BETA

Activities of Syed KAMALL

Plenary speeches (401)

Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 10 April 2019 on the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union (debate)
2016/11/22
The UK’s withdrawal from the EU (debate)
2016/11/22
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 October 2018 (debate)
2016/11/22
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 October 2018 (debate)
2016/11/22
State of the Union (debate)
2016/11/22
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 22 and 23 March 2018 (debate)
2016/11/22
Debate with the President of the French Republic, Emmanuel Macron, on the Future of Europe (debate)
2016/11/22
Statement by the President
2016/11/22
European Council informal meeting of 23 February 2018 (debate)
2016/11/22
The consequences of rising socio-economic inequalities for European citizens (topical debate)
2016/11/22
Presentation of the programme of activities of the Bulgarian Presidency (debate)
2016/11/22
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 14 and 15 December 2017 (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 14 and 15 December 2017 - State of play of negotiations with the United Kingdom (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2017/2964(RSP)
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 19 and 20 October 2017 and presentation of the Leaders’ Agenda (Building our future together) (debate)
2016/11/22
State of the Union (debate)
2016/11/22
Fire safety in buildings (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the European Council of 22 and 23 June 2017 (debate)
2016/11/22
State of play in Turkey, in particular with regard to the constitutional referendum (debate)
2016/11/22
EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement - Conclusion of the EU-Canada CETA - EU-Canada Strategic Partnership Agreement (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2016/0205(NLE)
Travel restrictions following US President executive orders (debate)
2016/11/22
Programme of activities of the Maltese Presidency (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 15 December 2016 (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 15 December 2016 (debate)
2016/11/22
Situation of the rule of law and democracy in Poland (debate)
2016/11/22
Situation of the rule of law and democracy in Poland (debate)
2016/11/22
EU-Turkey relations (debate)
2016/11/22
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 20 and 21 October 2016 (debate)
2016/11/22
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 20 and 21 October 2016 (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 20 and 21 October 2016 (debate)
2016/11/22
State of the Union (debate)
2016/11/22
State of the Union (debate)
2016/11/22
Review of the Dutch Presidency (debate)
2016/11/22
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 28 and 29 June 2016 (debate)
2016/11/22
Outcome of the referendum in the United Kingdom (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2016/2800(RSP)
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 March 2016 and outcome of the EU-Turkey summit (debate)
2016/11/22
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 March 2016 and outcome of the EU-Turkey summit (debate)
2016/11/22
Situation in Poland (B8-0461/2016, B8-0463/2016, B8-0464/2016, B8-0465/2016) (vote)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2015/3031(RSP)
Counterterrorism following the recent terrorist attacks (debate)
2016/11/22
Counterterrorism following the recent terrorist attacks (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 March 2016 and outcome of the EU-Turkey summit (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 March 2016 and outcome of the EU-Turkey summit (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 18 and 19 February 2016 (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 18 and 19 February 2016 (debate)
2016/11/22
Refugee emergency, external borders control and future of Schengen - Respect for the international principle of non-refoulement - Financing refugee facility for Turkey - Increased racist hatred and violence against refugees and migrants across Europe (debate)
2016/11/22
Programme of activities of the Dutch Presidency (debate)
2016/11/22
Programme of activities of the Dutch Presidency (debate)
2016/11/22
Skills policies for fighting youth unemployment (A8-0366/2015 - Marek Plura) (vote)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2015/2088(INI)
Situation in Poland (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 December 2015 (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the European Council meeting of 17 and 18 December 2015 (debate)
2016/11/22
EU-Turkey summit (debate)
2016/11/22
EU-Turkey summit (debate)
2016/11/22
Recent terrorist attacks in Paris (debate)
2016/11/22
Recent terrorist attacks in Paris (debate)
2016/11/22
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 15 October 2015, in particular the financing of international funds, and of the Leaders' meeting on the Western Balkans route of 25 October 2015, and preparation of the Valletta summit of 11 and 12 November 2015 (debate)
2016/11/22
Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 15 October 2015, in particular the financing of international funds, and of the Leaders' meeting on the Western Balkans route of 25 October 2015, and preparation of the Valletta summit of 11 and 12 November 2015 (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the European Council meeting (15-16 October 2015) (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the European Council meeting (15-16 October 2015) (debate)
2016/11/22
State of the Union (debate)
2016/11/22
Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2014/2228(INI)
Preparation of the European Council meeting (25-26 June 2015) (debate)
2016/11/22
Amendment of the agenda
2016/11/22
Rules on VAT and VAT mini one-stop shop (MOSS) for digital services, books and papers in the EU (debate)
2016/11/22
Report of the extraordinary European Council meeting (23 April 2015) - The latest tragedies in the Mediterranean and EU migration and asylum policies (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2015/2660(RSP)
Report of the extraordinary European Council meeting (23 April 2015) - The latest tragedies in the Mediterranean and EU migration and asylum policies (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2015/2660(RSP)
Conclusions of the European Council meeting (19-20 March 2015) (debate)
2016/11/22
Conclusions of the European Council meeting (19-20 March 2015) (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the informal meeting of Heads of State or Government (12 February 2015) (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the informal meeting of Heads of State or Government (12 February 2015) (debate)
2016/11/22
European fund for strategic investments (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparations for the European Council meeting (18-19 December 2014) (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparations for the European Council meeting (18-19 December 2014) (debate)
2016/11/22
Recognition of Palestine statehood (RC-B8-0277/2014, B8-0277/2014, B8-0309/2014, B8-0310/2014, B8-0349/2014, B8-0357/2014, B8-0359/2014) (vote)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2014/2964(RSP)
Commission Jobs, Growth and Investment Package (debate)
2016/11/22
Presentation by the Commission President-elect of the College of Commissioners and their programme (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2014/2811(RSP)
Review of the Barroso II Commission (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the European Council (23-24 October 2014) (debate)
2016/11/22
Preparation of the European Council (23-24 October 2014) (debate)
2016/11/22
Statement by the candidate for President of the Commission (debate)
2016/11/22
Conclusions of the European Council meeting (26-27 June 2014) (debate)
2016/11/22
Programme of activities of the Italian Presidency (debate)
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/2169(INL)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/2169(INL)
Parliament's new role and responsibilities in implementing the Lisbon Treaty - Institutional balance of the European Union - Relations between the European Parliament and national parliaments under the Treaty of Lisbon - Financial aspects of the Lisbon Treaty - Implementation of the citizens' initiative (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/2169(INL)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/2209(REG)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/2209(REG)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/2209(REG)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/2209(REG)
Electronic communications networks, personal data and the protection of privacy - Electronic communications networks and services - Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Office - Frequency bands for mobile communications (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0248(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0194(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0194(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0194(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0194(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0157(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0157(COD)
Question Time (Council)
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0143(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0143(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0143(COD)
Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 (mobile telephone networks) and Directive 2002/21/EC (electronic communications) (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0187(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0064(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0064(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0002(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0002(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0002(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0002(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0035(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0035(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0035(COD)
Economic Partnership Agreement between the EC and Cariforum – Stepping-stone Agreement towards an Economic Partnership Agreement between the EC and Côte d'Ivoire – EC-Cariforum States Partnership Agreement – EC-Côte d'Ivoire Stepping-stone Economic Partnership Agreement – Stepping-stone Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Ghana, of the other part – Interim Partnership Agreement between the Pacific States, on the one part, and the European Community, on the other part – EC-SADC EPA States Interim Economic Partnership Agreement – Economic Partnership Agreement between EC and Eastern and Southern African States – Economic Partnership Agreement between the EC and the East African Community Partner States – Stepping-stone Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Central Africa, of the other part (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/2199(INI)
An EU-India Free Trade Agreement (short presentation)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/2135(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/2212(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/2212(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/2212(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/2212(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0100(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0100(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0100(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0287(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0287(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0287(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0287(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0050(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0050(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0050(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0050(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/2105(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/2105(INI)
Question Time (Council)
2016/11/22
Situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2004-2008) (A6-0479/2008, Giusto Catania) (vote)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2145(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0033(COD)
Question Time (Council)
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/2067(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/2067(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/2067(INI)
Explanations of vote (continuation)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0132(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0070(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0019(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0019(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0295(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0272(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0272(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0087(CNS)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0087(CNS)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0087(CNS)
Trade in services (debate)
2016/11/22
Trade in services (debate)
2016/11/22
Question Time (Council)
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0088(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0088(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0088(COD)
Question Time (Commission)
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0144(COD)
Airbus/Boeing WTO disputes (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/2571(RSP)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0182(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0182(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2005/0167(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2005/0167(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2183(INI)
Generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0289(CNS)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0099(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0099(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0232(CNS)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0232(CNS)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/2248(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2138(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2138(INI)
Question Time (Council)
2016/11/22
Question Time (Council)
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2149(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2188(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2188(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0002(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0002(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2147(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0032(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0290(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2112(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2112(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2112(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2112(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0310(CNS)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0310(CNS)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0310(CNS)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0310(CNS)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2114(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2114(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2114(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/2114(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0031(COD)
Global Europe - External aspects of competitiveness (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/2292(INI)
Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) (debate)
2016/11/22
Financing instrument for development cooperation – A financing instrument for cooperation with industrialised and other high-income countries and territories (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0807(CNS)
Coordination of certain of the Member States' provisions on television broadcasting (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2005/0260(COD)
Third-country anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard action (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/2136(INI)
Footwear from China and Vietnam (debate)
2016/11/22
Suspension of negotiations on the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/2615(RSP)
State of the European footwear sector one year after liberalisation (debate)
2016/11/22
Union programme in the field of financial reporting and auditing 2014-2020 (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2012/0364(COD)
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and European Securities and Markets Authority (A7-0077/2012 - Burkhard Balz)
2016/11/22
Freedom of movement for workers (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2013/0124(COD)
Resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Bank Resolution Fund (A7-0478/2013 - Elisa Ferreira)
2016/11/22
Conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of seasonal employment (A7-0428/2013 - Claude Moraes)
2016/11/22
Copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses (A7-0281/2013 - Marielle Gallo)
2016/11/22
Criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation (A7-0344/2012 - Arlene McCarthy)
2016/11/22
Respect for the fundamental right of free movement in the EU (RCB7-0016/2014, B7-0016/2014, B7-0023/2014, B7-0024/2014, B7-0025/2014, B7-0026/2014, B7-0027/2014)
2016/11/22
Tachographs and social legislation relating to road transport (A7-0471/2013 - Silvia-Adriana Ţicău)
2016/11/22
Award of concession contracts (A7-0030/2013 - Philippe Juvin)
2016/11/22
Public procurement (A7-0007/2013 - Marc Tarabella)
2016/11/22
Procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (A7-0034/2013 - Marc Tarabella)
2016/11/22
Access of goods and services to public procurement markets (A7-0454/2013 - Daniel Caspary)
2016/11/22
Honey (A7-0440/2013 - Julie Girling)
2016/11/22
European Semester for economic policy coordination (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2013/2134(INI)
European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR) (A7-0232/2013 - Jan Mulder)
2016/11/22
Portable batteries and accumulators containing cadmium (A7-0131/2013 - Vladko Todorov Panayotov)
2016/11/22
Strengthening cross-border law-enforcement cooperation in the EU (B7-0433/2013)
2016/11/22
Caste-based discrimination (B7-0434/2013)
2016/11/22
2011 discharge: European Council and Council (A7-0310/2013 - Andrea Češková)
2016/11/22
Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (A7-0277/2013 - Andrea Zanoni)
2016/11/22
Recreational craft and personal watercraft (A7-0213/2012 - Malcolm Harbour)
2016/11/22
Recognition of professional qualifications and administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (A7-0038/2013 - Bernadette Vergnaud)
2016/11/22
Corruption in the public and private sectors: the impact on human rights in third countries (A7-0250/2013 - Ana Gomes)
2016/11/22
Forward policy planning: budgetary implications for capacity-building (A7-0265/2013 - James Elles)
2016/11/22
Activities of the European Ombudsman in 2012 (A7-0257/2013 - Nikolaos Salavrakos)
2016/11/22
Third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing EU external borders (A7-0139/2013 - Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra)
2016/11/22
European Banking Authority and prudential supervision of credit institutions (A7-0393/2012 - Sven Giegold)
2016/11/22
Specific tasks for the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (A7-0392/2012 - Marianne Thyssen)
2016/11/22
Access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization in the Union (A7-0263/2013 - Sandrine Bélier)
2016/11/22
Micro-generation (B7-0388/2013)
2016/11/22
EU cybersecurity strategy: an open, safe and secure cyberspace (B7-0386/2013)
2016/11/22
Digital agenda for growth, mobility and employment (B7-0385/2013)
2016/11/22
Laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2013/2021(INI)
Reforming the structure of the EU banking sector (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0084(COD)
Parliament's calendar of part-sessions – 2014
2016/11/22
Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (A7-0144/2013 - Raül Romeva i Rueda)
2016/11/22
Fund for European aid to the most deprived (A7-0183/2013 - Emer Costello)
2016/11/22
A new agenda for European consumer policy (A7-0163/2013 - Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón)
2016/11/22
Legal aid in cross-border civil and commercial disputes (A7-0161/2013 - Tadeusz Zwiefka)
2016/11/22
Customs enforcement of intellectual property rights (A7-0185/2013 - Jürgen Creutzmann)
2016/11/22
Financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings - Transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0308(COD)
Annual report on competition policy (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2012/2306(INI)
Mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters (A7-0126/2013 - Antonio López-Istúriz White, Antonyia Parvanova)
2016/11/22
European Banking Authority and prudential supervision of credit institutions (A7-0393/2012 - Sven Giegold)
2016/11/22
EU trade and investment agreement negotiations with the US (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2013/2558(RSP)
Regional strategies for industrial areas in the European Union (A7-0145/2013 - Jens Geier)
2016/11/22
Offshore oil and gas prospection, exploration and production activities (A7-0121/2013 - Ivo Belet)
2016/11/22
Renewable energy in the European internal energy market (A7-0135/2013 - Herbert Reul)
2016/11/22
Credit institutions and prudential supervision - Prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0203(COD)
European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) (A7-0056/2013 - Giles Chichester)
2016/11/22
EU/ACP countries' Economic Partnership Agreements: exclusion of certain countries from trade preferences (A7-0123/2013 - David Martin)
2016/11/22
Timing of auctions of greenhouse gas allowances (A7-0046/2013 - Matthias Groote)
2016/11/22
Accounting rules and action plans on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from activities related to land use (A7-0317/2012 - Kriton Arsenis)
2016/11/22
Accounting rules and action plans on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from activities related to land use (A7-0317/2012 - Kriton Arsenis)
2016/11/22
Accounting rules and action plans on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from activities related to land use (A7-0317/2012 - Kriton Arsenis)
2016/11/22
Mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and other information relevant to climate change (A7-0191/2012 - Bas Eickhout)
2016/11/22
Common fisheries policy (A7-0008/2013 - Ulrike Rodust)
2016/11/22
Modification of Parliament's calendar of part-sessions - 2013
2016/11/22
Public finances in EMU - 2011 and 2012 (A7-0425/2012 - Alfredo Pallone)
2016/11/22
Credit rating agencies (A7-0221/2012 - Leonardo Domenici)
2016/11/22
Urban redevelopment as contribution to economic growth (A7-0406/2012 - Andrea Cozzolino)
2016/11/22
Role of territorial development in cohesion policy (A7-0421/2012 - Derek Vaughan)
2016/11/22
European Union Solidarity Fund, implementation and application (A7-0398/2012 - Rosa Estaràs Ferragut)
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0093(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0093(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0093(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0093(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0322(NLE)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0322(NLE)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0322(NLE)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0322(NLE)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0271(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0271(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0271(COD)
Multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 - Own resource based on the value added tax (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0177(APP)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0239(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0239(COD)
EU trade negotiations with Japan (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2012/2711(RSP)
EU trade negotiations with Japan (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2012/2711(RSP)
EU trade negotiations with Japan (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2012/2711(RSP)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0434(COD)
Proposals for a European banking union (EBU) (debate)
2016/11/22
Exclusion of certain countries from trade preferences (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0260(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0190(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0190(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0190(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0137(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0137(COD)
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the USA (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0167(NLE)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0377(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0377(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0377(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0377(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0117(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0117(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0117(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0117(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0117(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2286(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2286(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2286(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2286(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2212(INL)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0131(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0131(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0131(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0131(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0131(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0092(CNS)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0092(CNS)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/0092(CNS)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0380(COD)
European Investment Bank - annual report 2010 (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2186(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0250(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0250(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2087(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2087(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2087(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2008(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2008(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0254(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0254(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2115(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2115(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0257(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2120(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2120(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2120(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0251(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2079(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2079(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/2295(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0028(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0028(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0251(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0251(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0251(COD)
Short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0251(COD)
Investor-compensation schemes (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0199(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0390(COD)
Free trade agreement with India (debate)
2016/11/22
EU-Japan trade relations (debate)
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0063(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2006/0167(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0196(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0196(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0129(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0129(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0129(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0129(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0261(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0261(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0173(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0142(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0142(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0142(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0227(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0227(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0240(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0240(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2069(DEC)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0064(COD)
Alternative investment fund managers (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0064(COD)
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (debate)
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0257(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0257(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0108(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0108(COD)
Ongoing negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (debate)
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0211(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2008/0211(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2236(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2236(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2007/0286(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0005(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0005(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2062(REG)
Question Hour with the President of the Commission
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2090(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2090(INI)
Development of the European Citizens’ Initiative based on Article 11(4) of the Treaty on European Union (debate)
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0035(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0035(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0035(COD)
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/2572(RSP)
Regulation applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/2594(RSP)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0105(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0105(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0105(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2165(INI)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2207(BUD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2183(BUD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0096(COD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2062(REG)
Common organisation of agricultural markets and specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) (vote)
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2002B(BUD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2002B(BUD)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/0084(CNS)
Explanations of vote
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2009/2668(RSP)

