1. Harmonization of Insurance Supervisory Law

Directive 2009/138/C of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 Nov. 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), OJEU L 335, 17 Dec. 2009, 1 ff.

On this point, see Recital 2 of Directive 2009/138/EU, n. 1 above and also in further detail below, at 1.3.1.2.

The only examination and discussion found on the subject are in Bürkle, “Die aufsichtsbehördlichen Eingriffsbefugnisse nach Solvency II” [in English: Supervisory Intervention Powers under Solvency II] in: Dreher/Wandt, eds., Solvency II in der Rechtsanwendung [in English: Solvency II in Legal Application] (2009), 191 (208 ff.) on the issue of continuing the prevailing practice in supervision according to the principle of abusiveness; see on this point in further detail 1.4.2.2 below; further, there are merely apodictic references that the Solvency II legislation presupposes full harmonization – see, e. g., Wandt/Sehrbrock, “Solvency II – Rechtsrahmen und Rechtsetzung” [in English: Solvency II – Legal Framework and Legislation] in: Dreher/Wandt, eds., id., n. above, at 1, 23; likewise in the publications of practitioners, as, e.g., Reorganisation and Sitzverlagerung in der europäischen Versicherungswirtschaft [in English: Reorganization and Relocation in the European Insurance Industry] (KPMG: 2008), 17, downloadable at www.​kpmg.​de/​docs/​Reorganisation.​pdf.

Thus, especially in the first consumer protection directives; see Directive 85/577/EEC of the Council of 20 Dec. 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises, OJEEC L 372 of 31 Dec. 1985, 31 ff.; Directive 93/13/EC of 5 Apr. 1993, on abusive terms in consumer contracts, OJEEC L 95 1993, 29 ff.; Directive 97/7/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 Apr. 1997, on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts, OJEC L 144, 4 Jun. 1997, 19 ff.; 1997 Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999, on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, OJEC L 171, 7 Jul. 1999, 12 ff.

Thus, for example, in the area of deposit insurance in the lending sector, where the level of protection was established by law at a maximum of 100,000 euros in art. 1, no. 3 a of Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 Mar. 2009, amending Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes as regards the amount insured and payout delay, OJEU L 68, 13 Mar. 2009 at 3 ff. by inserting new paragraph 1 a of art. 7 of the original Directive; see most notably on the point of the otherwise threatened distortions of competition also Recital 3 of Directive 2009/14/EC ibid.

The concept of full harmonization as used here is sometimes designated as maximum harmonization, making it difficult to construct legally rigorous demarcations among the several harmonization tools; see, e.g., Knops, “Der Verbraucherkredit zwischen Privatautonomie und Maximalharmonisierung” [in English: Consumer Credit between Private Autonomy and Maximum Harmonization] in: Habersack/Mülbert/Nobbe/Wittig, eds., Die zivilrechtliche Umsetzung der Zahlungsdiensterichtlinie/Finanzmarktkrise und Umsetzung der Verbraucherkreditrichtlinie – Bankrechtstag 2009 – 2010 [in English: Civil Law Implementation of the Payment Services Directive/Financial Market Crisis and Implementation of the Consumer Credit Directive – Banking Conference 2009 – 2010], 195 ff.; on this point see also Schürnbrand, “Vollharmonisierung im Gesellschaftsrecht” [in English: Full Harmonization in the Law of Associations] in: Gsell/Herresthal, eds., Vollharmonisierung im Privatrecht [in English: Full Harmonization in Private Law] (2009), 273 (74); Mülbert, ZHR 172 (2008), 170 (179 ff.).

On the issue of any discretionary power remaining to the national legislator in implementation, see, e.g., Riehm, “Umsetzungsspielräume der Mitgliedstaaten bei vollharmonisierenden Richtlinien” [in English: Member States’ Discretion in Implementation under Directives of Full Harmonization] in: Gsell/Herresthal, eds., Vollharmonisierung im Privatrecht [in English: Full Harmonization in Private Law] (2009), 83 ff.

See already Köndgen, in: Riesenhuber, ed., Europäische Methodenlehre [in English: European Methodology] (2nd ed. 2010), sec. 7, ref. 34; Bast, in: v. Bogdandy/Bast, eds., Europäisches Verfassungsrecht [in English: European Constitutional Law] (2nd ed. 2009) 526; thus the problem of a possible abuse of form arises when a directive rather than a regulation is used to establish full harmonization.

