 Good afternoon. We have reached the end of our two days ESC Billigal Conference 2022. How many interesting discussions, hints and questions we have heard? Thank you very much. First of all to all the panelists who have put a lot of energy into preparing all this and discussing with us. To the chairs who also have spent a lot of time organizing and making sure there are no overlapings and no contradiction and no overrunning the time and also to the participants. And finally not least the support staff without whom this conference would not have been possible. Thank you to all. But now before closing, let's look back at what we heard in the past two days. The 2022 ESC Billigal Conference evolved around two axes. On the one hand, legal developments in response to the pandemic were analyzed through the lenses of first of all the evolution of legal practice with the use of visualization and legal design. Secondly, the conduct of monetary policy operation with non banks and thirdly, the development of central bank digital currencies. The possibility I should say of conduct of monetary policy operations. Yeah. On the other hand, the application in practice of the ECB in the ECB functioning of the rule of law was considered in the second day by virtue of first the procurement framework. Secondly, the data protection framework and finally the tension between the duty of other competent authorities to assist ECB in fulfilling his supervisory task. And on the other hand, the CB duty to carefully and impartially examine all the elements when assessing email CFT aspects relevant to the performance of supervisory tasks. This is really the synthesis of the two days, but let's look a little bit more in detail of what the various panels have done. So the first panel, as I mentioned dealt with the visualization and legal design thinking the steady transformation of legal practice. The first speaker was Frederick Alema, and he noted that the legal design is characterized inter alia by two specific attitudes, human centricity and interdisciplinarity. What is human centricity is the objective of reaching the other sea of your communication. Interdisciplinarity is the fact that we need not only legal knowledge, but other skills are necessary. He emphasized that while the visualization of legal data and legal knowledge is becoming more and more important in the provision of legal services. They have not yet been adequately integrated by legal scholars and have not yet been satisfactorily examined or used in the field of legal research. So he encourages all of us to continue the path because it is an essential tool and skill and a very important development. Philip Lulik explained that the legal knowledge visualization combines legal expertise with data science and statistics. So he agrees with Eric and aims at analyzing and visually displaying legal knowledge by the use of various tools. In an era of information overload, the legal design can be a very useful tool because it facilitates the processing of the information contained in legal documents. Ensuring that the information is structured and clearly presented is efficient and easy to follow by the end users and also maintaining legal certainty. Marie Potele Saville then analyze how legal design is of relevance and can strengthen the rule of law by explaining that the lack of readability or usability of legal documents can threaten their application. We discussed about the role of neuroscience in the legal design and approach which follows a methodology based on user centricity and explain that in order to be effective legal design needs to bridge the gap between law and its users. It doesn't help much to have a fantastic legal memo if nobody can understand it. So we moved on to the second panel dealing with monetary policy operations with non banks legal financial and comparative aspects and we started with our colleague Iman Ramouni Rousseau and she has played the since 2007. There has been a significant reduction in money market activity and cross border activity of banks caused by structural changes in particular and this has led to an increase in this role of non banks in the field of financial intermediation and a growth on the other side of the sector of non bank financial institutions more generally. Iman considered whether and in which manner non banks can be given direct access to central bank balance sheet and concluded that arguments can be made for access to both the assets and the liability side of the balance sheet. However she noted that it is necessary to consider whether such access is necessary and proportionate and is also necessary to consider and examine whether the legal framework allows for such access to be granted and to ensure that such access has a sound monetary policy justification. Kerstin Schepersmann took up these questions and complimented the discussion by analyzing the extent to which existence rule could permit non banks to participate to monetary policy operation. She focused on analysis on the perspective of money market funds, which is a subgroup of non banks that was particularly affected by the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. She pointed out that there are limitations that need to be overcome not only in the monetary policy framework as this framework is addressed almost exclusively to banks but also in the MMF