Reports (1)

REPORT Report on Trade in services PDF (199 KB) DOC (127 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2008/2004(INI)
Documents: PDF(199 KB) DOC(127 KB)

Shadow reports (35)

RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Singapore, of the other part PDF (169 KB) DOC (59 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2018/0095(NLE)
Documents: PDF(169 KB) DOC(59 KB)
RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore PDF (167 KB) DOC (57 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2018/0093(NLE)
Documents: PDF(167 KB) DOC(57 KB)
REPORT containing a motion for a non-legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Singapore, of the other part PDF (157 KB) DOC (58 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2018/0095M(NLE)
Documents: PDF(157 KB) DOC(58 KB)
REPORT containing a motion for a non-legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore PDF (168 KB) DOC (61 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2018/0093M(NLE)
Documents: PDF(168 KB) DOC(61 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 on low carbon benchmarks and positive carbon impact benchmarks PDF (786 KB) DOC (94 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2018/0180(COD)
Documents: PDF(786 KB) DOC(94 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on facilitating cross-border distribution of collective investment funds and amending Regulations (EU) No 345/2013 and (EU) No 346/2013 PDF (623 KB) DOC (77 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2018/0045(COD)
Documents: PDF(623 KB) DOC(77 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to cross-border distribution of collective investment funds PDF (609 KB) DOC (77 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2018/0041(COD)
Documents: PDF(609 KB) DOC(77 KB)
REPORT containing a motion for a non-legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Japan for an Economic Partnership PDF (468 KB) DOC (62 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2018/0091M(NLE)
Documents: PDF(468 KB) DOC(62 KB)
RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Japan for an Economic Partnership PDF (510 KB) DOC (74 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2018/0091(NLE)
Documents: PDF(510 KB) DOC(74 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on disclosures relating to sustainable investments and sustainability risks and amending Directive (EU) 2016/2341 PDF (798 KB) DOC (113 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2018/0179(COD)
Documents: PDF(798 KB) DOC(113 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2014/59/EU on loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Directive 98/26/EC, Directive 2002/47/EC, Directive 2012/30/EU, Directive 2011/35/EU, Directive 2005/56/EC, Directive 2004/25/EC and Directive 2007/36/EC PDF (841 KB) DOC (106 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2016/0362(COD)
Documents: PDF(841 KB) DOC(106 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 as regards loss-absorbing and Recapitalisation Capacity for credit institutions and investment firms PDF (777 KB) DOC (78 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2016/0361(COD)
Documents: PDF(777 KB) DOC(78 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the ranking of unsecured debt instruments in insolvency hierarchy PDF (580 KB) DOC (70 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2016/0363(COD)
Documents: PDF(580 KB) DOC(70 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 345/2013 on European venture capital funds and Regulation (EU) No 346/2013 on European social entrepreneurship funds PDF (635 KB) DOC (86 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2016/0221(COD)
Documents: PDF(635 KB) DOC(86 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products as regards the date of its application PDF (441 KB) DOC (56 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2016/0355(COD)
Documents: PDF(441 KB) DOC(56 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 258/2014 establishing a Union Programme to support specific activities in the field of financial reporting and auditing for the period of 2014-20 PDF (621 KB) DOC (61 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2016/0110(COD)
Documents: PDF(621 KB) DOC(61 KB)
REPORT on International Accounting Standards (IAS) evaluation and the activities of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation, the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) and the Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB) PDF (341 KB) DOC (145 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2016/2006(INI)
Documents: PDF(341 KB) DOC(145 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Money Market Funds PDF (304 KB) DOC (244 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2013/0306(COD)
Documents: PDF(304 KB) DOC(244 KB)
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Long-term Investment Funds PDF (719 KB) DOC (192 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2013/0214(COD)
Documents: PDF(719 KB) DOC(192 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Long-term Investment Funds PDF (403 KB) DOC (224 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2013/0214(COD)
Documents: PDF(403 KB) DOC(224 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 638/2004 on Community statistics relating to trading of goods between Member States as regards conferring of delegated and implementing powers upon the Commission for the adoption of certain measures, the communication of information by the customs administration, the exchange of confidential data between Member States and the definition of statistical value PDF (202 KB) DOC (292 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2013/0278(COD)
Documents: PDF(202 KB) DOC(292 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features PDF (585 KB) DOC (462 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2013/0139(COD)
Documents: PDF(585 KB) DOC(462 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on key information documents for investment products PDF (710 KB) DOC (612 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2012/0169(COD)
Documents: PDF(710 KB) DOC(612 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a Union programme to support specific activities in the field of financial reporting and auditing for the period of 2014-2020 PDF (264 KB) DOC (381 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2012/0364(COD)
Documents: PDF(264 KB) DOC(381 KB)
REPORT on reforming the structure of the EU banking sector PDF (197 KB) DOC (112 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2013/2021(INI)
Documents: PDF(197 KB) DOC(112 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2009/65/EC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) as regards depositary functions, remuneration policies and sanctions PDF (318 KB) DOC (183 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2012/0168(COD)
Documents: PDF(318 KB) DOC(183 KB)
REPORT on improving access to finance for SMEs PDF (251 KB) DOC (166 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2012/2134(INI)
Documents: PDF(251 KB) DOC(166 KB)
REPORT on Shadow Banking PDF (182 KB) DOC (98 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2012/2115(INI)
Documents: PDF(182 KB) DOC(98 KB)
RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America PDF (238 KB) DOC (149 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2011/0167(NLE)
Documents: PDF(238 KB) DOC(149 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Social Entrepreneurship Funds PDF (366 KB) DOC (325 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2011/0418(COD)
Documents: PDF(366 KB) DOC(325 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Venture Capital Funds PDF (312 KB) DOC (200 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2011/0417(COD)
Documents: PDF(312 KB) DOC(200 KB)
REPORT on the attractiveness of investing in Europe PDF (288 KB) DOC (190 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2011/2288(INI)
Documents: PDF(288 KB) DOC(190 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on amendments to the Agreement Establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) extending the geographic scope of EBRD operations to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean PDF (194 KB) DOC (242 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2011/0442(COD)
Documents: PDF(194 KB) DOC(242 KB)
REPORT on a corporate governance framework for European companies PDF (230 KB) DOC (150 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: JURI
Dossiers: 2011/2181(INI)
Documents: PDF(230 KB) DOC(150 KB)
REPORT Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the citizens’ initiative PDF (827 KB) DOC (1 MB)
2016/11/22
Committee: AFCO
Dossiers: 2010/0074(COD)
Documents: PDF(827 KB) DOC(1 MB)

Opinions (5)

OPINION Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services
2016/11/22
Committee: IMCO
Documents: PDF(203 KB) DOC(568 KB)
OPINION Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and services, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services
2016/11/22
Committee: LIBE
Documents: PDF(289 KB) DOC(682 KB)
OPINION on the Annual Report on EU Competition Policy
2016/11/22
Committee: TRAN
Documents: PDF(123 KB) DOC(93 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Documents: PDF(106 KB) DOC(54 KB)
OPINION on the European Investment Bank (EIB) - Annual Report 2010
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Documents: PDF(119 KB) DOC(92 KB)

Shadow opinions (18)

OPINION on palm oil and deforestation of rainforests
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2016/2222(INI)
Documents: PDF(175 KB) DOC(64 KB)
OPINION on Towards a European Energy Union
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2015/2113(INI)
Documents: PDF(125 KB) DOC(191 KB)
OPINION on the situation and future perspectives of the European fishing sector in the context of the Free Trade Agreement between the EU and Thailand
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2013/2179(INI)
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(338 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation concerning cooperation on the application of their competition laws
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2012/0127(NLE)
Documents: PDF(99 KB) DOC(51 KB)
OPINION on an Action Plan for a competitive and sustainable steel industry in Europe
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2013/2177(INI)
Documents: PDF(110 KB) DOC(180 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2013/0088(COD)
Documents: PDF(167 KB) DOC(312 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Recast)
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2013/0089(COD)
Documents: PDF(170 KB) DOC(312 KB)
OPINION on general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014 – all sections
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2013/2145(BUD)
Documents: PDF(107 KB) DOC(77 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2012/0180(COD)
Documents: PDF(259 KB) DOC(474 KB)
OPINION on 2014 Budget - Mandate for the Trilogue
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2013/2017(BUD)
Documents: PDF(107 KB) DOC(73 KB)
OPINION on the recommendation to the Council, the Commission and the EEAS on the negotiations for an EU-Malaysia partnership and cooperation agreement
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2013/2052(INI)
Documents: PDF(96 KB) DOC(67 KB)
OPINION on an Agenda for Adequate, Safe and Sustainable Pensions
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2012/2234(INI)
Documents: PDF(147 KB) DOC(122 KB)
OPINION Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2011/0284(COD)
Documents: PDF(195 KB) DOC(348 KB)
OPINION on a Digital Freedom Strategy in EU Foreign Policy
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2012/2094(INI)
Documents: PDF(108 KB) DOC(87 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and Commission Directive 2007/14/EC
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2011/0307(COD)
Documents: PDF(218 KB) DOC(538 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as regards certain provisions relating to risk sharing instruments for Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2011/0283(COD)
Documents: PDF(164 KB) DOC(452 KB)
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2003/71/EC and 2009/138/EC in respect of the powers of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority
2016/11/22
Committee: JURI
Dossiers: 2011/0006(COD)
Documents: PDF(128 KB) DOC(425 KB)
OPINION on the effects of the global financial and economic crisis on developing countries and on development cooperation
2016/11/22
Committee: INTA
Dossiers: 2009/2150(INI)
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(83 KB)

Institutional motions (4)

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on negotiations with the United Kingdom following its notification that it intends to withdraw from the European Union PDF (168 KB) DOC (52 KB)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2017/2593(RSP)
Documents: PDF(168 KB) DOC(52 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on support for the thalidomide survivors PDF (359 KB) DOC (57 KB)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2016/3029(RSP)
Documents: PDF(359 KB) DOC(57 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on Syria PDF (161 KB) DOC (65 KB)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2016/2894(RSP)
Documents: PDF(161 KB) DOC(65 KB)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the situation in Poland PDF (259 KB) DOC (71 KB)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2015/3031(RSP)
Documents: PDF(259 KB) DOC(71 KB)

Oral questions (3)

Commission's answers to written questions PDF (205 KB) DOC (19 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(205 KB) DOC(19 KB)
Commission's answers to Written Questions PDF DOC
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF DOC
Breaches of the human rights of children with disabilities PDF DOC
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF DOC

Written questions (48)

VP/HR - Iranian imprisonment PDF (41 KB) DOC (16 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(41 KB) DOC(16 KB)
VP/HR - Situation in the Republic of Moldova PDF (99 KB) DOC (16 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(99 KB) DOC(16 KB)
VP/HR - EU and Western Sahara PDF (99 KB) DOC (16 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(99 KB) DOC(16 KB)
Spanish mortgages with a 'cláusula suelo' PDF (99 KB) DOC (19 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(99 KB) DOC(19 KB)
VP/HR - Egyptian Coptic Christians PDF (99 KB) DOC (16 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(99 KB) DOC(16 KB)
VP/HR - Killings of LGBTI people in Chechnya PDF (5 KB) DOC (16 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(16 KB)
Otter cull in Lower Austria PDF (99 KB) DOC (17 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(99 KB) DOC(17 KB)
CSG Tax PDF (5 KB) DOC (18 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(18 KB)
French leaseback PDF (101 KB) DOC (18 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(101 KB) DOC(18 KB)
VP/HR - Ethiopian opposition leader PDF (99 KB) DOC (16 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(99 KB) DOC(16 KB)
European Space Agency PDF (97 KB) DOC (15 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(97 KB) DOC(15 KB)
VP/HR - The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in Rabwah PDF (100 KB) DOC (15 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(15 KB)
Concerns about copyright fees in the Digital Single Market PDF (100 KB) DOC (16 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(16 KB)
So-called 'link tax' PDF (100 KB) DOC (16 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(16 KB)
EU aid spending in the Sudan PDF (4 KB) DOC (16 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(16 KB)
VP/HR - Situation of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam members in Sri Lanka PDF (5 KB) DOC (15 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(15 KB)
VP/HR - Demolitions in Sabastiya, northern Palestinian West Bank PDF (100 KB) DOC (15 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(15 KB)
Enforcement of intellectual property rights in Ireland PDF (101 KB) DOC (16 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(101 KB) DOC(16 KB)
Burka ban PDF (5 KB) DOC (16 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(16 KB)
Oil spillages and destruction of land and waterways in Ogbogene, North Nigeria PDF (97 KB) DOC (15 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(97 KB) DOC(15 KB)
Late Payments Directive PDF (5 KB) DOC (15 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(15 KB)
Yulin Dog-Eating Festival PDF (4 KB) DOC (15 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(15 KB)
Thames Water Tideway Tunnel PDF (5 KB) DOC (16 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(16 KB)
Turkish border guard shootings PDF (100 KB) DOC (16 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(16 KB)
French legal problems PDF (101 KB) DOC (16 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(101 KB) DOC(16 KB)
VP/HR - Destruction of Christian sites in Palestine PDF (5 KB) DOC (17 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(17 KB)
VP/HR - Case of Kamal Foroughi PDF (104 KB) DOC (18 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(104 KB) DOC(18 KB)
Paramjeet Singh PDF (4 KB) DOC (23 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(23 KB)
London Olympic Stadium PDF (4 KB) DOC (23 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(4 KB) DOC(23 KB)
International financial reporting standards PDF (5 KB) DOC (24 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(24 KB)
Thames Tideway Tunnel PDF (101 KB) DOC (24 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(101 KB) DOC(24 KB)
Impact of 'right to be forgotten' upon free speech and the search engine market PDF (101 KB) DOC (25 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(101 KB) DOC(25 KB)
Jordan's discontinued recognition of the EU CE mark for certain healthcare devices PDF (100 KB) DOC (23 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(23 KB)
Charge being levied in France on foreign property owners PDF (6 KB) DOC (24 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(6 KB) DOC(24 KB)
Misleading nature of EPC ratings PDF (6 KB) DOC (24 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(6 KB) DOC(24 KB)
Unfair business-to-business commercial practices PDF (100 KB) DOC (24 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(24 KB)
CARS 2020 PDF (98 KB) DOC (24 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(98 KB) DOC(24 KB)
Visas PDF (99 KB) DOC (24 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(99 KB) DOC(24 KB)
Traditional own resources PDF (100 KB) DOC (24 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(24 KB)
Polish Ministry of the Environment PDF (101 KB) DOC (24 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(101 KB) DOC(24 KB)
German tax authority PDF (103 KB) DOC (24 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(103 KB) DOC(24 KB)
Tavistock Institute of Human Relations PDF (100 KB) DOC (24 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(24 KB)
Sugar cane PDF (5 KB) DOC (23 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(23 KB)
VAT mini One-Stop Shop PDF (101 KB) DOC (24 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(101 KB) DOC(24 KB)
Vehicle cover PDF (5 KB) DOC (24 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(5 KB) DOC(24 KB)
Attack on Dan Adamescu and threats to fundamental rights in Romania PDF (100 KB) DOC (24 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(100 KB) DOC(24 KB)
Dilgam Ahmadov and Shahbaz Quliyev PDF (101 KB) DOC (25 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(101 KB) DOC(25 KB)
Bus casualties PDF (104 KB) DOC (25 KB)
2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(104 KB) DOC(25 KB)

