The FMA is committed to full transparency towards the Parliamentary Enquiry Committee convened “to investigate political responsibility for the actions in respect of the Hypo Group Alpe Adria” (Hypo Enquiry Committee). Accordingly, the Authority submitted in due time all requested files and documents unredacted, classifying them in line with the given confidentiality categories. The FMA shares the Austrian Parliament’s view that the first sentence of Article 5 para. 2 of the Information Rules Act (InfOG; Informationsordnungsgesetz) declares only absolutely necessary classifications to be admissible. The FMA has applied this principle in full.
The legal basis for submitting files and documents with contents relating to banking supervision to the Parliamentary Enquiry Committee is found in Article 59(2) of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD IV), which, as part of the general order to provide evidence (484 of the Annexes to the 25th legislative period – National Council committee report – Annex 2, page 4), Parliament also expressly requested the FMA to consider (“With regard to items 15. [note: refers to the FMA] and 21. [note: refers to the OeNB] any restrictions imposed by European law must be considered when disclosing information”).
Point (c) of the aforementioned provision stipulates, in addition to other restrictions, that “the persons with access to the information are subject to professional secrecy requirements under national law at least equivalent to those referred to in Article 53(1)”.
Since secrecy requirements regarding information submitted to the National Council and its committees pursuant to Article 2 InfOG apply exclusively to classified information, the FMA holds the view that information with contents that relate to banking supervision and fall under the Directive must at least be assigned to classification level 1 prior to submitting such information to an enquiry committee of the National Council.
Without such classification, European regulations would not have permitted the FMA to submit the information. When classifying the information, the FMA differentiated between classification levels 1 and 2, with the majority of the information submitted being classified as level 1 in order to allow hearings open to the public through the media.
Considering the requirement for the highest possible degree of transparency, the minimum level of confidentiality for FMA documents is therefore classification level 1 “restricted”. A more differentiated classification could only result in documents being assigned to higher classification levels. Only in individual cases were documents assigned to classification level 2 “confidential”. Not one document was assigned to classification level 3 “secret” or classification level 4 “top secret”.
Where previously published information had been referred to in the course of an official supervision activity, the information was additionally submitted to facilitate readability of the files.
Therefore every member of the Enquiry Committee can examine all information that was available to the FMA, and the Enquiry Committee may introduce all information to the public hearings that is not specifically protected by legislation. We are convinced that the FMA has done everything within its power to provide, without reservation, the Enquiry Committee with all information and has handed over everything within its power to the Enquiry Committee to ensure the highest possible degree of transparency.
Journalists may address further enquiries to:
Klaus Grubelnik (FMA Media Spokesperson)
+43/(0)1/24959-6006