interinstitutional accord on impact assessment from 2005. The Agreement is available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2016:123:TOC.

  12. 12.

    See OECD, Better Regulation Practices across the European Union, March 2019, available at http://www.oecd.org/publications/better-regulation-practices-across-the-european-union-9789264311732-en.htm.

  13. 13.

    See Article 22(3a) of the Financial Market Authority Act (FMABG; Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehördengesetz).

  14. 14.

    See Marano (2017), p. 16.

  15. 15.

    According to Recital No. 77 of Solvency II ‘Within the framework of an internal market it is in the interest of policy holders that they should have access to the widest possible range of insurance products available in the Community’.

  16. 16.

    See Article 31(3) of Solvency II.

  17. 17.

    See Article 32 of IDD. For a comparison between the sanction under the IDD and those of the USA, see: Defever (2020) and Martinez and Marano (2020).

  18. 18.

    According to Article 32 of IDD, ‘where the publication of the identity of the legal persons, or identity or personal data of natural persons, is considered by the competent authority to be disproportionate following a case-by-case assessment conducted on the proportionality of the publication of such data or where publication jeopardises the stability of financial markets or an ongoing investigation, the competent authority may decide to defer publication, not to publish, or to publish the sanctions on an anonymous basis’.

  19. 19.

    See Recital No. 2 of Solvency II.

  20. 20.

    See Recital No. 16 and Article 27 of Solvency II.

  21. 21.

    See Article 36 of Solvency II.

  22. 22.

    See Floreani (2017), p. 263.

  23. 23.

    See Article 35 of Solvency II.

  24. 24.

    See Article 304 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35.

  25. 25.

    See Article 46 of Solvency II, which adds that ORSA shall be taken into account on an ongoing basis in the strategic decisions of the undertaking.

  26. 26.

    See Article 46 of Solvency II.

  27. 27.

    According to Recital no 14 of Solvency II, ‘The protection of policy holders presupposes that insurance and reinsurance undertakings are subject to effective solvency requirements that result in an efficient allocation of capital across the European Union. In light of market developments, the current system is no longer adequate. It is therefore necessary to introduce a new regulatory framework’.

  28. 28.

    See Avesani et al. (2017), p. 298.

  29. 29.

    See Article 51 of Solvency II.

  30. 30.

    EIOPA-BoS-15/154, Need for high-quality public disclosure: Solvency II’s report on solvency and financial condition and the potential role of external audit, June 2015.

  31. 31.

    See Articles from 307 to 311 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35.

  32. 32.

    See Article 304(1)(b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35.

  33. 33.

    See Article 19 of IDD.

  34. 34.

    See Article 6 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2359.

  35. 35.

    See Article 19(1)(e) of IDD.

  36. 36.

    See Article 22(3) of IDD.

  37. 37.

    See Article 22(3) of IDD.

  38. 38.

    See Article 29(2) of IDD.

  39. 39.

    See Article 29(3) of IDD.

  40. 40.

    See Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of 26 November 2014 on key information documents (KID) for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs).

  41. 41.

    See Article 20(8) of IDD and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1469 of 11 August 2017 laying down a standardised presentation format for the IPID.

  42. 42.

    See Marano (2020).

  43. 43.

    Han (2015).

References

  • Avesani RG, Corsano V, Zingaretti E, Amadei A (2017) Pillar II: risk governance. In: Andenas M, Avesani RG, Manes P, Vella F, Wood PR (eds) Solvency II: a dynamic challenge for the insurance market. Il Mulino, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Defever K (2020) Enaction of Chapter VII of the insurance distribution directive – what can member states learn from the enforcement failures of the United States? In: Marano P, Noussia K (eds) Insurance distribution directive: a legal analysis. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Floreani A (2017) Solvency II: the supervisory reporting and market disclosure. In: Marano P, Siri M (eds) Insurance regulation in the European Union. Solvency II and beyond. Palgrave Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Han BC (2015) The transparency society. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marano P (2017) Sources and tools of the insurance regulation in the European Union. In: Marano P, Siri M (eds) Insurance regulation in the European Union. Solvency II and beyond. Palgrave Macmillan, London

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marano P (2020) The Contribution of Product Oversight and Governance (POG) to the Single Market: a set of organisational rules for business conduct. In: Marano P, Noussia K (eds) Insurance distribution directive: a legal analysis. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez LP, Marano P (2020) The new EU rules on insurance customer/policyholder protection viewed against the NAIC model acts. Global Jurists

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hulle K (2019) Solvency requirements for EU insurers. Solvency II is good for you. Intersentia, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierpaolo Marano .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Marano, P. (2021). A Comparative Analysis of Transparency in Insurance Regulation and Supervisory Law of Selected European Jurisdictions. In: Marano, P., Noussia, K. (eds) Transparency in Insurance Regulation and Supervisory Law. AIDA Europe Research Series on Insurance Law and Regulation, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63621-0_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63621-0_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-63620-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-63621-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics