I limits on repayments of members of public banks who have exercised the right of withdrawal at the time of transformation of institutes into Spas are imposed by the prudential rules of the European Union. Consequently, the national legislator has "no right to choose between the two alleged options, i.e. the quantitative limitation of the repayment of the withdrawing shareholder and its postponement", but must "give the bank the power to adopt both", because only in this way shares can be considered in the best quality capital (Cet1). The Constitutional Court explains it in the sentence (filed today) with which last March 21 he had rejected the question of constitutionality raised by the Council of State on the reform of cooperative banks.
According to the constitutional judges, therefore, "the complaint against the decree on banks of having preferred the more onerous solution for the withdrawing shareholder is groundless, since the legislator had no room for choice".
The Consulta notes that "the limitations provided constitute a reasonable balance between the protection of the withdrawing shareholder's rights and the general interest in the stability of the financial system – reads again in a statement – They are also closely linked to the prudential situation of the bank, in the sense that the repayment can be limited by the bank only if, to the extent and in the strict time in which this is necessary to meet prudential requirements".
If the institution chooses to limit repayments, “belongs to the administrators periodically check the prudential situation of the bank, as well as the permanence of the conditions that" imposed the limits, "and take the measures where they are no longer valid". In this case, the withdrawing shareholder has the right to a refund. "The expropriation feared by the referring court is therefore averted, also with reference to the protection provided by the European Convention on Human Rights", continues the note.
