OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft e.V.

GDV

The German Insurance Association is the trade body for private insurers in Germany, representing around 460 member companies with €1.8 trillion in assets.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Larisa Dragomir (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

14 Jan 2026 · Panel discussion on SIU: How insurers can drive change

German insurers urge EU to simplify sustainability reporting rules

5 Dec 2025
Topic — The initiative reviews the EU taxonomy environmental delegated act to simplify technical screening criteria.
Message — The GDV proposes redefining the Underwriting KPI to better reflect insurers' climate adaptation efforts. They recommend removing the minimum safeguard requirement to avoid duplication with other regulations. The group also requests fixing the opt-out wording to include life insurance companies.123
Why — This would lower compliance costs and eliminate reporting inconsistencies across several European regulations.4
Impact — Environmental groups lose visibility into how insurers provide coverage for nuclear and gas projects.5
Read full response

Meeting with Sven Gentner (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

4 Dec 2025 · Exchange of views on simplified ESRS (EFRAG draft) and Omnibus CSRD legislative process

Meeting with Andreas Glück (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Nov 2025 · Environment Policy

Meeting with Sonia Vila Nunez (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Roxana Mînzatu)

12 Nov 2025 · To discuss the topic of fostering a culture of preparedness.

German insurers urge stronger private pensions to ease future generational burden

10 Nov 2025
Topic — EU strategy on ensuring fairness between current and future generations across policy areas.
Message — The association calls for reforms that strengthen private and occupational pensions alongside public systems. They argue each generation must contribute to financing its own retirement rather than relying on future contributors. Capital-funded components should stabilize public finances and build trust between generations.123
Why — This would expand their market for private pension products and position insurers as essential to retirement security.4
Impact — Future workers lose if current generations don't save adequately and shift retirement costs forward.56
Read full response

Meeting with Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

7 Nov 2025 · Retail investment strategy

Meeting with Nicolo Brignoli (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis)

4 Nov 2025 · PEPPs, SIAs and upcoming pension package

Meeting with Nicolo Brignoli (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis)

4 Nov 2025 · PEPPs, SIAs and upcoming pension package.

Meeting with Astrid Dentler (Cabinet of Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra)

27 Oct 2025 · Climate change and insurance policies

Meeting with Alexandra Hild (Cabinet of Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva), Andreas Schwarz (Cabinet of Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva)

21 Oct 2025 · European Innovation Investment Pact and the Scaleup Europe Fund

German Insurance Association supports New European Bauhaus expansion

17 Oct 2025
Topic — EU initiative to scale up the New European Bauhaus linking sustainability and resilience.
Message — The organization requests a stable regulatory framework with simplified approval processes and uniform standards for sustainability assessment. They emphasize coordinating NEB with existing EU initiatives to avoid overlaps.123
Why — This would enable insurers to deploy their financial strength more effectively in sustainable infrastructure.45
Read full response

German insurers urge EU to eliminate digital regulatory overlaps

14 Oct 2025
Topic — The Commission is proposing a digital omnibus to simplify and streamline EU digital regulations.
Message — The organization calls for exempting DORA-regulated companies from overlapping Cyber Resilience Act requirements. They also request a clear legal basis for using sensitive data in AI training and a more flexible interpretation of GDPR to support automation.123
Why — These changes would lower administrative costs and reduce legal uncertainty when implementing AI and cybersecurity rules.45
Impact — Data subjects may face reduced privacy protections and less control over how their sensitive health data is used.678
Read full response

Meeting with Sirpa Pietikäinen (Member of the European Parliament)

10 Oct 2025 · Gender aspects of pension

Meeting with Pierfrancesco Maran (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Insurance Europe and MUST Partners

2 Oct 2025 · End-Of-Life Vehicles Regulation

Meeting with Fausto Matos (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen)

22 Sept 2025 · Data policy and the digital simplification omnibus

German Insurance Association urges Solvency II tweaks to protect guarantees

5 Sept 2025
Topic — Technical rules supplementing the review of prudential standards for European insurers.
Message — The association requests a higher interest rate buffer to protect solvency. They call for simplified proportionality and the removal of excessive reporting. Finally, they oppose applying banking-style remuneration restrictions to insurers.123
Why — These changes would protect the sector’s capital stability and significantly reduce compliance costs.45
Impact — Regulators and policyholders lose access to detailed sustainability information and narrative risk disclosures.67
Read full response

Meeting with Aurore Lalucq (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Sept 2025 · SIU, risk coverage, role of institutional investors, RIS

Meeting with Gerassimos Thomas (Director-General Taxation and Customs Union) and

4 Sept 2025 · Physical meeting - Discuss tax incentives in the context of the Savings and Investments Union

Meeting with Jens Gieseke (Member of the European Parliament) and Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft and RWE AG

3 Sept 2025 · Austausch zu EU Politik

Meeting with Jan Ceyssens (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall)

3 Sept 2025 · Address to the German Insurance Association

Meeting with Sven Gentner (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

3 Sept 2025 · CSRD/ESRS omnibus

German insurance industry urges EU framework for climate resilience

2 Sept 2025
Topic — This consultation concerns an integrated framework for European climate resilience and risk management.
Message — The industry calls for a European natural hazard portal to assess risks centrally. They advocate for mandatory risk assessments and certificates for all new building projects. Legally binding construction bans should be implemented for all high-risk flood zones.123
Why — Clearer risk data and improved prevention measures help insurers maintain long-term insurability.45
Impact — Property developers lose potential building sites because of proposed construction bans in flood zones.6
Read full response

Response to Supplementary pensions – review of the regulatory framework and other measures to strengthen the sector

17 Jul 2025

The German insurers welcome the European Commissions initiative to strengthen the supplementary pensions sector as a key pillar of the European Savings and Investments Union (SIU). The sustainability of pension systems and the adequacy of retirement in-come are increasingly under pressure due to demographic trends. At the same time, the EU urgently needs to mobilise more long-term capital to finance its competitiveness, productivity and digital and sustainable transformation of economy. We strongly support the political focus on pensions and long-term savings as expressed in President von der Leyens mission letter to Commissioner Albuquerque and in the Commissions SIU Communication of March 2025. We also welcome the strategic per-spectives presented in the Draghi and Letta reports. They rightly underline the central role that pension savings can play in funding the real economy and closing the EUs long-term capital gap. The German insurance industry is well positioned to help address the pension challenge and contribute to productive investment. As the largest institutional investor group in Germany, insurers manage over 1.9 trillion in assets. More than 500 billion of this is already invested in the real economy via equity and debt instruments supporting enter-prises, infrastructure and the green transition across the EU. With 84 million life insur-ance policies and 102 billion in annual payouts, the German insurance sector provides broad and stable access to long-term savings and retirement security. We believe that insurers are well equipped to play a meaningful role in long-term capital formation respecting consumers demands and needs at the same time. A recent study shows that nearly half of German savers prioritise security over flexibility or returns. The products both private and occupational therefore should provide a sufficient level of safety to meet these expectations and avoid undermining trust. The German insurance industry is committed to supporting the Commissions efforts to strengthen supplementary pensions for the benefit of both future retirees and Europes economic resilience. Please find attached additional comments on the areas addressed in consultation strate-gy of the Call for Evidence. We will provide more detailed feedback in our response to the current targeted consultation on supplementary pensions.
Read full response

Meeting with Svenja Hahn (Member of the European Parliament) and Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V. and

14 Jul 2025 · Treffen der Spitzenverbände der deutschen Wirtschaft

German Insurers Demand Inclusion in EU Savings Account Blueprint

8 Jul 2025
Topic — Consultation on creating a European blueprint for savings and investment products across the Union.
Message — The association demands that the new savings framework explicitly include insurance-based investment products alongside banking products. They argue for a focus on long-term assets and functional portability rather than rigid account rules. This approach aims to better support the European economy through infrastructure and green transition investments.12
Why — This prevents a banking-only model that would disadvantage insurance providers in the retail market.3
Impact — Short-term investors and banks lose out if tax incentives are restricted to long-term products.4
Read full response

Response to Renewal of the Brazil, Japan and Mexico provisional equivalence decision Art 227 Solvency II

3 Jul 2025

We welcome the intended extension of the provisional equivalence decision under Art. 227 of the Solvency II Directive with regards to Brazil, Japan and Mexico as announced in the have-your-say consultation. This is a necessary step to strengthen Europe as an insurance location, safeguard the competitive position of EU insurers in third countries and avoid unnecessary calculations for group capital requirements. Please find our more detailed feedback attached.
Read full response

Meeting with Maria Luís Albuquerque (Commissioner) and

27 Jun 2025 · German Insurance market

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament)

26 Jun 2025 · GDV-Konferenz Versicherungsregulierung - Zeitenwende in der Finanzregulierung? Perspektiven aus dem Europäischen Parlament auf Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, Stabilität und Verantwortung der Branche

Meeting with Larisa Dragomir (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

17 Jun 2025 · Information exchange

Meeting with Maria Luís Albuquerque (Commissioner) and

10 Jun 2025 · Information exchange

Response to Savings and Investments Union: Directive fostering EU market integration and efficient supervision

5 Jun 2025

German (re)insurers strongly support the objectives of the Savings and Investments Union and welcome the Commissions initiative to further integrate European capital markets and assess ways to improve supervision in the EU. As Europes largest institutional investors, our members are not only affected by the rulebook for and supervision of (re)insurance business, but also by the frameworks governing various other activities and entities. GDV will provide feedback regarding other issues covered by this workstream in response to the related targeted consultation. As regards insurance supervision, the current well-calibrated allocation of tasks between EIOPA and national authorities should not be jeopardized. Insurance supervision requires deep expertise in local markets and a transfer of tasks would add further complexity instead of reducing it. Regarding the supervision of cross-border activities, EIOPAs toolkit has recently been expanded further through the Solvency II Review. The effectiveness of those welcome changes should be assessed in practice before considering any changes. In contrast, considerations to transfer direct supervision powers to EIOPA should be challenged as there is no evidence or impact assessment that would suggest the expectation of more efficient supervision. Furthermore, national supervisors can and do ensure the protection of policyholders locally, and EIOPA already has the power to intervene if national authorities fail to apply EU law properly. Given the current economic and geopolitical challenges facing Europe, EIOPA should also be assigned to contribute more to the Commissions objective to reduce bureaucratic burden and strengthen the competitiveness of the EU economy, and of (re)insurers. A review of the EIOPA Regulation along these lines, which enhances supervisory convergence and strengthens the competitiveness of the EUs world-leading (re)insurance industry, would in turn enable the sector to contribute even more to the objectives of the SIU in its dual role as long-term investors and providers of risk coverage.
Read full response

German insurers urge simpler rules for sustainable finance transparency

30 May 2025
Topic — Revision of EU sustainable finance disclosure rules to simplify reporting and prevent greenwashing.
Message — GDV proposes radical simplification of templates to help retail customers. The new system must also accommodate collective insurance investments.12
Why — Cutting reporting overlaps would reduce costs and simplify sales for agents.3
Impact — Environmental groups lose specific data if mandatory sustainability indicators are reduced.4
Read full response

Meeting with Jens Gieseke (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

23 Apr 2025 · Altfahrzeugverordnung

Meeting with Martin Merlin (Director Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

22 Apr 2025 · Exchange of views on the Savings and Investments Union (SIU) strategy

Meeting with Ugo Bassi (Director Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

9 Apr 2025 · EUROFI – Exchanges on regulatory framework

Response to Foreign Subsidies Guidelines

2 Apr 2025

The obligation to disclose in detail financial contributions in the form of financial services from third countries that exceed EUR 1 million places an extremely disproportionate burden on the companies concerned. Under the current understanding, insurance companies would have to disclose all premium income from third countries that originates from a public entity, even if it represents normal market remuneration for the provision of insurance cover. The minimum threshold of EUR 1 million does not provide any relief in this respect, as the expense is already incurred when determining the relevant insurance premiums. In particular, it seems inappropriate that the reporting obligation for financial contributions is thus significantly more onerous than the corresponding obligation in relation to "hardcore" subsidies within the meaning of Art. 5 of the FSR Regulation. We therefore suggest clarifying in the guidelines that the registration obligation does not extend to the provision or purchase of goods and services on market terms.
Read full response

Meeting with Eric Ducoulombier (Acting Director Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

2 Apr 2025 · Exchange on key topics relevant to the insurance industry, including the Savings and Investments Union and the Retail Investment Strategy

Meeting with Tilman Lueder (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

27 Mar 2025 · Long-term life insurance and pension products

Meeting with Sven Gentner (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

27 Mar 2025 · CSRD omnibus.

German insurers urge lower capital charges for European securitisations

26 Mar 2025
Topic — The European Commission is reviewing the rules governing the bundling of financial assets.
Message — The association calls for lower capital charges to reflect the low risks of European assets. They also propose simplified reporting rules and removing collateral requirements for insurers.123
Why — These changes would reduce the regulatory costs of investing in the securitisation market.4
Impact — Public sector guarantors would lose their current competitive advantage over private insurance companies.5
Read full response

German insurers urge removal of redundant EU reporting metrics

26 Mar 2025
Topic — The consultation seeks to simplify EU Taxonomy reporting requirements for businesses.
Message — GDV supports the 10% de minimis threshold to avoid assessing assets that provide no measurable contribution. They also favor streamlining templates and strongly recommend omitting the consolidated KPI. They argue aggregating investment and underwriting KPIs adds no significant informational value.12
Why — This would reduce administrative costs by eliminating reporting for minor asset holdings.3
Impact — Investors may lose detailed insights into smaller asset portfolios and specific business lines.4
Read full response

Meeting with Rasmus Andresen (Member of the European Parliament)

19 Mar 2025 · Wettbewerbsfähigkeit

Meeting with Tilman Lueder (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

18 Mar 2025 · Solvency II, SIU

Meeting with Michael Hager (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis)

18 Mar 2025 · Simplification agenda Competitiveness

Response to Savings and Investments Union

7 Mar 2025

A historically unprecedented increase in investment is required if the EU is to achieve its policy goals. Mario Draghi estimates that annually EUR 750-800 bn are needed to foster growth, boost competitiveness, and finance the green and digital transitions. To unlock this capital, the SIU must create a strong transmission belt between long-term savings and investments. With total assets of EUR 1.9 trillion, German insurers are Europes largest institutional investors. With the right regulatory framework, insurers can better collect and pool citizens money, invest productively in the European economy and help close the pension gap. There is no silver bullet to activate private savings for capital markets and long-term investments. The following measures would ensure that the SIU meets the diverse needs of EU citizens while mobilising their savings: - Align SIU goals with customers needs to simultaneously address pension gap and Europes immense financial needs. - Ensure a broad range of pension and savings products to attract different customers with varying investment needs. - Define minimum criteria for products at the European level, applicable flexibly to national or new initiatives, e.g. via a new EU label and by simplifying the PEPP Regulation. - Build on existing tax incentives in Member States (MS). Focus on avoiding old-age poverty by incentivising retirement savings. - Requirements for a simple and low-cost product must not conflict with SIU objectives. Investments in alternative assets, especially Venture Capital (VC) or private equity are rather complex and therefore costly. The money entrusted to insurers is paid out in insurance claims (retirement, damages, etc.). Insurers are liability-driven investors. Pension products with a lifelong pension phase enable extremely long-term, reliable investments. Insurers are traditionally allocated strongly to highly rated bonds with stable cash flows and long duration, making them important lenders to governments. Furthermore, German insurers fund on a large scale business activity and infrastructure, e.g., corporate (non-financial) fixed-income investments, infrastructure investments, listed and private equities and VC. To allow insurers to increase investments in the real economy through non-traditional asset classes, we recommend: - Increase confidence in the security of investments by setting appropriate minimum standards of creditor rights in insolvency proceedings, as well as extending and harmonising the legal status and powers of insolvency administrators to trace assets belonging to the insolvency estate. - Define a practicable workable process for resolving disputes between investors and MS, via an EU body like an ombudsman or investment court. - Spark more investment, e.g. in infrastructure, through an increased use of public private partnerships and a stronger focus of supranational development banks to crowd-in institutional monies. - Create a deep European secondary market for VC funds. - Expand and promote existing successful SME financing models across Europe, such as the promissory note loan (German Schuldscheindarlehen). - Securitisations are not the silver bullet for Europe's financing needs but only one financial instrument amongst many. Despite a limited impact, the securitisations framework should be adjusted to make them more attractive for both issuers and investors. - Create more headroom for insurers to contribute more by improving the prudential framework and reducing administrative burdens. German primary insurers and reinsurers are in a unique position to invest at a very large scale and over the long term. Our sectors commitment to Europes economy is proven by a strong track record. Most investments by German primary insurers stay within the Eurozone. Our proposals aim to further increase this, contributing to sustainable growth and a financially secure retirement.
Read full response

Meeting with Pierfrancesco Maran (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Insurance Europe and

