BETA

Activities of Ulrike TREBESIUS related to 2017/0143(COD)

Shadow opinions (1)

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP)
2016/11/22
Committee: IMCO
Dossiers: 2017/0143(COD)
Documents: PDF(902 KB) DOC(174 KB)

Amendments (51)

Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
(2) Personal pensions are important in linking long-term savers with long-term investment opportunities. A larger, European market for personal pensions will support the supply of funds for institutional investors and investment into the real economy.; warns that this might benefit larger and more liquid markets of bigger countries more than smaller markets and that this might hurt convergence within the EU and the Euro-system;
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 153 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) Currently, the functioning of the internal market for personal pensions is impeded by the high degree of fragmentation between national markets and the limited degree of portability of personal pension products. This can result in difficulties for individuals to make use of their basic freedoms. For instance, they may be prevented from taking up a job or retiring in another Member State. In addition, the possibility for providers to use the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services is hampered by the lack of standardisation of existing personal pension products.; points out that there is a good supply of working products in several national markets and that the existing products should not be discriminated by tax rules or new regulation;
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 156 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) The Capital Markets Union (CMU) will help mobilise capital in Europethe EU and channel it to all companies, including small and medium enterprises, infrastructure and long term sustainable projects that need it to expand and create jobs. One of the main objectives of the CMU is to increase investment and choices for retail investors by putting European savings to better use.savings in the EU to better use. Warns that this might benefit larger and more liquid markets of bigger countries more than smaller markets and that this might hurt convergence within the EU and the Euro-system;
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 161 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) A legislative framework for a PEPP will lay the foundations for a successful market in affordable and voluntary retirement-related investments that can be managed on a pan-European scale. By complementing the existing pension products and schemestatutory and occupational pension schemes and products, it will contribute to meeting the needs of people wishing to enhance the adequacy of their retirement savings, addressing the demographical challenge and providing a powerful new source of private capital for long-term investment. This framework will not replace or harmonise existing national personal pension schemes. , nor will it affect existing national statutory and occupational pension schemes and products. The PEPP will neither directly nor indirectly be linked to the occupation or the employment status of the PEPP saver.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 165 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) A legislative framework for a PEPP will lay the foundations for a successful market in affordable and voluntary retirement-related investments that can be managed on a pan-European scale. By complementing the existing pension products and schemes, it will contribute to meeting the needs of people wishing to enhance the adequacy of their retirement savings, addressing the demographical challenge and providing a powerful new source of private capital for long-term investment. This framework willmust not replace or harmonise existing national personal pension schemes.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 168 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) The Regulation harmonises a set of core features for the PEPP, which concern key elements such as distribution, investment policy, provider switching, or cross-border provision and portability. Tax treatment of the PEPP, which could be considered as a core feature, will remain a competence of each Member State. The harmonisation of these core features will improve the level playing field for personal pension providers at large and help boost the completion of the CMU and the integration of the internal market for personal pensions. It will lead to the creation of a largely standardised pan- European product, available in all Member States, empowering consumers to make full use of the internal market by transferring their pension rights abroad and offering a broader choice between different types of providers, including in a cross- border way. As a result of fewer barriers to the provision of pension services across borders, a pan-European Personal Pension Product will increase competition between providers on a pan-European basis and create economies of scale that should benefit savers.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 174 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) In order to ensure a high quality of service and effective consumer protection, home and host Member States of the provider and distributors of PEPPs should closely cooperate in the enforcement of the obligations set out in this Regulation. Where PEPP providers and distributors pursue business in different Member States under the freedom to provide services, the competent authority of the home Member State should be responsible for ensuring compliance with the obligations set out in this Regulation, because of its closer links with the PEPP provider. In order to ensure fair sharing of responsibilities between the competent authorities from the home and the host Member States, if the competent authority of a host Member State becomes aware of any breaches of obligations occurring within its territory, it should inform the competent authority of the home Member State which should then be obliged to take the appropriate measures. Moreover, the competent authority of the host Member State should be entitled to intervene if the home Member State fails to take appropriate measures or if the measures taken are insufficient.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 176 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) In the case of the establishment of a branch or a permanent presence in another Member State, it is appropriate to distribute responsibility for enforcement between home and host Member States. While responsibility for compliance with obligations affecting the business as a whole – such as the rules on professional requirements – should remain with the competent authority of the home Member State under the same regime as in the case of provision of services, the competent authority of the host Member State should assume responsibility for enforcing the rules on information requirements and conduct of business with regard to the services provided within its territory. However, where the competent authority of a host Member State becomes aware of any breaches of obligations occurring within its territory with respect to which this Directive does not confer responsibility on the host Member State, a close cooperation demands that that authority informs the competent authority of the home Member State so that the latter takes the appropriate measures. Such is the case in particular as regards breaches of the rules on good repute, professional knowledge and competence requirements. Moreover, in view of protecting consumers, the competent authority of the host Member State should be entitled to intervene if the home Member State fails to take appropriate measures or if the measures taken are insufficient. The responsibility of the home Member State is such that any damages to consumers or failures by PEPP providers may only be covered by the home Member State and not the host Member State. The home Member State will be responsible for insurance requirements for the PEPP providers.