Banking Tercas a Cassa di Risparmio of the Province of Teramo, in 2012 ends up in extraordinary administration. We are in the most difficult years of the economic crisis. Tercas, as it should be, was helped transparently through the tools made available to the banking system and considered legitimate by the legislative system. She was in extraordinary administration and it was not possible to bring her back to ordinary management. Banca Popolare di Bari proposed to intervene, but it was necessary to make up for the loss which Tercas had in their own accounts, so the Interbank Deposit Protection Fund, a fund financed entirely by banks without intervention by money public, resolved to pay the sum of approximately 270 million, which eliminated the bank's loss and allowed Banca Popolare di Bari to intervene with a capital increase which, at that point, it was all worthwhile because the losses had been eliminated.
Popolare di Bari joined the group and the operation ended positively. Nothing could bode well that the Commission would not the intervention of the Fund was appreciated. Especially since it isva of interventions that the Fund, throughout its history, has always made using its own resources without violating any provision of the Treaty which, in the meantime, it was not certainly been modified. About 80 interventions, done in previously, who have protected depositors e companies that, in different forms, they were saved. Thus, almost like a bolt of lightning to usthe serene, in 2013, the Commission, with its own note of interpretation, and therefore not a regulatory act, changed its direction up to the decision to initiate proceedings against the Italian State, deeming that the operation was to be considered "state aid" and, therefore, had violated the rules on competition.
Hence the imposition to return what was disbursed by the Fund and the appeal before the European Justice of the Italian State, of the Fund same and of the Bhip of Italy. Sentence today on the specific case: “That intervention on Banca Tercas of the Fund, a private law consortium, did not constitute State aid". The Commission not only had not elements to be able to state that such an intervention would have been taken under the influence oil control of public authorities and that consequently will bebbe been imputable to the State ma, in reverse, numerous are the elements that indicate how the Background acted autonomously at the time of the intervention in favor of Tercas.
This "error" by the Commission it has produced heavy destruction of wealth with costs much higher than the intervention of the Fund would have been. Banca Popolare di Bari suffered a loss of one billion of collection with the addition of incal damagelabile from a reputational point of view. Added to this is that, subsequently, it was no longer possible to use the Fund denying the rescuethat it would have been possible of the "four banks" (three former Savings Banks and one Popolare). An effective tool and experienced to deal with banking crises that before has shown its usefulness, a simple tool that is based on a consolidated principle which is that of mutuality between credit institutions, an instrument whose use has been prevented in Italy its in the years harder for the economy and for the banking system, in which all the effects of the long cri were manifestedsi.
Lto the European Court of Justice ruled that block that system it was a legally illegitimate act. That it was politically and economically un error it was obvious. But now there is a ruling by a third judge who, even from a for point of viewbad, puts it in black and white. Unfortunately justice ha times different from those of the economy and can not always arginare the damage of politics. With “that mistake”In fact, la Commission has done nothing but aggravate the banking crisis and consequently the economic one and, in the specific case, put in difficulty lto Banca Popolare di Bari is is the one that has suffered the most damage and that, most of all, today he can express his satisfaction. There will still be a lot to say about this whole story to understand its dynamics and responsibilities. Today, however, one fact is certain: the intervention of the Interbank Fund was not illegitimate and if there was any illegal behavior, it was that of the European Commission.
°°°The author is the Secretary General of the National Association of Popular Banks