6 Feb 2025 · End of life vehicles

Meeting with Karola Maxianova (Head of Unit Secretariat-General)

28 Jan 2025 · Simplification

Meeting with Kilian Gross (Head of Unit Communications Networks, Content and Technology)

28 Jan 2025 · Clarification of the scope of the definition of AI systems

Meeting with Vincent Hurkens (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné)

24 Jan 2025 · Simplification, Savings and Investment Union

Meeting with Svenja Hahn (Member of the European Parliament) and Verband der Automobilindustrie and

24 Jan 2025 · Exchange on Green Claims

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and E-MOBILITY EUROPE

16 Jan 2025 · End-of-life of vehicles Regulation

Meeting with Yann Germaine (Acting Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

15 Jan 2025 · Development of Level 2 and 3 measures under the Insurance Recovery and Resolution Directive

Meeting with Laura Ballarín Cereza (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

9 Jan 2025 · ADR

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

27 Nov 2024 · CMU

Meeting with Matthias Ecke (Member of the European Parliament)

16 Oct 2024 · Kennenlernen / Finanzpolitik

Response to Report on the first review of the EU-US Data Privacy Framework

4 Sept 2024

The German Insurance Association (GDV) is the federation of private insurers in Germany. We represent about 470 insurance companies which include internationally active players und locally rooted companies, full-service insurers and specialist providers, traditional companies as well as young insurtechs. Feedback The EU-US-Data Privacy Framework is very popular with our members. In particular, companies that operate internationally and have a high volume of data traffic with the USA welcome the adequacy decision. Nevertheless, our members express a legal uncertainty that has arisen as a result of the Schrems rulings. For this reason, many companies do not seem to want to fully rely on the adequacy decision, but instead take additional precautions with the Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC) and Binding Corporate Rules (BCR). The possibility of transferring data to the USA solely on the basis of the adequacy decision is also limited by the fact that not all companies based there are certifieunder the Data Privacy Framework. On the other hand, our members agree that the adequacy decision has a risk minimizing and facilitating function. As the legal adjustments on data protection in the US, achieved through the Data Privacy Framework, are not limited to the adequacy decision, but apply in general, they are also useful and helpful for BCRs and the conclusion of SCCs. For the necessary transfer impact assessments, it is now possible to rely on the Commission's assessment when examining the legal situation in the USA. This not only saves an immense amount of time in the required transfer impact assessments but also provides the necessary legal certainty. Regarding the question whether all relevant elements have been fully implemented in the US legal framework, the companies are not yet able to provide an assessment. And, by now, we are not aware of any cases in which data subjects (customers or employees of the respective companies) have asserted their rights under the data protection framework. We are also not aware of any cases in which US investigative authorities have attempted to access customer or employee data within the scope of the agreement. Conclusion The Data Privacy Framework is seen by companies as an ease of work. Especially the side effects, i.e. the increased level of data protection in the USA and its legal assessment by the Commission, are seen as a helpful achievement. Ultimately, should the ECJ render its decision on the Data Protection Framework declaring it as legally valid, we consider the legal uncertainty to disappear and the adequacy decision to be accepted by the members without precautions. Berlin, 3 September 2024 Contact: GDV Legal Department (Data Protection) E-Mail: data-protection@gdv.de
Read full response

Response to Rules specifying the obligations laid down in Articles 21(5) and 23(11) of the NIS 2 Directive

25 Jul 2024

Please find attached the German Insurance Association input to the European Commissions public consultation on the implementing act of the Directive (EU) 2022/2555.
Read full response

Meeting with Werner Stengg (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

11 Apr 2024 · digitalisation, artificial intelligence and data protection

Meeting with Lucrezia Busa (Cabinet of Commissioner Didier Reynders)

26 Mar 2024 · CSDDD

Meeting with Matthias Ecke (Member of the European Parliament) and Deutscher Sparkassen-und Giroverband and

15 Mar 2024 · Kennenlernen / Finanzpolitik

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

6 Mar 2024 · priorities for the next mandate

Response to Claims history statement template for motor insurance

23 Feb 2024

Please find attached our feedback/recommendations on the draft implementing regulation regarding the template for the claims history statement (CHS) in motor insurance to ensure it remains workable in practice.
Read full response

German insurers back travel payment caps but demand risk limits

21 Feb 2024
Topic — Review of EU rules to ensure robust consumer protection for package travelers.
Message — The GDV supports capping advance payments but wants exemptions strictly limited to objectively necessary cases. They call for restrictive definitions of insolvency protection to ensure risks remain calculable.123
Why — Clearer rules on voucher validity and refund scopes prevent unpredictable insurance payouts and costs.45
Impact — Travel organisers may struggle with liquidity if they cannot easily defer customer reimbursements.6
Read full response

Response to Prolongation of the US provisional equivalence decision Art 227 Solvency II

21 Feb 2024

The German Insurance Association (GDV) welcomes the intended extension of the provisional equivalence decision under Art. 227 of the Solvency II Directive with regards to the US. Please find our comments in the attached position paper.
Read full response

Meeting with Svenja Hahn (Member of the European Parliament) and BUSINESSEUROPE and

21 Feb 2024 · Stakeholder Roundtable on Late Payment Regulation

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Feb 2024 · Austausch zum Thema „The next term: What role for the EU – What role for insurers?“

German insurers urge flexible GDPR rules to enable digital innovation

8 Feb 2024
Topic — Evaluation of the General Data Protection Regulation's application six years after its entry.
Message — The group requests replacing the prohibition on automated decisions with transparency rules and calls for a clear legal basis for processing health data. They also seek a risk-based approach for international transfers and clearer definitions for anonymized data.123
Why — Removing these rules would lower administrative costs and accelerate the rollout of automated services.4
Impact — Consumers and staff would lose the ability to use data requests for legal leverage.5
Read full response

Meeting with Andreas Schwab (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Feb 2024 · Zahlungsverzug

Response to Managing EU climate risks

4 Jan 2024

German insurers welcome the EU Commission's initiative to strengthen social resilience to increasing climate risks in the EU. Changing weather patterns and extreme weather events such as heavy rain, flooding, hail, storms, heat and drought pose an increasing threat to the population, buildings and infrastructure. Our association, GDV, supports various measures to minimise the risks and better prepare society for these challenges: 1. Adapting the building stock to changing weather conditions: It is essential that the building stock is adapted to the growing dangers of extreme weather events. Investment in resilient construction methods and materials is crucial to reduce the damage caused by heavy rain, flooding, hail, storms, heat and drought and to keep insurance premiums cost-effective in the long term. Without suitable and appropriate prevention by building owners as an adaptation measure, resilience cannot be increased. The means of choice could be a change in building legislation, which provides for an adaptation obligation with a time target, as well as financial national, supportive programmes of measures. 2. No new construction in flood-prone areas: We advocate that no new buildings are constructed in areas that are particularly prone to flooding. Avoiding construction projects in these risk zones is an important step towards minimising future damage. Binding regulations without exceptions should be laid down here. 3. Introduction of a standardised EU building passport: Similar to the energy performance certificate, a building passport should be introduced that documents the individual vulnerability of buildings to weather hazards. This passport could help potential buyers and residents to make informed decisions and take preventative measures. With a transitional period of 10 years, every building owner must provide proof of this engineering inspection to the local building inspectorate. 4. Increase the insurance density of natural hazard insurance policies: Increased awareness of the need for natural hazard insurance is crucial. We support the use of voluntary measures to increase the insurance density in order to improve the financial protection of citizens against the consequences of natural disasters. The premium structure of the insurance is risk-based. 5. Introduction of a Europe-wide natural hazard portal: A centralised portal that displays current weather warnings, contains specific recommendations for action in the event of an emergency and provides preventive tips for consumers/building owners would be extremely helpful. This would allow citizens to be made aware of impending risks at an early stage and enable them to take appropriate precautionary measures. 6. Regular disaster prevention exercises involving the population: Only by regularly practising protective behaviour and measures (example Japan: tsunami, earthquake) can society's knowledge be increased and resilience strengthened. 7. Effective publicity campaign in the member states: Implementation of national, customised information campaigns to explain the dangers and possible encounter strategies. GDV and the European insurance industry association (Insurance Europe) are committed to supporting the EU Commission in implementing these measures to strengthen resilience to climate risks in the EU. A coordinated effort is needed at national and European level to promote adaptation to climate change and make society more resilient.
Read full response

Response to Advanced alternative dispute resolution for consumers

19 Dec 2023

The German insurance industry welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposal of the EU Commission. Please find our Position Paper attached.
Read full response

Response to Reporting reduction package - amendments to the ESA, ESRB and InvestEU Regulations

18 Dec 2023

The German Insurance Association (GDV) appreciates the opportunity to share its initial assessment on the Draft Regulation of the European Commission. We welcome the effort to streamline reporting obligations and reduce administrative burdens for financial institutions. Improving data sharing between authorities is key to meet this objective. We believe that the proposal would benefit from minor refinements that could help to produce the envisaged effects more effectively. Our detailed suggestions are set out in the attached document.
Read full response

Meeting with Valeria Miceli (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

7 Dec 2023 · Simplification, proportionality and implementation of regulatory framework for the insurance sector.

German insurers demand repair standards for electric car batteries

4 Dec 2023
Topic — New EU rules to improve the recycling and reuse of motor vehicle components.
Message — The association urges the EU to set standards for repairing electric vehicle batteries on a component basis. They argue that requiring manufacturers to allow repairs instead of full replacements is essential for sustainability.12
Why — Standardized repair procedures would significantly reduce the high cost of insurance claims for batteries.3
Impact — Car manufacturers would be forced to redesign battery systems and provide specific repair procedures.4
Read full response

German Insurance Association Urges Significant Cuts to EU Reporting

28 Nov 2023
Topic — This consultation seeks to reduce EU corporate reporting requirements by 25 percent.
Message — The association proposes cutting certain financial disclosure reports by 95 percent. They request implementation periods of at least 18 months for new rules.12
Why — The industry would see lower administrative costs and reduced international competitive disadvantages.3
Impact — Transparency advocates and financial supervisors lose access to detailed, high-frequency industry data.45
Read full response

German insurers reject strict 30-day payment limit proposal

7 Nov 2023
Topic — The EU is proposing a regulation to combat late payments in commercial transactions.
Message — GDV opposes replacing the current directive with a mandatory 30-day payment cap. They argue these strict instruments disproportionately interfere with the freedom of contract. Payment periods should reflect market realities and industry-specific characteristics instead.12
Why — Maintaining current rules avoids legal conflicts that would restrict their credit insurance products.34
Impact — Fragile small businesses risk insolvency due to sudden liquidity problems and restricted credit.56
Read full response

German insurers urge narrower scope for financial data access

31 Oct 2023
Topic — Proposed EU regulation establishing a framework for sharing financial services data.
Message — The GDV requests limiting the scope to new contracts and excluding accident insurance. They also seek an implementation period extended to 36 months for companies.123
Why — Excluding legacy contracts would prevent disproportionate technical efforts and massive IT costs.4
Impact — Consumers risk harm if their sensitive health and personal data is misused.5
Read full response

Meeting with Pernille Weiss-Ehler (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and AIM - European Brands Association

11 Oct 2023 · Directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive)

Response to Adjusting size criteria for inflation in the Accounting Directive to define micro, small and medium-sized enterprises

6 Oct 2023

The German Insurance Association (GDV) welcomes the inflation adjustment of 25% as an appropriate step. The adaption should be implemented quickly so that undertakings have legal certainty, in particular for the new sustainability reporting requirements of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive 2022/2464 (CSRD). The new CSRD relates the reporting requirements on sustainability to the existing size categories of the Accounting Directive 2013/34/EU. However, from our perspective, the planned inflation adjustment is not sufficient to provide an adequate scope for the insurance industry. As a next step, it should also be examined whether specific size criteria could be defined for the insurance sector. Currently, the balance sheet threshold for large undertakings applies to the real economy as well as to the insurance sector. Looking at the balance sheet ratios of insurance companies, this does not take the specific characteristics of the insurance sector into account. Currently, 99.71% of the German market (by net turnover) are classified as large undertakings according to the size categories of the Accounting Directive. The planned inflation adjustment will hardly have any noticeable impact. Even the smallest, regionally active insurance companies with about 10 employees are considered to be large undertakings. Instead, the tailor-made rules for the banking sector could be taken as reference. Among other things, small and non-complex institutes are defined as having a total value of assets of less than EUR 5 billion according to Art. 4 para 1 (145) of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR). Adjusting the balance sheet and net turnover thresholds to a comparable scale would also be appropriate for insurance companies. Finally, higher thresholds for insurance companies would also contribute to maintaining a level playing field in the financial sector and to the aim of the European Commission to reduce the reporting burden.
Read full response

Meeting with Ondřej Kovařík (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

26 Sept 2023 · FIDA

German insurers urge EU to regulate raw ESG data

30 Aug 2023
Topic — Proposal to increase the transparency and reliability of environmental, social, and governance rating agencies.
Message — The GDV calls for the inclusion of raw ESG data products within the regulation's scope. Rules should cover entire corporate groups to prevent agencies from bypassing transparency standards. They insist that data fees be cost-based and not charged per specific use.123
Why — Standardized raw data helps insurers fulfill regulatory reporting mandates while reducing their operational costs.4
Impact — Rating agencies lose the ability to charge multiple fees or bypass rules using subsidiaries.5
Read full response

German Insurers Oppose Commission Bans and EU Price Controls

28 Aug 2023
Topic — EU consultation on protecting retail investors and enhancing capital market participation.
Message — GDV advocates for the coexistence of remuneration systems and opposes any bans on commissions. They argue that benchmarks must not become binding tools for price controls. They demand an implementation period of twelve months after all rules are finalized.1234
Why — This would protect existing revenue streams and prevent EU-wide caps on product costs.5
Impact — Retail investors may continue paying higher fees without strict, binding cost benchmarks.6
Read full response

Response to Establishing the digital euro

18 Aug 2023

Dear Sir or Madam, Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. Please find the comments of the German Insurance Association (GDV) attached. Kind regards, Jörg Haas
Read full response

German insurers demand consistency in EU green claim regulations

10 Jul 2023
Topic — The initiative requires companies to substantiate environmental claims using specific footprint methods.
Message — The association demands alignment between the Green Claims Directive and existing disclosure regulations. They want the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation explicitly included to avoid legal uncertainty. They also request that auditors be permitted to act as official verifiers.123
Why — Coordination of different legislative projects would provide a clear and predictable legal framework.4
Impact — Interest groups would lose the right to take legal action against supervisory authorities.5
Read full response

German Insurance Association Urges Simpler Sustainability Reporting Rules

7 Jul 2023
Topic — Consultation on the first set of European Sustainability Reporting Standards for companies.
Message — The association requests better alignment between different financial regulations to ensure data consistency. They also argue that references to external standards should be voluntary and that reporting requirements for supply chains must be made more manageable.12
Why — These changes would reduce the technical complexity and high administrative costs of compliance.34
Impact — Public interest groups and researchers would lose access to detailed information on corporate supply chains.5
Read full response

Meeting with Ralf Seekatz (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

29 Jun 2023 · Kleinanlegerstrategie

Response to Revision of the Directive on Driving Licences

26 May 2023

Enclosed please find the statement of the German Insurance Association (GDV) regarding the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences, amending Directive (EU) 2022/2561 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EU) No. 383/2012. This comment focuses on the EU Commissions aim of ensuring adequate physical and mental fitness of drivers across the EU and especially the issue of senior drivers. The proposal suggests elements of a mandatory age-based screening system. This is not appropriate for the majority of senior drivers, who are still fit to drive but exhibit age-related declines in functional requirements, especially cognitive requirements. This is reflected in typical driving error and accident characteristics of senior drivers, which become statistically apparent from age 75 onwards. Therefore, we call on the co-legislators to adapt the current proposal to better take account of the question of senior drivers by: Maintaining the status quo of a voluntary reduction of the administrative validity of the driving licence for senior drivers in this DLD Revision. Establishing a mandatory aged-based support system in the next DLD Revision at the latest. Raising the starting age for any age-based measures to 75 years. Assessing physical and mental fitness to drive with consequences for the driving licence only for drivers with reasonable doubts about their fitness to drive We would be grateful if our concerns could be taken into account in the further proceedings.
Read full response

German insurers urge delay in new green reporting rules

3 May 2023
Topic — New EU rules defining sustainable activities for water, circular economy, pollution, and biodiversity objectives.
Message — The association requests a one-year delay for disclosing environmental data to avoid significant information gaps. They also seek simplified forms to remove redundant requirements and improve clarity for data users.12
Why — Delaying the rules would lower compliance costs and prevent insurers from publishing low-value reports.3
Impact — Transparency suffers as a lack of standardized data prevents investors from comparing different companies.4
Read full response

Meeting with Pascal Arimont (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

