(1)

GlenBiotech submitted to the rapporteur Member State, the Netherlands, on 10 March 2017 an application pursuant to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 for the approval of the active substance Beauveria bassiana strain 203.

(2)

In accordance with Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the rapporteur Member State, notified the applicant, the other Member States, the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) of the admissibility of the application on 20 July 2017.

(3)

For that active substance, the effects on human and animal health and the environment have been assessed, pursuant to Article 11(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, for the use proposed by the applicant. On 5 June 2019, the rapporteur Member State submitted a draft assessment report to the Commission with a copy to the Authority, concluding that the active substance can be expected to meet the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

(4)

In accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Authority circulated the draft assessment report received from the rapporteur Member State to the applicant and the other Member States and organised a public consultation on it.

(5)

In accordance with Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the Authority requested the applicant to submit additional information to the Member States, the Commission and the Authority. The rapporteur Member State assessed the additional information and submitted its assessment to the Authority in the form of an updated draft assessment report in July 2020.

(6)

On 6 October 2020, the Authority communicated to the applicant, the Member States and the Commission its conclusion (2) on whether the active substance Beauveria bassiana strain 203 can be expected to meet the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. The Authority made its conclusion available to the public.

(7)

On 22 October 2021, the Commission presented to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed a review report and the draft of this Regulation providing that Beauveria bassiana strain 203 is approved.

(8)

The applicant was given the possibility to submit comments on the review report.

(9)

The Commission considers that, based on the draft assessment report from the rapporteur Member State, the conclusions from the Authority and the comments from the applicant, with respect to the representative use of at least one plant protection product containing Beauveria bassiana 203 which was examined and is detailed in the review report, that the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 are satisfied. It is therefore appropriate to approve Beauveria bassiana strain 203.

(10)

In accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 (b), (c) and (e) thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions and restrictions, these are, the maximum content of the metabolite of concern beauvericin in plant protection products, as well as the restriction of use to ornamental palm trees.

(11)

In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (3) should be amended accordingly.

(12)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

On 1 October 2021, Azelis Denmark A/S (‘the applicant’) submitted an application in accordance with Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003, requesting a change to the name of the holder of the authorisation for the flavouring primary product ‘Scansmoke PB 1110’, as set out in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1321/2013 (2).

(2)

In the application, the applicant stated that the authorisation for the smoke flavouring primary product ‘Scansmoke PB 1110’ was to be transferred to proFagus GmbH. In support of its statement, the applicant provided the transfer agreement concluded between it and proFagus GmbH in respect of the smoke flavouring primary product ‘Scansmoke PB 1110’.

(3)

The proposed change of the holder of the authorisation is purely administrative in nature and therefore does not entail a new assessment of the products concerned.

(4)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1321/2013 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

In order to ensure a smooth transition, it is appropriate to provide that the smoke flavouring primary product ‘Scansmoke PB 1110’, as well as smoke flavourings derived therefrom and foods containing them, which comply with the rules applying before the date of entry into force of this Regulation, may continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are exhausted.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

Regulation (EU) 2021/953 lays down a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) for the purpose of facilitating the holders’ exercise of their right to free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also contributes to facilitating the gradual lifting of restrictions to free movement put in place by the Member States, in accordance with Union law, to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, in a coordinated manner.

(2)

On 21 December 2021, the Commission adopted Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 (2), amending Regulation (EU) 2021/953 which establishes, for the purpose of travel, a standard acceptance period of 270 days for vaccination certificates indicating the completion of the primary vaccination series. That Delegated Regulation provides that Member States are, to ensure a coordinated approach, not to accept vaccination certificates indicating the completion of the primary vaccination series if more than 270 days have passed since the administration of the dose indicated therein. At the same time, Member States are, for the purpose of travel, not to provide for an acceptance period shorter than 270 days.