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 177 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) In the case of the establishment of a branch or a permanent presence in another Member State, it is appropriate to distribute responsibility for enforcement between home and host Member States. While responsibility for compliance with obligations affecting the business as a whole – such as the rules on professional requirements – should remain with the competent authority of the home Member State under the same regime as in the case of provision of services, the competent authority of the host Member State should assume responsibility for enforcing the rules on information requirements, advertisements and conduct of business with regard to the services provided within its territory. However, where the competent authority of a host Member State becomes aware of any breaches of obligations occurring within its territory with respect to which this Directive does not confer responsibility on the host Member State, a close cooperation demands that that authority informs the competent authority of the home Member State so that the latter takes the appropriate measures. Such is the case in particular as regards breaches of the rules on good repute, professional knowledge and competence requirements. Moreover, in view of protecting consumers, the competent authority of the host Member State should be entitled to intervene if the home Member State fails to take appropriate measures or if the measures taken are insufficient.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 180 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) The pan-European dimension of the PEPP can be developed not only at the level of the provider, through the possibilities for its cross-border activity, but also at the level of the PEPP saver – through the portability of the PEPP, thus contributing to the safeguarding of personal pension rights of persons exercising their right to free movement under Articles 21 and 45 TFEU. Portability involves the PEPP saver changing residence to another Member State without changing PEPP providers, whereas the switching of PEPP providers does not necessarily involve a change of residence. The PEPP provider taking up an existing contract from another PEPP provider may only do so based on the current market value of its assets. If assets are illiquid the uptaking PEPP provider may reject the demand of the consumer trying to switch providers.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 184 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
(21) In order to allow a smooth transition for PEPP providers, the obligation of providing PEPPs comprising compartments for eachat least 8 Member States will apply three years after the entry into force of this Regulation. However, upon launching a PEPP, the provider should provide information on which national compartments are immediately available, in order to avoid a possible misleading of consumers.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 189 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
(22) Taking into account the nature of the pension scheme established and the administrative burden involved, PEPP providers and distributors should provide clear and adequate information to potential PEPP savers and PEPP beneficiaries to support their decision-making about their retirement. For the same reason, PEPP providers and distributors should equally ensure a high level of transparency throughout the various phases of a scheme comprising pre-enrolment, membership (including pre-retirement) and post- retirement. In particular, information concerning accrued pension entitlements, projected levels of retirement benefits, risks and guarantees, and costs should be given. Where projected levels of retirement benefits are based on economic scenarios, that information should also include an unfavourable scenario, which should be extreme but plausiblethe information that this investment could cause considerable losses.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 192 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) Before joining a PEPP scheme, potential PEPP savers should be given all the necessary information to make an informed choice including information about other available pension products that are not based on PEPP rules. Transparency of costs and fees is essential to develop PEPP savers’ trust and allow them to make informed choices. Accordingly, the use of non-transparent pricing methods should be prohibited.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 202 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29 a (new)
(29a) The payout phase will start at the earliest at 65 years of age. This is to discourage savers with bad risk due to health issues to move to the Member State with the lowest possible pension age.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 203 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29 b (new)
(29b) All PEPP contracts are strictly personal and end at the time of death of the PEPP saver. There will be no payments to relatives or inheritances because of the diverging national laws. All persons in relationships are advised to set up several individual contracts.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 204 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) PEPP providers should inform PEPP savers sufficiently in advance before retirement about their pay-out options. Where the retirement benefit is not paid out as a lifetime annuity, members approaching retirement should receive information about the benefit payment products available, in order to facilitate financial planning for retireThe payout will be a lifetime annuity but up to 30% of the value can be paid out as a lump-sum payment.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 211 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
(33) By setting the prudent person rule as the underlying principle for capital investment and making it possible for PEPP providers to operate across borders, the redirection of savings into the sector of personal retirement provision is encouraged, and thereby should contributinge to economic and social progress.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 213 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
(34) This Regulation should ensure an appropriate level of investment freedom for PEPP providers. As very long-term investors with low liquidity risks, PEPP providers are in a position to contribute to the development of the CMU by investing in non-liquid assets such as shares and in other instruments that have a long-term economic profile and are not traded on regulated markets, multilateral trading facilities (MTFs) or organised trading facilities (OTFs) within prudent limits. They can also benefit from the advantages of international diversification. Investments in shares in currencies other than those of the liabilities and in other instruments that have a long-term economic profile and are not traded on regulated markets, MTFs or OTFs should therefore not be restricted, in line with the prudent person rule so as to protect the interest of PEPP savers and PEPP beneficiaries, except on prudential grounds. The PEPP provider taking up an existing contract from another PEPP provider may only do so based on the current market value of its assets. If assets are illiquid the uptaking PEPP provider may reject the demand of the consumer trying to switch providers.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 224 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
