Financial Regulation and Supervision at the EU level has been implemented with the formation of the European Single Market. In the 1980s, there was a significant increase in the number of cross-border financial transactions as free capital movement within the EU territories, mutual recognition of regulation and the supervisory responsibility of the host country were established as the principles of the EU internal financial supervision. However, blind spots in financial supervision have been consistently pointed out as large banks, which operates beyond one member country and set of problems, resulted from mismatch between the financial integration and territorial boundaries that appeared. Therefore, there have been increasing need for harmonizing different financial regulations among member states.
Institutional limitations have been made clear on the EU financial regulation and supervision in the response to the European sovereign crisis. As a result, the demands are increasing for reforms on financial supervision. In particular, new supervisory arrangements should concentrate not only on the prudential of individual firms but also on the macro-prudential, and furthermore, there are increasing need for a more integrated financial supervisory institute as the more efficient measure to supervise the integrated European financial market. ESRB (European Systemic Risk Board) is the product of these considerations, an institution responsible for the macro-prudential oversight of the financial system within the EU. Simultaneously, the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) were established, which oversees such areas including banking, securities, and insurance and pension. In other words, even though financial supervision is still in the competence of member states’ authorities, ESRB has rights to issue strong recommendations or alerts. In addition, ESRB can participate in the decision-making process in details of regulations at large.
The perception that loose financial regulations had caused the global financial crisis has been widespread. Many countries moved towards reinforcing their financial regulations. The EU is also developing methods for financial regulation at the EU-level, in order to regulate the credit-rating institutions and to introduce an EU-wide financial transaction tax. Recognizing the mixed interests among business categories and dissonance within the EU member states clearly shows that such financial reform is yet unfinished. However, the fact that the EU and the member states have developed their agreed-upon financial regulations into a global agenda through G20 meetings should be emphasized. 
At the EU and national levels, regulatory authorities are implementing or planning reforms of institutional arrangements for financial supervision. In spite of integrated supervision and regulation at the EU level, EU Member States still retain enforceable supervisory power. Recent developments in supervisory structures in the EU Member States are as follows: (i) a tendency towards further enhancement of the role of national central banks in supervisory activities; (ii) a consolidation of  information-related synergies between central banking and prudential supervisory function in the case of the single supervisory authority.
The euro-area crisis triggered the move towards a banking union. The ‘doom loop’ linking sovereign and banking credit condition has been correctly identified as a key transmission channel that needs to be addressed to prevent further deterioration so that eventual improvements can be envisaged. The creation of a single supervisory mechanism, deposit insurance system and clearing system is an important move that will complete the creation of a European banking union. The first step is the creation of the Single Supervisory Mechanism with a central role conferred on the ECB.
EU’s financial reformation has the following implications for Korea. First, macroprudential supervisory activities and policies should be reinforced. Second, the supervisory authorities should strengthen their cooperation system. Moreover, Korea should search for a systematic framework to protect financial consumers. In terms of financial regulations, financial stability should be considered, while maintaining flexibility in speed and the level of adoption of the global trend in financial regulations. Considering that EU’s financial regulations tend to develop into a global agenda, Korean authorities should make their stance and insist on Korea’s position through international financial consultative bodies such as the G20 or the IMF.

서언 

국문요약 

약어 표기 

제1장 서 론 
1. 연구의 필요성과 목적 
2. 연구 범위와 방법 
3. 선행연구와 본 연구의 차별성 
4. 보고서의 구성 

제2장 글로벌 금융위기 이전 EU 금융규제 및 감독 
1. 위기 이전 EU 금융규제 및 감독의 개관 
가. 금융감독의 기본원칙 
나. 역내 금융감독당국간 협력의 전개 
다. 금융규제의 조화 
2. EU 금융시장의 통합 
가. EU 금융시장의 통합 개관 
나. 금융서비스 자유화와 금융서비스 시장 통합 
3. EU 금융규제 및 감독의 문제점 
가. 감독 관할권에 관한 문제 
나. 경쟁적 규제완화의 위험 
다. 금융위기의 국제적 전파 
4. 소결 

제3장 글로벌 금융위기 이후 EU의 금융감독 개혁 
1. 금융감독 개혁의 배경과 결과 
가. 글로벌 금융위기와 유럽의 대응 
나. 글로벌 금융위기를 계기로 본 EU 금융감독의 문제점 
다. 금융감독 개혁 
2. 거시건전성 감독: 유럽시스템리스크위원회(ESRB) 
가. 설립 목적 및 임무 
나. 운영체계 
다. 성과 
3. 미시건전성 감독: 유럽금융감독시스템(ESFS) 
가. 설립 배경 및 구조 
나. 기관별 역할 및 성과 
4. 평가 및 전망 

제4장 글로벌 금융위기 이후 EU의 주요 금융규제 개혁 사례 
1. EU의 금융규제 개혁 배경 
2. 신용평가기관에 대한 규제강화 
가. 신용평가기관 규제강화 논의의 배경 
나. 글로벌 금융위기 이전 EU의 신용평가 규제 
다. 금융위기 이후 신용평가기관 규제강화의 주요 내용 
라. 평가 및 전망 
3. 금융거래세 도입 논의 
가. EU의 금융거래세 도입 논의의 배경 
나. 금융거래세의 이론적 개관 
다. EU 금융거래세 도입안의 주요 내용 
라. 평가 및 전망 
4. 은행시스템 개혁안: 리카넨 보고서 
가. 리카넨 보고서 개요 
나. 리카넨 보고서의 주요 내용 
다. 평가 및 전망 

제5장 주요국의 금융감독 및 규제개혁 
1. EU 회원국의 금융감독 및 규제개혁 
2. 주요국 금융감독 및 규제개혁 사례 
가. 독일 
나. 프랑스 
다. 영국 
라. 폴란드 
3. 종합 평가 

제6장 유럽 재정위기와 금융감독의 개혁: 은행동맹 
1. 금융부문과 유럽 재정위기의 연관성 
가. EU 은행위기 
나. 은행위기와 재정위기의 상관관계 
2. 은행동맹의 추진 
가. 은행동맹 추진의 배경 
나. 은행동맹의 주요 내용 
다. 평가 
3. 향후 전망 

제7장 전망 및 정책적 시사점 
1. 금융감독 측면 
가. EU 금융감독 개혁의 특징 
나. 국내 금융감독제도에 대한 시사점 
2. 금융규제 측면 
가. EU 금융규제 개혁의 특징 
나. 국내 금융규제에 대한 시사점 

참고문헌 

Executive Summary