(3)

It is necessary to adapt the rules on the standard acceptance period of 270 days established by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 as far as vaccination certificates held by persons under the age of 18 years are concerned. This follows a re-evaluation of the approach regarding the acceptance period as mentioned in Recital 15 of that Delegated Regulation.

(4)

On 24 February 2022, the European Medicines Agency (‘EMA’) announced that its Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use had recommended that a booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty may be given where appropriate to adolescents from 12 years of age (3). The Committee considered that the available evidence was sufficient to conclude that the immune response to a booster dose in adolescents would be at least equal to that in adults. No new safety concerns were identified from the data available. On 28 February 2022, the Commission adopted an Implementing Decision amending the conditional marketing authorisation granted to Comirnaty accordingly (4).

(5)

The opinion from EMA supports the national vaccination campaigns in those Member States that decide to offer booster vaccinations to adolescents. At the same time, as noted by EMA, the decision on whether and when to offer boosters in this age group will need to take into account such factors as the spread and likely severity of the disease in younger persons, especially with the Omicron variant, the known risk of side effects, particularly the very rare but serious complication of myocarditis, and the existence of other protective measures and restrictions. It is thus for the experts guiding the vaccination campaign in each Member State to advise on the optimum decision and timing for their country.

(6)

In its technical report on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in adolescents aged 12–17 years and interim public health considerations for administration of a booster dose of 8 February 2022 (5), the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (‘ECDC’) concluded that available studies looking at COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness of primary vaccination course against infection, symptomatic disease and severe disease due to the Delta variant of concern showed a very high level of protection in adolescents. According to ECDC, there was limited evidence available of waning of immunity following vaccination among adolescents. The available data suggested a waning of vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection 5 to 6 months following completion of the primary vaccination course, however no evidence of waning immunity against severe disease was available at that point in time. Mathematical modelling by ECDC suggested that providing booster doses to adolescents is unlikely to have a considerable effect on the population-level transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

(7)

When consulted by the Commission, a large number of Member States’ experts in the Health Security Committee established by Article 17 of Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) considered that, even if some Member States might decide, based on the different considerations outlined by EMA, to offer booster vaccinations to minors, it is appropriate to exempt minors from the standard acceptance period established by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288. Not all Member States are currently offering booster vaccinations to persons below the age of 18.

(8)

The standard acceptance period should thus be limited to persons aged 18 and above.

(9)

Like the standard acceptance period established by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288, the exemption for persons under the age of 18 should be implemented at the level of verification, including by adapting the mobile applications used to verify EU Digital COVID Certificates. Given that vaccination certificates include the holder’s date of birth, the mobile applications used for verification are able to determine whether the standard acceptance period is to be applied or not. In this context, the exemption should apply to persons below the age of 18 on the day a certificate is verified.

(10)

The Commission should continue monitoring and regularly re-evaluating the approach regarding the acceptance period to assess whether adaptations might be needed on the basis of newly emerging scientific evidence, including in relation to the acceptance period for certificates indicating the administration of a booster dose.

(11)

Regulation (EU) 2021/953 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(12)

In light of newly emerging scientific evidence as to the administration for boosters to adolescents from 12 years of age, taking into account in particular such factors as the spread and likely severity of the disease in younger persons and the known risk of side effects, as well as to the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness of the primary vaccination course in this age group, imperative grounds of urgency require the use of the procedure provided for in Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2021/953. Delaying immediate action would also aggravate the risk of vaccination certificates held by minors no longer being accepted despite these developments. Therefore, the urgency procedure provided for in Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2021/953 is to apply.

(13)

This Regulation is without prejudice to Member States’ decisions as to their national vaccination campaigns.

(14)

To allow for sufficient time for the technical implementation of this Regulation, Member States should be allowed to apply, until 6 April 2022, the standard acceptance period established by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 also to certificates held by persons below the age of 18.