Written declarations (1)

Written declaration on referendums on the Constitution in each Member State

2016/11/22
Documents: PDF(77 KB) DOC(36 KB)
Authors: Geoffrey VAN ORDEN, Struan STEVENSON, Ivo STREJČEK, Syed KAMALL, Nina ŠKOTTOVÁ

Amendments (1290)

Amendment 1 #

2018/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
– having regard to the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement,
2018/10/22
Committee: INTA
Amendment 2 #

2018/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 b (new)
– having regard to the World Customs Organisation Revised Kyoto Convention,
2018/10/22
Committee: INTA
Amendment 14 #

2018/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas there are at least 202 government blockchain initiatives in 45 countries around the world and economies in Asia-Pacific, Americas and Middle East regions in particular are investing in blockchain technologies for trade;
2018/10/22
Committee: INTA
Amendment 20 #

2018/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas blockchain can provide a framework of transparency in a supply chain, reduce corruption, detect tax evasion, allow the tracking of unlawful payments and tackle trade-based money laundering (TBML); whereas there are risks associated with the use of unpermissioned blockchain applications for criminal activities, including tax evasion, tax avoidance and TBML and insists that these issues are monitored and addressed urgently by the Commission and Member States;
2018/10/22
Committee: INTA
Amendment 27 #

2018/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Expresses regret that EU FTAs are underutilised; notes that exporters could upload all their documents to a public authority application underpinned by blockchain, and instantly provdemonstrate their compliance with preferential treatment granted by the FTAan FTA; believes that blockchain could enhance provisions for cumulation in FTAs, such as the EU- Japan Economic Partnership Agreement;
2018/10/22
Committee: INTA
Amendment 44 #

2018/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that digitisation will enable the exchange of information to be more efficient and transparent and that blockchain could improve the exchange of information by enabling customs authorities to automatically obtain the required information for a customs declaration, reduce the need for manual verification, provide a precise update on the status and characteristics of goods entering, leaving and transiting in the EU; views digitisation as a prerequisite for blockchain to be fully functional;
2018/10/22
Committee: INTA
Amendment 47 #

2018/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that the adoption of blockchain technologies throughout the supply chain can increase the volume of global trade by reducing transaction costs and assisting businesses to identify new trading partners, and can lead to increased consumer confidence in digital trade;
2018/10/22
Committee: INTA
Amendment 60 #

2018/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Notes that criminals can manipulate legitimate trade to mask their illicit activities, such as TBML, by tampering with the necessary documentation with false reporting such as overvaluation or undervaluation of the good concerned; believes that blockchain can enable customs and other authorities to take necessary actions in a timely, prompt and coordinated manner to expose illicit financial flows;
2018/10/22
Committee: INTA
Amendment 90 #

2018/2085(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission to follow developments in the area of blockchain, in particular the ongoing pilots/initiatives in the international supply chain as well as customs and regulatory processes; invites the Commission to produce a strategy document on adopting blockchain technologies in trade and supply chain management;
2018/10/22
Committee: INTA
Amendment 31 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7) Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 of the European Parliament and of the Council30 establishes uniform rules for benchmarks in the Union and caters for different types of benchmark based on their characteristics, vulnerabilities and risks. An increasing number of investors pursue low-carbon investment strategies and take recourse to low-carbon benchmarks to reference or measure the performance of investment portfolios. _________________ 30 Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on indices used as benchmarks in financial instruments and financial contracts or to measure the performance of investment funds and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2014/17/EU and Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 (OJ L 171, 29.6.2016, p. 1).
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 35 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) Different categories of low carbon indices with various degrees of ambition have emerged in the marketplace. While some benchmarks aim to lower the carbon footprint of a standard investment portfolio, others aim to select only components that contribute to attaining the 2°C degree objective set out in the Paris Climate Agreement. Despite differences in objectives and strategies, allmany of these benchmarks are commonly promoted as low-carbon benchmarks.
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 37 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) Divergent approaches to benchmark methodologies result in fragmentation of the internal market because users of benchmarks do not have clarity on whether a particular low carbon index is a benchmark aligned to the 2C° objective or merely a benchmark that aims to lower the carbon footprint of a standard investment portfolio. To address potentially illegitimate claims by administrators about the low-carbon nature of their benchmarks, Member States are likely tomay adopt different rules to avoid the ensuing investors’ confusion and ambiguity about the aims and level of ambition underpinning different categories of so called low carbon indices used as benchmarks for a low carbon investment portfolio.
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 47 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) Therefore, to maintain the proper functioning of the internal market for the benefit of the end-investor, to further improve the conditions of its functioning, and to ensure a high level of consumer and investor protection, it is appropriate to adapt Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 to lay down a regulatory framework for harmonised low carbon benchmarks at Union level.
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 50 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13) It is furthermore necessary to introduceing a clear distinction between low- carbon and positive carbon impact benchmarksnet emission reduction benchmarks, and developing minimum standards for each of these types of benchmarks, will help facilitate consistency across benchmarks that choose to promote themselves as such. While the underlying assets in a low- carbon benchmark should be selected with the aim of reducing carbon emissions of the index portfolio when compared to the parent index, a positive carbon impactnet emission reduction index should only comprise components whose emissions savings exceed their carbon emission contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions to a greater extent that the level of emission they produce. These two new categories of benchmark introduce optional requirements for industry and should only apply when a benchmark administrator decides to create a BMR- compliant low carbon or net emission reduction benchmark. A significant flexibility will be left to benchmark administrators in designing the formula for the calculation of their methodology, enabling market players to develop new strategies for addressing environmental issues.
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 56 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) Each company whose assets are selected as underlying in a positive impactnet emission reduction benchmark should save more carbon emissions than it produces, hence have a positive impact on the environment. The asset and portfolio managers who claim to pursue an investment strategy compatible with the Paris Climate Agreement should therefore use positive carbon impact benchmarks.
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 64 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
(15) A variety of benchmark administrators claim that their benchmarks pursue environmental, social and governance (‘ESG’) objectives. The users of those benchmarks do however not always have the necessary information on the extent to which the methodology of those benchmark administrators takes into account those ESG objectives, i.e. the weighting they are given. The existing information is also often scattered and does not allow for effective comparison for investment purposes across borders. To enhance transparency to enable market players to make well- informed choices, benchmark administrators should be required to disclose how their methodology takes into account the ESG factors for each benchmark or family of benchmarks that is promoted as pursuing ESG objectives. That information should also be disclosed in the benchmark statement. The administrators of benchmarks that do not promote or take into account the ESG objectives, should not be subject to this disclosure obligation.
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 66 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) For the same reasons, administrators of low-carbon and of positive carbon impactnet emission reduction benchmarks should equally publish their methodology used for their calculation. That information should describe how the underlying assets were selected and weighted and which assets were excluded and for what reason. The benchmark administrators should also specify how the low carbon benchmarks differ from the underlying parent index, notably in terms of the applicable weights, market capitalisation and financial performance of the underlying assets. To assess how the benchmark contributes to the environmental objectives, the benchmark administrator should disclose how the carbon footprint and carbon savings of the underlying assets were measured, their respective values, including the total carbon footprint of the benchmark, and the type and source of the data used. To enable asset managers to choose the most appropriate benchmark forto reference in their investment strategy, benchmark administrators should explain the rationale behind the parameters of their methodology and explain how the benchmark contributes to the environmental objectives, including its impact on climate-change mitigation. The published information should also include details on the frequency of reviews and the procedure followed.
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 72 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) In addition, administrator of positive carbon impactnet emission reduction benchmarks should disclose the positive carbon impact of each underlying asset included in those benchmarks, specifying the method used to determine whether the emission savings exceed the investment asset's carbon footprint.
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 78 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) To ensure continued adherence to the selected climate-change mitigation objective, administrators of low-carbon and positive carbon impactnet emission reduction benchmarks should regularly review their methodologies and inform users of the applicable procedures for any material change. When introducing a material change, benchmark administrators should disclose the reasons for that change and explain how the change is consistent with the benchmarks’ initial objectives.
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 83 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) In order to enhance transparency and ensure an adequate level of harmonization, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission to specify further the minimum content of the disclosure obligations that benchmark administrators that take into account the ESG objectives should be subject to, and to specify the minimum standards for harmonization of the methodology of low- carbon and positive carbon impactnet emission reduction benchmarks, including the method for the calculation of carbon emissions and carbon savings associated with the underlying assets, taking into account the Product and Organisation Environmental Footprint methods as defined in points (a) and (b) of point 2 of Commission Recommendation 2013/179/EU31 . It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, that they consider the progress on, and relevance of, other proposals within the 'Financing Sustainable Growth' Action Plan and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. _________________ 31 Commission Recommendation 2013/179/EU of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations (OJ L 124, 4.5.2013, p. 1).
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 91 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) 2016/1011
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 23 a (new)
(23a) ‘low-carbon benchmark’ means a benchmark where the underlying assets, for the purposes of point 1(b)(ii) of this paragraph, are selected so that the resulting benchmark portfolio has less carbon emissions when compared to the assets that comprise a standard capital- weighted benchmark and which is constructed in accordance with the standards laid down in the delegated acts referred to in Article 19a(2), weighted or excluded on the basis that they have lower carbon emissions than the underlying assets that comprise a specified parent index, and which is constructed in accordance with the standards laid down in the delegated acts referred to in Article 19a(2). Parent index is an index which defines the underlying pool of assets available for inclusion within a benchmark, before any weighting, selection or exclusion criteria are applied;
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 98 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) 2016/1011
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 23 b (new)
(23b) ‘positive carbon impactnet emission reduction benchmark’ means a benchmark where the underlying assets, for the purposes of point 1(b)(ii) of this paragraph, are selected on the basis that their carbon emissions savings exceed the asset's carbon footprint assets' contribution to the reduction of carbon emissions is greater than the emission, and which is constructed in accordance with the standards laid down in the delegated acts referred to in Article 19a(2).;
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 108 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
(d) an explanation of how the key elements of the methodology laid down in point (a) reflect environmental, social or governance (‘ESG’) factors for each benchmark or family of benchmarks which is promoted as pursueing or takeing into account ESG objectives;;
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 117 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EU) 2016/1011
Title III – Chapter 3 a (new) – title
Low-carbon and positive carbon impact benchmarks net emission reduction benchmarks Or. en (This change in definition applies throughout the proposal)
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 122 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EU) 2016/1011
Title III – Chapter 3 a (new) – Article 19 a – title
Low-carbon and positive carbon impactnet emission reduction benchmarks
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 127 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EU) 2016/1011
Title III – Chapter 3 a (new) – Article 19 a – paragraph 1
(1) The requirements laid down in Annex III shall apply to the provision of, and contribution to, low-carbon or positive carbon impactnet emission reduction benchmarks in addition to, or as a substitute for, the requirements of Title II, III and IV.
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 134 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EU) 2016/1011
Title III – Chapter 3 a (new) – Article 19 a – paragraph 2 – introductory part
(2) The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 49 to specify further the minimum standards for the construction of low- carbon and positive carbon impactnet emission reduction benchmarks, including:
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 152 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Regulation (EU) 2016/1011
Article 27 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. For each requirement in paragraph 2, a benchmark statement shall contain an explanation of how environmental, social and governance factors are reflected for each benchmark or family of benchmarks provided and published whichwhich is promoted as pursueing or takeing into account ESG objectives.
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 163 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – subheading 1
Low-carbon and positive carbon impactnet emission reduction benchmarks
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 172 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 1 – introductory part
1. The administrator of a low-carbon benchmark or a net emission reduction benchmark shall formalise, document and make public any methodology used for the calculation of low carbonthe benchmarks, describing the following:
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 175 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 1 – point a
(a) the list of the underlying assets that are used for calculating the low carbon benchmark;deleted
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 180 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 1 – point b
(b) all criteria and methods, including selection, exclusion and weighting factors, metrics, and proxies used in the benchmark calculationmethodology;
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 181 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 1 – point c
(c) the criteria applied to exclude assets or companies that are associated with a level of carbon footprint or a level of fossil reserves that are incompatible with inclusion in the low carbon benchmark;deleted
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 187 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 1 – point d
(d) the criteria for and the methods of how the low carbonhow the benchmark measures the carbon footprint andemissions or carbon savings associated with the underlying assets in the index portfolio, as relevant;
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 192 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 1 – point e
(e) the tracking error between the low carbon benchmark and the parent index;deleted
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 203 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 1 – point f
(f) twhe positive reweighting of low- carbon assets in the low carbon benchmark versus the parent index and there the benchmark has a related parent index based on which it is alternatively weighted, an explanation of why this reweighting is necessary to reflect the chosen objectives of the low carbon benchmark;
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 205 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 1 – point g
(g) the ratio between the market value of the securities that are in the low carbon benchmark and the market value of the securities in the parent index;deleted
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 211 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 1 – point h – introductory part
(h) the type and source of input data used for the selection of assets or companies eligible for the low carbon benchmarkand how it is used within the benchmark methodology to determine the selection, exclusion or re-weighting of the underlying assets, including:
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 218 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 1 – point h – point i
(i) carbon emissions generated from sources that are controlled by the company associated with the underlying assets;
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 222 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 1 – point h – point ii
(ii) emissions from the consumption of purchased electricity, steam, or other sources of energy generated upstream from the company associated with the underlying assets;
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 225 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 1 – point h – point iii
(iii) emissions that are a consequence of the operations of a company associated with the underlying assets, but that are not directly controlled by the company; , if these are considered within the benchmark methodology;
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 233 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 1 – point h – point v
(v) whether the input data uses the Product and Organisation Environmental Footprint methods as defined in points (a) and (b) of point 2 of Commission Recommendation 2013/179/EUglobal standards such as TCFD (the FSB 'Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures');
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 236 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 1 – point i
(i) twhe total carbon-footprint exposure of the index portfolio and the estimated impacts on climate-change mitigation of the low carbon strategy pursued by the benchmarkre the benchmark has a related parent index based on which it is alternatively weighted based on carbon emissions, the difference in carbon emissions between the benchmark and the parent index;
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 242 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 1 – point j
(j) the rationale for adopting a particular low-carbon methodology strategy or objective and an explanation of whyhow the methodology is appropriate for the calculation of the low-carbon objectives of the benchmarkligned with this strategy or objective;
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 246 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – subheading 3
Methodology for positive carbon impact benchmarksdeleted
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 252 #