Above all in the area of consumer protection law; see, e.g., the notice of the Commission on consumer policy strategy of 7 May 2002 (COM (2002) 208 final), OJEU C 137, 8 Jun. 2002, at 2; subsequently, consumer protection provisions were largely reoriented towards full harmonization; for example, the notion of full harmonization is explicit in Recital 10 f. and art. 22 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 Apr. 2008, on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, OJEU L 133 of 22 May 2008, at 66 ff.; see further Recital (EG) 13, Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 Sep. 2002, concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC, OJEU L 271, 9 Oct. 2002, at 16 ff. and also RegE [government’s draft] of the implementation act, BR-Drucks. [Document of the German Bundesrat] 84/04 at 23 ff.; Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 Nov. 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC, and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, OJEC L 319 of 5 Dec. 2007, at 1 ff.; see also the recommendation of the Commission for a comprehensive directive on consumer rights of 8 Oct. 2008 KOM [Commission] (2008), 614 (final); for a detailed treatment of the entire development, see Welter, “Vom Anerkennungsprinzip zur Vollharmonisierung” [in English: From the Principle of Recognition to Full Harmonization] in publication in honor of Uwe H. Schneider (2011), 1412 ff.; Gsell/Herresthal, in: Gsell/Herresthal, eds., Vollharmonisierung im Privatrecht [in English: Full Harmonization in Private Law] (2009), introduction at 1 ff., Dickert, “Politische Implikationen der Vollharmonisierung” [in English: Political Implications of Full Harmonization] in: Gsell/Herresthal, eds., Vollharmonisierung im Privatrecht [in English: Full Harmonization in Private Law] (2009), 177 (178 f.).

See also Rittner/Dreher, id., n. 2 above, sec. 32 ref. 7, following with further references.

See already ECJ [European Court of Justice], 17 Dec. 1970, E.C.R. case no. 25/70 Köster (1970), 1161, pnt. 6; 27 Oct. 1992, case no. C-240/90 (Germany/Commission), E.C.R 1992 I-5383, pnt. 35 ff.; 13 Jul. 1995, case no. 156/93 (Parliament/Commission).

See Recital 2 of Directive 2009/138/EU, n. 1 above, at 3.

Decision 2009/79/EU of the Commission of 23 Jan. 2009 establishing the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors, OJEU L 25 (29 Jan. 2009) 28 ff., abbreviated as AEAVBA in the German version, but uniformly known by the English-language designation CEIOPS.

Therefore in the following only EIOPA will be used; on the establishment of previous committees by EIOPA, see Regulation 1094/2010/EG of 24 Nov. 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/79/EC, OJEU L 331 (15 Dec. 2010), 48 ff. The necessary amendments to the Solvency II Framework Directive and insertion of the EIOPA concept will proceed under a provision known as the Omnibus II Directive; see the proposal of the Commission for a Directive amending Directives 2003/71/EC and 2009/138/EC in respect of the powers of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority (19 Jan. 2001, COM (2011) 8 (final)).

See on this point the comments of Karel van Hulle, Head of the Insurance and Pensions Unit, to the Commission (reproduced in Lansch/Friedrich, VW (2011), 266), where he states that Solvency II aims at a more far-reaching harmonization than Basel III, even in fact at full harmonization, and that differences among the Member States are acceptable only in areas of group supervision and in the duration approach: to quote van Hulle in this connection: “With Solvency II we will be creating for the first time a unified supervisory system.” Similarly, id., 3 VersRdsch. (2007), 28 (31).

The original draft of the Solvency II Framework Directive proposed correspondingly extensive regulation aimed at uniform European standards for group supervision; on this point, see Krämer, ZVersWiss (2008), 319 (329 ff.); Sehrbrock, ZVersWiss (2008), 27 (30 ff.).

See art. 214, para. 2 of the Solvency II Framework Directive establishing criteria for including undertakings belonging to groups within group supervision by the appropriate national supervisory authority.

See, e.g., art. 35, para. 1, sent. 1 of the Solvency II Directive and also Dreher, ZVersWiss (2009), 187 (215) (Chap. 12, below, at 12.​7.​3).

See, e.g., the “List of Policy Issues and Options for the Level 2 Impact Assessment of Solvency II” in the paper “CEIOPS’ Advice for Level 2 Implementing Measures on Solvency II: System of Governance” (CEIOPS-doc. 29/09 (Oct. 2009)) and the “Consultation Document on the Level 2 implementing measures for Directive 2009/138/EC on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II)”, http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​internal_​market/​consultations/​2010/​solvency-2_​en.​htm.

For the difference, see Wandt/Sehrbrock, ZVersWiss (2011), 193 (203) and id., n. 4 above, at 1, 16.

As to the result, also Wandt/Sehrbrock, ZVersWiss (2011), 193 (204); Bürkle, VersR (2009), 866 (873), and Weber-Rey, AG-Report (2007), para. 396.

Regulation 1094/2010/EU of 24 Nov. 2010, establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/79/EC, OJEU L 331 (15 Dec. 2010), 48 ff.