27 Apr 2023 · Revision of the Product Liability Directive

Response to Advanced driver distraction warning (ADDW) systems

14 Apr 2023

The UDV welcomes the European Commission's efforts to reduce distracted driving to increase road safety. Distracted driving is one of the most important factors leading to death and serious injury on European roads. In this context, we see the mandatory introduction of ADDW systems from July 2024 as the right step. However, in order to ensure the effectiveness of the required ADDW systems, the technical requirements presented have to be significantly tightened. This applies in particular to the following points: The specified areas that result in a distracted gaze warning do not include the important areas of the instrument panel, the infotainment systems and any other devices such as smartphones placed or held in that area. These should definitely be included. The warning in case of distraction by turning the driver towards the rear seats is also not taken into account. Here, the regulation clearly falls short of today's technical possibilities for recognising and interpreting the driver's posture (see EuroNCAP1). The permitted time for averting one's gaze between 20 and 50 km/h is 6 seconds, which is clearly too long. Research shows that even 2 seconds of averted gaze significantly increases the risk of an accident. For this speed range, very important for urban areas, only a gaze averting time of 3s should be permitted. In general, the current EuroNCAP requirements (https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/77138/euro-ncap-assessment-protocol-sa-safe-driving-v1012.pdf) for technical systems in the vehicle for detection of driver distraction (DMS: Driver State Monitoring) can point to solutions for increasing the effectiveness of the ADDW systems described in this draft. About UDV: UDV (German Insurers Accident Research) is part of the German Insurance Association (GDV): Formed in 2004 following a merger of the Munich-based Institute for Vehicle Safety and the Cologne-based Institute for Road Traffic, UDV works toward improving the safety of Germanys roads and preventing accidents. UDV cooperates with political decision-makers, relevant authorities, police and vehicle manufacturers to achieve these goals. The organization maintains a dialog with all road users and advises accident commissions throughout Germany. UDV researches all aspects of road safety, taking an interdisciplinary approach that includes roads, vehicles and road users, and develops comprehensive concepts. Few other German organizations commission as much university and non-university research on road safety. UDV analyzes real accidents and enters the data in the German insurers accident database (UDB) in order to investigate the effectiveness of technical safety systems such as driver assistance systems. Since 2019, UDV is affiliated member of Euro NCAP (European New Car Assessment Program) and advocates here for safer cars.
Read full response

Meeting with Paolo Gentiloni (Commissioner)

4 Apr 2023 · Exchange of views on the macroeconomic outlook and the role of the insurance sector in supporting the Capital Markets Union and long term investment

Response to Enhancing the convergence of insolvency laws

15 Mar 2023

The German insurers welcome the proposed directive insofar as it aims to strengthen the creditors position in insolvency proceedings across the European Union and to increase their chances to influence the proceedings, in particular through creditors committees. The proposal is also fully supported insofar as it shall ensure that creditors are able to obtain the largest possible amount from the recovery of the assets belonging to the insolvency estate (increase in the amount to be distributed as a result of avoidance actions, asset tracing, directors duty to submit a request for the opening of insolvency proceedings). However, the proposed directive also includes provisions which do not take sufficient account of the creditors interests. This applies to the provisions on pre-pack proceedings in their current form as well as to the envisaged introduction of simplified winding-up proceedings for microenterprises without the involvement of an insolvency practitioner. The proceedings for microenterprises, as currently laid out in the proposed directive, increase the risks of abuse with regard to actions reducing the insolvency estate and the transfer of assets.
Read full response

Meeting with Pascal Arimont (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs and eBay EU liaison office

15 Mar 2023 · Revision of the Product Liability Directive

Meeting with Gilles Boyer (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Mar 2023 · CSDDD (staff)

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

1 Mar 2023 · access to in-vehicle data

Meeting with Pascal Arimont (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

28 Feb 2023 · Revision of the Product Liability Directive

Meeting with Anthony Whelan (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

15 Feb 2023 · In-vehicle data

Meeting with Ismail Ertug (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Feb 2023 · In-vehicle data

Meeting with Valeria Miceli (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

26 Jan 2023 · GDV wanted to discuss their main concerns in relation to the upcoming Retail investment Strategy proposal.

Meeting with Werner Stengg (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

9 Jan 2023 · access to in-vehicle data

Meeting with Agnieszka Drzewoska (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

9 Jan 2023 · Retail Investment Strategy.

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

9 Jan 2023 · Retail Investment Strategy

GDV warns new liability rules could burden manufacturers excessively

11 Dec 2022
Topic — The Commission is updating liability rules for digital products and artificial intelligence.
Message — The GDV calls for precise definitions of technical complexity to avoid legal uncertainty. They also demand time limits on software updates to prevent everlasting liability.12
Why — Clearer rules protect the availability of insurance by ensuring that risks remain calculable.34
Impact — Consumers could face higher costs as a result of increased litigation and manufacturer expenses.5
Read full response

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

28 Nov 2022 · CMU package, Retail Investment Strategy

Meeting with Ismail Ertug (Member of the European Parliament)

23 Nov 2022 · Annual Reception

Meeting with Markus Ferber (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

30 Sept 2022 · Insurance Regulation: Solvency II

German Insurance Association seeks clearer European health data rules

28 Jul 2022
Topic — A European Commission proposal to create a unified health data sharing framework.
Message — The association requests clearer definitions to ensure private insurers are excluded from heavy data-handling rules. They also demand the removal of a clause specifically banning insurers from using health data to adjust premiums.123
Why — Narrower definitions would help insurers avoid significant administrative burdens and potential legal disputes.4
Impact — Policyholders could lose explicit legal protections that prevent companies from raising premiums based on health data.5
Read full response

Meeting with Henrike Hahn (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

11 Jul 2022 · Solvency 2

Response to Distance Marketing of Consumer Financial Services - Review of EU rules

23 Jun 2022

The German insurance industry welcomes the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s proposals. Unfortunately, the draft does not address the issue of the “eternal right of withdrawal”, which we consider to be crucial. Legal certainty should be created in this context by placing an absolute time limit on the right of withdrawal, for instance one year after the conclusion of a contract. This would be in line with more recent developments in consumer protection legislation, including the existing provisions of the Consumer Rights Directive and the discussions on the review of the Consumer Credit Directive. Such a time limit is not only required with regard to the now proposed amendments on the distance marketing of financial services but also and in particular with regard to the right of withdrawal pursuant to the Solvency II Directive, which would then be solely applicable to life insurances. According to current legislation, the lack of such a time limit allows for a rescission of long-term life insurance contracts even decades after a contract was concluded, at the expense of the other insurance customers. In addition, concise and comprehensible model instructions on withdrawal – for instance along the lines of Annex I of the Consumer Rights Directive – should be provided at European level. Clarifications concerning the provisions on a withdrawal button would also lead to more practical arrangements and to an increase in legal certainty. Notwithstanding the above, we support the approach to make provisions on distance marketing subordinate to the more specific, sectoral rules. The wording concerning the issue of subsidiarity, however, should leave no room for ambiguity to avoid legal uncertainty in the future. It might be even more useful for practitioners to instead incorporate those provisions of the current Distance Marketing Directive for consumer financial services which will still be relevant in the future into industry-specific regulations. With regard to the insurance industry, this could be done by incorporating the right of withdrawal applying to non-life insurances into the Insurance Distribution Directive IDD. This way, uncertainties which might arise from subsidiarity provisions with unclear scope of application – also with regard to pre-contractual information requirements – could be prevented. Details can be found in the attached comment.
Read full response

German insurance industry urges delay of digital fairness review

10 Jun 2022
Topic — An EU evaluation of consumer laws to ensure fairness in digital environments.
Message — The organization argues that the digital fairness fitness check is premature and should be postponed. They recommend first observing the practical application of recently updated consumer protection rules and legislative changes.123
Why — The industry avoids potential new legislative proposals and redundant compliance requirements.45
Impact — Consumers may experience a delay in addressing digital risks like dark patterns.6
Read full response

German insurers reject commission bans and major regulatory overhaul

25 May 2022
Topic — This consultation seeks to improve market outcomes and confidence for retail investors.
Message — GDV opposes a major overhaul of rules and strongly rejects commission bans. They also suggest ending the permanent right of withdrawal for older products.123
Why — Maintaining current rules protects the industry's commission-based revenue and reduces compliance costs.45
Impact — Consumers continue to face potential conflicts of interest inherent in commission-based sales.67
Read full response

Response to Central securities depositories – review of EU rules

24 May 2022

GDV welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Commission's proposal for a regulation amending the Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR). Insurers as Europe's largest institutional investors in-vest extensively in securities and therefore have a great interest in a safe and efficient financial market infrastructure, where the CSDR has played a significant role in developing this infrastructure. Although insurers are not directly in scope of the CSDR, they are - if they act as principal in a securi-ties transaction referred to in point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 7 (10) of Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 - in scope of the Delegated Regula-tion No 2018/1229 with regard to regulatory technical standards on settle-ment discipline. GDV therefore appreciates the review, especially regarding mandatory buy-ins. We support the introduction of cash penalties on failed transac-tions. In our view cash penalties are a key driver in improving settlement rates across all markets. However, we are critical about the introduced mandatory buy-in regime as we do not expect that it can contribute to an improvement of the settlement in this form. We assume it is consensus view held by market participants that the introduced mandatory buy-in re-gime should not be implemented in its current form and requires consider-able revisions to limit any negative market impacts. There were discussions among our members and their custodian banks on the implementation of the buy-in regime. We are of the opinion that all rel-evant market actors within the settlement chain must contribute to a suc-cessful settlement and prevent failed transaction. As mentioned above, we see cash penalties as a valuable tool to contribute to this aim. Buy-ins can contribute as well. But they should remain optional. An optional buy-in re-gime, agreed among the partners in the settlement chain, would give insur-ers and other market participants flexibility. Furthermore, a mandatory buy-in regime (only) in the European Union could discourage new market participants from outside the European Un-ion to enter the market and make international securities trading more diffi-cult.
Read full response

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

19 May 2022 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

German insurers demand car-specific data rules and fairness

13 May 2022
Topic — This consultation proposes a new legal framework for sharing and using industrial data.
Message — The association requests dedicated rules for vehicles to ensure a level playing field. They want protections against unfair contracts extended to all firms, regardless of size. Finally, they demand better safeguards for trade secrets when data is shared.12
Why — Insurers would gain the right to access vehicle dashboards to offer competing services.3
Impact — Car manufacturers would lose their exclusive control over vehicle data and customer interfaces.4
Read full response

Meeting with Ibán García Del Blanco (Member of the European Parliament)

30 Mar 2022 · Exchange of views on AI

Response to Alternative Investment Fund Managers – review of EU rules

23 Mar 2022

The German Insurance Association (GDV) is the association of insurers in Germany. Its more than 450 members represent over 95% of the insurance market in Germany with investments totaling 1,835 billion EUR (insurers, as of December 31, 2020), of which about one-third is invested in AIFs. Therefore, from the perspective of insurers as institutional investors, a functioning and robust system of investment funds is of utmost importance. The AIFMD has made an important contribution to strengthening investor confidence. We therefore very much welcome the Commission's approach of taking a targeted approach with only selective adjustments to the well-functioning framework. However, we see a need for further adjustment of some proposals to avoid unintended consequences: I. Harmonisation of liquidity risk management tools (LMT) In principal, we welcome the approach to harmonise the toolbox of available liquidity management tools (LMT) in the AIFMD. However, in this context, we consider it very important that asset managers have a wide range of liquidity management tools at their disposal and that the selection and use of these tools is at their sole discretion. Against this background, we see a need for adjustment in the proposed amendments to the Directive: • Selection of LMTs by AIFM: The AIFM's choices for the mandatory LMT to be selected from the list in Annex V should not be limited to points 2 - 4 but should include all LMTs listed in points 2 to 8. • Criteria for the selection and use of LMTs: The selection of the LMT must allow the fund manager to take into account the investor needs and the individual characteristics of the fund, such as the underlying investment strategy or the expected redemption needs of the respective investors. Therefore, technical standards on the criteria for the selection and use of suitable LMTs should not overly restrict the discretion of the AIFMs. • (De)-Activation of LMTs: The activation or deactivation of LMTs should be at the sole discretion of the fund manager and not at the discretion of the national supervisory authority. Activation of LMT in stress situations requires detailed assessment and consideration of complex factors by the AIFM, such as underlying investment strategy aligned with investor needs and current investor redemption requirements. Supervisory interventions in this complex system could lead to unintended consequences and thus impair investor protection and promote procyclical effects. II. Requirements for AIFMs managing loan-originating funds We share the Commission's view that loan-originating funds are able to provide an alternative source of financing to Europe’s corporates and SMEs and support the approach to align the legislative proposals in this respect with the overall CMU strategy. However, in order to achieve these goals and meet the needs of institutional investors, the proposed regulations for loan funds should be further adjusted: • Limitations for open-end loan-originating AIF: We welcome the fact that the draft also provides for the possibility of open-end funds to originate loans. However, the possibility of lending for open-end funds, which only admit professional investors, should not be restricted by an arbitrary threshold. In this respect, we are particularly critical of the potential impact on the legal nature of such a fund. In our view, the possibility of an automatic change in the legal nature of the fund from an open-end to a closed-end structure - irrespective of actual liquidity - would not only be incompatible with the current, well-functioning principle-based risk management approach, but would also clearly contradict the understandable needs of investors. In any case, we therefore consider it necessary to provide for grandfathering of existing funds in this context and to exempt them from the planned new regulations. Please find attached our position paper detailing our views outlined above.
Read full response

Response to Amendments to certain Regulations regulating public financial & non-financial disclosure in order to establish the ESA

22 Mar 2022

The German Insurance Association GDV greatly welcomes that ESAP will be established by no later than 31 December 2024 and will provide centralized access to publicly available financial and sustainability information of relevance to investors on capital markets and necessary to comply with sustainability reporting obligations. With 1,835 billion euros in capital investments (primary insurers, as of December 31, 2020), German insurers are one of the largest institutional investor groups. We strongly believe that ESAP could considerably improve the accessibility and availability of financial and sustainability company data throughout the EU and at the same time create the conditions for companies to implement the diverse reporting requirements from the sustainability area in a comparable and cost-efficient manner. Our major key positions: • The establishment of ESAP by 31 December 2024 should have the highest priority. • ESAP should serve as a central key access point for financial and sustainability information reported by companies. A cascade structure or pure linking should be avoided. • ESAP data should be digitally usable and available in a data-extractable machine-readable format. • ESAP should be set-up and run in a user-friendly and professional manner. This includes close exchange with data base experts and users through a dedicated expert group and an adequate operating and financial fitment of the executing agency. • ESAP should follow the “file only once-principle”. • ESAP should not create new reporting requirements and should be set up as a database and platform to comply with existing and upcoming reporting and disclosure requirements (proportionality and feasibility). • Establishment of an expert group to advise and assist ESMA in the technical implementation and monitoring of ESAP In order for ESAP to be a great success and fulfil its central task of improving financing opportunities for European companies, the following important aspects should be considered in the legislative process and in the ESAP establishment process: • Timely ESAP launch with financial and sustainable information • The timely launch of ESAP should not be jeopardized by a large number of parallel reporting requirements. • The EU Commission should prepare an implementation roadmap to ensure a timely ESAP-launch by 31 December 2024 • Establishment of an expert group to advise and assist ESMA in the technical implementation and monitoring of ESAP, because the development of the ESAP database, including database functions, interfaces, etc., requires considerable expert know-how. ESAP should be set up and run by ESMA in a service-oriented and professional manner. • Short-term development of the necessary implementing technical standards (ITS) until the end of 2022 • Uniform ESAP database and no cascade structure of different (networked) databases. When setting up data reporting to ESAP through national data collection bodies, it should be ensured, that ESAP as a single central database, provides direct access to all required information and not only the link to the respective national data collection points. • Legal certainty for free data access, processing and use. ESAP users should not have to legally check whether the data published via ESAP is generally accessible or whether a third party may have a right to it. • ESAP-free of charge / fees • ESAP-scope and the principle of proportionality • Proportionality and feasibility – Use of already existing digital data access and formats. It is not necessary that a uniform file format is used for all reporting obligations. Instead, eventually already existing machine-readable file formats for the reporting obligation should be used for ESAP in order to keep the effort for reporting companies low. • Establishing a process for voluntary data submission by non-EU-companies.
Read full response

Response to Amendments to certain Directives regulating public financial and non-financial disclosure in order to establish the ESAP