(15)

Given the urgency of the situation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

(1)

Legislation adopted since the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/445 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2016/4) (4) has introduced certain new options and discretions into Union law and has also amended or deleted certain options and discretions provided in Union law that the European Central Bank (ECB) exercised in Regulation (EU) 2016/445 (ECB/2016/4). Therefore, consequential amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/445 (ECB/2016/4) are necessary to reflect those changes.

(2)

Further, pursuant to Article 9(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/445 (ECB/2016/4), intragroup exposures are exempted from the relevant large exposures limits, provided that credit institutions fulfil certain criteria. Since the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/445 (ECB/2016/4) the level of the ECB’s prudential concern about credit institutions’ booking practices involving entities established in third countries has increased. The scope of Article 9(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/445 (ECB/2016/4) should therefore be limited to intragroup exposures to entities established within the Union.

(3)

Article 9(3) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/445 (ECB/2016/4) should be amended to allow that, in addition to the full exemption currently available, credit institutions that comply with the relevant criteria by observing a quantitative limit on the value of the relevant exposures are able to make use of a partial exemption.

(4)

In relation to trade finance off-balance-sheet related products, the ECB considers it necessary to introduce greater flexibility in the determination of outflow rates for the purposes of Article 23(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 (5). Therefore, the specification of a standardised 5 % outflow rate in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2016/445 (ECB/2016/4) should be removed. Instead, as is the case for the other products and services that fall within the scope of Article 23 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61, the ECB should determine outflow rates for trade finance off-balance-sheet related products by either accepting the outflow rates applied by the relevant credit institution or by setting a higher outflow rate, capped at 5 %.

(5)

To support the objective of consistent application of prudential requirements to credit institutions, a general policy for identifying major stock indices in a Member State or in a third country for the purposes of Article 12(1)(c)(i) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 should be established.

(6)

With the introduction of the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) requirement as set out in Title IV of Part Six of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, competent authorities are empowered to exercise several new options and discretions relating to the NSFR requirement. Regulation (EU) 2016/445 (ECB/2016/4) should, therefore, be updated accordingly.

(7)

To support the principle of equal treatment of credit institutions, options and discretions relating to the application of the NSFR requirement by small and non-complex institutions, as described in Chapter 5 of Title IV of Part Six of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, should be exercised in the same way as the corresponding options and discretions relating to the application of the NSFR requirement by other credit institutions, as set out in Chapters 1 to 4 of Title IV of Part Six of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

(8)

Certain factors have impeded the practical application of the discretion addressed in Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/445 (ECB/2016/4) whereby competent authorities may authorise institutions to apply a 3 % outflow rate to stable retail deposits covered by a deposit guarantee scheme (DGS), subject to the prior approval of the European Commission in accordance with Article 24(4) and (5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61. Further evidence and analysis are necessary in order to demonstrate that the run-off rates for stable retail deposits covered by a DGS as referred to in Article 24(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 would be below 3 % during any stress period experienced consistent with the scenarios referred to in Article 5 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61. In the absence of such evidence and analysis, the general policy authorising the application of a 3 % outflow rate should be removed from Regulation (EU) 2016/445 (ECB/2016/4).

(9)

In accordance with the procedure set out in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, the ECB has conducted an open public consultation on this Regulation.

(10)

The decision of the Supervisory Board of the ECB to approve the proposal to adopt this Regulation has been taken in accordance with Article 26(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013.

(11)

Therefore, Regulation (EU) 2016/445 (ECB/2016/4) should be amended accordingly,

(1)

An anti-dumping duty applies on imports of essential bicycle parts originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’) (‘the extended duty’) as a result of the extension of the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China by Regulation (EC) No 71/97.

(2)

Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 71/97 the Commission is empowered to adopt the necessary measures to authorise the exemption of imports of essential bicycle parts which do not circumvent the anti-dumping duty.

(3)

Those implementing measures are set forth in Regulation (EC) No 88/97 (‘the exemption Regulation’) establishing the specific exemption system.

(4)

On that basis the Commission has exempted a number of bicycle assemblers from the extended duty (‘the exempted parties’).