2018/0180(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – point 2
2. The administrator of a positive carbon impact benchmark, in addition to the obligations applicable to the administrator of a low carbon benchmark, shall disclose the positive carbon impact of each underlying asset included in the benchmark and shall specify the formula or calculation that is used to determine whether the emission savings exceed the investment asset's or company's carbon footprint ('positive carbon impact ratio').deleted
2018/10/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 48 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) Trends in responsible investment, including environmental, social and governance factors, can realise benefits beyond the financial markets. Markets and financial market participants, led by their end-investors, should provide the necessary information to enable comparability of investments and informed investment decisions. This process can only succeed where legally agreed definitions are put in place.
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) Taking into account environmental, social and governance factors in the investment decision-making process helps to facilitate informed investment decisions.
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 55 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 b (new)
(2b) The regulation looks at disclosure rules for investors regarding investment products and investment advice. Given the scope of the regulation credit institutions could be included, insofar as they offer financial products as environmentally sustainable investments or related advisory services.
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 56 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) In the absence of harmonised Union rules on sustainability-related disclosures to end-investors, it is likely that diverging measures will continue to be adopted at national level and different approaches in different financial services sectors might persist. Such divergent measures and approaches would continue to cause significant distortions of competition resulting from significant differences in disclosure standards. In addition, a parallel development of market-based practices, based on commercially-driven priorities that produce divergent results currently causes further market fragmentation and might even further exacerbate the functioning of the internal market in the future. Divergent disclosure standards and market-based practices make it very difficult to compare between different financial products and services and create an uneven playing field between these products and services and between distribution channels, and erect additional barriers to the internal market. Such divergences can also be confusing for end- investors and can distort their investment decisions. In ensuring compliance with the Paris Climate Agreement, Member States are likely to adopt divergent national measures which could create obstacles to the smooth functioning of the internal market and be detrimental to financial market participants and financial advisors. In addition, the lack of harmonised rules relating to transparency makes it difficult for end-investors to effectively compare different financial products and services in different Member States as to their environmental, social and governance risks and sustainable investment targets. It is therefore necessary to address existinglook to the functioning of the internal market and to preventenable comparability of financial products in order to avoid likely future investment obstacles.
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 59 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) To ensure a coherent application of this Regulation and that the disclosure obligations laid down in this Regulation are clearly and consistently applied by financial market participants, it is necessary to lay down a harmonisfirst conclude the [PO: Please insert reference to Regulation on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment] and the taxonomy therein, thereby working from an agreed definition of ‘sustainable investments’.
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 63 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) Remuneration policies of financial market participants and financial advisors should be consistent with the integration of sustainability risks and, where relevant, sustainable investment targets and should be designed to contribrms should be consistent with Directive (EU) 2017/828. Environmental, social and governance risks should be considered based on a firm's internal and operational performance against certain ESG criteria, rather than based on the investment management activities it is performing as part of its fiduciary dutey to lits clients. Long-term sustainviable growth. Pre-contractual disclosures should therefore include information on how the remuneration policies of those entities are consistent with the integration of sustainability risks and are in line should take into account this criteria and, where relevant, with the sustainable investment targets of the financial products and services that the financial market participants make available or financial advisors advise onobjectives. Pre- contractual disclosures should be consistent with this.
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 71 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) To enhance transparency and inform end-investors, access to information on how material sustainability risks are integcorporated by financial market participants in the investment decision making processes and by financial advisors in advisory processes should be regulatedpossible by requiring those entities to maintain that information on their websites.
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 73 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) The currentre are many disclosure requirements already set out by Union legislation do not provide that all. These need to include the information necessary to properly inform end-investors about the sustainability- related impact of their investments must be disclosed. Therefore, it is appropriate to set out more specific disclosure requirements with regard to sustainable investments. For instance, the overall sustainability-related impact of financial products should be reported regularly by means of indicators relevant for the chosen sustainable investment target. Where an appropriate index has been designated as reference benchmark that information should also be provided for the designated index and to a broad market index to allow for comparison. Information on the constituents of the designated index and of the broad market index along with their weightings should also be disclosed, to provide further information on how the sustainable investments targets are achieved. Where EuSEF managers make available information on the positive social impact targeted by a given fund, the overall social outcome achieved and the related methods used in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 346/2013, they may, where appropriate, use this information for the purposes of the disclosures under this Regulation, to enable comparability, with regard to these sustainable investments.
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 82 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely to strengthen investment choice and protection for end- investors and improve disclosures to them regarding how material environmental, social and governance risks are incorporated into the investment decision making process, including in cases of cross-border purchases for end-investors, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can be better achieved at Union level because of the need to lay down uniform disclosure requirements at Union level the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives,
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 122 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Financial market participants shall publish written policies on the integcorporation of material sustainability risks in the investment decision-making process on their websites.
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 135 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. Insurance intermediaries which provide insurance advice with regard to IBIPs and investment firms which provide investment advice shall publish written policies on the integcorporation of material sustainability risks in investment advice or insurance advice on their websites.
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 141 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. FWhere a financial product has objectives relating to sustainable investments or investments with similar characteristics the financial market participants shall include descriptions of the following in pre-contractual disclosures:
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 147 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the procedures and conditions applied for integcorporating material sustainability risks in investment decisions;
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 151 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the extent to which sustainability risks are expected to have a relevant impact on the returns ofthe returns of the financial product are expected to be impacted by sustainability risks and/or the non-financial products made availableimpacts the product is expected to have on environmental, social and governance issues;
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 158 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) how the remuneration policies of financial market participants are consistent with the integration of sustainability risks and are in line, where relevant, with the sustainable investment target of the financial productthe firm are consistent with Directive (EU) 2017/828, follow the firm's ESG internal and operational performance criteria, whilst delivering long-term viable growth objectives.
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 164 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. IWhere an insurance product has objectives relating to sustainable investments or investments of similar characteristics the insurance intermediaries which provide insurance advice with regard to those IBIPs and investment firms which provide investment advice shall include descriptions of the following in pre- contractual disclosures:
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 175 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) how the remuneration policies of investment firms which provide investment advice and insurance intermediaries which provide insurance advice with regard to IBIPs are consistent with Directive (EU) 2017/828, the integration of sustainability risks and are in line, where relevant, with the sustainable investments target of the financial product advised on.
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 184 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where a financial product has as its targetobjective sustainable investments or investments with similar characteristics, and an benchmark index has been designated as a reference benchmarkreferenced for this, the information to be disclosed pursuant to Article 4(1) shall be accompanied by the following:
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 188 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) information on how the designated index is aligned with that targetobjective;
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 190 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) an explanation as to why the weighting and constituents of the designated index aligned with that target differ from a broad market index.deleted
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 195 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. Where a financial product has as its targetobjective sustainable investments or investments with similar characteristics and no index has been designated as athere is no referenced benchmark index, the information referred to in Article 4(1) shall include an explanation on how that target isobjective is to be reached.
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 198 #

2018/0179(COD)

Where a financial product has as its targetobjective the reduction in carbon emissions, the information to be disclosed pursuant to Article 4(1) shall include the targeted low carbon emission exposurea quantification of that expected reduction.
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 202 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. Financial market participants shall include in the information to be disclosed pursuant to Article 4(1) an indication of where the methodology used for the calculation of the indexes referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and benchmarks referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3 of this Article are to be found.deleted
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 205 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Financial market participants shall publish, whilst respecting privacy laws and the protection of commercially sensitive information, and maintain on their websites, for each financial product referred to in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of Article 5, the following:
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 213 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
EBA, EIOPA and ESMA shall, through the Joint Committee, develop draft regulatory technical standards further specifying the details of the presentation and content of information referred to in point (a) and (b) of paragraph 1, taking into account the [PO: Please insert reference to Regulation on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment].
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 216 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where financial market participants make availableproduce a periodical report for a financial product referred to in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of Article 5, they shall include a description of the following in periodical reports:sustainability objectives for that product.
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 217 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the overall sustainability-related impact by the financial product by means of relevant sustainability indicators;deleted
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 220 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) where an index has been designated as a reference benchmark, a comparison between the overall impact of the financial product with the designated index and a broad market index in terms of weighting, constituents and sustainability indicators.deleted
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 226 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
EBA, EIOPA and ESMA shall, through the Joint Committee, develop draft regulatory technical standards further specifying the details of the content and presentation of information referred to in paragraph 1, taking into account the [PO: Please insert reference to Regulation on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment].
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 232 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
EBA, EIOPA and ESMA may develop, through the Joint Committee, draft implementing technical standards to determine the standard presentation of information on sustainable investments, taking into account the [PO: Please insert reference to Regulation on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment].
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 236 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10
Directive (EU) 2016/2341
Article 19 – paragraph 9, Article 60a (new)
Amendments to Directive (EU) 2016/2341 Directive (EU) 2016/2341 is amended as follows: (1) paragraph 9 is added: ‘9. The Commission is empowered to adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 60a, measures ensuring that: (a) respect to the consideration of environmental, social and governance risks is taken into account; (b) governance factors in internal investment decisions and risk management processes are included. Those delegated acts shall take into account the size, nature, scale and complexity of the activities of the IORPs and of the risks inherent to these activities and ensure consistency with Article 14 of Directive 2009/65/EC, Article 132 of Directive 2009/138/EC and Article 12 of Directive 2011/61/EU.; ‘Article 60a Exercise of the delegation 1. is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. referred to in Article 19(9) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. 3. to in Article 19(9) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 4. act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 5. to Article 19(9) shall enter into force only if no objectirticle 10 deleted In Article 19, the following the ‘prudent person’ rule with environmental, social and The power to adopt delegated acts The power to adopt delegated acts The delegation of powers referred As soon has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of three months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by three months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council..it adopts a delegated A delegated act adopted pursuant
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 242 #

2018/0179(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
It shall apply after the application of the Regulation on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment [PO: Please insert reference to Regulation] and from [PO: Please insert 12 months following the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union].
2018/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 33 #

2018/0095M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the agreement will ensure a high level of investment protection while safeguarding the Parties’ right to regulate and pursue legitimate public policy objectives, such as public health and environmental protection; it will ensure transparency and accountability;
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 44 #

2018/0095M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the transparency rules applying to proceedings before the tribunals, whichcase documents will be publically available and hearings will be held in public; believes that increased transparency will help to instil public trust in the system;
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 50 #

2018/0095M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Underlines that forum shopping will not be possible and that multiple and parallel proceedings will be avoided;
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 76 #

2018/0095M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Regrets the lack of provisions on investors’ obligations, including binding corporate social responsibility standards; calls on the Commission to propose legislation laying down mandatory due diligence standards in sectors other than conflict minerals and timber, such as the garment industry;deleted
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 83 #

2018/0095M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Warmly welcomes the work initiated in the UN by the open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights on the establishment of a binding UN instrument; calls on the Commission and the EU Member States to engage constructively in the negotiations;deleted
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 9 #

2018/0093M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas the EU and Singapore share the same fundamental values, including democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights, cultural and linguistic diversity and a strong commitment to open trade and the multilateral trading system;
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 11 #

2018/0093M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas this is the first bilateral trade agreement concluded between the EU and an ASEAN member state and an important stepping stone towards a final objective of a region- to-region FTA; whereas the agreement will also serve as a benchmark for the agreements the EU is currently negotiating with the other main ASEAN economies;
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 16 #

2018/0093M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
E a. whereas Singapore is a high- income economy with a gross national income of USD 52600 per capita as of 2017; whereas its economic growth has been amongst the world's highest, at average of 7,7 percent since independence,
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 18 #

2018/0093M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas Singapore ranks among the easiest countries in the world to do business with; is one of the world's most competitive economies and is one of the least corrupt worldwide;
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 20 #

2018/0093M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
F a. whereas manufacturing, particularly in electronics and precision engineering sectors, and services sectors remain the twin pillars of Singapore's high value-added economy;
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 24 #

2018/0093M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H
H. whereas more than 10 000 European companies have their regional offices in Singapore; whereas around 50 000 EU companies export to Singapore, of which 83 percent are small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs),
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 26 #

2018/0093M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
H a. whereas EUSFTA is likely to have very positive effect on trade and investment flows between the EU and Singapore, whereas a 2018 study prepared for the European Parliament estimates that, over the first five years, trade volumes between the EU and Singapore would grow by 10%;
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 36 #

2018/0093M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. NotStresses that negotiations were originally concluded in 2012 and deeply regrets the long delay in bringing forward the agreement for ratification; calls therefore for speedy ratification process and its conclusion in the current parliamentary mandate so that the agreement enters into force as soon as possible;
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 49 #

2018/0093M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the economic and strategic importance of this agreement as it is a stepping stone for the region to region EU-ASEAN trade deal in the future, as Singapore is a hub for the entire ASEAN region and as this will avoid EU exporters being at a competitive disadvantage in respect of businesses from the other CPTPP and RCEP countries;
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 59 #

2018/0093M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the agreement will grant EU companies better access to the Singapore services market such as in financial, telecommunications, engineering, architectural services, maritime transport and postal services and that such liberalisation follows a ‘positive list’ approach;
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 91 #

2018/0093M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises that this is a progressive trade agreement and that both Parties committed in the trade and sustainable development (TSD) chapter to ensure a high level of environmental and labour protection; notes that the agreement also includes a chapter on renewable energy generation;
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 106 #

2018/0093M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. RecallNotes that the EU-Singapore Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) envisages the possibility for the EU to suspend the FTA in case of fundamental human rights violations by Singapore;
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 111 #

2018/0093M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission to trigger the general review clause of the agreement as soon as possible in order to strengthen the enforceability of labour and environmental provisions including through a sanctions-based mechanism as a last resort;
2018/11/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 9 #

2018/0091M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)
– having regard to the European Commission 15-point plan to make EU trade and sustainable development chapters more effective of 26 February 2018;
2018/10/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 22 #

2018/0091M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the implementation of the EU-Japan EPA will increase export opportunities for EU businesses, create greater competition, and boost economic growth, as well as bring advantages to consumers by lowering prices and increasing the consumer choice on goods and services;
2018/10/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 74 #

2018/0091M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Notes positively that Japan has addressed unnecessary non-tariff measures (NTMs) in a variety of sectors such as vehicles, food additives, food labelling and cosmetics; takes note as well of Japan’s commitment to align its automotive standards even more with international standards used by EU car manufacturers; stresses that this reduces compliance costs for EU businesses who export to Japan, and creates a more predictable regulatory environment for EU agricultural exports by addressing sanitary and phytosanitary measures;
2018/10/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 77 #

2018/0091M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Highlights that more than two thirds of all Japanese-brand vehicles sold in the EU are manufactured in the EU, and that Japanese-brand vehicles made in the EU are exported to third countries; points out that the removal of tariffs can boost production and jobs;
2018/10/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 88 #

2018/0091M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes that the agreement provides significant export opportunities for EU agri-food products, such as wine, pig meat, beef and cheese, and that it protects 205 European geographical indications; points out that processed agricultural products such as pasta and chocolate will also enjoy duty-free entry to the Japanese market over a transitional period;
2018/10/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 102 #

2018/0091M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Welcomes the elimination of tariffs on industrial products for sectors in which the EU is highly competitive, such as chemicals, plastics, cosmetics as well as textiles and clothing;
2018/10/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 105 #

2018/0091M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that both parties are committed to ensure high levels of environmental and labour protection; expects the EU and Japan to show their commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals in all their actions, including the implementation of this agreement; points out that the agreement stresses that labour and environmental standards cannot be relaxed or lowered to attract trade and investment;
2018/10/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 130 #

2018/0091M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Highlights the fact that the agreement includes the commitment to pursue the ratification of fundamental ILO conventions; regrets that Japan has not yet ratified two ILO core conventions (on discrimination and on the abolition of forced labour) and expects, in light of commitments made in the EPA, concrete progress on the part of Japan towards the ratification of these conventions in accordance with the provisions of the EPA;
2018/10/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 142 #

2018/0091M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Welcomes the inclusion of a review clause in the chapter on sustainable development and calls on the Commission to trigger this clause as soon as possible in order to strengthen the enforceability and effectivenessif necessary in order to uphold the commitments made ofn labour and environmental provisions, which should include the possibility of sanctions as a last resort;
2018/10/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 164 #

2018/0091M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Believes that market access commitments in cross-border services, including e-commerce, maritime transport, postal services and telecommunications, will give a boost to trade in services while safeguarding the pursuit of legitimate policy objectives; notes that the EPA secures fairer treatment of EU service suppliers operating in Japan comparable to that of Japanese suppliers;
2018/10/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 195 #

