The case
After the first part What this toolbox ought to include and the second part on Who will be affected by the wave of regulations? as well as the third part Better governance, at least for SIBs, the forth part Bonus rules? – at least with regard to systemically important banks (SIBs), the fifth part on a Senior Manager’s Regime and part six on Whistle-blower protection, part seven on the Refinement of the Industry ban and Disgorgement rules, part eight on the proposed In-Depth Warranty Check, part nine on the proposed Information Obligation for Employees, part ten on the question of More Transparency on Procedures?, part eleven on the proposal that FINMA should have the Authority to impose Fines, Prof. Dr Urs Zulauf expresses his thoughts in part twelve on the Federal Council’s proposal on the topic Streamlined court proceedings?
The commentary
The Federal Council, presumably influenced by FINMA, is considering to propose to the parliament that the court procedure for appeals against FINMA decisions ought to be streamlined.
This would exclude appeals to the Federal Supreme Court, short deadlines would be introduced for appeals to the Federal Administrative Court and the Federal Administrative Court would have to decide more quickly and would no longer be entitled to review the appropriateness of FINMA’s decisions.
In principle, appeals would no longer have a suspensive effect. The unease about the judicial review of FINMA’s supervisory decisions was triggered in particular by the PostFinance case, though an analysis of this case did not reveal any fundamental problems with the judicial process. For this reason, the Federal Council had better not pursue these ideas any further, neither for systemically important banks nor for all the banks and financial institutions.