17 Amendments of Fulvio MARTUSCIELLO related to 2017/2253(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas no trade agreement concluded by the EU has ever incorporated cross-border mutual access provisions on financial services;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas equivalence is a tool to promote international regulatory convergence, which may lead to more competition in the EU on a level playing field, while preventing regulatory arbitrageforth and foremost a sovereign tool to promote equality of treatment between third country entities and EU firms, which may lead to international regulatory convergence, while preventing regulatory arbitrage and preserving the integrity of the single market and its competitiveness;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that several EU legislative acts contain specific provisions for regulatory cooperation with third countries, including the possibility to conclude intcoopernational agreements for supervisory and enforcement purposes and to grant ‘equivalence’;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that, in many cases, the granting of equivalence is a unilateral decision taken by the EU and is not applied in a reciprocal manner by third countries; considers that international cooperation could be better advanced by dint of international agreements negotiated between the EU and third countries; notes that, unlike equivalence, international agreements can provide mutual access between the EU and third countries for financial institutions and for the mutual recognition of rulesdoes not systematically require a reciprocal application on behalf of the third country;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recognises that the EU’s equivalence regime is an integral part of a number of the legislative acts forming its regulatory framework for financial services and can offer several benefits, such as: the removal of unnecessary regulatory barriers, increased competition, increased capital flows into the EU, and more instruments and investment choices for EU firms and investors;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates that, in some cases, equivalence decisions do not grant financial institutions comparable rights to passport financial services throughout the EU, but recognises that they may give third-country institutions limited access to the single market for certain products or services;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasiszes that one of the key objectives for equivalence isare to promote regulatory convergence on the basis of international standardsensure an equal treatment between third country entities and EU firms, and to preserve the interests of the single market and of consumers; this may lead to further regulatory convergence;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that, as it stands, the EU’s process for granting equivalence lacks certainty and sufficient transparency, and requires a structured and practical framework outlining clear procedures and guidelines as regards the level of granularity of the assessment to be performed by the Commission;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Questions the rationale behind equivalence decisions typically taking the form of implementing acts; insists that the process for granting equivalence to a third country in the area of financial services should always, in the most important cases, be scrutinised by Parliament and that, owing to their political nature, and for the purposes of greater transparency, thesesuch decisions should be taken by means of delegated acts;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that the Commission has the right to withdraw equivalence decisions, and believes that Parliament should be consulted in a timely manner before such a withdrawal decision is taken; calls for the introduction of clear procedures and timelines governing the adoption, withdrawal or suspension of equivalence decisions;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Commission to adopt a legislative act establishing a clear framework for a transparent, coherent and consistent application of equivalence procedures, which introduces a standardised process for the determination of equivalence and a detailed and granular assessment of third- country legal frameworks; calls for such clarification to take place in the context of an inter-institutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for equivalence decisions to be reviewed at least once every three years, or in any case of changes in the third country’s regulatory framework which would call the equivalence decision into question, by the relevant ESA and for such reviews to be made public;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission to conduct an in-depth review of all equivalence decisions taken, in order to determine the successes and failures of the current equivalence regime, and to assess whether the equivalence framework currently contained in EU legislative acts can lead to a more favourable treatment of third-country firms compared to that of EU firms;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls to that end, moreover, for the EU-US Joint Financial Markets Regulatory DialogueForum to be upgraded to include more regular meetings; stresses that the EU should push to have a financial services chapter as part of any potential future EU-US trade agreement;