2018/0091M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Welcomes the commitment of both the EU and Japan to work more closely together on developing international standards; points out that setting standards through regulatory cooperation is crucial as the EU and Japan account for more than 40% of global imports and exports;
2018/10/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 203 #

2018/0091M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Takes note that negotiations continue on a separate investment agreement and reiterates that it is unacceptable to return to the old, private ISDS mechanism; notes that the EU has introduced the Investment Court System (ICS) in agreements with other partners;
2018/10/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 219 #

2018/0091M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Welcomes the publication of the draft adequacy decision on Japan, which established that Japan provides a comparable level of protection of personal data to that in the EU; stresses that the free flow of data across borders is a key enabler of the digital economy;
2018/10/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 223 #

2018/0091M(NLE)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Notes that 78% of the EU companies exporting to Japan are SMEs and that lack of access to information represents a trade barrier, especially for small businesses; welcomes that both the EU and Japan committed to setting up a website which will provide specific information to SMEs on how to access their markets;
2018/10/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 160 #

2018/0048(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15 a (new)
(15a) In order to allow for a competitive Union-framework, crowdfunding service providers should be permitted to raise capital through their platforms using tokens. Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) offer new and innovative ways of funding but can also generate substantial market, fraud and cyber security risks to investors. Therefore, crowdfunding service providers that wish to offer ICOs through their platform, should comply with specific additional requirements under this Regulation. Whilst project owners can still opt for the private placement of an ICO or use a prospectus for an ICO, this regulation only covers those who opt to use a crowdfunding service provider as an intermediary. Further to this, ICOs raising in excess of EUR 8 000 000 or ICOs that do not use a centralised issuer should not fall within the scope of this Regulation. Only tokens that represent either a loan or transferable security and that have a central issuer who takes responsibility for the issuance of the tokens should be covered by the Regulation. Crowdfunding Service providers who offer ICOs via their platform should ensure that all requisite due diligence checks have been conducted in accordance with this regulation.
2018/09/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 196 #

2018/0048(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) crowdfunding service providers that facilitate the raising of capital through their platforms via Initial Coin Offerings (ICO) that issue tokens that do not have a centralised issuer.
2018/09/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 216 #

2018/0048(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point l a (new)
(la) ‘Initial Coin Offering’ or ‘ICO’ means a method of raising funds from the public using tokens that are put for sale by a business or an individual in exchange for fiat or cryptocurrencies.
2018/09/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 217 #

2018/0048(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point l b (new)
(lb) ‘token’ means any form of digital medium of exchange, a digital unit of account and/or a store of value that is used to serve as or represent an asset
2018/09/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 218 #

2018/0048(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point l c (new)
(lc) ‘cryptocurrency’ means a maths- based decentralised convertible virtual currency that is protected by cryptography, relies on public and private keys to transfer value from one person to another and may be cryptographically signed each time it is transferred;
2018/09/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 224 #

2018/0048(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4a Provision of Initial Coin Offerings 1. This Regulation shall apply to crowdfunding service providers authorised in accordance with Article 10 who facilitates ICOs that fall within the scope of this Article 4a. 2. This Regulation shall only apply to ICOs of tokens where there is a centralised issuer of the tokens. 3. This Regulation shall only apply to ICOs of tokens that are either loans or transferable securities. 4. This Regulation shall only apply to the primary issuance or selling of tokens and not secondary trading of such tokens. 5. This Regulation shall not apply to private placement of tokens. 6. This Regulation shall not apply to ICOs with a consideration of more than EUR 8 000 000 per issuance in an ICO.
2018/09/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 74 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) To ensure equality in treatment and facilitate decision-making of AIFMs and UCITS management companies whether to engage in cross border distribution of investment funds, it is important that fees and charges levied by competent authorities for the authorisation, registration and supervision referred to in Directives 2009/65/EC and 2011/61/EU are proportionate to the supervisory tasks carried out and publicly disclosed, and that in order to enhance transparency those fees and charges are published on their websites. For the same reason, the ESMA website should include an interactive tool enabling calculations of fees and charges levied by competent authorities.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 76 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 a (new)
(7 a) According to Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs), management companies as defined in Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2009/65/EC, investment companies as referred to in Article 27 thereof and persons advising on, or selling, units of UCITS as referred to in Article 1(2) thereof are exempt from the obligations under Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 until 31 December 2019. That Regulation also provides that the Commission reviews Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 by 31 December 2018, in order to assess, among others, whether this transitional exemption should be prolonged, or whether, following the identification of any necessary adjustments, the provisions on key investor information in Directive 2009/65/EC should be replaced by or considered equivalent to the key investor document under Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014. That Regulation also states that this review should include, on the basis of the information received by the European Supervisory Authorities, a general survey of the operation of the comprehension alert, taking into account any guidance developed by competent authorities in this respect. It should also include a survey of the practical application of the rules laid down in that Regulation, taking due account of developments in the market for retail investment products and the feasibility, costs and possible benefits of introducing a label for social and environmental investments. In addition, as part of its review, the Commission should undertake consumer testing and an examination of non-legislative options as well as the outcomes of the review of Regulation (EU) No 346/2013 regarding points (c), (e) and (g) of Article 27(1) thereof.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 77 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 b (new)
(7 b) In order to allow the Commission to conduct the review of Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 as originally foreseen by the European Parliament and the Council, the deadline for the review should be prolonged by 12 months. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of the European Parliament should support the Commission’s review process by organising a hearing on the topic with relevant stakeholders representing industry and consumer interests.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 78 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 c (new)
(7 c) In order to avoid investors receiving two different pre-disclosure documents (a UCITS KIID and a PRIIPs KID) for the same investment fund while the legislative acts resulting from the review are being adopted and implemented, the transitional exemption from the obligations under Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 for management companies as defined in Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2009/65/EC, investment companies as referred to in Article 27 thereof and persons advising on, or selling, units of UCITS as referred to in Article 1(2) thereof, should be prolonged by 24 months.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 79 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) The Commission should be empowered to adopt draft regulatory technical standards, developed by ESMA, with regard to the specification of information on fees or charges or, where applicable, relevant calculation methodologies for those fees or charges, levied by the competent authorities. Furthermore, the Commission should be empowered to adopt draft regulatory technical standards, developed by ESMA, with regard to the specification of information to be notified in notifications, notification letters and written notices on cross-border activities that are required by Directives 2009/65/EC and 2011/61/EU. The Commission should adopt those draft regulatory technical standards by means of delegated acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU and in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.deleted
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 81 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) The Commission should be empowered to adopt implementing technical standards, developed by ESMA, with regard to the standard forms, templates and procedures for notifications by competent authorities of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions and their summaries on marketing requirements applicable in their territories, the levels of fees or charges for cross- border marketing activities levied by them, and, where applicable, relevant calculation methodologies. Furthermore, to improve the transmission of information to competent authorities and among competent authorities and ESMA, implementing technical standards should cover notifications, notification letters and written notices on cross-border activities that are required by Directives 2009/65/EC and 2011/61/EU. The Commission should adopt those implementing technical standards by means of implementing acts pursuant to Article 291 TFEU and in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 84 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 a (new)
(14 a) Given that MMFs are established as either UCITS or AIFs and given the importance of cross-border provision of MMFs, it is necessary to ensure that in the event of negative money market rates, public debt CNAV MMFs and LVNAV MMFs can use a reverse distribution mechanism in order to offer returns in line with those negative money market rates while maintaining a constant net asset value. The cancellation of shares in order to counteract the impact of market movements is not permissible in any circumstances.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 86 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) ‘home Member State’ means the Member State in which the AIFM or the UCITS management company has its registered office; for non-EU AIFMs, all references to 'home Member State' in this Regulation shall be read as the 'Member State of reference', as provided for in Directive 2011/61/EU;
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 89 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. UCITS management companies shall ensure that no marketing communication comprising an invitation to purchase units or shares of a UCITS that contains specific information about a UCITS contradicts the information, or diminishes itsthe significance, of the information contained in the prospectus referred to in Article 68 of Directive 2009/65/EC and the key investor information referred to in Article 78 of that Directive. UCITS management companies shall ensure that all marketing communications indicate that a prospectus exists and that the key investor information is available. The marketing communication shall specify where, how and in which language investors or potential investors can obtain the prospectus and the key investor information.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 93 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Competent authorities shall notify to ESMA the laws, regulations and administrative provisions, and the summaries thereof, referred to in paragraph 1 and the hyperlinks to the websites of competent authorities where thate information referred to in paragraph 1 is published.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 94 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Competent authorities shall notify to ESMA any change in the information provided under the first subparagraph of this paragraph without undue delay.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 96 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. By [PO: Please insert date 48 months after the date of entry into force] ESMA shall examine in a report the marketing requirements referred to in paragraph 1 and inform the Commission, Council and European Parliament thereof. ESMA shall update that report every two years.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 98 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
By [PO: Please insert date 30 months after the date of entry into force], ESMA shall publish and maintain on its website a central database containing the national laws, regulations and administrative provisions concerning marketing requirements, and the summaries thereof, and the hyperlinks to the websites of competent authorities notified in accordance with Article 3(2).
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 109 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Fees or charges levied by 1. competent authorities shall be proportionate to the expenditure relating to the cross-border authorisation or registration and the performance of the supervisory and investigatory powers pursuant to Articles 44, 45 and 46 of Directive 2011/61/EU and Articles 97 and 98 of Directive 2009/65/EC.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 111 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Competent authorities shall notify to ESMA any change in the information provided under the first subparagraph without undue delay.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 114 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – title
ESMA interactive database on fees and charges
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 115 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
BIn order to enhance transparency of fees and charges by [PO: Please insert date 30 months after the date of entry into force] ESMA shall publish and maintain on its website an interactive database, publicly accessible in at least a language customary in the sphere of international finance, listing the fees or charges referred to in Article 6(1), or, where applicable, the calculation methodologies for those fees or charges.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 116 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9
By [PO: Please insert date 30 months after the date of entry into force] ESMA shall develop, make available and maintain on its website an interactive tool publicly accessible in at least a language customary in the sphere of international finance presenting the fees and charges referred to in Article 6(1). The interactive tool shall constitute a part of the interactive database referred to in Article 8.Article 9 deleted ESMA interactive tool on fees and charges
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 117 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – title
ESMA central database on AIFMs, UCITS management companies,cross-border marketing of AIFs and UCITS
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 118 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
By [PO: Please insert date 30 months after the date of entry into force] ESMA shall publish and maintain on its website a central database for the cross-border marketing of AIFs and UCITS, publicly accessible in a language customary in the sphere of international finance, listing (a) all AIFMs, UCITS management companies, AIFs and UCITS which those AIFMs and UCITS management companies manage and market, as well as the Member States in which those funds are marketeds that are marketed in another Member State, their AIFMs, EUSEF manager or EUVECA manager, and a list of Member States in which they are marketed; and (b) all UCITS marketed in another Member State, their UCITS management company and a list of the Member States in which they are marketed. The database referred to in the first paragraph is without prejudice to the list referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC, the central public register referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 7(5) of Directive 2011/61/EU, the central database referred to in Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 345/2013 and the central database referred to in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 346/2013.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 131 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 345/2013
Article 3 – point o
(o) ‘pre-marketing’ means a direct or indirect provision of information on investment strategies or investment ideas by the manager of a qualifying venture capital fund, or on its behalf, to potential investors domiciled or with a registered office in the Union in order to test their interest in a not yet registered qualifying venture capital fund which is not yet marketed in the Member State where the potential investors are domiciled;
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 132 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 345/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Managers of qualifying venture capital funds may engage in pre-marketing in the Union, excluding where the information presented to potential investors:.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 135 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 345/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) relates to established qualifying venture capital funds;deleted
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 137 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 345/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) contains any reference to established qualifying venture capital funds;deleted
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 139 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 345/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) enables investors to commit to acquiring units or shares of particular qualifying venture capital funds;deleted
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 141 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 345/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) amounts to a prospectus, constitutional documents of not yet registered qualifying venture capital funds, offering documents, subscription forms or similar documents whether in a draft or a final form allowing investors to take an investment decision.deleted
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 147 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 345/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 3
3. Subscription by investors to units or shares of qualifying venture capital funds registered following the pre-marketing in accordance with paragraph 1 or to the units or shares of qualifying venture capital funds managed and marketed by managers of qualifying venture capital funds that engaged in pre-marketing of not yet registered qualifying venture capital funds with the similar features shall be considered the result of marketing.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 157 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 346/2013
Article 3 – point o
(o) ‘pre-marketing’ means a direct or indirect provision of information on investment strategies or investment ideas by the manager of a qualifying social entrepreneurship fund, or on its behalf, to potential investors domiciled or with a registered office in the Union in order to test their interest in a not yet registered qualifying social entrepreneurship fund which is not yet marketed in the Member State where the potential investors are domiciled;
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 158 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 346/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Managers of qualifying social entrepreneurship funds may engage in pre- marketing in the Union, excluding where the information presented to potential investors:.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 159 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 346/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) relates to established qualifying social entrepreneurship funds;deleted
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 162 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 346/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) contains any reference to established qualifying social entrepreneurship funds;deleted
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 165 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 346/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) enables investors to commit to acquiring units or shares of particular qualifying social entrepreneurship funds;deleted
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 167 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 346/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) amounts to a prospectus, constitutional documents of not yet registered qualifying social entrepreneurship funds, offering documents, subscription forms or similar documents whether in a draft or a final form allowing investors to take an investment decision.deleted
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 173 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 346/2013
Article 4a – paragraph 3
3. Subscription by investors to units or shares of qualifying social entrepreneurship funds registered following the pre-marketing in accordance with paragraph 1 or to the units or shares of qualifying social entrepreneurship funds managed and marketed by managers of qualifying social entrepreneurship funds that engaged in pre-marketing of not yet registered qualifying social entrepreneurship funds with the similar features shall be considered the result of marketing.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 180 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 2017/1131
Article 2 – point 23 a (new) and Article 34 – paragraphs 3 a (new) and 3 b (new)
Article 13 a Amendments to Regulation (EU) No 2017/1131 on money market funds Regulation (EU)No 2017/1131 is amended as follows: (1) In Article 2, the following point (23a) is inserted: ‘(23a) “Reverse distribution mechanism” means a mechanism by which public debt CNAV MMFs and LVNAV MMFs are authorised by their investors to redeem a portion of each investors holding in a negative yield environment, subject to certain conditions, thereby allowing for the maintenance of a stable NAV in a negative money market rate environment. (2) In Article 34, the following paragraphs 3a and 3b are inserted: ‘3a. In a negative interest rate environment, the reverse distribution mechanism may, in accordance with paragraph 3b, be used to maintain a stable NAV. The use of the mechanism to reduce the impact of market movements, or any factor other than negative yield, on the net asset value of the MMF, is prohibited. 3b. A reverse distribution mechanism may only be utilised where use of the mechanism is set out in fund rules and approved by the national competent authority of the MMF and provide that: (a) on the date of purchase, the value of investments are separated between capital and income value; (b) the full portfolio of the MMF is published daily in a format showing the capital and income value of each investment; and (c) any reduction in shares as a result of the operation of the reverse distribution mechanism cannot exceed in value the negative yield accrued by the MMF since the last valuation point.’
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 181 #

