Better regulation at EU level

GDV supports EC Call for Evidence on the EU Financial Services framework

The European Commission (EC) invited interested stakeholders to provide examples for inconsistencies, duplication and unintended consequences of the EU Regulatory Framework for Financial Services. The aim of this call for evidence is to increase the general understanding of the interaction and impact of regulatory measures. The German Insurance Industry supports this initiative.

In addition to the provided examples, the GDV emphasised the following general aspects:

  • In light of the complexity of financial markets and the possible negative impact that a miscalibration and duplication of regulation can have, it is important that regulatory problems are solved when they become obvious. Additional efforts for implementation or application should be avoided.
  • In addition to regulatory measures taken by co-legislators, measures taken by the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) play an important role in financial services regulation. It is indispensable that these measures are considered when assessing coherence and consistency of the regulatory framework in Europe.
  • Particular attention should be paid to the enforcement of the principle of proportionality. According measures foreseen by co-legislators which reflect the size of undertakings, or in case of insurers, nature, scale and complexity of the risk profile, should be applied consistently and not be undermined by subordinated regulation.

The GDV’s examples at a glance:

Unnecessary regulatory constraints on financing

  1. Capital requirements for real estate and with respect to guarantees of regional governments and local authorities: Address risks properly
  2. EFSI: Do not crowd out private investors

Proportionality / preserving diversity in the EU financial sector

  1. Solvency II: Do not put disproportionate burden on small insurers
  2. Sector-specific regulation: Strengthen the insurance perspective in the context of cross-sectoral regulation in relation to other ESAs and to the ECB

Excessive compliance costs and complexity

  1. Solvency II and EIOPA Guidelines: Reduce excessive documentation requirements
  2. PRIIPs: Avoid short implementation periods and contradicting goals
  3. IDD: A Product Information Document (PID) for all customers creates disproportionate burden

Reporting and disclosure obligations

  1. Financial stability reporting: Align reporting deadlines with Solvency II
  2. EMIR: Check current burdensome reporting requirements
  3. EMIR, MiFID and Solvency II: Do standardise reporting formats

Rules outdated due to technological change

  1. IDD: Paper-based communication should not be the default option

Barriers to entry

  1. Solvency II: Do allow all IORPs to use reinsurance directly

Links between individual rules and overall cumulative impact

  1. Too many layers of regulation: Do reduce the quantity and increase coherence
  2. EIOPA Guidelines: Refrain from introducing quasi-binding legislation through explanatory text
  3. EMIR: Treat small companies like non-financial counterparties


  1. Definition of SME: Do respect specificities of insurance industry
  2. Examples MiFID 2 and MiFIR: Make European legislation better understandable

Overlaps, duplications and inconsistencies

  1. EIOPA Guidelines: Clearly define and obey limits of the mandate
  2. EIOPA Guidelines: Reduce quantity and volume
  3. Solvency II: Avoid inconsistencies across regulatory levels
  4. PRIIPs: Avoid information overload and duplication of information requirements
  5. Supervision of insurer-led financial conglomerates: Solvency II provides for an adequate supervision of cross-sectoral risks

The GDV’s General Comments and an annex including all examples can be found in the download section.


pdf image
GDV comments on

EC Call for Evidence on the EU Financial Services framework