116. When determining the most effective supervisory follow-up in accordance with paragraphs 114 …

When determining the most effective supervisory follow-up in accordance with paragraphs 114 and 115 above, competent authorities should consider at least:

• a) whether, after the implementation of the remediation plan proposed by a subject of assessment to the competent authority, all breaches and weaknesses will be addressed and remediated effectively. Competent authorities should be satisfied with the timeline proposed by the subject of assessment for when the remediation will be complete, and they should challenge the subject of assessment where the timeline is unrealistic or where the proposed actions are not sufficiently robust to remediate specific weaknesses;
• b) whether to use one or a combination of supervisory tools, supervisory measures or sanctions to ensure that breaches and shortcomings within the subject of assessment are addressed and remediated in a most effective and timely manner;
• c) the urgency of remediation as some breaches or weaknesses may require more urgent action by subjects of assessment, which means that competent authorities should ensure that sufficient priority is given by the subject of assessment to remediate these shortcomings;
• d) the length of time required to remediate specific breaches or shortcomings and where the remediation may take a long time, the subject of assessment should put in place adequate temporary measures to mitigate the risk;
• e) the probability of a repeat or systemic breach or weakness, which may be assessed by looking at the previous failures within the subject of assessment and the length of time for which the subject of assessment failed to implement effective systems and controls, the competent authority’s follow-up should focus not just on fixing one specific issue but on ensuring the discontinuation of the systemic failure by the subject of assessment;
• f) potential impact of the breach or weakness on the wider internal controls framework within subjects of assessment, which may require an engagement with prudential supervisors in accordance with the EBA’s Cooperation Guidelines²⁴ and a possible follow-up action also from a prudential perspective;
• g) the subject of assessment’s ability and willingness to remediate failures identified by competent authorities, including the extent to which the key function-holders and senior management within the subject of assessment are involved in the remediation process.
•  A1

²⁴ EBA Guidelines on Cooperation and information exchange between prudential supervisors, AML/CFT supervisors and financial intelligence units under Article 117(6) of Directive 2013/36/EU, December 2021

1. Yleiskatsaus

1.1 Viittaukset

1.2 Tunnistetut vaatimukset

1.3 Liittyvät standardit

2. Tunnistetut vaatimukset

3. Liittyvät standardit

• EBA - Published by the European Banking Authority at https://www.eba.europa.eu/