(5)

As provided for in Article 16(2) of the exemption Regulation, the Commission has published in the Official Journal of the European Union subsequent lists of the exempted parties (5).

(6)

The most recent Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/403 (6) concerning exemptions under the exemption Regulation was adopted on 3 March 2022.

(7)

For the purposes of this Decision, the definitions set out in Article 1 of the exemption Regulation apply.

(8)

Between 29 August 2019 and 1 July 2021, the Commission received from the parties listed in Tables 1 and 2 requests for exemption with the information required to determine whether these requests were admissible in accordance with Article 4 of the exemption Regulation.

(9)

The parties requesting exemption were given an opportunity to comment on the Commission’s conclusions concerning the admissibility of their requests.

(10)

In accordance with Article 5(1) of the exemption Regulation, pending a decision on the merits of requests from the parties requesting exemption, the payment of the extended duty in respect of any imports of essential bicycle parts declared for free circulation by these parties listed in Tables 1 and 2 below was suspended as from the day on which the Commission received their respective requests.

(11)

The examination of the merits of the request from the party listed in Table 1 has been concluded.

Table 1

(12)

The Commission established during its examination that the value of the parts originating in China constituted less than 60 % of the total value of the parts of all the bicycles assembled by the party listed in Table 1.

(13)

Consequently, the Commission concluded that the assembly operations of FIRMA ADAM Adam Ziętek fall outside the scope of Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

(14)

For that reason, and in accordance with Article 7(1) of the exemption Regulation, the party listed in Table 1 fulfilled the conditions for exemption from the extended duty.

(15)

In accordance with Article 7(2) of the exemption Regulation, the exemption should take effect as from the date of receipt of the request. The customs debts in respect of the extended duty from the party requesting exemption should therefore be considered void from the same date.

(16)

The interested party was informed of the Commission’s conclusions on the merits of its request and was given an opportunity to comment thereon.

(17)

Since the exemption applies only to the party specifically referred to in Table 1, the exempted party should notify the Commission (7) without delay of any changes to this exemption (for instance, following a change in the name, legal form or address or following the setting up of new assembly entities).

(18)

In case of change in reference, the exempted party should provide relevant information, including on any modification in its activity linked to assembly operations. Where appropriate, the Commission will update the references accordingly.

(19)

The examination of the merits of the requests from the parties listed in Table 2 is ongoing. Pending a decision on the merits of their requests, the payment of the extended duty by these parties is suspended.

(20)

Since the suspensions apply only to the parties specifically referred to in Table 2, these parties should notify the Commission (8) without delay of any changes to these (for instance following a change in the name, legal form or address or following the setting up of new assembly entities).

(21)

In case of change in reference, the party concerned should provide all relevant information, including on any modification in its activities linked to assembly operations. Where appropriate, the Commission will update the references to such parties.

Table 2

(22)

Between 31 March 2021 and 7 May 2021, the exempted or suspended parties listed in Table 3 notified the Commission of changes in their references (names, legal forms and/or addresses). The Commission, after having examined the information submitted, concluded that those changes do not affect the assembly operations with regard to the conditions of exemption or suspension set forth in the exemption Regulation.

(23)

While the exemption or the suspension of these parties from the extended duty authorised in accordance with Articles 5(1) or 7(1) of the exemption Regulation remains unaffected, the references to these parties should be updated.

Table 3

(24)

The parties listed in Table 4 submitted requests for exemption which were found to be inadmissible within the meaning of Article 4(4) of the exemption Regulation, because they did not fulfil the conditions set out in Article 4(1) and Article 4(2).

Table 4

(25)

The parties listed in Table 4 were informed on the Commission’s conclusions and were given an opportunity to comment thereon.

(26)

No comments were received from UW Werkmaatschappij B.V. and Smart Urban Mobility B.V. on the Commission’s conclusions.

(27)

Bicicletas Mendiz SA and MK Bicycles GmbH commented by requesting the Commission to reconsider the rejection on the basis of additional documentation and arguments they provided.