specific legislation which while it does not clearly exclude the participation of MMF to monetary policy operation it does not clearly state that this is a possibility so this should be clarified for the sake of legal certainty. Finally Marco Cipriani provided an overview of the way in which the monetary policies conducted by the Federal Reserve New York in a somewhat more inclusive way of non banks. He focused on the application of the overnight reverse report facility. In this respect he explained how the ORRP allows the Federal Reserve to maintain control over the short term money market rates and how it increases the set of institutions that can hold liabilities with the Federal Reserve to ensure that the reserves are alleviating in this manner the pressure of banks when the reserve expands its balance sheet. The last panel of yesterday dealt with the legal interoperability of retail central bank digital currencies. Ross Leco was the first speaker and presented the concept of cross border interoperability of central bank digital currency from an international perspective. He explained that an international legal framework has been developed that governs the treatment of payments and transfers and that the principles underlying this framework provide useful guidance on how payments and transfers with CBDC should be regulated. Ross drew the attention to the principle of do no harm explaining that the introduction of CBDC must not prejudge important public policy objectives such as the conduct of monetary policy or financial stability. He then explained how cross border interoperability can be achieved under different CBDC models and concluded that while the cross border use of CBDC is still in under development, interoperability is an important element that needs to be accompanied by legal and technical improvement. So clearly there is more work to be done on the side of interoperability. Just Cheng provided an overview on the concept of legal interoperability in the US payment system. She noted that although different legal basis underpin different arrangements, the US payment law as a whole provides certainty and predictability that $1 has a singular meaning in whatever form it takes. She $1 is $1. She also touched upon the complementary roles of the public and private sector in the issuance of central bank and commercial bank money respectively and discuss how new forms of money, for example, as stable coins or central bank digital services, can interoperate with existing forms of money. Jess finally noted that the legal characterization of CBDC, particularly if it is a sui generis asset, has important implication and that a critical consideration from a domestic standpoint is how to integrate any CBDC in the existing payment system. Panos Papapascalis then elaborated on the elements of cross-border interoperability from a legal point of view, clarifying that there is no general obligation in the legal framework to make currencies interoperable. These elements include introducing a single global point of issue for all retail CBDCs, taking it twice as a precedent, using a central node, as done in the case of CLS, and establishing bilateral arrangements between retail CBDCs issued in central banks. He then described the potential legal impediments to an efficient cross-border interoperability, such as difference in the governance, design and legal framework of the CBDC. And finally, this panel was particularly rich in the speakers, we had Serena Grunewald, and she provided some high-level takeaways on the topic of legal interoperability. She explained the interoperability is an important element from a domestic and from an international perspective, and she elaborated on what needs to be put in place in order to achieve interoperability of the digital euro. This includes the adoption of a technical rulebook, establishing a governance tractor and uniform standards, which in Serena's view falls largely in the competence of the ECB on the basis of Article 128.1 TFU, as well as amendments in the key areas of EU law, such as the Prudential regime for intermediaries, digital euro payment service providers, and the settlement finality and collateral. She concluded by talking about the importance of understanding potential obstacles due to member states diverging civil law regimes and private law traditions and stressed the need for harmonization at EU level for the digital euro project. There is still a lot to be done in this fascinating topic, and our speakers have drawn our attention to some aspects. It is really a challenge for all of us, which I encourage you all to take home and continue thinking about it. We come now to the second day today, and today we started the day with a panel comparing the ECB's internal review procedure for contract award decisions with other similar procedures in other EU bodies and international and national organizations. Isabel could first started by presenting the ECB internal review procedure for contract award decision and explained that the ECB is not subject to national procurement laws like the other EU institutions. At the same time, the ECB is bound by the EU treaties and by the principles of procurement established by the Court of Justice, such as the principles of equal treatment, proportionality and transparency, and by its own framework in the area of procurement. Isabel