Overseeing the European Central Bank in Banking Supervision

Abstract

In 2014, Danièle Nouy – the first Chair of the Supervisory Board of the ECB – praised the ‘robust accountability’ framework of the newly established SSM. In her introductory remarks at an EP committee hearing, Nouy argued that ‘this framework is perhaps one of the most far-reaching that is in place for an independent central bank that is responsible for supervision. I believe we have already lived up to the word and spirit of this framework’ (Nouy 2014). The Chair of the Supervisory Board is not alone in emphasising the strength of the accountability obligations set in place by the SSM Regulation (Council Regulation 1024/2013). Ter Kuile and colleagues claim that the SSM has successfully established a form of ‘tailor-made accountability which keeps power in check while respecting the independence of the banking supervisors’ (2015: 155). In terms of political accountability, the SSM created multiple reporting requirements for the ECB – regulated for the first time through an Interinstitutional Agreement with the EP and a Memorandum of Understanding with the Council (European Central Bank 2021a). In this context, Fromage and Ibrido argue that the accountability framework of the SSM ‘could open new avenues in the ECB’s . . . quest for reinforced democratic accountability’ that could be extended to the relationship with the EPG on monetary policy (2018: 306). Overall, the mechanisms to hold the ECB accountable in banking supervision are generally seen as a marked improvement over similar arrangements in monetary policy (Braun 2017: 47). The reason why ECB accountability was contentious in the first place concerns its status as a non-majoritarian, technocratic organisation and at the same time one of the most independent central banks in the world (Curtin 2017; Elgie 2002; Naurin 2009). Generally speaking, independent