(28)

The Commission, after having duly assessed the respective documents and arguments, concluded that the additional submissions could not support the request to reconsider the conclusions as previously disclosed. Therefore, the inadmissibility of the requests for exemption was confirmed.

(29)

The parties were informed accordingly and were given an opportunity to comment thereon. No further comments were received on the Commission’s conclusions.

(30)

Between 25 March 2021 and 28 October 2021 the Commission was notified that the two exempted parties listed in Table 5 wound up and ceased their activities.

(31)

Sachsenring Bike Manufaktur GmbH wound up and ceased its activity on 12 January 2021 following bankruptcy, while Cicli Cinzia srl wound up and ceased its activity on 27 January 2021.

(32)

As a consequence, the Commission concluded that the exemption authorisation granted to Sachsenring Bike Manufaktur GmbH should be withdrawn as of 12 January 2021 and the exemption authorisation granted to Cicli Cinzia srl should be withdrawn as of 27 January 2021, in accordance with the principle of good administration.

(33)

The parties listed in Table 5 were informed of the Commission’s conclusions and were given an opportunity to comment thereon.

(34)

No comments were received from Sachsenring Bike Manufaktur GmbH on the Commission’s conclusions.

(35)

Cicli Cinzia srl commented by requesting the Commission to reconsider the withdrawal of its exemption authorisation.

(36)

The Commission, after having duly assessed the request, concluded that no new arguments were brought forward to support a reassessment of the conclusions previously disclosed. Therefore, the withdrawal of the exemption authorisation was confirmed and the party informed accordingly,

Table 5

(1)

Article 11(2) of the Monetary Agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Monaco (hereinafter ‘the Monetary Agreement’) requires the Principality of Monaco to apply the same rules as those established in the French Republic for the purposes of transposing European legal acts concerning the activities and prudential regulation of credit institutions and the prevention of systemic risks to payment and securities settlement systems contained in Annex A.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Monetary Agreement, Annex A must be updated by the Commission upon amendment of any relevant acts and also each time a new text is adopted by the European Union.

(3)

New texts have been adopted by the European Union and amendments have been made to the texts already referred to in Annex A.

(4)

Annex A to the Monetary Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

By letter of 7 February 2022, Ireland formally notified its wish, in accordance with Article 4 of Protocol No 21, to accept and be bound by Regulation (EU) 2021/1147.

(2)

There are no conditions attached to the participation of Ireland in Regulation (EU) 2021/1147.

(3)

In accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 331(1) of the Treaty, the Commission should therefore confirm the participation of Ireland in Regulation (EU) 2021/1147,

(1)

On 4 April 2017 the European Central Bank (ECB) adopted Guideline (EU) 2017/697 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2017/9) (2) (hereinafter the ‘O&D Guideline’), in which it established general policies for the exercise of certain options and discretions available in Union law by national competent authorities in relation to less significant institutions. Legislation introduced since the adoption of the O&D Guideline has amended or deleted some of the options and discretions provided in Union law that were included in the O&D Guideline. Therefore, certain consequential amendments to the O&D Guideline are necessary.

(2)

As regards the outflow rates to be applied to stable retail deposits, certain factors have impeded the practical application of the discretion addressed in Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/445 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2016/4) (3) and Article 7 of the O&D Guideline whereby competent authorities may authorise institutions to apply a 3 % outflow rate to stable retail deposits covered by a deposit guarantee scheme (DGS), subject to the prior approval of the European Commission in accordance with Article 24(4) and (5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 (4). Further evidence and analysis are necessary in order to demonstrate that the run-off rates for stable retail deposits covered by a DGS as referred to in Article 24(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 would be below 3 % during any stress period experienced consistent with the scenarios referred to in Article 5 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61. In the absence of such evidence and analysis, the general policy authorising the application of a 3 % outflow rate should be removed from Regulation (EU) 2016/445 and thus from the O&D Guideline.