22 Mar 2022

The German Insurance Association GDV greatly welcomes that ESAP will be established by no later than 31 December 2024 and will provide centralized access to publicly available financial and sustainability information of relevance to investors on capital markets and necessary to comply with sustainability reporting obligations. With 1,835 billion euros in capital investments (primary insurers, as of December 31, 2020), German insurers are one of the largest institutional investor groups. We strongly believe that ESAP could considerably improve the accessibility and availability of financial and sustainability company data throughout the EU and at the same time create the conditions for companies to implement the diverse reporting requirements from the sustainability area in a comparable and cost-efficient manner. Our major key positions: • The establishment of ESAP by 31 December 2024 should have the highest priority. • ESAP should serve as a central key access point for financial and sustainability information reported by companies. A cascade structure or pure linking should be avoided. • ESAP data should be digitally usable and available in a data-extractable machine-readable format. • ESAP should be set-up and run in a user-friendly and professional manner. This includes close exchange with data base experts and users through a dedicated expert group and an adequate operating and financial fitment of the executing agency. • ESAP should follow the “file only once-principle”. • ESAP should not create new reporting requirements and should be set up as a database and platform to comply with existing and upcoming reporting and disclosure requirements (proportionality and feasibility). • Establishment of an expert group to advise and assist ESMA in the technical implementation and monitoring of ESAP In order for ESAP to be a great success and fulfil its central task of improving financing opportunities for European companies, the following important aspects should be considered in the legislative process and in the ESAP establishment process: • Timely ESAP launch with financial and sustainable information • The timely launch of ESAP should not be jeopardized by a large number of parallel reporting requirements. • The EU Commission should prepare an implementation roadmap to ensure a timely ESAP-launch by 31 December 2024 • Establishment of an expert group to advise and assist ESMA in the technical implementation and monitoring of ESAP, because the development of the ESAP database, including database functions, interfaces, etc., requires considerable expert know-how. ESAP should be set up and run by ESMA in a service-oriented and professional manner. • Short-term development of the necessary implementing technical standards (ITS) until the end of 2022 • Uniform ESAP database and no cascade structure of different (networked) databases. When setting up data reporting to ESAP through national data collection bodies, it should be ensured, that ESAP as a single central database, provides direct access to all required information and not only the link to the respective national data collection points. • Legal certainty for free data access, processing and use. ESAP users should not have to legally check whether the data published via ESAP is generally accessible or whether a third party may have a right to it. • ESAP-free of charge / fees • ESAP-scope and the principle of proportionality • Proportionality and feasibility – Use of already existing digital data access and formats. It is not necessary that a uniform file format is used for all reporting obligations. Instead, eventually already existing machine-readable file formats for the reporting obligation should be used for ESAP in order to keep the effort for reporting companies low. • Establishing a process for voluntary data submission by non-EU-companies.
Read full response

Response to EU single access point for financial and non-financial information publicly disclosed by companies

22 Mar 2022

The German Insurance Association GDV greatly welcomes that ESAP will be established by no later than 31 December 2024 and will provide centralized access to publicly available financial and sustainability information of relevance to investors on capital markets and necessary to comply with sustainability reporting obligations. With 1,835 billion euros in capital investments (primary insurers, as of December 31, 2020), German insurers are one of the largest institutional investor groups. We strongly believe that ESAP could considerably improve the accessibility and availability of financial and sustainability company data throughout the EU and at the same time create the conditions for companies to implement the diverse reporting requirements from the sustainability area in a comparable and cost-efficient manner. Our major key positions: • The establishment of ESAP by 31 December 2024 should have the highest priority. • ESAP should serve as a central key access point for financial and sustainability information reported by companies. A cascade structure or pure linking should be avoided. • ESAP data should be digitally usable and available in a data-extractable machine-readable format. • ESAP should be set-up and run in a user-friendly and professional manner. This includes close exchange with data base experts and users through a dedicated expert group and an adequate operating and financial fitment of the executing agency. • ESAP should follow the “file only once-principle”. • ESAP should not create new reporting requirements and should be set up as a database and platform to comply with existing and upcoming reporting and disclosure requirements (proportionality and feasibility). • Establishment of an expert group to advise and assist ESMA in the technical implementation and monitoring of ESAP In order for ESAP to be a great success and fulfil its central task of improving financing opportunities for European companies, the following important aspects should be considered in the legislative process and in the ESAP establishment process: • Timely ESAP launch with financial and sustainable information • The timely launch of ESAP should not be jeopardized by a large number of parallel reporting requirements. • The EU Commission should prepare an implementation roadmap to ensure a timely ESAP-launch by 31 December 2024 • Establishment of an expert group to advise and assist ESMA in the technical implementation and monitoring of ESAP, because the development of the ESAP database, including database functions, interfaces, etc., requires considerable expert know-how. ESAP should be set up and run by ESMA in a service-oriented and professional manner. • Short-term development of the necessary implementing technical standards (ITS) until the end of 2022 • Uniform ESAP database and no cascade structure of different (networked) databases. When setting up data reporting to ESAP through national data collection bodies, it should be ensured, that ESAP as a single central database, provides direct access to all required information and not only the link to the respective national data collection points. • Legal certainty for free data access, processing and use. ESAP users should not have to legally check whether the data published via ESAP is generally accessible or whether a third party may have a right to it. • ESAP-free of charge / fees • ESAP-scope and the principle of proportionality • Proportionality and feasibility – Use of already existing digital data access and formats. It is not necessary that a uniform file format is used for all reporting obligations. Instead, eventually already existing machine-readable file formats for the reporting obligation should be used for ESAP in order to keep the effort for reporting companies low. • Establishing a process for voluntary data submission by non-EU-companies.
Read full response

Response to EU standards for safe and secure parkings

9 Feb 2022

German insurers appreciate the possibility to comment on the Draft Delegated Regulation on Safe and Secure Truck Parking Areas (SSTPAs), which we generally welcome. There is a constant increase in goods transported by trucks throughout Europe. This applies in particular to the transportation of high-value goods. In this context, individual truck consignments regularly have a value of millions of euros. This development, coupled with the lack of safe and se-cure truck parks, opens opportunities for crime and as a result makes the theft of freight more attractive to groups of offenders who are generally organized and are basically interested in all types of freight. The perpetrators do not restrict themselves to the cargo but steal entire transport units or hijack complete trucks and trailers together with their drivers. Provision of safe and secure truck parks is intended to counteract this development. Such truck parks provide the transport industry with the possi-bility of improving the security of transport operations. We therefore strongly support SSTPAs and are pleased to have been part of the relevant Commission expert group. We also believe that the Draft Delegated Regulation on SSTPAs help to meet the urgent need for truck parking areas in the EU by providing drivers with sufficient parking facilities that are of high quality and offer the desired level of safety and security. This is because the Draft Delegated Regulation on SSTPAs achieve a good balance between the necessary safety and security requirements and the cost of implementation. The certification of an SSTPA according to a uniform European standard is also welcome. This ensures that the parking areas meet these standards. This creates confidence among drivers and facilitates the European movement of goods. However, in our opinion, the Draft Delegated Regulation on SSTPAs would require a few changes to appropriately address the problems posed by cargo theft in the EU. Platinum is the highest security level. Currently, only the licence plate of the entering truck is kept there. Therefore, records should also be kept for the departing trucks. These should not only contain the licence plate but also the result of the two-step verification process. This is especially im-portant for this level of security. If theft occurs in such a secure truck park, the records make it easier to identify the perpetrators. In the best case, however, the perpetrators are deterred in advance. CCTV also helps to deter offenders in advance. Nevertheless, especially in the case of cargo theft, we are confronted with groups of offenders who are highly organised and professional in their execution. These internation-ally operating gangs are often not deterred by CCTV. Furthermore, the perpetrators' modus operandi is highly variable. In the best case, the cargo theft is detected immediately. Often, though, it is recognised much later. Here, a longer storage of the recordings of the CCTV system helps. This makes it easier to convict the perpetrators. Therefore, the recordings should be stored for longer than 30 days if possible. Finally, we expect the EU to implement its plan and promote the construc-tion of SSTPAs so that in the future there will be enough SSTPAs every 100 km according to the TEN-T guidelines.
Read full response

Meeting with Markus Ferber (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Allianz SE

9 Feb 2022 · Insurance Regulation: Solvency II

Response to Review of measures on taking up and pursuit of the insurance and reinsurance business (Solvency II)

13 Jan 2022

The German insurance industry supports the objections of strengthening policyholder and consumer protection and financial stability. We also take a positive view of the intended harmonization of resolution tools and the improvement of coordination and cooperation between the competent authorities in the various Member States. The new requirements must take into account the specific risk situation of the insurance industry. The insurance industry has repeatedly proven its remarkable strength during the past crises, most recently during the Covid-19 pandemic. From our perspective, the experience from this crisis has shown that supervisors have all instruments they need even for such exceptional circumstances. Because of the specific characteristics of the insurance business – long-term orientation, stable financing of liabilities, advance financing of insurance benefits through insurance premiums and the link of most insured events to external causes – systemic risks are very limited, and the insurance industry usually works as a stabilizing factor in the financial system. The European insurance system under Solvency II has proved inherently stable and failures of individual companies are a rare event. Against this background, the measures and instruments envisaged must be proportionate; in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises should not be overburdened. Further requirements should be reflected in a more principle-based and less granular approach of the IRRD. Especially a broad adoption of the banking recovery and resolution regime without considering insurance specifics is inappropriate and undermines the different resolution process of a failing insurer. Unlike banks, insurers regularly do not have to be resolved literally “overnight” as they can continue to rely on a steady premium income and their obligations towards policyholders become due over a longer period. Against this background, the extensive number of Level 2 and Level 3 provisions should be critically questioned, and it should be examined if comprehensive provisions are in line with the minimum harmonization character of the Directive and abiding by the principle of proportionality. Regarding the Insurance Recovery and Resolution Directive, our main positions are: A broad transfer of the banking recovery and resolution regime without considering insurance specifics is inappropriate. The current Solvency II framework has proved to be fit for purpose. The established intervention ladder of Solvency II should be maintained. Hard intervention of a supervisory or resolution authority should be possible only in case of non-compliance with the capital requirements (SCR and MCR). A seamless integration of an insurance-specific recovery and resolution framework into the existing supervisory ladder is essential. The role of Insurance Guarantee Schemes (IGS) in a recovery and resolution regime should be defined on Member State-level and not be predetermined by the IRRD. When establishing bridge undertakings as a resolution tool, inconsistencies and interference with existing IGS must be prevented. The significant extension of EIOPA’s competences and influence should be reconsidered. The numerous mandates to shape important elements of the IRRD by Level 2 and Level 3 is not in line with the minimum harmonization character of the R&R Directive. Please find our complete argumentation with reasons and further explanations in the attached document. This document also contains our positions on the proposal for a Directive amending the Solvency II Directive 2009/138/EC (COM(2021) 581 final) as well as an extensive list with detailed comments on specific items from the entire package published by the European Commission.
Read full response

Response to Review of measures on taking up and pursuit of the insurance and reinsurance business (Solvency II)

12 Jan 2022

The German insurance industry supports the Solvency II review and welcomes many aspects of the European Commission’s proposals. We are convinced that the risk-based Solvency II regulation already ensures a very high level of policyholder protection and contributes significantly to financial stability. Recently, it proved its worth in the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, in our view, there is generally no need for fundamental changes to European insurance regulation. Nevertheless, meaningful amendments to Solvency II can bring further benefits to both stakeholders and the European economy. With investments of approx. 1,800 bn euros, the German insurance industry stands ready to be a driving force of the green transition – we are fully committed to substantially contributing to a more sustainable and resilient European economy. To realize this potential, the risk-orientation of Solvency II should be further strengthened by correcting overshooting requirements and removing unnecessary burdens in all three pillars. We expressly welcome all aspects of the proposals that go in this direction. At the same time, the volatility of solvency positions and the already very high level of overall regulatory requirements should certainly not be further increased. This holds especially if a new extrapolation method is introduced in times of unprecedented low interest rates. Regarding quantitative aspects and long-term guarantee measures, our main positions are: - Further improvements are needed for the extrapolation of the interest rate term structure, above all, the proposed convergence parameter should be significantly increased. The proposal does not maintain the balance between sufficient level of security and the much-needed investment capacity of life insurance companies. As part of the volatility adjustment, the current risk correction should be maintained. As to the risk margin, diversification effects at group level should be reflected. - Apart from that, we essentially support the European Commission’s proposals on the volatility adjustment, the risk margin, the interest rate risk, and the correlation of spread and interest rate risk. - All technical parameters that have a significant effect on the solvency situation and the sector’s contribution to European objectives such as the Green Deal should be decided on by the Co-Legislators. Regarding proportionality and thresholds, our main positions are: - We support the automatic application of proportionality and the definition of Low-Risk Profile Undertakings. - To have an even greater effect, the size criterion for non-life should be increased significantly or a relative threshold introduced that takes account of the size of the market. The same applies to the threshold to enter the Solvency II regime. Please find our complete argumentation with reasons and further explanations in the attached document. This document also contains our positions on supervisory measures (concerning the proposed IRRD) and on further Solvency II issues as well as an extensive list of detailed comments on specific items from the entire package published by the European Commission.
Read full response

Response to Revision of EU rules on Anti-Money Laundering (recast)

17 Nov 2021

The GDV welcomes the focus of the Draft Directive on the organizational aspects of the institutional AML/CFT system while keeping the requirements of obliged entities separate in the AML/CFT regulation. This concept grants Member States the necessary flexibility. Please find attached the full GDV Position Paper for detailed comments on the AML Package.
Read full response

Response to EU Anti-money laundering supervisor

17 Nov 2021

The GDV supports the designation of a European Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AMLA) with direct supervisory responsibility for selected obliged entities with significant cross-border activities and a high inherent risk profile. Yet, it is not possible to provide an informed assessment on the latter, as the definition of benchmarks for classifying the inherent risk profile is deferred to Regulatory Technical Standards to be developed at a later stage. Although we do not expect insurance undertakings or groups to qualify as selected obliged entities in the long term given their moderate AML/CTF-risk exposure, the eligibility criteria should be exhaustively defined in the Draft Regulation in order to ensure transparency and legal certainty. Furthermore, the GDV believes that insurance undertakings should only be involved in the designation process if the supranational or national risk assessments provide reasons for increased AML/CTF-risks in the insurance sector. The GDV also welcomes that the AMLA can assume supervision over non-selected obliged entities only under exceptional circumstances and with consent of the European Commission. The supervision of obliged insurance undertakings should remain in the capacity of national authorities given their moderate risk exposure. It is consistent that the recently extended AML/CFT mandate of the European Banking Authority (EBA) is repealed in favor of the AMLA. However, it is unclear what happens to the number of EBA guidelines and recommendations already published to date. We are also concerned about the ambitious work program of the EBA irrespective of its expiring mandate, which may interfere with the positions of the AMLA and add unnecessary complexity to the AML/CFT-framework. Legal certainty on these aspects is needed. In terms of financing the AMLA-budget, the GDV believes that fees should only be imposed on selected obliged entities according to the cost-by-cause-principle. Therefore, we request to reconsider the proposal to collect fees also from certain non-selected obliged entities (in particular other financial institutions that operate in at least ten Member States). Please find attached the full GDV Position Paper for detailed comments on the AML Package.
Read full response

Response to Revision of EU rules on Anti-Money Laundering (new instrument)

17 Nov 2021

While a more detailed anti-money laundering regulation is ineluctable for a single AML/CFT rulebook, it is essential that it does not undermine the fundamental principle of risk-based compliance with anti-money laundering requirements. The risk exposure of obliged insurance undertakings is deemed to be moderately significant. Therefore, the future framework must continue to ensure sufficient flexibility to keep additional financial and administrative burdens proportionate to lower risks. Yet, it is not possible to make an informed assessment whether this balance is maintained as the Draft Regulation delegates several mandates to establish Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) to be prepared by the future EU AML Authority (AMLA). Since the perception of the AMLA is likely to be dominated by its jurisdiction to directly supervise only the riskiest financial institutions, we are concerned that the RTS might impose disproportionate standards on moderate- and low-risk entities. Therefore, discretion for national authorities to specify regular and simplified CDD-requirements in case of moderate and lower risk exposure should be maintained. The GDV suggests limiting the power to establish RTS to issues directly related to AMLAs mandate for direct supervision (e.g., specifying enhanced CDD-requirements for selected obliged entities). We are also concerned about the complexity of the future framework. Next to the AML-Regulation and corresponding RTS directly applicable as well as exiting and evolving guidelines by the EBA, obliged entities must continue to comply with the national implementation of the AML-Directive and subordinated guidance developed by national competent authorities (NCA). This is hardly manageable particularly for small-obliged entities and will significantly increase the burden of compliance and administrative costs. We request the co-legislators to keep this issue in mind and to particularly explore ways to prevent redundancies between the different levels of regulation. The GDV understands that the single rulebook should mainly tackle the problem of inconsistent implementation of the European AML-framework throughout Member States. This implies that the current CDD-requirements are deemed to be appropriate and should not be amplified. Please find attached the full GDV Position Paper for detailed comments on the AML Package.
Read full response

