Risk-Mitigation techniques using reinsurance contracts or special purpose vehicles

1. Where insurance or reinsurance undertakings transfer underwriting risks using reinsurance contracts or special purpose vehicles, in order for them to take into account the risk-mitigation technique in the Basic Solvency Capital Requirement, the qualitative criteria set out in Articles 209 and 210 and those set out in paragraphs 2 to 6 shall be met.

2. In the case of reinsurance contracts the counterparty shall be any of the following:

(a) an insurance or reinsurance undertaking which complies with the Solvency Capital Requirement;

(b) a third-country insurance or reinsurance undertaking, situated in a country whose solvency regime is deemed equivalent or temporarily equivalent to that laid down in Directive 2009/138/EC in accordance with Article 172 of that Directive and which complies with the solvency requirements of that third-country;

(c) a third country insurance or reinsurance undertaking, which is not situated in a country whose solvency regime is deemed equivalent or temporarily equivalent to that laid down in Directive 2009/138/EC in accordance with Article 172 of that Directive with a credit quality which has been assigned to credit quality step 3 or better in accordance with Section 1, Chapter II of this Title.

3. Where a counterparty to a reinsurance contract is an insurance or reinsurance undertaking which ceases to comply with the Solvency Capital Requirement after the reinsurance contract has been entered into, the protection offered by the insurance risk-mitigation technique may be partially recognised, provided that the insurance or reinsurance undertaking can demonstrate that the counterparty has submitted a realistic recovery plan to its supervisory authorities and compliance with the Solvency Capital Requirement will be restored within the timeframe defined in the recovery plan referred to in Article 138 of Directive 2009/138/EC. For that purpose, the effect of the risk-mitigation technique shall be reduced by the percentage by which the Solvency Capital Requirement is breached.

4. Where risk is transferred to a special purpose vehicle the requirements referred to in Article 211(2) of Directive 2009/138/EC shall be met for the risk-mitigation technique to be taken into account in the Basic Solvency Capital Requirement; where the requirements for a special purpose vehicle to be fully-funded cease to be fully met after the arrangement has been entered into, the protection offered by the insurance risk-mitigation technique may be partially recognised, provided that the insurance or reinsurance undertaking can demonstrate that compliance with the fullyfunded requirement will be restored within three months; for this purpose, the effect of the risk-mitigation technique shall be reduced by the percentage of the aggregated maximum risk exposure of the special purpose vehicle, referred to in Article 326 of this Regulation not covered by the assets of the special purpose vehicle or by an equivalent amount where Article 211(3) of Directive 2009/138/EC is applicable.

5. Where risk is transferred to a special purpose vehicle referred to in Article 211(3) of Directive 2009/138/EC, the risk-mitigation technique shall only be taken into account in the Basic Solvency Capital Requirement where the law of the Member State is equivalent to that set out in Article 211(2) of that Directive and that law is complied with by the special purpose vehicle.

6. Where risk is transferred to a special purpose vehicle that is regulated by a third country supervisory authority, the risk-mitigation technique shall only be taken into account in the Basic Solvency Capital Requirement where requirements equivalent to those set out in Article 211(2) of Directive 2009/138/EC are met by the special purpose vehicle.