11.13.2 Implications for the Commission

Another key finding of this chapter is that relevant characteristics are sometimes only mentioned in the description-part of the decision. To give an example, the decision on the Belgian bank KBC indicated that KBC had committed to develop a sustainable remuneration policy. To that end, the incentive schemes would be linked to long-term value creation taking account of risk and restricting the potential for ‘rewards for failure’. This commitment is clearly a relevant characteristic. As explained in section 11.4, the Commission views favourably remuneration restrictions. One would expect that the commitment of KBC to develop a sustainable remuneration policy would be taken into account by the Commission in its assessment of the restoration of long-term viability. However, there is no mention of this commitment in the assessment-part of the decision. This commitment is only mentioned in two places in the decision: in the description-part and in the annex containing a list of behavioural commitments.

In my opinion, it would be better if the relevant characteristics are mentioned in the assessment-part of the decision. Admittedly, mentioning the relevant characteristics in the description-part of the decision does not exclude the possibility that they have been taken into account by the Commission in its assessment of the compatibility of the State aid. Nevertheless, mentioning the relevant characteristics in the assessment-part of the decision makes it explicit that they have been taken into account in the compatibility-assessment.