In this context, the pending Insurance Supervision Act amendment must address the question of whether to enact laws duplicating the directly applicable rules of the implementing regulations. In view of the merely declaratory effect of such an adoption into the Insurance Supervision Act, which additionally might require substantial future amendment, it would be advisable to avoid altogether such duplicative superimposition.

See on this point 1.4.2.2, below.

See on this point 1.3.1, above.

Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 Jun. 1992 (third non-life insurance Directive); Council Directive 92/96/EEC, 10 Nov. 1992 (third life assurance Directive); implementation in German law was accomplished by the Drittes Gesetz zur Durchführung versicherungsrechtlicher Richtlinien des Rates der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, 21 Jul. 1994 BGBl I 1630.

See Dreher, VersR (1993), 1443; WM (1995), 509; id., Die Konkretisierung der Mißstandsaufsicht nach § 81 VAG [In English: Practical Application of Supervision According to the Principle of Abusiveness under sec. 81 of the Insurance Supervision Act] (1997), 9 ff.; Miersch, Versicherungsaufsicht nach den dritten Richtlinien [in English: Insurance Supervision under the Third Directives] (1996), 107 ff.; Zischka, Bundesversicherungsaufsichtsamt (BAV) – Aufgaben und Kompetenzen – [in English: Federal Insurance Supervisory Office – Tasks and Competencies –] (1997), ref. 451; Braumüller, Versicherungsaufsichtsrecht [in English: Insurance Supervisory Law] (1999), 553; Korinek, Rechtsaufsicht über Versicherungsunternehmen [in English: Legal Supervision over Insurance Undertakings] (2000), 197 f.; Bähr, Das Generalklausel- und Aufsichtssystem des VAG im Strukturwandel [In English: The General Clause and Supervisory System of the Insurance Supervision Act: Structural Transformation] (2000), 230 ff.; generally, Rittner/Dreher, id., n. 2. above, sec. 31, ref. 25 ff. with further references.

The general clause of sec. 81, para. 2, sent. 1 Insurance Supervision Act tracks almost word for word the provision of sec. 64, para. 2 Insurance Supervision Act of 1901, which allowed the Imperial Supervisory Office for Private Insurance a legal basis for intervention.

The following observers also detect reverse discrimination here: Bürkle, id., n. 4 above, at 191, 200 f.; Winter, VersR (2005), 145 (158 ff.); Bähr, VersR (2001), 1185 (1192 ff.); for actual effect in, for example, product design, see Dreher/Lange, VersR (2010), 1109 (1113) on the regulatory impermissibility of variable annuities in Germany.

On the restrictive concept of the public interest, see Commission Interpretive Communication 2000 C 43/03, of 16 Feb. 2000, “Use of free movement of services and the general good in the insurance sector”.

See in detail Rittner/Dreher, id., n. 2 above, sec. 31 ref. 28, 95, with further references; in the context of offering variable annuities through insurance undertakings with headquarters in another EU Member State, see also Dreher/Lange, VersR (2010), 1109 (1114).

On this point see 1.3.1.2 and 1.3.1.3, above.

See, e.g., in reference to MaRisk VA, Dreher, “Die BaFin geriert sich als Ersatzgesetzgeber”, [in English: The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority is usurping the legislative function], FAZ, no. 216, 17 Sept. 2009, at 22; in reference to the self-generated supervisory principle banning cross-subsidization, see Dreher, ZVersWiss (1996), 499; in reference to the likewise self-generated supervisory principle banning managing board and supervisory board membership for relatives, see Dreher, WM (1995), 509 (511 f.).

See, e.g., art. 13, para. 3b of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 Nov. 2002 on life insurance (comprehensive Directive on life insurance), OJEU L 345, p. 1; and see also Bürkle, id., n. 4 above, at 191, 203 f.

Likewise, Bürkle, id., at n. 4 above, at 191, 204; to the same effect also, Korinek, VersRdsch (2010), 27 (29), noting “substantive state supervision” in Austria already is confined to matters of law.

See Bürkle, VersR (2007), 1595 (1598); Präve, VW (2007), 1380 (1383).

This is the case above all where only explanation of formal supervisory standards is concerned, such as in clarification of the requirements on the CV to be submitted in BAV R [Federal Insurance Supervisory Office Circular] 6/97.

For a detailed treatment, see Dreher/Lange, ZVersWiss (2011), 211 (220 ff.) (Chap. 6, below, at 6.​3.​3).

On the subject as a whole, see Dreher/Lange, ZVersWiss (2011) 211 (223 f.) (Chap. 6, below, at 6.​3.​3.​2).

Act to Strengthen the Financial Market and Insurance Supervision, 29. Jul. 2009, BGBL [Federal Law Gazette] I, 2305.

See for the difference, e.g., Rittner/Dreher, id., n. 2 above, sec 9 ref. 56 ff.