Mr. Mario Nava:

As I said, there was a single currency but there was not a single supervisory system. There were capital rules and those rules were based on the principle of minimum harmonisation, meaning that members could not go below the minimum thresholds but could reinforce them on the basis of their own needs. This ability to reinforce common laws on the basis of needs still exists in some areas today, for example, even under the maximum harmonisation approach, in real estate. Real estate is very different from one country to another. Real estate in Dublin is not the same as real estate in London or Paris. In real estate, lots of freedom has been left to the national supervisory authorities to take measures, typically macro-prudential measures, that might help.

In the period from 1999 to 2006 or 2007, the national supervisors had the responsibility, no doubt, for their own banking systems. Therefore, they also had the latitude, when considered necessary, either to go for more stringent rules or to do what is known in the jargon as Pillar II, which means supervision on a bilateral basis between the bank and the supervisors.

Or they could do supervision on a bilateral basis of a particular bank that was exposed to a particular sector, region or counter-party, and ask for more requirements. All of this was certainly in the hands of the national supervisors at that time, but I repeat that the national supervisors did not have to report to us in the Commission on what they were doing.