2018/0045(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 is amended as follows: (1) in Article 32(1), “31 December 2019” is replaced by “31 December 2021”; (2) in Article 33(1), “31 December 2018” is replaced by “31 December 2019”; (3) in Article 33(2), “31 December 2018” is replaced by “31 December 2019”; (4) in Article 33(4), “31 December 2018” is replaced by “31 December 2019”.
2018/10/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 83 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 77
(3) Article 77 is deleted.replaced by the following: ‘All marketing communications to investors shall be clearly identifiable as such. They shall be fair, clear and not misleading.’
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 84 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 92 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that the UCITS management company establisheoffers, in each Member State where it intends to market units of a UCITS, facilities to perform the following tasks:
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 85 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 92 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) process investors’ subscription, payment, repurchase and redemption orders and make other payments to unitholders relating to the units of the UCITS, in accordance with the conditions set out in the UCITS marketing documents;
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 86 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 92 – paragraph 1 – point d – point ii
(ii) the latest published annual report of the UCITS and the latest published half- yearly report if more recent;
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 87 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 92 – paragraph 1 – point d – point ii a (new)
(ii a) the prospectus of the UCITS.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 88 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 92 – paragraph 1 – point d – point ii b (new)
(ii b) the most up-to-date key [investor] information document for the UCITS.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 90 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 92 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) their tasks are performed by the UCITS management company itself or a third entity subject to regulation governing the tasks to be performed, or both;
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 92 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 93 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1
In the event of a change to the information in the notification letter submitted in accordance with paragraph 1, or a change regarding share classes to be marketed, the UCITS shall give written notice thereof to the competent authorities of both the home Member State and the host Member State at least one month before implementing that change.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 93 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 93 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 3
Where a change referred to in the first subparagraph is implemented after notification has been made in accordance with the second subparagraph and pursuant to that change the UCITS no longer complies with this Directive, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the UCITS shall take all due measures in accordance with Article 98, including, where necessary, the express prohibition of marketing of the UCITS.deleted
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 96 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 93a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
1. The competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State shall ensure that UCITS may discontinue marketingcease to provide facilities associated with its units in a Member State where it has notified its activities in accordance with Article 93, where all the following conditions are fulfilled:
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 98 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 93a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) no investor which is domiciled or has a registered office in a Member State where the UCITS has notified its activities in accordance with Article 93 holds units of that UCITS, or no more than 10 investors which are domiciled or have a registered office in that Member State hold units of the UCITS representing less than 1 % of assets under management of that UCITS;deleted
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 103 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 93a – paragraph 1– subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) the intention to stop the marketing activities in the Member State where the UCITS has notified its activities in accordance with Article 93 and to withdraw the facilities provided in accordance with Article 92 from that Member State with effect from a specified date, is made public by means of a publicly available medium , including by electronic means, which is customary for marketing UCITS and suitable for a typical UCITS investor.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 105 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 93a – paragraph 1– subparagraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) The notice to investors shall make clear the consequences for investors if they do not accept the offer to repurchase their units and shall inform them of how they may request the redemption or repurchase of their units and how they may obtain information about the UCITS, after the facilities in that Member State have been withdrawn.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 107 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 93a – paragraph 2
2. The UCITS shall submit a notification letter to the competent authorityies of its home Member State comprising the information referred to in paragraph 1.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 108 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 93a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
1. The competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State shall verify whether the notification submitted by the UCITS in accordance with paragraph 2 is complete. The competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State shall, no later than 20 working days from the receipt of the notification referred to in paragraph 2, transmit it to the competent authorities of the Member State where marketing of the UCITS is intended to be discontinued and to ESMA, or else shall inform the UCITS of the reason why the notification cannot be transmitted.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 109 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Upon transmission of the notification file pursuant to the first subparagraph the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State shall immediately notify the UCITS of that transmission. As of this date, the UCITS shall cease all marketing of its units in the Member State identified in the notification letter referred to in paragraph 2. The UCITS may cease to provide facilities in accordance with Article 92 in the Member State identified in the notification letter referred to in paragraph 2, from the date specified for that purpose in the notice given to investors.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 111 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 93a – paragraph 4
4. The UCITS shall continue providing investors who remain invested in the UCITS, with the information required under Articles 68 to 82 and underprospectuses and the latest annual and half-yearly reports in accordance with Article 9475.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 117 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point aea
(aea) ‘‘pre-marketing’ means a direct or indirect provision of information on investment strategies or investment ideas by an AIFM, or on its behalf, to potential professional investors domiciled or registered in the Unionin a Member State in order to test their interest in an AIF which is not yet established. , or a compartment of an AIF, which is not yet established, or which is established but not yet notified for marketing in that Member State in accordance with Article 32, which in each case does not amount to an offer or placement to the investor to invest in the units or shares of that AIF. Or. en (applicable to respective Articles 3 of EuVECA and EuSEF Regulations)
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 120 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 30a – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that an authorised EU AIFM may engage in pre- marketing in the Union, excluding where the information presented to potential professional investors: Or. en (applicable to respective Articles 4a of EuVECA and EuSEF Regulations)
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 124 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 30a – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) relates to an established AIF;deleted
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 125 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 30a – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) contains reference to an established AIF;deleted
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 133 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 30a – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) amounts to a prospectus, constitutional documents of a not-yet- established AIF,n AIF, private placement memoranda offering documents, subscription forms or similar documents whether in a draft or ain final form allowing investors to take an investment decision.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 140 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 30a – paragraph 3
3. Subscription by professional investors to units or shares of an AIF established followingas a direct result of the pre- marketing in accordance with paragraph 1 or to the units or shares of AIFs managed or marketed by the EU AIFM that had engaged in pre-marketing of a not-yet- established AIF with the similar features shall be considered the result of marketingshall be accompanied with the applicable marketing notification procedures.
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 155 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 32a – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) in the case of an AIF that is open- ended and offers frequent redemption opportunities, a blanket offer to repurchase, free of any charges or deductions, all its AIF units or shares held by investors in the Member State, where a notification of its marketing activities has been transmitted in accordance with Article 32, is made public at least for 30 working days and is addressed individually to all investors in that Member State whose identity is known;
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 158 #

2018/0041(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 43a
(7) the following Article 43a is inserted: ‘Article 43a Facilities available to retail investors 1. Regulation (EU) 2015/76028 , Member States shall ensure that an AIFM establishes, in each Member State where it intends to market units or shares of an AIF to retail investors, facilities to perform the following tasks: (a) process investors’ subscription, payment, repurchase and redemption orders relating to the units or shares of the AIF, in accordance with the conditions set out in the AIF’s marketing documents; (b) on how orders referred to in point (a) can be made and how repurchasdeleted Without prejudice to Article 26 of provide investors with information facilitate the hand redemption proceeds are paid; (c) information relating to the exercise of investors’ rights arising from their investment in the AIF in the Member State where the AIF is marketed; (d) inspection and for the obtaining copies of: (i) incorporation of the AIF; (ii) the latest annual report of the AIF; (e) relevant to the tasks the facilities perform in a durable medium as defined in Article 2(1)(m) of Directive 2009/65/EC. 2. an AIFM to have a physical presence for the purpose of paragraph 1. 3. facilities referred to in paragraph 1 are of the following types and have the following characteristics: (a) official language or official languages of the Member State where the AIF is marketed; (b) itself or a third entity, subject to regulation governing the tasks to be performed, or both. For the purposes of point (b), where the facilities are performed by a third entity this appointment shall be evidenced by a written contract, which specifies which of the tasks specified in paragraph 1 are not performed by the AIFM and that the third entity receives all the relevant information and documents from the AIFM.’ __________________ 28 Regulation (EU) 2015/760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on European long-term investment funds OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p. 9.ling of make available to investors for fund rules or instruments of provide investors with information Member States shall not require The AIFM shall ensure that the their tasks are performed in the their tasks are performed by AIFM
2018/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 4 #

2016/2222(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that palm oil accounts for about 40 % of global trade in all vegetable oils and that the EU, with around 7 million tonnes per year, is the second largest global importer; calls on the Commission, in this connection, to reduce the amount of imported palm oil from third countries by applying different customs duty schemes for certified sustainable palm-oil productcooperation with Member States, to help put in place trading frameworks conducive to encouraging the environmental sustainability of palm oil imports and products containing palm oil derivatives, as well as other plant and vegetable oils;
2016/12/12
Committee: INTA
Amendment 20 #

2016/2222(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that Malaysia and Indonesia are the main producers of palm oil, with an estimated 85-90 % of global production, and that the growing demand for this commodity puts pressure notes the key role Palm Oil production pland use and has significant effects on local communities, health and climate changeys in the economies of these local communities, both as a valuable source of income and employment; stresses, in this context, that the EU- Indonesia Free Trade Agreements should not cover palm oil and its derivatives withininclude sustainability chapters; welcomes that Malaysian primary forest levels have increased since 1990, but remains concerned theat current negotiationdeforestation levels in Indonesia are running at a rate of -0.5% total loss every five years;
2016/12/12
Committee: INTA
Amendment 35 #

2016/2222(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the importance of improving the situation through appropriate certification, easily accessible for SMEs, confirming that the palm oil in question has been produced without undue harm to the environment and society andsupporting existing local and international certification systems, ensuring that they are easily accessible for SMEs and understandable for consumers confirming that the palm oil in question has been produced in line with sustainability guidelines, including the requirement that the product is effectively and transparently traceable throughout the entire supply chain;
2016/12/12
Committee: INTA
Amendment 47 #

2016/2222(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ban EU imports ofreduce EU reliance upon biodiesel derived from palmnon - sustainable vegetable oils and to introduce a mandatoryexamine the added value of developing a labelling scheme for biodiesel ingredients and their origins, and for other palmvegetable oil products, as appropriate;
2016/12/12
Committee: INTA
Amendment 59 #

2016/2222(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that sustainability of palm oil is legally defined in the Renewable Energy Directive for bioliquids and in the Fuel Quality Directive for biofuels while no criteria exist for palm oilany vegetable oils, including rapeseed and sunflower used in the food industry;
2016/12/12
Committee: INTA
Amendment 9 #

2016/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and the international standards on auditing (ISA) are essentialone component needed for the efficient functioning of the internal market and of the capital markets; whereas the IFRS and ISA arecan be understood as a public good;
2016/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 13 #

2016/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas the IFRS can strengthen accountability by reducing the information gap between investors and companies, protecting investment and bringing transparency through enhancing the international comparability and quality of financial information and enabling investors and other market participants to make informed economic decisions, and therefore influence the behaviour of actors in financial markets and impact the stability of these markets; notes, however, that this 'decision-usefulness' model of accounting is not entirely consistent with the 'capital adequacy' function of accounting as described in ECJ jurisprudence and the Accounting Directive suggesting that the conceptual basis of accounting per the IFRS Framework does not encompass the purpose of accounts in EU law for which true and fair view of the specified numbers is the standard, as set out in written answer E-016071/2015 from Lord Hill dated 25.2.2016.
2016/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 16 #

2016/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the Accounting Directive states that accounts are "of special importance for the protection of shareholders, members and third parties' and that 'such undertakings offer no safeguards to third parties beyond the amounts of their net assets'; whereas the Accounting Directive also states that its aim is "to protect the interests subsisting in companies with share capital" by ensuring that dividends are not paid out of share capital; whereas this general purpose of accounts can only be fulfilled if the specified numbers in the accounts give a true and fair view of the company's assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss;
2016/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 17 #

2016/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) functions under the umbrella of the IFRS Foundation – a private not-for-profit corporation – and is the standard setter whose processes shouldmust be transparent, independent, democratic and subject to direct public accountability;
2016/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 22 #

2016/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas in the EU endorsement process the compliance of the IFRS with the criteria of the IAS Regulation is assessed, particularly through thean IFRS cannot be endorsed for use if it is contrary to the true and fair view principle, which requirements that financial statements must give a 'true and fair view' of a company's assets and liabilities, financial position and profit or loss; whereas the IFRS should be conducive to the public good in Europe and should meet basic criteria related to the quality of information required for financial statements;
2016/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 25 #

2016/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas, within the EU, different stakeholders – particularly long-term investors –– have raised the issue of the consistency of the IFRS with the legal requirements of the Accounting Directive, in particular the principles of prudence and stewardship; whereas emphasis has also been put on strengthening Europe's voice in order to ensure coherence insuch principles are fully acknowledged and embedded throughout the standard-setting process;
2016/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 39 #

2016/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes in particular the upcoming implementation of IFRS 4 (Phase II) and encourages the Commission to ensure that any delay does not result in misalignment or disruption of competition within the insurance industry.
2016/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 42 #

2016/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to put forward proposals on how the Maystadt recommendation regarding expanding the 'public good' criterion – i.e. that accounting standards should neither jeopardise financial stability in the EU nor hinder the EU's economic development – will be taken into account during the endorsement process; urges the Commission, together with EFRAG, to issue clear guidelines on the meaning of the 'public good' and the principle of 'true and fair view' on the basis of ECJ jurisprudence and the Accounting Directive in order to arrive at a common understanding of these endorsement criteria;
2016/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 43 #

2016/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes that the true and fair view test of Article 4(3) of Directive 2013/34/EU applies to the specified numbers in the accounts as the standard for the purpose of accounts prepared according to European law described in Recitals 3 and 29 of the same directive; highlights that this purpose is related to the capital adequacy function of accounts, i.e. that investors, both creditors and shareholders, use the numbers in the annual accounts as the basis to determine whether a company is "net asset" solvent and to determine dividend payments;
2016/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 44 #

2016/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Emphasises that a core component of achieving the true and fair view of the specified numbers in the accounts is prudent valuation, which means no understating of losses or overstating of profits, as described in Article 6.1(c)i and ii of the Accounting Directive; points out that this interpretation of the Accounting Directive has been confirmed by numerous ECJ rulings;
2016/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 45 #

2016/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Notes that Recital 9 of the IAS Regulation allows a degree of flexibility when making a decision to endorse an IFRS by not requiring "a strict conformity with each and every provision of those Directives"; suggests however that this does not extend to allowing IFRS to deviate so far from the general purpose of the 2013 Accounting Directive, which replaced the 4th and 7th Accounting Directives referenced in Article 3.2(i) of the IAS Regulation, that the result of doing so would result in financial statements that overstate profits or understate losses; considers, in this regard, that the endorsement of IAS 39 was possibly contrary to this general purpose of the 4th and 7th Accounting Directives, superseded by the 2013 Accounting Directive, due to its incurred loss model, in particular Article 31. 1 (bb) of the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC, which stated "all foreseeable liabilities and potential losses arising in the course of the financial year concerned or of a previous one [should be measured and recognised], even if such liabilities or losses become apparent only between the date of the balance sheet and the date on which it is drawn up";
2016/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 46 #

2016/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the intention of the IASB to reintroduce the principle of 'prudence' and re-inforce 'stewardship' in the new Conceptual Framework; calls on the Commission and EFRAG tonotes that the IASB's understanding of the principle of prudence and stewardship is not the same as what ECJ jurisprudence and the Accounting Directive states; calls on the Commission and EFRAG to agree on the meanings of the principles of prudence and stewardship as defined in ECJ jurisprudence and the Accounting Directive and then cooperate with the IASB and national and third-country standard setters to obtain wider support for these principles;
2016/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #

2016/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that the effects of an accounting standard must be fully understood; insists that it should be a priority for the IASB and EFRAG to strengthen their impact analyses and to assess the specific needs of investors and companies; calls on the Commission to evaluate the situation and provide the resources needed in order to strengthen the capacity of EFRAG to conduct properremind EFRAG of their obligation to conduct proper impact assessments; notes in particular the absence of an impact assessments for IFRS9;
2016/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 75 #

2016/2006(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Welcomes the Commission's intention to examine the case for strengthening the EU rules relating to dividend distribution, in light of the fact that Article 15.1(a) Capital Maintenance Directive refers directly to a company's annual accounts as the basis for decisions relating to dividend distribution;
2016/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 88 #

2016/0363(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 108 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Where, after 31 December 2016 and before the [date of entry into force of this Directive], a Member State has adopted a national law governing the ranking in normal insolvency proceedings of unsecured claims resulting from debt instruments issued after the date of application of such national law, paragraph 4 shall not apply to claims resulting from debt instruments issued after the entry into force of that national law provided that it complies with the following: (a) that national law provides that, for entities referred to in points (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Article 1(1), ordinary unsecured claims shall, in normal insolvency proceedings, have a higher priority ranking than that of unsecured claims resulting from debt instruments which meet the following conditions: (i) they are not derivatives and have no embedded derivatives; and (ii) the relevant contractual documentation and, where applicable, the prospectus, related to the issuance explicitly refers to the lower ranking under the applicable law; (b) that national law provides that unsecured claims resulting from debt instruments that meet the conditions laid down in point (a) of this paragraph shall, in normal insolvency proceedings, have a higher priority ranking than the priority ranking of claims resulting from instruments referred to in points (a) to (d) of Article 48(1). On the [date of entry into force of measures under national law transposing this Directive], the unsecured claims resulting from debt instruments referred to in point (b), shall have the same priority ranking as the one referred to in points (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 and in paragraph 3.
2017/09/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 91 #