Response to EU Standard for Green Bond

24 Sept 2021

GDV welcomes the proposal for an EU Green Bond Standard (EU GBS). Insurers as Europe's largest institutional investors invest extensively in bonds and therefore have a great interest in measures to stimulate the development of the green bond market as a key means of financing the sustainability transition. GDV specifically welcomes the following details of the proposal: • Based on market standards The standard creates a level playing field for European investors and with its linkage to the Taxonomy Regulation it fits into the European Sustainability Regulation. As insurers’ investments are global, GDV encourages the European Commission to collaborate internationally to promote the use of the standard also by non-European issuers and on a global level. • Issuer neutrality We welcome that the proposal is issuer neutral. It is particularly important that the standard is also open to sovereigns, as sovereigns account for a significant proportion of the insurers' assets. • Voluntary Standard Bearing in mind that insurers are global investors and that the green bond market is an international market, it is important that a voluntary standard does not prevent or hinder the use of other widely accepted sustainability bond standards. • Inclusion of transition financing GDV welcomes the objectives of the European Commission to make the European economy more sustainable and acknowledges that the financial industry has an important role to play. Transition financing is key in achieving the goals. Therefore, GDV welcomes the inclusion of transition financing in the proposal. The inclusion of transition financing in the EU GBS will enable issuers to use proceeds to finance transition activities. Nevertheless, some details of the proposal are raising our concerns. • Partial Grandfathering GDV is of the opinion that grandfathering is key for a successful standard, i.e. a once issued green bond should be green until maturity, even if the Taxonomy Criteria change after issuance. Although the Commission Staff Impact Assessment states, that the option of a loss of green status before the bond matures was discarded at an early stage, we do not see this adequately reflected in the wording of the proposal. In the case of a change of the Taxonomy Criteria after issuance article 7 obliges the issuer to adapt the use of proceeds to the amended Taxonomy Criteria within 5 years after their entry into application. It is unclear what happens, if the issuer of the green bond cannot adapt the use of proceeds as demanded. We are therefore concerned that the lack of reliable grandfathering rules will have negative effects on the development of the EU green bonds market. We also fear that the uncertainty about the further development of the taxonomy criteria will discourage many issuers from issuing green bonds according to the proposal. Therefore, we strongly recommend removing article 7 para. 1 subpara. 2 and article 7 para. 2) subpara. 3. • Exclusive Use of proceeds The proposal states, that the proceeds of European green bonds shall be exclusively and fully allocated, without deducting costs, to activities already aligned with taxonomy requirements or activities, that will meet the taxonomy requirements within a defined timeperiod as set out in a taxonomy-alignment plan. GDV is of the opinion, that more flexibility is needed, especially for medium-sized companies, so that they have more opportunities to issue green bonds for transition financing. The current proposal discriminates small to medium sized companies since they often only issue one bond to finance all company activities and operations. This is different to large companies that have the option to issue a green bond only for a certain project or business line. Therefore, for a transitional period, a lower percentage requirement should be considered for alignment of use of proceeds (eg 80 %), provided that the rest of the proceeds finances low impact or neutral activities.
Read full response

Response to European Digital Identity (EUid)

31 Aug 2021

The German insurance industry welcomes the developments at the European level, the introduction of a European identity scheme (EUid) in combination with the proposed amendments of the Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (eIDAS) by the European Commission and supports the approach to establish an EU-wide ecosystem on digital identities in form of a European identity scheme (EUid). Digital and secure identification of natural and legal entities becomes ever more important in an increasingly connected world. It is the basis for digital processes in administration and business. At the same time, digital identification must be both secure as well as user- and business-friendly. The introduction of a European identity scheme (EUid) might facilitate identification process for customers and businesses provided that the technical and administrative requirements will be proportionate. Please find our more detailed position in attachment.
Read full response

Response to Standardisation Strategy

4 Aug 2021

Eine Strategie zur Steigerung der Effizienz bei der Europäischen Normung ist auch aus Sicht der deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft sehr zu begrüßen. An der Stelle wäre ein gesamte EU-Strategie wünschenswert, in der die verschiedenen Strategien zu Einzelthemen systematisch aufeinander abgestimmt würden, etwa Strategie zu Nachhaltigkeit einschließlich des Klimaschutzes und der Anpassung an den Klimawandel, Strategie zur verstärkten Digitalisierung und deren Sicherheit, Strategie zu Handel und technologischer Unabhängigkeit. Nachfolgend gehen wir insbesondere auf die 6 in der Roadmap angeführten Herausforderungen für das europäische Normungssystem (ESS) ein: (1) Damit die Umsetzung der Ziele der EU durch die normativen Festlegungen unterstützt werden kann, müssen diese Ziele zunächst messbar konkretisiert werden, etwa durch die Definition des Gesetzgebers oder eine gesellschaftliche Vereinbarung. An der Stelle haben Normer, wie bereits bei der Diskussion über die Anpassung an den Klimawandel festzustellen, leider keine Kompetenz, die Ziele allein zu quantifizieren. (2) Die Konsensbildung bei 34 NSOs im Verbund von CEN ist, wie Erfahrungen auch bei der europäischen Diskussionen über die Politik zeigen, stets mit Zeitaufwand verbunden. Dabei wäre die Qualitätssicherung ohne eine hinreichende Abstimmung kaum möglich. Normative Festlegungen müssen zudem als allgemein anerkannte Regeln der Technik in der Praxis erprobt sein, wofür ebenfalls Zeit benötigt wird. Als Stand der Technik stehen darüber hinaus CEN TSs zur Verfügung, die schneller als reguläre CEN Normen erarbeitet und veröffentlicht werden können. Zu beachten wäre ferner, dass die Schnelligkeit ggf. auch mit Gefahren verbunden sein könnte. Risiken der Cyberangriffe z. B. sind bei der Einführung digitaler Technologie und Vernetzung bisher vielfach unterschätzt. (3) Das Ziel ist an der Stelle auch im Sinne des fairen Wettbewerbs sicherlich sinnvoll. Die Frage ist, wie weit und aus welcher Interessenslage die anderen Länder außerhalb von Europa den Wege der EU auch einschlagen wollen? (4) Ein internationaler Standard kann erfahrungsgemäß politisch oder technisch gesetzt werden, wenn er global eine breite Akzeptanz findet. Dies dürfte bei abweichenden Interessenslagen und Wertvorstellungen nicht ganz einfach sein. Dabei können eine hohe Marktdurchdringung europäischer Produkte und Dienstleistungen sowie eine systematische Abstimmung europäischer NSOs über CEN sicherlich helfen. Die internationale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit ist u. a. durch die Merkmale Qualität, Kosten Service und Verfügbarkeit geprägt. Eine höhere Leistungsfähigkeit von Prozessen samt deren Transformation und zusätzliche Funktionen von Produkten, etwa zum verstärkten Klimaschutz, sind ggf. mit hohen Kosten verbunden, die auch eine reale Herausforderung für die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit darstellen können. Parallel zur Bestrebung internationaler Standardsetzung und mit Blick auf die genannten Randbedingungen sollten die europäische Industrie und Dienstleister deshalb ggf. eine Vorreiterrolle bei der Bereitstellung und Verwirklichung wertorientierter Ansätze einnehmen, etwa eine bessere Ressourcen-Effizienz in Sinne der Nachhaltigkeit, die ihren Niederschlag auch in Merkmalen der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit finden. Dabei können Erfolge der europäischen Ansätze mehr überzeugen. (5) Mit der Normung sollen gesicherten Erkenntnisse der Wissenschaft und Technik mit Konsens und zur Förderung gesellschaftlicher Vorteile dokumentiert werden. An der Stelle stellt sich die Frage, was mit den genannten Ausbildungen erreicht werden soll, da die wissenschaftlichen und technischen Ausbildungen bereit verfügbar sind. Hier wäre eine Präzisierung des Zielbildes der Ausbildungen hilfreich. (6) Bedeutet das Verhältnis “70% des BIP der EU bei 2% Normungstätigkeit“ nicht, dass die Bereitstellung der Dienstleistungen auch ohne viele Normen bereits gut funktioniert?
Read full response

Response to Requirements for Artificial Intelligence

4 Aug 2021

Please find our position in the attached position paper.
Read full response

Response to Liability rules for Artificial Intelligence – The Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive (AILD)

28 Jul 2021

GDV welcomes the Commission’s examination of EU legislation on liability and product safety in the context of innovative digital and connected technologies. The PLD and national legislation are suitable and appropriate to address the risks posed by new digital technologies. They constitute a well-balanced system by providing a high level of protection to injured persons while at the same time taking into account producers' legitimate interests and thereby encouraging technological innovation and promoting economic growth. Clarifications on the meaning of central terms and guidance material may be appropriate to assist the PLD’s consistent application in the Member States. New liability rules should only be created if there is clear empirical evidence of actual gaps in protection. But that is currently not the case. Priority should be given to reviewing current product safety legislation, technical norms and standards with regard to innovative digital technologies. These act as a filter for liability and help to define whether a product is defective under the PLD. Persons injured by digital products should enjoy the same level of protection as those injured by a conventional product. We believe this to be the case with the existing liability framework. The PLD is technology-neutral. Any product is defective if it does not provide for the safety that a person may legitimately expect. This definition equally applies to cybersecurity vulnerabilities: Liability depends on whether the product was designed and manufactured to a level of resilience against cyberattacks that could be legitimately expected at the time of marketing. The PLD’s scope on personal injury and property damage should be retained. Psychological harm/emotional pain and suffering are already compensable if consequential to personal injury. To preserve consistency and coherence between the various legislative instruments, infringements of basic rights (data protection, discrimination, privacy) should continue to be dealt with exclusively in existing dedicated EU legislation such as the GDPR. There is no need to introduce environmental damage into the PLD: Damage to land or water that are owned by a person constitutes property damage. Ecological damage (impairment of the environment as a public good) falls under the Environmental Liability Directive and does not fit into the PLD as, by definition, there can be no injured person. Products and services should continue to be distinguished from each other. Refurbishers, i. e. entities that go beyond maintenance, repair and overhaul by altering an existing product in such a way as to turn it into a new product which they market themselves should be classed as producers. Software should be considered a product under the PLD. Potential difficulties in determining whether a product or a service has caused damage will thereby be mitigated. Updates could be deemed to be put into circulation at the time they were provided. In the case of “self-learning” systems, it would be hard to argue a product is not defective where it is reasonably foreseeable that such a system can cause damage through its subsequently “learning” to function in a way that was not intended. Existing rules on the burden of proof, defences and time limits are adequate and necessary. Access to data will be key to allocating responsibility for damage either to the producer or to the user (if caused by the circumstances of use) or another person. Questions of data recording, storage and access should be addressed outside of liability legislation, and not within the PLD’s rules on the burden of proof. There is no need for new harmonised liability legislation for deployers of AI systems. Existing national law provides adequate redress. Especially, most AI systems considered “high risk”, being motor vehicles or aircraft, are subject to strict liability at national level and mandatory insurance at EU level.
Read full response

Meeting with Valeria Miceli (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

14 Jul 2021 · Forthcoming Solvency II review legislative proposal

Response to Revision of Non-Financial Reporting Directive

12 Jul 2021

The GDV highly welcomes the EU Commission’s legislative proposal for the CSRD as an important foundation for sustainable finance. Indeed, the new CSRD – if aligned – can be a real game-changer for the sustainability agenda if it enhances market transparency, availability and quality of sustainability information. Regarding the CSRD’s main goal, market transparency on sustainability information is critical to establish fair competition, prevent greenwashing, and secure the integrity of Financial Market Participants (FMPs). Consequently, investors will have comparable and reliable sustainability information to make better and more sustainable investment decisions. At the same time, the collection, preparation, and assurance of ESG information will be a major challenge for preparers. Another challenge is applying the CSRD while simultaneously developing it further towards an efficient and comprehensive framework. In consequence, the CSRD should be as simple as possible, proportional, and focus on the information needs of investors and other stakeholders. To meet these challenges, the GDV makes various concrete proposals to drive the sustainability agenda forward. Most importantly, the GDV welcomes the ambitious timetable of the CSRD – with the first application for the reference period 2023 and publication of the report in 2024. However, in order to achieve the timeline but also to focus on the feasibility of the CSRD, pragmatic solutions are needed: - Timeline: The GDV advocates a best-effort approach. It is crucial that companies start reporting on sustainability aspects as soon as possible and gradually improve the quality of the information over time. - Feasibility: New requirements should be introduced gradually (phase-in approaches), esp. regarding content, reporting format and external assurance. It is vital that phasing-in is consistent with the information needs of investors and other stakeholders. - Focus: The GDV highly welcomes that the information needs of FMPs are given a high priority. Investors have a key role in delivering on the policy objectives under the European Green Deal. Investees subject to the CSRD will provide FMPs with the required data. - Addressing the target groups: Beyond the FMPs’ information needs, companies should be allowed to customise their sustainability statements and to decide how to present information in a way that is most relevant to diverging target groups. In this way, the high pace to reform sustainability reporting can be maintained. At the same time, companies can improve progressively by applying the comprehensive reporting requirements. Another significant aspect is developing proportionate solutions for SMEs and companies not oriented towards the capital market. For example, are small insurers in Germany that are no investees due to their legal form and do not report to investors (e. g. mutuals). According to the definition used, even these small insurers with about 50 employees can currently count as "large companies" and would thus be fully subject to the CSRD. Hence, the GDV highlights that these SME insurers should also be able to use proportionate sustainability reporting schemes. The added value of "more sustainability reporting" regardless of capital market orientation and information needs of the relevant stakeholders is questionable. Instead, the guiding principle of the CSRD should be to create a framework for better (relevant, comparable, reliable) sustainability reporting. Overall, the development of a consistent legal framework for sustainable finance is critical. The greatest challenge is aligning the different EU regulatory initiatives (esp. Taxonomy Reg., SFDR, ESAP) and global initiatives (IFRS Foundation). Only aligned, a more effective and efficient corporate reporting can be achieved that serves the growing information needs of sustainable investors operating globally. Please find enclosed our detailed statement on the CSRD.
Read full response

Response to Distance Marketing of Consumer Financial Services - Review of EU rules

21 Jun 2021

The German insurance industry welcomes the upcoming revision of the Directive concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services (DMD), which is outdated in terms of content and no longer up to date. The modernisation should be used to - essentially delete the outdated and superfluous information requirements standardised in the DMD and concentrate on standardised product information documents, - supplement the right of withdrawal provided for the conclusion of distance contracts with a provision that limits the right of withdrawal to an absolute period of time and - to make the provisions as a whole technology-neutral. Overall, we support the repeal of the DMD. At the same time, individual provisions that will also be relevant for the insurance industry in the future or that have been modernised should be transferred to the Insurance Distribution Directive IDD. For details, please see the attached document.
Read full response

Response to Supervisory data strategy

11 Jun 2021

Please find the comments of the German Insurance Association in attachment.
Read full response

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament)

8 Jun 2021 · Green finance

Response to Commission Delegated Regulation on taxonomy-alignment of undertakings reporting non-financial information

2 Jun 2021

Consistency: EU sustainability reporting requirements need to be streamlined and consistent across all relevant legislations as well as investees and different FMPs. A consistent approach for the investment KPI for insurers and asset managers is appreciated. However, it is key that the ESAs will also propose a staged approach for the Taxonomy-related RTS as FMPs cannot meaningfully report if the relevant investee data is missing. KPIs need to be calculated in a consistent way at product-level as Art. 8 TR reporting of investees is the input to FMPs’ SFDR reporting. Differences would lead to complexity and would not be straightforward (e.g. if sovereigns are excluded as per Art. 8 they should also be excluded under the SFDR RTS). Timeline: The proposed staged application in 2022 with full reporting in 2023 is appreciated, however, as the staged approach applies to all undertakings, FMPs will face data availability issues upon full implementation in 2023. Investors can only consider investees’ previous year data. We therefore suggest a 1-year delay for FMPs. The same rationale applies for the Taxonomy-related RTS. A comparable staged approach as proposed for environmental objectives 1-2 should apply to objectives 3-6. See annex for further comments. Eligibility: We appreciate the exclusion of Sovereign exposures (incl. from the denominator) because they are not (yet) covered by the Taxonomy. The plan to include them in the Taxonomy by 2025 is welcome as sovereigns are an important asset class for insurers. An analogous approach should apply for investments not under the NFRD/CSRD scope (i.e. exclusion from the denominator until they become Taxonomy-eligible). The plan to include those investments in the Taxonomy by 2025 is welcome as especially international investments are very important assets for insurers. Derivatives should be fully excluded from the asset ratio (as they are not Taxonomy-eligible). See annex for further comments. Data availability: Significant data availability issues are expected to remain. Temporarily: as the extended scope of the CSRD only applies from 2024 and even later for SMEs. Permanently: for investments outside the CSRD scope. Clarification: Guidance is needed on the proposed ratios an investor in a (re)-insurance undertaking needs to consider for its own KPI (Annex IX 1 (e)). Most insurers that can be investees are insurers with life and non-life business. As per Art. 11 no undertaking would need to report the KPIs in 2022. It should be clarified what insurers should disclose regarding the underwriting ratio in 2022 (Art. 11 (2) addresses financial undertakings with a focus on investments only). If respective reporting is foreseen, we suggest a similar approach as for non-financial undertakings under Art. 11 (1). Underwriting ratio: Clarification is needed as to whether insurers would need to determine a split for premiums for products where coverage is partly, but not entirely related to climate perils. See annex for further comments. Breakdown of investments: We appreciate that complementary disclosures shall be used to provide more detail, incl. on (currently) non-eligible investments not (yet) included in the numerator of the main KPI. Although entity-level disclosures under the CSRD must be consistent with the Taxonomy-related SFDR RTS as the former will be input to the latter, the granular breakdown as proposed under Art. 8 (5) should not apply on product-level as this could a) draw conclusions about the investment strategy of the financial product and violate confidentiality interests and b) would be too complex for the customer. For products, we consider it necessary, yet sufficient to report “taxonomy-aligned to taxonomy-eligible invest-ments" in addition to “taxonomy-aligned to total investments”. Treaty business: The DNSH criterion does not fairly represent the sustainability ratio of re-insurers for business written on a portfolio basis. See annex for further comments.
Read full response