(39) The default investment option should allow the PEPP saver to recoup the invested capital. Capital guarantees may only be given by the home country of the PEPP provider and by the countries of the compartments, but not at an EU level. The PEPP providers cshould in addition include an inflation indexation mechanism to at least partly cover inflation.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 227 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
(41) Where theAny PEPP provider is an institution for occupational retirement provision or an investment firm, it should appoint a depositary in relation to the safe- keeping of its assets. This is necessary for protecting consumers, since the sectorial legislation applicable to institutions for occupational retirement provision and investment firms does not provide for the appointment of a depositary.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 230 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
(42) Transparency of costs and fees is essential to develop PEPP savers’ trust and allow them to make informed choices. Accordingly, the use of non-transparent pricing methods should be prohibited.deleted
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 236 #
(47) In order to find better conditions for their investments, thus also stimulating the competition among PEPP providers, PEPP savers should have the right to switch providers during the accumulation and the decumulation phases, through a clear, quick and safe procedure.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 240 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 50
(50) The cooperation of the transferring PEPP provider is necessary in order for the switching to be successful. Therefore, the receiving PEPP provider should be provided by the transferring PEPP provider with all the information necessary to reinstate the payments on the other PEPP account. However, such information should not exceed what is necessary in order to carry out the switching. What information is required will be determined by EIOPA.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 242 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53
(53) PEPP savers should be given the freedom to decide upon subscription of a PEPP about their pay-out choice (annuities, lump sum, or other) in the decumulation phase, but with a possibility to revise their choice once every five years thereafter, in order to be able to best adapt their pay-out choice to their needs when they near retire. The payout will be a lifetime annuity but up to 30% of the value can be paid out as a lump-sum payment.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 244 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
(54) PEPP providers should be allowed to make available to PEPP savers a wide range of decumulation options. This approach would achieve the goal of enhanced take-up of the PEPP through increased flexibility and choice for PEPP savers. It would allow providers to design their PEPPs in the most cost-effective way. It is coherent with other EU policies and politically feasible, as it preserves enough flexibility for Member States to decide about which decumulation options they wish to encourage.deleted
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 249 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57
(57) EIOPA should, with the respect of subsidiarity and proportionality principles, cooperate with national competent authorities and facilitate cooperation between them. In this respect, EIOPA should play a role in the power of competent national authorities to apply supervisory measures by providing evidence about PEPP-related infringements. EIOPA should also provide binding mediation in the event of disagreement between competent authorities in cross-border situations.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 256 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 68
(68) This Regulation should not be understood as obliging Member States to apply to PEPPs the same tax rules as they would apply to comparable personal pension products under their national laws. However, in application of the national treatment principle, stemming from Articles 21 and 45 of the TFEU and interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Unionnational court systems, it shcould be possible for a PEPP that is objectively comparable to a personal pension product (PPP) distributed in a given Member State to benefit from the same tax relief granted to the PPP in this Member State, if the PEPP saver there is subject to tax. This also applies if the PEPP is provided by a provider from another Member State. The final decision on this rests with the governments of the Member States and their judicial systems.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 257 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 69
(69) Following the launch of the PEPP, Member States are encouraged to take into consideration Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/… and to extend the benefits of the tax advantages they grant to national PPPs also to the PEPP. However, it is reaffirmed that taxation policy is a Member State competence and therefore any decision to grant tax relief to the PEPP remains with each Member State.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 263 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) is neither directly nor indirectly linked to the occupation or the employment status of the individual saver;
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 283 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c – point ii
(ii) the provisions of Member States’ laws which would apply to a comparable personal pension product manufactured and distributed in accordance with the law of the Member State in which the manufacturwhere the PEPP saver has its rlegistered offial residence.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 287 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) institutions for occupational retirement provision registered or authorised in accordance with Directive 2016/2341/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council45; _________________ 45Directive 2016/2341/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs) (recast) (OJ L 354, 23.12.2016, p. 37).deleted
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 323 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. EIOPA shall withdraw the authorisation of a PEPP in the event that the conditions for granting this authorisation are no longer fulfilled. The withdrawal decision may be appealed within 14 days to the national courts. It is of utmost importance to ensure that the saver will not suffer any financial loss following the withdrawal decision.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 352 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Three years at the latest after the entry into application of this Regulation, each PEPP shall offer national compartments for allt least eight Member States upon request addressed to the PEPP provider.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 437 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 a (new)