2016/0363(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 108 – paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Member States which, prior to 31 December 2016, have adopted a national law governing normal insolvency proceedings whereby (i) unsecured claims resulting from debt instruments issued by entities referred to in points (a),(b),(c) and (d) of Article 1(1) are split into two or more different priority rankings or where the priority ranking of unsecured claims resulting from debt instruments is changed in relation to all other ordinary unsecured claims of the same ranking, and (ii) that national law has the objective of ensuring that eligible liabilities that meet the criteria for inclusion in the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities of entities referred to in points (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Article 1 (1) are subordinated to other ordinary unsecured claims, may provide that debt instruments with the lowest priority ranking among those ordinary unsecured claims have the same ranking as the one of claims that meet the conditions of paragraph 2(b) and (c) and paragraph 3.
2017/09/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 36 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) Eligibility criteria for bail-inable liabilities for the MREL should be closely aligned with those laid down in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 for the TLAC minimum requirement, in line with the complementary adjustments and requirements introduced in this Directive. In particular, certain debt instruments with an embedded derivative component, such as certain structured notes, should be eligible to meet the MREL to the extent that they have a fixed principal amount repayable at maturity while only an additional return is linked to a derivative and depends on the performance of a reference asset. In view of their fixed principal amount, those instruments should be highly loss-absorbing and easily bail-inable in resolution.
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 40 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) The scope of liabilities to meet the MREL includes, in principle, all liabilities resulting from claims arising from unsecured non-preferred creditors (non- subordinated liabilities) unless they do not meet specific eligibility criteria provided in this Directive. To enhance the resolvability of institutions through an effective use of the bail-in tool, resolution authorities should be able to require that the MREL is met with subordinated liabilities, in particular when there are clear indications that bailed-in creditors are likely to bear losses in resolution that would exceed their potential losses in insolvency. The requirement to meet MREL with subordinated liabilities should be requested only for a level necessary to prevent that losses of creditors in resolution are above losses that they would otherwise incur under insolvency. Any subordination of debt instruments requested by resolution authorities for the MREL should be without prejudice to the possibility to partly meet the TLAC minimum requirement with non-subordinated debt instruments in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as permitted by the TLAC standard.;
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 42 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) The MREL should allow institutions to absorb losses expected due to write-down or conversion at the point of non-viability or in resolution and recapitalise the institution post-resolution. The resolution authorities should, on the basis of the resolution strategy chosen by them, duly justify the imposed level of the MREL in particular as regards the need and the level of the requirement referred to in Article 104a of Directive 2013/36/EU in the recapitalisation amount. As such, that level should be composed of the sum of the amount of losses expected due to the write- down and/or conversion at the point of non-viability or in resolution that correspond to the institution's own funds requirements and the recapitalisation amount that allows the institution post- resolution both to meet its own funds requirements necessary for being authorised to pursue its activities under the chosen resolution strategy, and to sustain sufficient market confidence to carry out the activities for which it is authorised. The MREL should be expressed as a percentage of the total risk exposure and leverage ratio measures, and institutions should meet simultaneously the levels resulting from the two measurements. The resolution authority should be able to adjust the recapitalisation amounts in cases duly justified to adequately reflect also increased risks that affect resolvability arising from the resolution group’s business model, funding profile and overall risk profile and therefore in such limited circumstances require that the recapitalisation amounts referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 45c(3) and (4) are exceeded.
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 47 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) To enhance their resolvability, resolution authorities should be able to impose an institution-specific MREL on G- SIIs in addition to the TLAC minimum requirement laid down in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. That institution-specific MREL may onlyshould be imposed where the TLAC minimum requirement is not sufficient to absorb losses and recapitalise a G-SII under the chosen resolution strategy.
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 52 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
(12) Similarly to powers conferred to competent authorities by Directive 2013/36/EU, this Directive should allow resolution authorities to require institutions to meet higher levels of MREL while addressing in a more flexible manner any breaches of those levels, in particular by alleviating the automatic effects of those breaches in the form of limitations to the Maximum Distributable Amounts (MDAs). Resolution authorities should be able to give guidance to institutions to meet additional amounts to cover losses in resolution that are above the level of the own funds requirements as laid down in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Directive 2013/36/EU, and/or to ensure sufficient market confidence in the institution post-resolution. To ensure consistency with Directive 2013/36/EU, guidance to cover additional losses may only be given where the 'capital guidance' has been requested by the competent supervisory authorities in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU and should not exceed the level requested in that guidance. For the recapitalisation amount, the level requested in the guidance to ensure market confidence should enable the institution to continue to meet the conditions for authorisation for an appropriate period of time, including by allowing the institution to cover the costs related to the restructuring of its activities following resolution. The market confidence buffer should not exceed the combined capital buffer requirement under Directive 2013/36/EU unless a higher level is necessary to ensure that, following the event of resolution, the entity continues to meet the conditions for its authorisation for an appropriate period of time. Where an entity consistently fails to have additional own funds and eligible liabilities as expected under the guidance, the resolution authority should be able to require that the amount of the MREL be increased to cover the amount of the guidance. For the purposes of considering whether there is a consistent failure, the resolution authority should take into account the entity's reporting on the MREL as required by this Directive.deleted
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 58 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
(18) The requirement to include a contractual recognition of the effects of the bail-in tool in agreements or instruments creating liabilities governed by the laws of third countries should ensure that those liabilities can be bailed in in the event of resolution. Unless and until statutory recognition frameworks to enable effective cross-border resolution are adopted in all third country jurisdictions, contractual arrangements, when properly drafted and widely adopted, should offer a workable solution. Even with statutory recognition frameworks in place, contractual recognition arrangements should help to reinforce the legal certainty and predictability of cross-border recognition of resolution actions. There might be instances, however, where it is impracticable for institutions to include those contractual terms in agreements or instruments creating certain liabilities, in particular liabilities that are not excluded from the bail-in tool under Directive 2014/59/EU, covered deposits or own funds instruments. It is in particular impracticable for. For example, institutions may, in particular, find it impracticable to include the contractual recognition language in liabilities where relevant third country authorities have informed the institution in writing they will not allow it to include contractual recognition language in agreements or instruments creating liabilities governed by the law of that third country; where it is illegal in the third country for the institutions to include contractual recognition language in agreements or instruments creating liabilities contractual terms ongoverned by the laws of that third country; where the crecogniation of the effects of the bail-in tool, whliabilities is governed by international protocols which the institution has in practice no powere thoso amend; where contractual terms are unlawful in the third countries concerned or where institutions do not have the bargaining powimposed on the institution by virtue of its membership and participation terms of non-EU bodies, whose use is on standard terms for all members and impractical to amend bilaterally; or where to imposehe liability which would be subject to those contractual terms. Resolution authorities should therefore be able to waive the application of the requirementrecognition requirement is contingent on a breach of the contract. Institutions should be able to determine that it is legally or otherwise impracticable to include those contractual terms where those contractual terms would entail disproportionate costs for institutions and the resulting liabilities would not provide significant loss absorbing and recapitalisation capacity in resolution. This waiver should however not be relied upon where a number of agreein liabilities which otherwise fall within the scope of the contractual recognition requirement and that the failure to include the relevant terms does not impede the resolvability of the firm. The competent authority or resolution authority may assess an institution's determination that insertion of this contractual term is impracticable, and require inclusion of the contractual terms if it disagrees with the assessments or liabilities togeconsiders the failure to include ther collectively provide significant loss absorbing and recapitalisation capacity in resolutionntractual term adversely affects the resolvability of the firm. In addition, to ensure that the resolvability of institutions is not affected, liabilities benefitting from waiverwhich fail to include the contractual recognition provisions should not be eligible for MREL.
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 61 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) In order to preserve financial stability, it is important that competent authorities are able to remedy the deterioration of an institution’s financial and economic situation before that institution reaches a point at which authorities have no other alternative than to resolve it. To that end, competent authorities should be granted appropriate early intervention powers. Early intervention powers should include the power to suspend, for the minimum time necessary, certain contractual obligations. That power to suspend should be framed accurately and should be exercised only where that is necessary to establish whether early intervention measures are needed or to determine whether the institution is failing or likely to fail. That power to suspend should however not apply to obligations in relation to the participation in systems designated under Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council18 , central counterparties (CCPs) and central banks including third country CCPs recognised by the European Capital Markets Authority ('ESMA'). It should also not apply to covered deposits. Early intervention powers should comprise the powers already provided for in Directive 2013/36/EU for circumstances other than those considered to be early intervention as well as for situations in which it is considered to be necessary to restore the financial soundness of an institution. __________________ 18 Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems (OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 45).deleted
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 62 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) In order to preserve financial stability, it is important that competentMember States should be able to ensure that resolution authorities are able to remedy the deterioration of an institution’s financial and economic situation after determination that the institution is failing or likely to fail and before that institution reaches a point at which authorities have no other alternative than to resolve it. To that end, competentresolution authorities should be granted appropriate early intervention powers. Early intervention powers should include thable to have available to them appropriate powers to suspend, for the minimum time necessarya maximum of two working days in total, certain contractual obligations. That power to suspend should be framed accurately and should be exercised only where that is necessary to establish whether early intervention measures are needed or to determine whether the institution is failing or likely to failfor determination of point (b) of Article 32(1). That power to suspend should however not apply to obligations in relation to the participation in systems designated under Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council18 , central counterparties (CCPs) and central banks including third country CCPs recognised by the European Capital Markets Authority ('ESMA'). It should also not apply to covered deposits. Early intervention powers should comprise the powers already provided for and financial contracts as defined in Directive 2013/36/EU for circumstances other than those considered to be early intervention as well as for situations in which it is considered to be necessary to restore the financial soundness of an institution4/59/EU. __________________ 18 Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems (OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 45).
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 64 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) It is in the interest of an efficient resolution, and in particular in the interest of avoiding conflicts of jurisdiction, that no normal insolvency proceedings for the failing institution be opened or continued while the resolution authority is exercising its resolution powers or applying the resolution tools, except at the initiative of, or with the consent of, the resolution authority. It is useful and necessary to suspend, for a limited period, certain contractual obligations so that the resolution authority has sufficient time to carry out the valuation and put into practice the resolution tools. That power should be accurately framed and should be exercised only for the minimum time necessary for the valuation or to put resolution tools into practice. That power should however not apply to covered deposits or to obligations in relation to the participation in systems designated under Directive 98/26/EC, CCPs and central banks, including third country CCPs recognised by ESMA. Directive 98/26/EC reduces the risk associated with participation in payment and securities settlement systems, in particular by reducing disruption in the event of the insolvency of a participant in such a system. To ensure that those protections apply appropriately in crisis situations, whilst maintaining appropriate certainty for operators of payment and securities systems and other market participants, Directive 2014/59/EU should be amended to provide that a crisis prevention measure or a crisis management measure should not as such be deemed to be insolvency proceedings within the meaning of Directive 98/26/EC, provided that the substantive obligations under the contract continue to be performed. However, nothing in Directive 2014/59/EU should prejudice the operation of a system designated under Directive 98/26/EC or the right to collateral security guaranteed by that same Directive.deleted
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 65 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) It is in the interest of an efficient resolution, and in particular in the interest of avoiding conflicts of jurisdiction, that no normal insolvency proceedings for the failing institution be opened or continued while the resolution authority is exercising its resolution powers or applying the resolution tools, except at the initiative of, or with the consent of, the resolution authority. It ismay be useful and necessary to suspend, for a limited periodmaximum of two working days in total, certain contractual obligations so that the resolution authority has sufficient time to carry out the valuation and put into practice the resolution tools. That power should be accurately framed and should be exercised only for the minimum time necessary for the valuation or to put resolution tools into practice. That power should however not apply to covered deposits and financial contracts as defined in Directive 2014/59/EU or to obligations in relation to the participation in systems designated under Directive 98/26/EC, CCPs and central banks, including third country CCPs recognised by ESMA. Directive 98/26/EC reduces the risk associated with participation in payment and securities settlement systems, in particular by reducing disruption in the event of the insolvency of a participant in such a system. To ensure that those protections apply appropriately in crisis situations, whilst maintaining appropriate certainty for operators of payment and securities systems and other market participants, Directive 2014/59/EU should be amended to provide that a crisis prevention measure or a crisis management measure should not as such be deemed to be insolvency proceedings within the meaning of Directive 98/26/EC, provided that the substantive obligations under the contract continue to be performed. However, nothing in Directive 2014/59/EU should prejudice the operation of a system designated under Directive 98/26/EC or the right to collateral security guaranteed by that same Directive.
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 79 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 110 a (new)
4a. In Article 2(1), the following point is added: (110 a)‘home resolution authority’ means the group-level resolution authority or the third country resolution authority responsible for implementing the global resolution strategy;
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 80 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 4 b (new)
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 110 b (new)
4b. In Article 2(1), the following point is added: (110 b)‘global resolution strategy’ means the strategy designated in the global resolution plan;
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 81 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 4 c (new)
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 110 c (new)
4c. In Article 2(1), the following point is added: (110 c) 'global resolution plan' means the plan prepared by the home resolution authority for the relevant group;
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 124 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 18
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point i
18. In Article 27(1), the following point (i) is added: ‘(i) Article 29a are complied with, suspend any payment or delivery obligation to which an institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) is a party.’.deleted where the conditions laid down in
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 135 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 19
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 29a
[...]deleted
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 141 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 19
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall establishmay provide that their respective competent authority, after having consulted the resolution authority, can exercise the power referred to in point (i) ofresolution authority has the power to suspend payment or delivery obligations to which an institution or an entity refereed to in points b), c) or d) of Article 1(1) is party when the resolution authority, after the determination that the institution is failing or likely to fail pursuant to Article 327 (1) only where(a) has been made, decides that the exercise of the suspension power is necessary to carry out the assessment provided for in the first sentence ofreach the determination that the conditions under Article 2732 (1) (b) and (c) are met or to makchoose the determination provided for in point (a) of Article 32(1)appropriate resolution actions.
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 145 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 19
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 2
2. The suspension referred to in paragraph 1 shall not exceed the minimum period of time that the competentresolution authority considers necessary to carry out the assessment referred to in point (a) of Article 27(1) or to make the determination referred to in point (a(b) and (c) of Article 32(1) and shall in any event not exceed 52 working days.
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 152 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 19
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 3 – point c a (new)
(c a) financial contracts.
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 156 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 19
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 4
4. When exercising a power under this Article, competentresolution authorities shall have regard to the impact the exercise of that power might have on the orderly functioning of financial markets.
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 161 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 19
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 7
7. Member States shall ensure that competentresolution authorities notify the resolution competent authorities about the exercise of any power referred to in paragraph 1 without delay.
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 162 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 19
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 29a – paragraph 8
8. Member States that make use of the option laid down in Article 32 (2) shall ensure that the suspension power referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article can also be exercised by the resolution authority, after having consulted the competent authority, where the exercise of that suspension power is necessary to make the determination provided for in point (a) of Article 32(1).deleted
2018/01/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 207 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45b – paragraph 2
By way of derogation from point (l) of Article 72a(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, liabilities that arise from debt instruments with derivative features, such as structured notes, shall be included in the amount of own funds and eligible liabilities only where all of the following conditions are met: (a) arising from the debt instrument is known in advance at the time of issuance, is fixed and not affected by a derivative feature; (b) derivative feature, is not subject to any netting agreement and its valuation is not subject to Article 49(3);deleted a given amount of the liability the debt instrument, including its
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 209 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) a given amount of the liability arising from the debt instrument is known in advance at the time of issuance, is fixed and not affected by a derivative feature;deleted
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 212 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the debt instrument, including its derivative feature, is not subject to any netting agreement and its valuation is not subject to Article 49(3);deleted
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 215 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
The liabilities referred to in the first subparagraph shall only be included in the amount of own funds and eligible liabilities for the part that corresponds with the amount referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph.deleted
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 226 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
The resolution authority's decision under this paragraph shall contain the reasons for that decision on the basis of at least the following elements:
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 230 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point a
(a) non-subordinated liabilities referred to in the first and second paragraphs have the same priority ranking in the national insolvency hierarchy as certain liabilities that are excluded from the application of the write-down or conversion powers in accordance with Article 44(2) or Article 44(3); and
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 232 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point c
(c) the amount of subordinated liabilities shall not exceed the amount necessary to ensure that creditors referred to in point (b) shall not incur losses above the level of losses that they would otherwise have incurred in a winding up under normal insolvency proceedings.deleted
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 255 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the entity or its subsidiaries that are institutions, but not resolution entities are recapitalised to a level necessary to enable them to continue to comply with the conditions for authorisation and to maintain sufficient market confidence to carry out the activities for which they are authorised under Directive 2013/36/EU, Directive 2014/65/EU or equivalent legislation ('recapitalisation');
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 267 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Without prejudice to the last subparagraph, for resolution entities, the amount referred to in paragraph 2 shall not exceedbe as a minimum the greater of the following:
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 287 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b – point ii
(ii) a recapitalisation amount that allows the resolution group resulting from resolution to restore the leverage ratio referred to in Article 92(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 atnd any additional amount that the resolution authority considers necessary to sustain market confidence at the resolution group sub-consolidated level.
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 290 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
For the purposes of points (a)(ii) and (b)(ii) of the first subparagraph: (i) the recapitalisation amount shall also include any additional amount that the resolution authority considers necessary to maintain sufficient market confidence after resolution; (ii) the default additional amount shall be equivalent to the combined buffer requirement, as specified in point (6) of Article 128 of Directive 2013/36/EU, which would apply to the institution after the application of resolution tools; (iii) the additional amount required by the resolution authority may be lower than the default amount, if the resolution authority determines that a lower amount would be sufficient to sustain market confidence and ensure both the continued provision of critical economic functions by the institution and the access to funding without recourse to extraordinary financial support other than contributions from resolution financing arrangements, consistently with Article 101 (2) and Article 44(5) and (8); (iv) The assessment of the amount required to support market confidence shall take into account whether the capital position of the institution after the resolution would be appropriate in comparison with the current capital position of peer institutions.
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 293 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
For the purposes of point (a) of Article 45(2), the requirement referred to in Article 45(1) shall be expressed in percentage terms as the amount calculated in accordance with point (a) of this paragraph divided by the total risk exposure amount.deleted
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 295 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59//EU
Article 45c – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
For the purposes of point (b) of Article 45(2), the requirement referred to in Article 45(1) shall be expressed in percentage terms as the amount calculated in accordance with point (b) of this paragraph divided by the leverage ratio exposure measure.deleted
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 312 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
4. Without prejudice to the last subparagraph, for entities that are not themselves resolution entities, the amount referred to in paragraph 2 shall not exceedbe at least equal to the greater of any of the following multiplied by the relevant scalar:
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 328 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
(ii) a recapitalisation amount that allows the entity to restore its leverage ratio referred to in the Article 92(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and any additional amount that the resolution authority considers necessary to sustain sufficient market confidence;
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 330 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23 (new)
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
For the purposes pf point (a) of the first subparagraph, the recapitalisation amount shall also include any additional amount that the resolution authority considers necessary to maintain sufficient market confidence after resolution.
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 331 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
For the purposes of the first subparagraph, 'relevant scalar' means any figure between 0.75 and 0.90 inclusive, as determined by the resolution authority.
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 332 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
For the purposes of point (a) of Article 45(2)(a), the requirement referred to in Article 45(1) shall be expressed in percentage terms as the amount calculated in accordance with point (a) divided by the total risk exposure amount.deleted
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 333 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EC
Article 45c – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
For the purposes of point (b) of Article 45(2)(b), the requirement referred to in Article 45(1) shall be expressed in percentage terms as the amount calculated in accordance with point (b) divided by the leverage ratio exposure measure.deleted
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 347 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 6
6. The resolution authority's decision to impose a minimum requirement of own funds and eligible liabilities under this Article shall contain the reasons for that decision, including a full assessment of the elements referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5.
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 360 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45c – paragraph 8
8. EBA shall draft regulatory technical standards which shall further specify the criteria referred to in paragraph 1 on the basis of which the requirement for own funds and permissible liabilities is to be determined in accordance with this Article. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory standards to the Commission by [1 month after the entry into force]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1090/2010.deleted
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 387 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
[...]deleted
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 422 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The requirement referred to in Article 45(1)of entities referred to in the first paragraph shall be subject toet in accordance with the following conditions:
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 424 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the requirement may be set at 75% to 90% of the requirement calculated in accordance with Article 45 (1) and shall not exceed the contribution of the subsidiary to the consolidated requirement referred to in Article 45f(1).
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 433 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 3 – point a – point i
(i) are issued to and bought by the resolution entity either directly or indirectly through other entities in the same resolution group that bought the liabilities from the entity subject to this Article or by any existing shareholder that is not part of the same resolution group as long as the write down or conversion in accordance with (iv) does not affect the control of the subsidiary by the resolution entity;
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 434 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 3 – point a – point ii
(ii) fulfil the eligibility criteria referred to in Article 72a, except for points (b) and (c) of Article 72b(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013;
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 435 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 3 – point a – point iv
(iv) are subject to the power ofcontain contractual provisions which require that the principal amount of the liabilities be writeten down or conversion in accordance with Articles 59 to 62 that is consistent with the resolution strategy on a permanent basis or the liabilities be converted to Common Equity Tier 1 instruments: (a) by the resolution authority, if the entity meets the conditions for resolution specified in Article 32 (1) (a), (b) and (c) and the home resolution authority consents to or does not object to the conversion and/or write down within 24 hours of notification by the host of its intention to convert and/or write down; or (b) automatically, if the home resolution group, notably by not affecting the control of the subsidiary by the resolution entity. authority exercises resolution powers or initiates third country resolution proceedings to implement the global resolution strategy in respect of an entity which is part of the same resolution group as the issuer;
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 447 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 4 – point c
(c) the guarantee is collateralised through a financial collateral arrangement as defined in point (a) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2002/47/EC for at least 50 per cent of its amountits full amount following appropriate conservative haircuts;
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 458 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) both the subsidiary and the resolution entity or its parent undertaking are subject to authorisation and supervision by the same Member Statecompetent authority;
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 463 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 5 – point b
(b) the resolution entity or the highest level group entity, where different from the resolution entity, in the Member State of the subsidiary, complies on a sub- consolidated basis with the requirement referred to in Article 45f;
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 464 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 5 – point c
(c) there is no current or foreseen material practical or legal impediment to the prompt transfer of own funds or repayment of liabilities by the resolution entity or its parent undertaking to the subsidiary in respect of which a determination has been made in accordance with Article 59(3), in particular when resolution action is taken in respect of the resolution entity or the parent undertaking;
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 466 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 5 – point d
(d) the resolution entity or the parent undertaking satisfies the competent authority regarding the prudent management of the subsidiary and has declared, with the consent of the competent authority, that it guarantees the commitments entered into by the subsidiary, or the risks in the subsidiary are of no significance;
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 467 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 5 – point e
(e) the risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures of the resolution entity or the parent undertaking cover the subsidiary;
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 469 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 23
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 45g – paragraph 5 – point f
(f) the resolution entity or the parent undertaking holds more than 50 % of the voting rights attached to shares in the capital of the subsidiary or has the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the management body of the subsidiary;
2018/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 516 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 24
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 55 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
The requirement referred to in paragraph 1 may not apply where the resolution authority of a Member State determines all of the following conditions are met:
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 520 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 24
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 55 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) the resolution authority of a Member State determines that the liabilities or instruments referred to in the first subparagraph can be subject to write down and conversion powers by the resolution authority of a Member State pursuant to the law of the third country or to a binding agreement concluded with that third country or;
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 524 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 24
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 55 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) that it is legally, contractuan institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) determines both that it is legally, or economicallyotherwise impracticable for anthat institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) to include such a contractual term in certain liabilities, and, that the failure to include the relevant contractual recognition language does not impede the resolvability of the institution;
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 527 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 24
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 55 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) that a waiver from the requirement referred to in paragraph 1 for certain liabilities does not impede the resolvability of the institutions and entities referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 1(1).deleted
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 531 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 24
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 55 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The liabilities referred to in points (b) and (c) shall not include debt instruments which are unsecured liabilities, Additional Tier 1 instruments, and Tier 2 instruments. Moreover, they shall be senior to the liabilities which count towards the minimum requirement for own funds and permissible liabilitiesshall be senior to the liabilities with the ranking referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 108(2) and in Article 108 (3) and, if debt instruments, must be secured.
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 541 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 24
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 55 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards in order to specify theguidelines providing examples of conditions under which it would be legally, contractually or economically or otherwise impracticable for an institution or entity referred to in point (b), (c) or (d) of Article 1(1) to include the contractual term referred to paragraph 1 in certain liabilities, and under which a waiver from the requirement referred to in paragraph 1 would not impede the resolvability of that institution or entity.
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 544 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 24
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 55 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commissionissue the guidelines referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 12 months after entry into force of this amending Directive.
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 545 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 24
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 55 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3
Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 552 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 25
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 63 – paragraph 1 – point n
25. In Article 63(1), the following point (n) is added: ‘(n) the power to suspend payment or delivery obligations to which the institution or entity referred to in paragraph 1 is party when the resolution authority, after having consulted the competent authority, decides that the exercise of the suspension power is necessary for the effective application of one or more resolution tools or for the purposes of the valuation pursuant to Article 36.’deleted
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 554 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 26
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 63 –paragraphs 1a and 1b
26. In Article 63(1), the following paragraphs 1a and 1b are inserted: ‘1a. The period of the suspension pursuant to paragraph 1(n) shall not exceed the minimum period of time that the resolution authority considers necessary for the effective application of one or more resolution tools or for the purposes of the valuation pursuant to Article 36 and in any event shall not exceed 5 working days. 1b. 1(n) shall not apply to: (a) owed to systems or operators of systems desdeleted Any suspension under paragraph payment and delivery oblignated for the purposes of Directive 98/26/EC, central counterparties and third country central counterparties recognised by ESMA pursuant to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, and central banks; (b) eligible claims for the purpose of Directive 97/9/EC (c) Article 2(1)(94).’ions covered deposits as defined in
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 560 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 26
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 63 – paragraph 1a
1a. The period of the suspension pursuant to paragraph 1(n) shall not exceed the minimum period of time that the resolution authority considers necessary for the effective application of one or more resolution tools or for the purposes of the valuation pursuant to Article 36 and in any event shall not exceed 52 working days.
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 562 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 26
(c) covered deposits as defined in Article 2(1)(94). and;
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 563 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 26
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 63 – paragraph 1b – point c a (new)
(c a) financial contracts as defined in Article 2 (1) (100) of Directive 2014/59/EU.
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 564 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 27
Directive 2014/59/EU
Articles 59 and 60 – titles
27. In the titles of Article 59 and Article 60 "and eligible liabilities" is inserdeleted.
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 565 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 28
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 59 – paragraph 1
28. In Article 59, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: ‘1. convert relevant capital instruments and eligible liabilities may be exercised either: (a) or (b) action, where the conditions for resolution specified in Articles 32 and 33 are met. The power to write down or convert eligible liabilities independently of resolution action may be exercised only in relation to eligible liabilities that meet the conditions referred to in Article 45g(3)(a), except the condition related to the remaining maturity of liabilities.’.deleted The power to write down or independently of resolution action; in combination with a resolution
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 567 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 29
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 59 – paragraphs 2 and 3
29. "Capital instruments" in Article 59(2) and (3) is replaced with "capital instruments and liabilities referred to in paragraph 1".deleted
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 568 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 30
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 59 – paragraphs 4 and 10
30. "Capital instruments" in Article 59(4) and (10) is replaced with "capital instruments or liabilities referred to in paragraph 1".deleted
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 569 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 31
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 60 – paragraph 1 – point d
31. In Article 60(1), the following point (d) is added: ‘(d) the principal amount of eligible liabilities referred to in Article 59(1) is written down or converted into Common Equity Tier 1 instruments or both, to the extent required to achieve the resolution objectives set out in Article 31 or to the extent of the capacity of the relevant eligible liabilities, whichever is lower.’.deleted
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 570 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 31
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 60 – paragraph 1 – point d
31. In Article 60(1), the following point (d) is added: ‘(d) the principal amount of eligible liabilities referred to in Article 59(1) is written down or converted into Common Equity Tier 1 instruments or both, to the extent required to achieve the resolution objectives set out in Article 31 or to the extent of the capacity of the relevant eligible liabilities, whichever is lower.’.deleted
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 571 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 32
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 60 – paragraph 2
32. In Article 60, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: ‘2. relevant capital instrument or a eligible liability is written down: (a) amount shall be permanent, subject to any write up in accordance with the reimbursement mechanism in Article 46(3); (b) relevant capital instrument and liability referred to in Article 59(1) shall remain under or in connection with that amount of the instrument, which has been written down, except for any liability already accrued, and any liability for damages that may arise as a result of an appeal challenging the legality of the exercise of the write-down power; (c) holder of the relevant capital instruments and liabilities referred to in Article 59(1) other than in accordance with paragraph 3.’.deleted Where the principal amount of a the reduction of that principal no liability to the holder of the no compensation is paid to any
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 572 #