Meeting with Renate Nikolay (Cabinet of Vice-President Věra Jourová)

2 Jun 2021 · Data protection

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner) and

21 Apr 2021 · Address GDV annual conference of Insurance CEO's

Meeting with Michael Hager (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

13 Apr 2021 · Solvency II

Meeting with Tommy De Temmerman (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

31 Mar 2021 · Solvency II review

Response to Digital Operational Resilience of Financial Services (DORFS) Act

24 Feb 2021

The German insurance sector supports the goal of strengthening the resilience of ICT systems used in the financial sector against risks and dangers. However, this should neither lead to parallel regulatory sys-tems nor to considerable impediments. Insurers are already subject to extensive regulatory requirements such as Solvency II and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35, which include ICT applications. We therefore suggest integrating, where necessary, ICT-relevant requirements into the existing systems. The proposed supervisory legal framework for critical ICT providers is a step in the right direction. Coherent direct supervision of cloud pro-viders is a long-standing request of German insurers, which should, however, be accompanied by corresponding relief measure for users. Unfortunately, none are included in the draft regulation. In detail, the bureaucratic requirements of the draft go so far that the uptake of ICT applications will be made even more difficult. This is in contradiction to the also pursued goal of unlocking the full potential of technological possibilities. In particular so-called on-site inspections have proven to be an obstacle for companies on their way to the cloud. Certificates, for example, could be a remedy if they were made more acceptable. In addition, a kind of "basic certificate" for important ICT providers could be issued and tested, for example by ENISA.
Read full response

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

4 Feb 2021 · digital finance

Response to A European Health Data Space

3 Feb 2021

The German Insurance Association (GDV) welcomes the European Commission’s plans for a European Health Data Space (EHDS). Effective and secure use and re-use of health-related data has the potential to create immense benefits for the well-being of patients and society. The roadmap shows that a plethora of issues and barriers currently persist which prevent us from fully exploiting that potential. For details on our position please refer to the document attached.
Read full response

Meeting with Renate Nikolay (Cabinet of Vice-President Věra Jourová)

3 Feb 2021 · Data protection, AI

Response to Legislative framework for the governance of common European data spaces

1 Feb 2021

Please see a short summary of the comments of the German Insurance Association (GDV) below. For the complete feedback please see the document in attachment. Re-use of data held by public sector bodies GDV supports the notion that public sector data is made more easily available for re-use. For example, such data can benefit insurance in terms of risk modelling or damage prevention. However, the new proposal constitutes an ambitious extension of the exist-ing framework, which might be premature, given that many member states are still oc-cupied with implementing the open data directive. Data sharing service providers The rise of very large online platforms and the ongoing discussion on competition policy in digital markets have shown the importance of monitoring and safeguarding effective competition and a level playing field between players. Upholding the neutrality of provid-ers and strict structural separation will be crucial, as otherwise the proposal could lead to unintended consequences by further strengthening the existing platforms. Recital 22 offers an important clarification with regards to the scope of data sharing ser-vices. GDV believes that this distinction should be added for clarification purposes to the main regulation in article 9. Data altruism In the insurance sector, risk assessment, accident prevention, enhanced disaster man-agement and risk mitigation in general are topics of high importance which are subject to extensive research and analysis. With data altruism, an additional source of infor-mation could become available from which the above-mentioned activities could benefit. For this reason, we would encourage the Commission to extent the designated scope for those permitted to register as data altruistic organizations. European Data Innovation Board The establishment of a European Data Innovation Board is a welcome measure. Given the complexity of the topics involved, it needs to be ensured that the board covers a broad range of expertise, including for example representatives from civil society, IT, trade associations, businesses, etc. This should be institutionalized in the board structures.
Read full response

Response to EU single access point for financial and non-financial information publicly disclosed by companies

15 Jan 2021

The German Insurance Association (GDV) welcomes the European Commission’s initiative to establish a European Single Access Point (ESAP) for financial and non-financial information publicly disclosed by companies. As investors, insurers need to have access to reliable and comparable environmental, social, and governance (ESG) data on investee companies and meaningful, consistent and comparable ESG reporting from companies helps investors to consider and account for sustainability impacts when making investment decisions. German Insurers support the ESAP initiative, because it improves EU-wide access to uniform data for corporate financing and at the same time create the conditions for companies to implement the diverse requirements from SFDR, NFRD, etc. in a cost-efficient manner. We welcome that the legislative proposal in Q3 2021 is to entail a streamlining of EU legislation on corporate disclosure to the public and build on existing systems. In general, we consider the following aspects to be important: • The ESAP should be accessible to investors free of charge and, there should be no legal uncertainty regarding the free usability and further processing of the financial and non-financial data. • The data should be retrievable in a structured form and allow for automated data feed and analysis. • All required sustainability data (including EU-taxonomy, NFRD and SFDR) should be included. • The Implementation could involve effort but could be feasible with a reasonable time. However, certain intermediate steps would need to be taken before implementation. For example, fulfillment of the reporting requirements via ESAP requires clarity on all reporting requirements, including approaches, methods, definitions, and parameters of key performance indicators (KPIs). This would be necessary to ensure comparable data within ESAP. In this context, standardization within the framework of the NFRD also appears to make sense. • The ESAP should be strictly oriented to the actual information needs of companies and investors and not lead to excessive reporting obligations in financial and regulatory reporting. Technically, formats and processes should be associated with a reasonable effort for companies. • Redundant reporting channels should be avoided. Data that is already disclosed in the ESAP should not have to be additionally disclosed in other reporting formats, if possible. ESAP should be used to fulfill the existing reporting requirements. Consistency or streamlining of the reporting requirements (especially with regard to the NFRD, SFDR and EU Taxonomy) is necessary for this. It should also be clarified within ESAP how companies have to deal with national regulations. Great attention should be paid to the "file-only-once" principle mentioned in the roadmap, as numerous interfaces are likely to exist here. In this respect, an intensive exchange with the EU member states seems necessary and national solo regulations should be avoided. • The timeframe for the ESAP implementation should be aligned with the development of other reporting obligations and the respective interfaces • The EU Commission should promote the ESAP internationally and try to get non-European companies to make their data available via the ESAP as well, since institutional investors' portfolios are global. This would also contribute to the international dissemination of European ESG standards. It should be noted that the envisaged introduction of ESAP might require a thorough consideration of its impact on the existing corporate financial reporting requirements (in particular the Transparency Directive (2004/109/EC) and on the nature and granularity of (future) requirements in the NFRD (2014/95/EU)). The perspective of the reporting entities should be therefore carefully taken into account to ensure that any future changes in financial and non-financial reporting requirements still meet the cost-benefit objectives.
Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

16 Dec 2020

German insurers welcome the opportunity to share their opinion on the draft screening criteria for non-life insurance activities. (Additional comments on criteria for real estate are attached.) Preface - GDV supports the EC’s effort to create a common language for investors when investing in economic activities that have a positive impact on the climate and the environment. - We note that the EC attempted to capture all perceived good practices by listing criteria applying at product as well as company level. This makes it very difficult to comply herewith. We urge the EC to focus on company level criteria. - The EC should also critically question the coherence between criteria and desired goal. Publication and data sharing obligations do not prevent a single loss and contribute neither to climate protection nor climate adaptation. - It is also essential to understand the underwriting process when devising such taxonomy. The wide variety of business lines, insured businesses, types of companies and products make this exercise much more complex for non-life insurance than any other sector. Description of the activity GDV welcomes the fact that all products covering climate Risk are included. But we strongly recommend aligning the list of eligible non-life insurance activities with the classification found in the Solvency II Directive’s lines of business. Criteria-specific comments - Leadership in modelling and pricing of climate risks / Product design The price incentive provisions are too restrictive, and any prevention measure (whether collective or individual) implemented by insurers should be included. Price incentives alone will lead to unaffordable premiums, if the level of preventive measures trails the increase of damages. Additionally, several countries have legal obligation for policyholders in place to prevent losses (e.g. § 82 German insurance contract act), meaning all insurance policies necessarily involve an element of prevention incentive by law, regardless of the policy wording. - Innovative insurance coverage solutions The reference to the demands of policyholders is problematic and could even be considered to contradict the first criteria: solutions driven purely by the demands / needs of policyholders would lead to a reliance on insurance cover over preventive measures and result in higher premiums. It could even be argued that this criterion’s wording introduces a de facto obligation for insurers to accept insurance contracts, thus going against the principles in the third Non-life Insurance Directive (92/49/EEC) and the freedom of contract, enshrined in the law of various member states. - Data sharing Data is at the very heart of any insurer’s business model and is the intellectual property of the insurance industry. We call on the EC to respect this. Our datasets are by any means no “open data”. While insurers already share a significant amount of information with authorities and other stakeholders, an obligation (in order to be eligible under the taxonomy) to share data with external parties free of charge is neither appropriate, nor sufficiently defined for insurers to endorse. - High-level service in post-disaster situations The industry questions the relevance of this criterion as the requirements for insurers in the event of a claim are usually already regulated at national level (eg Art. 14 of the German Insurance Contract Act), as are the obligations to keep policyholders informed. - Do no significant harm (DNSH) - Exclusion of fossil fuel activities The requirement as postulated can hardly be met by the insurance industry. For example, no insurer can guarantee that the insured buildings do not host companies with links to fossil fuels. Insurers simply do not have the means to check the lawful use of vehicles, property etc. The criterion also contradicts national compulsory motor vehicle insurance laws which compel insurers to provide third party liability for any vehicle.
Read full response

Response to Green Paper on Ageing

14 Dec 2020

The German Insurance Association (GDV) supports the aim of the EC’s initiative which is addressing one of the most pressing issues facing the European Union (EU) in the forthcoming years and decades. The Commission’s report on the impact of demographic change already provided a comprehensive and illuminating analysis of the drivers behind demographic change and the impact they will entail across Europe. With the Green Paper on Ageing (GPA), the discussion will be further deepened, yielding into beneficial solutions to properly address the diverse socioeconomic impacts of Europe’s ageing population. The German insurers are happy to contribute to this discussion. One of the many areas hereby affected is the provision of pensions, a point the Roadmap has already correctly highlighted. Based on latest projections, the age structure shifting will continue to accelerate in almost every member state, considerably increasing the pressure on national pension systems. Apparently, this additional burden cannot be borne by the public pension system alone, especially given the sustained impact of COVID-19 on public budgets. In order to secure as well as promote adequate and fiscally sustainable social protection in the future, it will also take additional pension arrangements. In this regard, the GDV emphasizes the need to further strengthen multi-pillar pension systems, esp. capital backed supplementary pensions. Adequacy and sustainability considerations have also been brought forward by the OECD and the High-Level Forum (HLF) on the Capital Markets Union (CMU). The latter had published its final report this summer, already providing several recommendations in the context of old-age provision. The GDV strongly supports the development of national pension tracking services, as such a system is currently being set-up in Germany. We furthermore welcome the introduction of recognized indicator-based pension dashboards as a possible starting point to better assess the adequacy and sustainability of pension systems. Concerns, however, have been raised regarding new information disclosure requirements and data protection issues. Regarding the introduction of auto-enrolment in occupational pension systems, we are very interested to see to what conclusion the report on good practices will come next year. Stimulating coverage by the means of auto-enrolment might be unarguably effective. Yet, it remains particularly important to at the same time take sufficient account of existing systems, products and provider structures. Given this national heterogeneity, imposing a “One-Size-Fits-All” approach would certainly be harmful for the above-mentioned sustained strengthening of the multi-pillar model.
Read full response

Response to Commission Implementing Decision on standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data to third countries

10 Dec 2020

The German Insurance industry welcomes the EC’s efforts to provide practical solutions for the transfer of personal data to third countries. While the draft implementation act and the updated SCCs are a great step forward, certain adjustments appear necessary and sensible. These concern: • The continued validity of the existing SCCs • The obligation to provide a copy of the SCCs to the data subject • The requirements on anonymization • The obligation to inform the data importer of the identity of the con-troller in processor to processor transfers • Obligation to notify the competent data protection supervisory au-thority of additional measures • Clarification on the use of sub-processors and Onwards transfers and • Clarification on the scope of application of Module 4 (processor to controller) For details of our assessment please refer to the document attached.
Read full response

Response to Enhancing the convergence of insolvency laws

8 Dec 2020

The German Insurance Association (GDV) welcomes the initiative “Enhancing the convergence of insolvency laws” and supports the recommendation to address the fragmentation of insolvency laws in EU-Member States. Insurance companies are amongst the largest institutional investors in Europe. To begin with, we would recommend clarifying the scope of the initiative, as the Inception Impact Assessment refers to the harmonization of “non-bank insolvency law”. This term would include (re-) insurance undertakings as well, though the reorganization and winding-up of (re-) insurance undertakings is already subject to sector-specific European legislation (Title IV. of Directive 2009/138/EG) and not on the regulatory agenda. Having said this and bearing in mind the experience of a major investor, we fully subscribe to the European Commission analysis that discrepancies between the Member States' insolvency laws create barriers to cross-border investments. Diverging insolvency proceedings, Definitions, avoidance actions and effects of claw-back rights as well as time-limits and lengths of procedures make it more difficult to anticipate the outcome for value recovery, making it harder to price risks, including for debt instruments. Hence the disparities of insolvency law create serious obstacles regarding credit risk assessments, pricing and risk management for investors. We therefore believe that the efforts to harmonize the insolvency laws in EU-Member States should be intensified and support a legislative or non-legislative initiative for minimum harmonization of corporate insolvency law. Considering that the harmonization of insolvency law has been discussed for years, increased convergence in targeted areas of non-bank insolvency law should be achieved as a minimum goal. Harmonization should not only target basic insolvency definitions, triggers and rules as well as the ranking of claims, but also ensure efficient handling of insolvency proceedings and a consistent and uniform legal process to enforce creditor claims in the European Union. To give an example, for mortgage loans enforcement periods vary from one to seven years in the area of real property enforcements in the European Union posing a substantial burden to cross-border investments in this asset class. An important aspect for an acceleration of proceedings in insolvency and enforcement law are often the court capacities. Therefore we fully subscribes the European Commission proposals that sufficient judicial capacity should be created or ensured in the EU-Member States, where necessary. In addition, the procedural rules should be critically reviewed and unnecessary time delays and complexity should be limited as much as possible.
Read full response

Meeting with Tommy De Temmerman (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

26 Nov 2020 · Introduction and discussion Solvency II review

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

23 Nov 2020 · PRIIPS

Meeting with Tommy De Temmerman (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and Fédération Française de l'Assurance and Associazione Nazionale fra le Imprese Assicuratrici