then talked about the possible remedies which are available to tenderers with particular focus on the procurement review body of the ECB, the effectiveness of which has been acknowledged by the General Court and the European Court of Auditors. This presentation was very instructive. Thereafter, Laura Andre focused on the communication between the tenderers and the contracting authority after the issuance of an award decision, as foreseen in regulation 2018-1046, the financial regulation. She pointed out to the strong recommendation made by the Court of Justice that contracting authority should proactively provide all tenderers with all information. Also, the Court clarified that tenderers should be provided with information needed to understand the reasoning of the award decision. The communication with tenderers is in line with the principle of transparency and the duty to state reason, especially due to the broad margin of appreciation of contracting authority and the right to effective remedies. She concluded by drawing the attention to the standstill period, which is a feature of the procedure, allowing the tenderer the opportunity to raise objections, request information, raise requests and also find application with the Court, provided that serious harm can be demonstrated. All these features are key for the application in practice of the principle of transparency and the one of good administration, both of which support the rule of law. Jeff Derix examined then the matter of internal review from a national law perspective and in particular from the Belgian procurement law standpoint. He noted that the contracting authority immediately and proactively shares information with tenderers with the aim of enabling them to understand the outcome of the award decision. He then described the legal remedies which are available under Belgian law with special focus on pre-contractual external remedies which avoid unnecessary litigation with tenderers. The second panel of today looked into the general data protection regulation and its relevance for banking supervision. Carolina Mojcessowicz, sorry for the pronunciation, Mojcessowicz I think it is, kicked off the presentation, excuse me Carolina, by describing the legal framework on data protection. In particular, she provided a historical background to the adoption of regulation 2016-679, the GDPR, and talked about its interaction with the 2018-17-25 EUDPR, which concerns the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, office and agencies. In her presentation, Carolina highlighted that the legal framework applies only to personal data and to the extent that data are fully anonymized, the data protection rule sees to be applicable. Finally, she provided an overview of the range of rights afforded by the legal framework to the data subjects and the corresponding obligations of controllers. Building on the previous presentation, Sandrine Le Tokar investigated how the rights of data subjects interact with the duty of professional secrecy imposed by EU law or supervisory authority. This duty aims to protect not only the private interests of banks, but also the interests of the general public. Sandrine clarified that in the exercise of task supervisors are exposed to personal data. She considered that there are potential frictions between the duty of professional secrecy and the rise of data subject to access information and to be informed. This is of course an area that deserves further exploration and that it is critical to our work as supervisors. Martin Dahman then contributed to the panel by expressing the view that transparency and professional secrecy are not mutually exclusive, but complementary objectives. He noted that while the right to data protection is a fundamental right of the union, it is not an absolute one, and as such is subject to limitations. These limitations can thus be used to reconcile the obligation to protect personal data with the task in the field of banking supervision. At the same time, he noted that the divergences in the GDPR and EU DPR in the restrictions of the rights of data subject can lead to a lack of harmonization and differential treatment of individuals. In addition, even though data subjects enjoy a wide range of rights, the corresponding obligation of the controllers must be interpreted in the light of fairness and proportionality. He concluded by explaining the role of the ECB data protection officer in ensuring compliance with the GDPR and EU DPR. And we come to the last panel dealing with the NCA's duty of assistance and the ECB duty of diligence when assessing AML CFT aspects relevant for the ECB supervisory task. Here we had Audron's stability first to set the scene by explaining that the ECB exercises exclusive powers in the area of prudential supervisor, which are implemented in a decentralized manner through the assistance provided by the national competent authorities. These exclusive powers conferred by the ECB, to the ECB, sorry, by the SSM regulation, do not cover responsibilities in the area of AML CTF, as these are left with the relevant national authorities. At the same time, the ECB has exclusive competence to withdraw the authorization of a credit institution irrespective of its size on various grounds, including in the case of an identified serious breach of the national provisions