Article 24a Advertisements 1. Any advertisement relating to a PEPP shall comply with the principles contained in paragraphs 2 and 3. 2. Advertisements shall be clearly recognisable as such. The information contained in an advertisement shall not be inaccurate or misleading and shall be consistent with the information contained in the PEPP key information document, where already published, or with the information required to be in the PEPP key information document, where the PEPP key information document is yet to be published. 3. All information disclosed in an oral or written form concerning a PEPP, even where not for advertising purposes, shall be consistent with the information contained in the PEPP key information document. 4. The competent authority of the Member State where the advertisements are disseminated shall have the power to exercise control over the compliance, of advertising activity relating to a PEPP, with paragraphs 2 and 3 and with applicable national law. 5. The use of any of the supervisory and investigatory powers referred to in Article 54 in relation to the enforcement of this Article by the competent authority of a host Member State of the PEPP provider shall be communicated without undue delay to the competent authority of the home Member State of the PEPP provider.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 455 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
Where PEPP savers or potential PEPP savers do not provide the information referred to in the first subparagraph, or where they provide insufficient information regarding their knowledge and experience, the PEPP provider or distributor shall warn them that it is not in a position to determine whether the PEPP envisaged is appropriate for them. That warning mayust be provided in a written, standardised format.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 462 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) information on how the investment policy takes into account environmental, social and governance factors.deleted
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 510 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The decumulation phase can start at the earliest at the age of 65. All PEPP contracts are strictly personal and end at the time of death of the PEPP saver. There will be no payments to relatives or inheritances because of the diverging national laws. All persons in relationships are advised to set up several individual contracts.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 540 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 1
1. If PEPP providers offer alternative investment options, at least one of them shall offer a cost-effective investment option to PEPP savers.deleted
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 543 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. There can be an alternative investment option based on a life-cycling model that would have greater risk and greater reward at earlier stages of the contract while respecting prudential regulation. The PEPP provider has to inform the PEPP saver that this investment strategy might incur losses.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 555 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1
1. Where theAny PEPP provider is an institution for occupational retirement provision or an investment firm as referred to in Article 5(1), it shall appoint one or more depositaries for the safe- keeping of assets and oversight duties.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 559 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 3
3. PEPP providers and distributors shall make every possible effort to reply, on paper or by email or, if agreed between the PEPP provider or distributor and the PEPP customer, on another durable medium, to the PEPP customers’ complaints. The reply shall address all points raised, within an adequate timeframe and at the latest within 15 business days of receipt of the complaint. In exceptional situations, if the answer cannot be given within 15 business days for reasons beyond the control of the PEPP provider or distributor, it shall be required to send a holding reply, clearly indicating the reasons for a delay in answering to the complaint and specifying the deadline by which the PEPP customer will receive the final reply. In any event, the deadline for receiving the final reply shall not exceed 35 business days.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 568 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
At the age of 65 years the PEPP saver must chose the Member State where the PEPP pension will be paid out. After this age switching of PEPP providers will no longer be possible to avoid problems with divergences in national regulations. At this time assets must be consolidated into one compartment. If the PEPP saver does not change PEPP providers at this latest moment the last country of residence will be chosen automatically.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 608 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. PEPP providers may make available to PEPP savers one or more of the following forms of out-The pay-out will be a lifetime annuity but up to 30% of the value can be paid out as a lump-sum payments:.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 609 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) annuities;deleted
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 610 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) lump sum;deleted
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 611 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) drawdown payments;deleted
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 612 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) combinations of the above forms.deleted
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 614 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52 – paragraph 2
2. The choice of the form of out- payments for the decumulation phase shall be exercised by PEPP savers upon conclusion of a PEPP contract and can be changed once every five years thereafter during the accumulation phase, if applicable.deleted
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 627 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) maximum administrative fines of at least EUR 5 000 000, or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on [date of entry into force of this Regulation];the competent national authority is responsible to set administrative fines.
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 629 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) in the case of a legal person, the maximum administrative fines referred to in point (d) may be of up to 10 % of the total annual turnover according to the last available accounts approved by the management body; where the legal person is a parent undertaking or a subsidiary of the parent undertaking which has to prepare consolidated financial accounts in accordance with Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council51 , the relevant total annual turnover shall be the total annual turnover or the corresponding type of income in accordance with the relevant accounting legislative acts according to the last available consolidated accounts approved by the management body of the ultimate parent undertaking; _________________ 51Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19).deleted
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 630 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) maximum administrative fines of at least twice the amount of the benefit derived from the infringement where that benefit can be determined, even if that exceeds the maximum amounts in points (d) and (e).deleted
2018/05/03
Committee: IMCO