(3)

The option granted to competent authorities under Article 12(1)(c)(i) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 on the identification of major stock indices for the purposes of identifying the shares that may qualify as Level 2B assets in the liquidity coverage ratio should be exercised consistently for significant and less significant institutions. The discretion intends to make sure that credit institutions only include in their liquidity buffer those shares that are included in indices for which market liquidity of the underlying shares can be assumed. Since neither the significance nor the size of a credit institution directly impacts the market liquidity of the underlying shares in the relevant indices, it would not be appropriate to apply a differentiated treatment for significant and less significant institutions.

(4)

The discretion granted to competent authorities under Article 12(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 to derogate from points (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 1(b) of the same Article in the case of credit institutions which in accordance with their statutes of incorporation are unable for reasons of religious observance to hold interest bearing assets should be exercised consistently for significant and less significant institutions, so as to harmonise the criteria to identify Level 2B assets with regard to corporate debt securities.

(5)

The discretion granted to competent authorities under Article 428p(10) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) in connection with the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) requirement, according to which competent authorities may determine the required stable funding factors to be applied to off-balance-sheet exposures that are not referred to elsewhere in Chapter 4 of Title IV of Part Six of that Regulation, should be exercised in a consistent manner for both significant and less significant institutions. The policy in relation to significant institutions links the required stable funding factors in the NSFR to the outflow rates applied in the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR), while leaving flexibility for the ECB to determine different required stable funding factors. This approach strikes a balance, for the sake of simplicity and prudence, between aligning the factors to be applied in the calculation of the NSFR with the factors determined for the purposes of the LCR, while still allowing for a different treatment in cases where this linking would not properly reflect the associated funding risk. It is not necessary or appropriate to deviate from that approach in relation to less significant institutions, as the methodology for applying required stable funding factors to these off-balance-sheet exposures should not, in principle, vary across credit institutions. For the same reason, the discretion granted to competent authorities pursuant to Article 428aq(10) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 in connection with the NSFR calculated according to the simplified approach should be exercised in a similar manner.

(6)

The discretion granted to competent authorities under Article 428q(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 whereby they determine the term of encumbrance in relation to segregated assets in accordance with the underlying exposure of those assets should be exercised in the same way for significant and less significant institutions. Assets that have been segregated and which are not freely disposable should be considered as encumbered for a period corresponding to the term of the liabilities to the institutions’ customers to whom that segregation requirement relates, and therefore be properly funded during that period. This rationale applies regardless of the size of the institution concerned. The discretion granted to competent authorities pursuant to Article 428ar(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 in connection with the NSFR calculated according to the simplified approach should be exercised in a similar manner for the same reasons outlined above and also because there is no prudential rationale which would justify a difference of approach with respect to the NSFR calculated according to the simplified approach. The provisions implementing the options and discretions in relation to the exemption of intragroup exposures from the application of the large exposure limits set out in Article 400(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 in this Guideline should be amended and exercised consistently for significant and less significant institutions. Since the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/445 (ECB/2016/4) the level of the ECB’s prudential concern about credit institutions’ booking practices involving entities established in third countries has increased. The scope of this option should therefore be limited to intragroup exposures to entities established within the Union, with the effect that intragroup exposures to entities in third countries may be exempted from the relevant large exposures limits only after a prior case-by-case supervisory assessment.

(7)

In addition, the O&D Guideline should be amended to allow that, in addition to the full exemption currently available, credit institutions that comply with the relevant criteria by observing a quantitative limit on the value of the relevant exposures are able to make use of a partial exemption. Such extended application of the discretion should contribute to the maintenance of a level playing field for credit institutions in the participating Member States, as well as limit concentration risks arising from specific exposures and ensure that the same minimum standards are applied across the Single Supervisory Mechanism.

(8)

Therefore, Guideline (EU) 2017/697 (ECB/2017/9) should be amended accordingly,