13.9.4 Concluding remarks

The relevance of the acquisition ban was set out in subsection 13.9.1. Requiring an acquisition ban is standard practice of the Commission. Apart from a few outliers1, there is no inconsistency in that regard (see subsection 13.9.2).

With respect to the elaboration of the acquisition ban, subsection 13.9.3 has shown that the modalities of the acquisition ban differ among the cases. Nevertheless, in every case that was characterised by an acquisition ban, the Commission welcomed the fact that there was an acquisition ban, even though the scope of the acquisition ban and the exemptions to the acquisition ban were different. In my view, the principle of equal treatment does not require that all the modalities of the acquisition ban should be the same in each case. However, it does require that the Commission should take into account the relevant differences between the cases. Thus, if cases differ on the modalities, then one would expect that these differences are taken into account by the Commission. In particular, one would expect some kind of justification or explanation why the scope of the acquisition ban is different or why some exemptions are not included. Such explanation is not given by the Commission in its decisional practice. Most decisions only mention that the Commission welcomes the acquisition ban, without taking into account the different modalities of the acquisition ban.

Thus, the fact that the bank is subject to an acquisition ban is a relevant characteristic, but this relevant characteristic is not consistently elaborated in the decisions. However, the adoption of the 2013 Banking Communication put an end to this inconsistency.