19 Nov 2020 · Address Webinar on Solvency II review

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

18 Nov 2020 · CMU Action Plan, MIFID and Solvency II

Response to Long Term Investment Funds – Review of EU rules

14 Oct 2020

The German insurance industry supports improvements to the ELTIF regulatory framework. The insurance industry needs access to a wide range of assets that generate stable revenues and match its long-term liabilities. Long-term investments in the real economy, as envisaged by ELTIFs, are generally of interest for insurers, particularly for portfolio diversification purposes. However, from the perspective of institutional investors, ELTIFs in their current design, have significant disadvantages compared to other available investments. These disadvantages relate in particular to the restrictions imposed by the requirements on portfolio composition, diversification requirements and investment limits as well as the limited flexibility with regard to the term of the funds. The current framework of ELTIFs targets a wide range of investors, including retail investors. Many of the protective provisions in the ELTIF framework, which apply equally to all investors, appear to have originally been introduced to protect retail investors, e.g. the requirements for portfolio composition and diversification. Traditional AIFs offer institutional investors much more flexibility in this respect and can be tailored exactly to individual investment needs, which is why institutional investors tend to opt for traditional AIFs. A promising approach to increase the attractiveness of ELTIFs for institutional investors could therefore be to introduce different rules/regimes for ELTIFs tailored to institutional investors on the one hand and private investors on the other. The focus in terms of improvements for institutional investors should then be on removing barriers to investments, in particular by allowing more flexibility for investment strategies that are attractive to institutional investors. We see a particular need for adjustment in the following areas: • Eligibility of investment assets: The scope of eligible assets and investments needs to be expanded to allow more differentiated investment strategies and more liquidity of the fund: ­ -ELTIFs should be allowed to invest in financial undertakings - provided they are in line with the investment strategy of ELTIFs. ­ -Investments in funds other than ELTIFs, EuVECAs or EuSEFs, should also be allowed, provided their investment strategy obliges them to invest in the same asset classes as qualified funds. ­ -The minimum investment threshold of 70 % for eligible investment assets should be decreased. This would help to allow differentiated investment strategies and increase liquidity. • Portfolio-composition and diversification: We recommend the abolition of the current strict and restrictive diversification rules of Art. 13 of the ELTIF-Regulation for those ELTIFs that only admit institutional investors. Institutional investors are less in need of protection in this respect than retail investors because they control their risk/return requirements across their entire portfolio. Removing these restrictive requirements for institutional investors would give them more flexibility in the implementation of individual investment strategies. • Redemption rights: ELTIFs should not be closed-end funds and should offer investors the possibility of regular redemptions. A one-time right to redeem their investments " at a mid-point", as proposed by the HLF in its report on the CMU, wouldn’t provide sufficient flexibility. It is not to be assumed that such more flexible redemption rules for ELTIFs, which only admit institutional investors such as insurers, would lead to higher run risks. Insurers prefer open fund structures for their fund investments but have proven to be long-term investors. • Apart from this, a change in the treatment of ELTIFs under Solvency II could also help to make ELTIFs more attractive. Under the look-through approach of Solvency II only qualified infrastructure stocks held in ELTIF funds can benefit from a risk calibration of 30 % so far, but not the entire fund.
Read full response

Response to Sustainable corporate governance

6 Oct 2020

Dear Madam and Sir, please find attached our positionpaper on your consultation on sustainable corporate governance as a pdf document. Kind regards.
Read full response

Response to Requirements for Artificial Intelligence

10 Sept 2020

Please find the complette feedback of the GDV in attachment.
Read full response

Response to Commission Delegated Regulation on taxonomy-alignment of undertakings reporting non-financial information

8 Sept 2020

The German Insurance Association welcomes the opportunity to comment on the roadmap of a delegated act under Article 8 of the Taxonomy Regulation. The insurance industry welcomes and supports the efforts and measures of the Commission and national legislators with the aim of making Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. The insurance industry is also aware of its share of responsibility for this important goal. However, on the way to this goal we believe it is essential not to overburden the companies in the financial sector and to leave them the necessary flexibility in implementing the regulation. In other regulatory projects, especially the Disclosure Regulation, the availability of data for disclosure requirements was a central point of criti-cism since ESG data availability is seen as insufficient. Depending on the design of the methods applied this issue will arise again and leave companies faced with implementation difficulties that are impossible to solve. In the roadmap, the European Commission recognises that the companies concerned will have to face implementation costs, for example due to new processes for data collection and data processing. This usually involves the adaptation of highly complex data processing systems, which are essential for proper corporate management. The implementation costs for this will therefore be considerable. At this point we would like to emphasise once again the lack of data availability and the need of a central EU data register for the relevant data that is accessible free of cost. Potential methods and indicators should therefore be designed as simple as possible and should be based on available data (no best-effort). Ideally, methods should be well-known and easy-to-use. Indicators should be re-stricted to those that are readily available to every company.
Read full response

Response to Review of measures on taking up and pursuit of the insurance and reinsurance business (Solvency II)

26 Aug 2020

Summary The German insurance industry supports the modern, risk-based SII regime and believes it works well overall. Its level of security is very high. Particularly in the Covid-19 crisis, SII has proven its worth. Nevertheless, the SII review should be used for some important improvements. Regulations that are overshooting from a risk perspective should be corrected in all three pillars. Specific amendments could bring SII even more in line with European political objectives of high priority like the CMU, the Green Deal, the enhancement of Europe’s international competitiveness, and, of course, the economic recovery after Covid-19. To enable the insurance industry to contribute maximally to these priority projects, the high level of regulatory requirements should by no means be further increased. Excessive volatility of their solvency position could hinder insurers both to offer products with long-term guarantees and to contribute to the stable, long-term funding of the EU real economy. Instead they could involuntary be forced to act procyclically and more short-term orientated, which would be contrary to the Commission’s objectives as well as to the insurance business model with its long-term illiquid liabilities. In order to avoid such a detrimental result, artificial volatility must be reduced. This is the purpose of the LTG measures which must be sufficiently effective. This is also completely in line with the recommendations of the High Level Forum on the CMU. The Covid-19 crisis has re-established evidence that there is no room for dilution of these measures (e.g. changed extrapolation) but instead need for some improvements (e.g. VA). This holds in particular in an adverse economic environment with negative interest rates and heavy market fluctuations. In general, it is important that regulation is based on the actual risks that insurers face. A realistic quantification of risks helps to make insurers more resilient to shocks and to increase policyholder protection. With respect to interest rate risk, this means to avoid both under- and overestimation when rates are already negative. Besides that, calibrations for EU matters must not be based on non-EU data. Proportionality should be better applied in practice. Making proportionality work will have significant, positive and long-lasting impact on invest-ments, employment and the security of policy holders. Regarding the occurrence of several failures of insurers operating cross-border, there were suboptimal outcomes and revealed shortcomings in terms of cross-border coordination and cooperation between the supervisory authorities. The measures that SII provides for crisis situations and policyholder protection in a winding-up situation are sufficient and should not be mixed up with deficiencies in cross-border supervision. These deficiencies have recently been addressed by strengthening the information exchange and cooperation between the supervisory authorities and EIOPA. We are convinced that the existing micro- and macroprudential regulation effectively addresses potential systemic risk which is limited in the insurance sector anyway. To further enhance financial stability, improved mitigation of artificial short-term volatility of solvency positions that might lead to procyclical behavior is the best option. The need for new macroprudential measures is very limited. Sustainability risks should be integrated in qualitative risk management if they are material for the respective undertaking. Capital requirements should not have a “green discount” but always correspond to the undertaking’s actual risks. Apart from this, misuse of the cancellation right and market access of third-country reinsurance should also be addressed in the review. Finally, we welcome that on basis of EIOPA’s input the Commission services will carefully assess the impact of the proposed amendments. These significant decisions should be made on a large and meaningful data basis.
Read full response

Response to Integration of sustainability risks and factors in relation to insurance undertakings and insurance distributors

6 Jul 2020

GDV welcomes the aim to integrate sustainability considerations into the processes of insurance undertakings and intermediaries, where this is expedient. In our opinion, however, there are some points in the Commission’s proposal which should be revised. • Recitals: The European Commission’s draft to amend the rules on the suitability assessment in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2359) with regards to sustainability considerations from January 2019 contained useful clarifications in its recitals which are, however, not included in the current draft. This concerns Recital 6 of the aforementioned draft which suggested that in order to avoid mis-selling the sustainability preferences should be addressed after the customer’s other investment objectives, as well as Recital 8 of that draft which provided clarification with regard to existing customers. We agree with the explanatory memorandum of the current draft (p. 3) that both Recitals are necessary with regard to legal certainty and should, therefore, be included in the final delegated act. • Article 1 (2) of the proposal (Article 5 (1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2358): We think the obligation to take into account sustainability factors in the POG processes of all products should be reconsidered. ‘Sustainability factors’ is a legal term used in the SFDR to describe the impacts of an investment on sustainability issues. In Articles 4 and 7 SFDR, the legislator stipulated that financial market participants who offer investment products may voluntarily identify and consider the principle adverse impacts of their investment decisions on sustainability factors. Only for large financial market participants (more than 500 employees – Article 4 (3) and (4) SFDR), there is a requirement to this effect. It would not be appropriate to introduce burdensome obligations of this nature for all insurance companies – including smaller undertakings and insurers which are not subject to the SFDR – by way of a delegated act. We note that the technical advice published by EIOPA proposed to add a reference to ‘the ESG profile of the product (where relevant)’ to Article 5 (1) of the Delegated Regulation (EI-OPA-BoS-19/172). We agree that this would be a sensible approach to integrate sustainability considerations into the product approval process where this is relevant for the respective target market.   • Article 2 (1) of the proposal (Article 2 (4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2359): The definition of sustainability preferences should refer to the existing categories of sustainable products in Article 8 and 9 SFDR without adding the further qualifications proposed as sub-points (i) and (ii) of Article 2 (4). The legislator has devised Article 8 and 9 SFDR in order to take account of the variety of sustainable products available on the market (Recital 21). Introducing a third (i) and fourth (ii) category of sustainable products in the context of IDD would, in our view, raise further legal uncertainties and inconsistencies without apparent benefits to the customer. For instance, it would mean that a product may be advertised as promoting sustainable characteristics yet does not address sustainability preferences. It would, furthermore, mean that until 30 December 2022 the customer’s desire for a product which excludes certain investments from its portfolio (e. g. fossil fuels, child labour etc.) would not constitute a sustainability preference within the meaning of the Delegated Regulation. • Article 3 of the proposal: We welcome the implementation period of 12 months starting with the entry into force of the Act. Insurers and intermediaries need sufficient time to implement the rules once they are finalized.
Read full response

Response to Integration of sustainability risks and factors in relation to the business of insurance and reinsurance

6 Jul 2020

Insurance and reinsurance companies are one of the biggest institutional investor groups. The German Insurance Association (GDV) therefore welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposal for a Commission Delegated Regulation amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35 as regards the integration of sustainability risks in the governance of insurance and reinsurance undertakings. • GDV welcomes the aim to integrate sustainability considerations into the gov-ernance of insurance undertakings, where this is expedient. • Clarification of the definition of sustainability risks and factors, consistent with existing legislation is reasonable. However, clarifications should be limited to clarifications and should not introduce further restrictions that are not laid down in other regulatory projects, eg the Disclosure Regulation. • GDV supports the consideration of sustainability aspects as part of all business processes, this means also in risk management. But the regulation should avoid any redundant elements. As the prudent person principle already requires consideration of sustainability risks, where relevant, there is no need for an additional reference in article 260. The argument of redundancy holds true for articles 269, 275 and 275a. • Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the link between sustainability risks and the ORSA is critical. We agree that the “effects of sustainability risks” on the risk profile should only be taken into account if these effects are financially relevant and material for the undertaking. However, a compulsory analysis of sustainability risks would contradict the basic idea of a company-specific strategy and risk assessment. • From a content perspective the underwriting processes in compliance with existing Solvency II legislation include the consideration of the impact of sustainability risk on the risk profile of the undertaking, as well as consideration of these risks in pricing and reserving. But there is a risk that additional explicit requirements for the actuarial function regarding the assessment of sustainability risks may be misinterpreted to signal additional reserving or additional risk capital needs, which in both cases is redundant. Therefore we don’t see any reason to include the liability side. • GDV is of the opinion that the implications of the first part of Article 275a (2), requiring undertakings “to take into account the potential long-term impacts of investment decisions on sustainability factors”, are not made sufficiently clear. As the proposal is worded, it may result in an unintended contradiction to Article 133 of the Solvency II Directive. • The objective of prudential regulation is the protection of customers’ financial interests resulting from direct contracts with the undertaking. Therefore, GDV suggests to remove Art. 275a (2), as it seems that the proposed addition is out of scope of prudential regulation. Please find attached more detailed explanations of the individual points raised above in a supplementary position paper.
Read full response

Response to EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change

22 Jun 2020

The GDV welcomes the roadmap for the EU climate adaptation strategy. The Commission rightly draws attention to the development of global warming in recent years. This underlines the urgency to not only pursue the mitigation of greenhouse gases, but also to adapt to the inevitable consequences of climate change. Insurance against extreme weather events is a tool that is not yet sufficiently available in many European countries. Increasing availability is a valid goal. Nevertheless, the Commission should bear in mind that, given the different regional vulnerabilities, there can be no one-size-fits-all solution. However, insurance is only one side of the coin. Prevention is the other. Unfortunately, it can be expected that only a few private stakeholders in Europe will have the foresight to think about climate resilience when building and renovating buildings. Therefore, it may be necessary to pursue the adaptation of building planning law and building codes as an equivalent goal under the "new actions". The insurance industry, with its experience and data, is also available as a partner of the EU Commission. However, when considering the use of data, we ask the Commission to bear in mind that data is the intellectual property of the insurance industry and cannot be made publicly available. For instance, the German insurance industry already publishes extensive data on climate change and extreme weather events in the so-called natural hazard report every year.
Read full response

Response to Report on the application of the General Data Protection Regulation

29 Apr 2020

Please find the GDV's feedback in attachment.
Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

20 Apr 2020

Please see the attached document.
Read full response

Response to Action Plan on anti-money laundering

11 Mar 2020

Dear Madam / Sir, please find attached our positionpaper on the Roadmap on anti-money laundering. Thank you very much.
Read full response

Meeting with Ruth Paserman (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

28 Feb 2020 · Forthcoming demography report and Pan- European Personal Pension Product

Meeting with Astrid Dentler (Cabinet of Vice-President Dubravka Šuica)

27 Feb 2020 · demographic developments, Green Paper on Ageing, pension insurance

Meeting with Aliénor Margerit (Cabinet of Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni), Estelle Goeger (Cabinet of Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni)

26 Feb 2020 · European Green Deal and ECB strategic review

Meeting with Valeria Miceli (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

31 Jan 2020 · German Insurance industry and main challenges ahead

Meeting with Günther Oettinger (Commissioner)

24 Oct 2019 · MFF and InvestEU

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

8 Aug 2019 · CMU, Solvency II, sustainable finance

Response to Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation

19 Mar 2019

Please find attached our position.
Read full response

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

13 Dec 2018 · Solvency II review

Response to Electronic documents for freight transport

26 Jul 2018

The GDV welcomes the current proposed Regulation. It creates uniform conditions across the EU in respect of the acceptance of electronic freight transport information and papers by the relevant authorities. Companies will not, however, be obliged to provide such information and papers in electronic form, either in their dealings with the authorities or in their dealings with each other. Furthermore, rules are laid down covering the IT systems and solutions for the electronic exchange of legally required freight transport information between companies and authorities. The proposed regulation furthermore takes account of the peculiarities of the international transport of goods. This will be carried out on the basis of international agreements governing the various modes of transport. The agreements contain different requirements in respect of the form and content of the consignment note. It is possible to use electronic consignment note, but this is not mandatory. It is therefore to be explicitly welcomed that the proposed Regulation does not propose a separate electronic waybill for the EU, nor any obligation to use electronic consignment notes.
Read full response

Response to REFIT review of the Motor Insurance Directive

24 Jul 2018

Der Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft und die Verkehrsopferhilfe begrüßen das Ziel der EU-Kommission, die Opfer von Kraftfahrzeugunfällen noch besser zu schützen und die Rechte der Versicherungsnehmer zu stärken. Bei einzelnen Vorschlägen sieht die deutsche Versicherungswirtschaft jedoch Anpassungsbedarf. Dies betrifft • den Anwendungsbereich der KH-Richtlinie (Art. 1 Nr. 1a), • die Mindestdeckungssummen (Art. 9), • den Schutz der Geschädigten bei Insolvenzen von KH-Versicherern (Art. 10a) und die Bescheinigungen des Schadenverlaufs (Art. 16). Die Einzelheiten sind in der beigefügten Stellungnahme ausführlich dargestellt. Die englische Version der Stellungnahme ist hier verlinkt: https://www.en.gdv.de/en/issues/our-news/position-of-the-gdv-on-the-proposed-revision-of-the-motor-insurance-directive-34496
Read full response

Meeting with Günther Oettinger (Commissioner)

16 Jul 2018 · ESA review

Response to Fairness in platform-to-business relations

28 Jun 2018

The German insurance industry welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a regulation promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services and online search engines. Insurance companies are affected to varying degrees by the platform industry. Some platforms, such as insurance comparison and distribution platforms, participate directly in the insurance markets, while other online intermediation services and online search engines have an indirect impact on the business of insurance companies. In addition to the general requirements regarding transparency, data protection and compliance with competition rules, platforms that distribute insurance products/services shall comply with the regulation on insurance distribution. Some issues addressed by the regulatory proposals of the Commission may be harmonized, substantiated and supplemented. This applies, in particular, to I. the legal force of terms and conditions (Article 3), II. measures to be taken when providers of online intermediation services suspend or terminate the cooperation (Article 4), III. obligations with regard to the publication of the parameters that determine a ranking (Article 5), and IV. the possibility for platforms to restrict the ability of business users to offer the same goods and services to consumers under different conditions through other means than through their platform (Article 8). Please find our full position attached.
Read full response