adopted portion to the AML directive. In such cases, the assisting role of the NCA's is of particular importance. In recent judgments in the Verso Bank and the AAB cases, the court provided clear dividing lines between the assistance of the NCA and the decision of the ECB when assessing AML CFT breaches in the license with license withdrawal process. Audron finally referred to the commission proposal on the reform of the CRD6, which aims at further strengthening the synergies between the AML CFT monitoring and prudential supervision. Georgia Marafioti added that in light of the close connection between AML CFT supervision and prudential supervision, the ECB integrates AML CFT concerns when performing its supervisory tasks. However, as it was mentioned by Audron, the SSM regulation expressly excludes from the scope of task conferred on the ECB the area of AML CFT and the assessment of compliance with AML CFT provision is thus left to the national AML authority. At the same time, the ECB is required to exercise a diligent and impartial examination of the findings of such authorities and must respect the balance between the principle of conferral, the competence to assess AML is conferred on a different authority, and the principle of good administration and in particular the duty to diligently examine all the elements brought to its attention with also its own competence to take the final supervisory decision to, for example, withdraw a license. A concrete example of the scope of the ECB duty of care can be found in license withdrawal procedures based on serious breaches of AML CFT provisions. The withdrawal of a license qualifies as a composite procedure as the NCA submits a preparatory act and the ECB exercises the final decision making power. Georgia also noted that when the adjudicating, when adjudicating on this power, the Court of Justice clarified that the ECB is subject to the duty to examine and carefully assess and impartially assess all matters of fact relevant to the withdrawal decision and provided indication on how to reconcile such duty with the principle of conferral. So it is not possible to the ECB to simply close its eyes on this particular aspect and take for granted whatever comes from another authority. Last but not least, Rafael Martin Lozano presented the legal challenges, Rafa for the friends presented the legal challenges in the consideration of AML CFT risk in the performance of potential supervision. Focusing on a concrete experience of NCA, which is the central bank of Spain. He noted that the transfer of potential supervisory powers to the ECB introduced an additional institutional layer for cooperation and coordination between the domestic AML CFT supervisors and potential authorities. This complexity may be more acute in frameworks such as the Spanish one or the Maldives one has the same characteristics in which the national AML CFT authorities different from the Prudential Authority. Rafael stressed that it is essential that supervisors responsible for AML CFT and Prudential supervisors increase information exchange and work very closely with each other and that it is necessary for the sake of reducing legal risk to delineate the competence of AML CFT supervisors and Prudential supervisors, including the ECB. His final note was that the current approach in the area of AML CFT has been based on a minimum harmonization directive which has a strong focus on national law and that the EU legislator is now taking steps towards greater convergence and consistency in the application of AML CFT framework, which can only bring us to an improvement in this field. This brief synopsis cannot give justice to the wealth of information and arguments that have been developed yesterday and today in the six panels. In each of the panel we had very lively question and answer sessions which have helped to deepen our understanding and the issues we address and also to raise further questions that require further reflection. The 2022 ECB legal conference would not have been possible without our panelists and contributors who generously contributed their expertise in our lively discussion. Let me give sincere thanks to all the chairs, to Antonio Rizzo who also behind the scene contributed to organize this year's conference and also to the colleagues from Chizaradovchich, Monica Bermuda-Sleja and the colleagues from IT, all those who without much noise have made it possible for us to be in contact and have this very high level of attendance as I mentioned on average 150, yesterday to 150. I don't have the data actually for today but my colleagues will tell me but I'm sure we did not decrease and also direct connection to the live stream yesterday was more than 500. Let me also conclude by thanking the audience for their questions and for their participation. It has been a rich and varied debate, and I hope this will contribute to the further development of ideas, some questions have been put on the table, some answers given but other questions have a reason. We need to continue reflecting, we need to continue develop legal thinking, we need to continue discuss and write and talk. So, I would like to thank you for this today, wish you a very nice end of the afternoon and hope that we will meet at the very latest in a year's time in the next legal conference at the ECB. Thank you very much to all. Bye bye.