Response to Institutional investors' and asset managers' duties regarding sustainability

20 Jun 2018

The German Insurance Association (GDV) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s public consultation on its Sustainable Finance Initiative for the distribution of insurance-based investment products. Mandatory inclusion of ESG in the advice is not necessary Article 30(1) IDD and Article 9(4) Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2359 oblige insurance intermediaries and insurance undertakings to obtain information on the customer’s investment objectives. Mandatory questions focused on ESG preferences are therefore not necessary. The general approach of this Delegated Regulation is in line with IDD's goal that advice should be strictly focused on the demands and needs of the customer. If customers express environmental, social and governance (ESG) preferences, the distributor has to take them into account. The relevant Delegated Regulation - including the obligation to assess the suitability of an insurance based investment product - will enter in force on 1st October 2018. For customers expressing preferences for ESG investment, a product which is not ESG compliant will not be suitable and, thus, cannot be recommended. Furthermore we would like to point out that the general approach of the Delegated Regulation on conduct of business rules for the distribution of insurance-based investment products covers all customer preferences including issues beyond ESG criteria, which might be relevant for customers now or in the future. Ensure legal certainty Should the legislator still consider the obligatory integration of questions regarding ESG preferences into the suitability assessment necessary, this obligation needs to be accompanied by defined classification criteria for the relevant ESG factor. For manufacturers and distributors, legal uncertainty with regard to the exact requirements for an investment to classify as sustainable increases the risk of civil liability when providing advice on investments with ESG objectives. The proposed Regulation on taxonomy promises to provide more clarity with regard to environmentally sustainable investments, when the work on Level 2 is completed. Similar assistance should be provided to manufacturers and distributors with regard to social and good governance investments. We do understand, that establishing a taxonomy for social or good governance objectives may be difficult (see the explanation on p. 62 of the Impact Assessment – SWD (2018) 264 final). Obliging the manufacturers and distributors of insurance based investment products to include these potentially contentious issues in every advice without classification criteria, however, would be a major source of legal risk. Realign the timeline While we appreciate the introduction of a transitional period of 18 months in this Regulation, it is, in our view, important that the application date of the complete rules on taxonomy precedes that of the distribution requirements. The IDD-Review would be a good opportunity to introduce further requirements on the inclusion of ESG in the advice, if proved necessary. Past experience shows that delays in legislative procedures are possible. That might also apply to the rules on taxonomy. Hence the application date of the proposed changes to the delegated acts under IDD and MiFID might alternatively be linked to the date set in Article 18 (2) (c) of the proposed Regulation on taxonomy.
Read full response

Response to Targeted revision of EU consumer law directives

20 Jun 2018

The German Insurance Industry welcomes the possibility to give feedback to the proposal for a Directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers. Most member states have only recently introduced procedures to close gaps in legal protection regarding the enforcement of consumer rights in mass harm situations or, like Germany, are currently preparing to do so. These national measures should be given time to take effect before attempting to harmonise them at the European level. From our point of view, there is no legal basis for European harmonisation here, either. Apart from this, several aspects of the proposal are questionable. Wrong incentives that risk resulting in a US-style litigation industry are to be avoided – currently, there is wide consensus about this in Europe. In some respects, such as third-party funding, the draft includes steps in the right direction. Unfortunately, the EU Commission does not sufficiently heed its own principles of 2013 regarding a legally sound implementation of collective redress systems. From our point of view, there is still need for clarification. This holds particularly true for the principle that the claimant party must actively opt in to become part of the represented group. From our point of view, it is of essential importance to include this principle more clearly in the Directive proposal. We are also critical of the intention of granting ad hoc qualified entities the standing to bring actions, given the risk of abuse. Moreover, additional minimum criteria are needed as regards entities that are empowered to bring actions. In terms of procedural aspects, the planned combination of injunction orders, declaratory decisions and redress orders to a “one stop shop” should be reconsidered. Moreover, all cases where the existence (or non-existence) of a damage and its amount can vary from consumer to consumer should be considered “complex” within the meaning of Art. 6 (2). Taking into account the principle of fair trial, it should be clarified that judgments are binding for both consumers and companies. Only a predetermined group of consumers, if any at all, should be granted a suspension of the statute of limitations. In addition, reducing procedural costs for qualified entities is not in line with the “loser pays principle”, generally recognised in Europe.
Read full response

Response to Targeted revision of EU consumer law directives

20 Jun 2018

The German insurance industry expressly welcomes the intended improvements of consumer protection under the proposed Directive. However, we do not agree with the Directive’s underlying assumption of insufficient enforcement and limited consumer redress possibilities. There is no lack of consumer redress opportunities, especially in insurance. For this reason, it is not necessary to introduce individual remedies as provided for under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD). Moreover, such provisions are not in line with proven legal tradition in Germany, according to which fair trading legislation is explicitly not intended for the compensation of consumer claims. Any blurring of the boundaries between competition law and civil law should be avoided. Harmonising penalties is not required, either. In case of infringements against one of the four mentioned Directives, efficient intervention options are available. Cross-border infringements are also efficiently sanctioned, due to the powers granted to the responsible authorities under the “Regulation on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws” (CPC Regulation). In particular, there is no need to sanction infringements against the Unfair Terms Directive by imposing a fine – the existing civil law provisions are both efficient and appropriate.
Read full response

Response to Reducing barriers to cross-border distribution of investment funds

9 May 2018

Please see the attached document.
Read full response

Response to Directive on cross-border distribution of investment funds

9 May 2018

Please see the attached document.
Read full response

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

8 May 2018 · Solvency II delegated act review

Meeting with Günther Oettinger (Commissioner)

19 Mar 2018 · Solvency II / ESA review

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

19 Mar 2018 · Solvency II review - ESAS review - PEPP - Motor insurance directive

Response to Review of the European Supervisory Authorities

18 Dec 2017

General comments The German Insurance Association (GDV) welcomes the Commission’s decision to maintain the well-established and balanced system of European financial supervision, in particular the sector-specific responsibilities of EIOPA, EBA and ESMA. It is vital that the responsible European authority has specific expertise in the field of insurance. We also appreciate the continuing competence of the ESAs for both prudential and market conduct oversight. The introduction of the so- called twin peaks-approach would be hardly feasible in the insurance sector as solvency and consumer protection requirements are integrated in Solvency II. A separation would result in unnecessary double supervision and increased bureaucratic burdens due to the constant need for coordination. The GDV strongly believes that EIOPA’s prime responsibility is to ensure a convergent application of EU regulatory requirements. We support any measure to provide EIOPA with the necessary means to fulfil this important mandate. However, we are convinced that existing Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 does not suffer from a lack of regulation, but from deficits in enforcement. In terms of setting guidelines and drafting opinions, reports etc. we have noticed that EIOPA’s activities –though probably unintended– in some cases had the impact of challenging or adding complexity to the rules which are based on a due political and legal process. This has created a great deal of legal uncertainty and virtually resulted in an additional layer of regulation. We also acknowledge that EIOPA’s solicited involvement as a mediator in matters of ongoing supervision with cross-border implications has proven to be helpful. However, it is paramount that the national supervisory authorities (NCAs) remain responsible for the direct supervision of insurance undertakings. Bearing this in mind, the GDV believes that the Commission’s proposal should be reconsidered especially taking into account aspects of proportionality, effective control mechanisms and a transparent funding scheme. Please find our full position in the attachment.
Read full response

Response to 2nd Data Package

6 Dec 2017

The German insurance industry welcomes the initiatives taken to encourage a thriving data economy in the European Digital Single Market. As the success of the data economy depends on an appropriate (re-)use of data, generally the user of data processing devices or services should have the power of disposition over the data processed. The framework has the potential to pave the way towards this aim. The approach to foster a competitive environment in which provisions for access to and (re-)use of data become relevant factors for market success is appropriate and well-measured. Still the further market development should be closely monitored to ensure the aim is met. Ensuring interoperability is of utmost importance for a flourishing Digital Single Market. Please find our full position in the attachment.
Read full response

Response to A New Deal for Consumers – revision of the Injunctions Directive

28 Nov 2017

The German Insurance Association welcomes the fact that the EU Commission intends to improve the enforcement of consumer rights in mass harm situations. However, it should be taken into account that various member states have recently introduced or further developed compensatory collective redress mechanisms. In Germany, the proposal for model declaratory actions is currently subject of a heated debate. Moreover, the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation (CPC Regulation) has only recently been reviewed and extended. In addition to that, the differences in the individual member states’ legal traditions are too significant. Therefore, the binding regulation of collective redress mechanisms should be the prerogative of the member states. The German insurance industry believes that the EU Commission should therefore monitor the further course of events in the member states before adopting new legislative measures, i. e. act in accordance with options 1 and 2 of its inception impact assessment. Should the EU Commission nonetheless take measures, we are highly sceptical of any attempts to combine injunctive relief and compensatory collective redress mechanisms (option 4). If the EU Commission were to introduce such a “one stop shop” procedure, it would be of utmost importance to maintain its own recommendations of 2013 in order to prevent the emergence of a US-style “litigation industry”. The recommendations rightly include a ban on punitive damages as well as provisions on opt-in procedures for collective redress actions – it remains completely unclear how they could be followed under a “one stop shop” procedure. Option 4 lacks any instructions on this matter. At the very least, the injunction procedures risk becoming overly complex and, as a consequence, less effective. The German Insurance Association is also sceptical regarding the information requirements for undertakings proposed under options 3 and 4. In many cases, the undertakings will not, or only under considerable efforts, be able to evaluate whether or not the relevant damages are of a similar nature. A viable solution would be in our view rather to publish the judgement following an order of the court. Please find our full position in the attachment.
Read full response

Response to Fitness Check of supervisory reporting requirements

14 Nov 2017

Please see the attachment.
Read full response

Response to Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive

2 Nov 2017

The Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) had a very positive impact on risk awareness and risk reduction. But the scope of the Floods Directive is – at present – limited to fluvial flooding. It should be extended to pluvial flood events as soon as possible. Reason: Most “flood losses” are nowadays triggered by torrential rain. With regard to content we invite the EC to reflect on the following suggestions: • Clarify the terms “frequent flooding” and “extreme flooding” with respect to their statistical return periods. This would very much ease the use of cross regional datasets and foster valid flood modelling. • Broaden the scope of the Floods Directive to smaller rivers by introducing a threshold, above which the flooding needs to be modelled. The threshold could be geared to the number of citizens that would suffer from a certain flooding in the vicinity of the river. • Introduce mandatory flood risk information for builders in all planning processes. By having this information in an early planning stage, the builder can react accordingly and adapt the building to the flood peril.
Read full response

Response to REFIT review of the Motor Insurance Directive

18 Aug 2017

The German Insurance Association (GDV) supports the common response of Insurance Europe and the Council of Bureaux, dated 11 August 2017, to the EC Inception Impact Assessment on the REFIT of the Motor Insurance Directive (MID). However, the GDV would like to highlight the following points: • Guarantee funds and insolvencies In case the responsible MTPL insurer is insolvent, the victim of a national road accident should direct his/her claim to the responsible Guarantee fund. In the event of a cross border accident the claim should be directed against the Compensation Body of the victim’s domestic country. Having settled the claim it should be ensured that the Compensation body can take recourse against the Guarantee fund in the country where the insolvent MTPL insurer is supervised. This reflects the fair principle that the costs of a MTPL insurer’s insolvency have to be borne (only) by the national insurance market in which the supervisory authority of the insolvent MTPL insurer is seated and would also be in line with Art. 24.2 MID. It has to be ensured that the same level of protection for road accident victims applies should the responsible MTPL insurer be insolvent irrespectively whether it is a national or a cross border accident situation and whether the responsible insurer is in FOS/FOE operation or not. There is no need for a European guarantee fund for MTPL insurers. The existing system of national guarantee funds is working properly. A European Guarantee Fund would enhance administration costs, create language barriers and would violate the principle of the responsibility of the individual markets. • Automated vehicles The MID is already suitable for all levels of automated driving. The scope is the vehicle and not the automation level. There are various players who could share responsibility for accidents involving driverless cars: e.g. drivers, owners and manufacturers plus IT service providers, mobile providers, operators of digital networks and providers of digital maps. They all share responsibility – and liability. However, this added complexity shall not affect road accident victims. As cars on the road constitute an “operational risk”, there are some straightforward rules which apply to automated and future autonomous and connected driving even now: regardless of the reason for a motoring-related loss – the victim will be compensated by the MTPL insurer. People who suffer road accidents thus benefit from having one competent contact partner, as opposed to being shunted around among different potentially liable parties. Anyone who is involved in an accident – at least in Germany – can rely on that, both now and in the future. This implies the possibility of recourse by the MTPL insurer against the final liable party. In most cases this will be another insurer or market player on equal footing, in difference to the road accident victim. However, in this context the direct access of the MTPL insurer to data that allow identifying who was driving the car in the moment of the accident – the driver or the automated function – is crucial.
Read full response

Response to DA on conduct of business rules for the distribution of insurance-based investment products

17 Aug 2017

Please find attached the comment of the German Insurance Association (GDV) 6437280268-55
Read full response

Response to DA on product oversight and governance requirements for insurance undertakings and insurance distributors

17 Aug 2017

Please find attached the comment of the German Insurance Association (GDV) 6437280268-55
Read full response

Meeting with Michael Hager (Cabinet of Vice-President Günther Oettinger)

20 Jul 2017 · financial services

Meeting with Markus Schulte (Cabinet of Vice-President Günther Oettinger) and Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V. and

30 Jun 2017 · Reflection paper

Response to Specifications for the provision of cooperative intelligent transport systems (C-ITS)

15 Jun 2017

The GDV would like to highlight one point in general which is not mentioned sufficiently: Without access to data any initiative to foster C-ITS applications will fail. Restricted access to data is a third main problem contributing to the fragmented deployment of C-ITS. Access to data shall be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (frand). Today´s experience shows that we need legally binding specification to guarantee frand access to data. Public acceptance will rise, if customers and drivers are able to control the flow of their data from the car to service providers, for privacy and data protection reasons. In-vehicle data access in combination with an in vehicle application platform is the best and easiest way to control the flow of data (privacy and data protection by design!).
Read full response

Response to Electronic documents for freight transport

15 Jun 2017

Please refer to the attached file.
Read full response

Meeting with Olivier Guersent (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

28 Apr 2017 · Solvency II; UFR; ESAs Review

Meeting with Sebastian Kuck (Cabinet of Commissioner Jonathan Hill)

29 Jun 2016 · Credit Rating Agencies

Meeting with Reinhard Felke (Cabinet of Commissioner Pierre Moscovici)

29 Jun 2016 · Austausch über Ausblick auf die Volkswirtschaft der Eurozone

Meeting with Andreas Schwarz (Cabinet of Vice-President Kristalina Georgieva) and Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V. and

16 Jun 2016 · MFF Mid-term review

Meeting with Mette Toftdal Grolleman (Cabinet of Commissioner Jonathan Hill)

7 Jan 2016 · Delegated acts under the Insurance Distribution Directive

Meeting with Bodo Lehmann (Digital Economy)

16 Sept 2015 · Better regulation

Meeting with Mette Toftdal Grolleman (Cabinet of Commissioner Jonathan Hill)

22 Jul 2015 · Solvency II, Capital Markets Union, Insurance Distribution Directive

Meeting with Laure Chapuis-Kombos (Cabinet of Vice-President Andrus Ansip)

14 Jul 2015 · Cyber security

Meeting with Eric Mamer (Digital Economy)

2 Jul 2015 · connected mobility

Meeting with Friedrich-Nikolaus von Peter (Cabinet of Commissioner Violeta Bulc)

2 Jul 2015 · Meeting with GDV

Meeting with Renate Nikolay (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová)

1 Jul 2015 · Data protection

Meeting with Valérie Herzberg (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

5 Jun 2015 · Insurance sector issues

Meeting with Jan Ceyssens (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

5 Jun 2015 · Systemic risk issues related to insurance - Implementation of Solvency II and interaction with Capital Markets Union

Meeting with Jonathan Faull (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and Die Deutsche Kreditwirtschaft

24 Apr 2015 · Austrian Hypo Alpe Adria Special Act

Meeting with Valérie Herzberg (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

15 Apr 2015 · Investment initiative + Solvency II

Meeting with Reinhard Felke (Cabinet of Commissioner Pierre Moscovici)

27 Mar 2015 · Economic and financial situation in the EU