2016/0362(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 33
Directive 2014/59/EU
Article 60 – paragraph 3
33. In Article 60(3), "the relevant capital instruments" is replaced by "the relevant capital instruments and liabilities referred to in Article 59(1)".deleted
2018/02/01
Committee: ECON
Amendment 493 #

2016/0360A(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 40
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Article 92 a – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) a risk-based ratio of 18%, representing the own funds and eligible liabilities of the institution expressed as a percentage of the total risk exposure amount calculated in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 92(3) and (4);
2018/02/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 501 #

2016/0360A(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 40
(b) within the two years following the date on which the resolution authority has applied the bail-iresolution tools in accordance with Directive 2014/59/EU;
2018/02/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 508 #

2016/0360A(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 40
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Article 92 b – subparagraph 1
IResolution authorities shall ensure that institutions that are material subsidiaries of non-EU G-SIIs and that are not resolution entities shall be required at all times satisfy a requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities equal toin an amount determined by the resolution authority between 75% and 90% of the requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities laid down in Article 92a.
2018/02/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 513 #

2016/0360A(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 40
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Article 92 b – subparagraph 2
For the purposes of compliance with paragraph 1, Additional Tier 1, Tier 2 and eligible liabilities instruments shall only count where they are held by the parent undertaking of the institution in a third country.. (either directly or indirectly via subsidiaries);
2018/02/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 80 #

2016/0221(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) The Communication on the Capital Markets Union of 30 September 201523 is an important element of the Investment Plan. It aims at reducing fragmentation in the financial markets and increasing supply of capital to businesses, from inside and outside the Union, through the establishment of a genuine single capital market. The Communication specifies that Regulation (EU) No 345/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 346/2013 need to be amended to ensure that the frameworks are best able to support investment in SMEs. _________________ 23 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Action Plan on Building a Capital Markets Union (COM(2015)468 final).
2017/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 88 #

2016/0221(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) Due to their long-term and illiquid nature, venture capital funds are not directly suitable for retail investors other than those described in Article 6 of this Regulation. However, in the context of the next review of the Regulation, the Commission could investigate whether it would be beneficial to create an additional voluntary option within the EuVECA regime for fund managers who wish to market to retail investors. Such an option should only apply to those fund managers who decide to market to pure retail investors and EuVECA fund managers who market their funds solely under Article 6 should not be subject to these provisions. Likewise it may be appropriate to extend the social entrepreneurship label to certain crowdfunding and microfinance entities with a high social impact.
2017/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 105 #

2016/0221(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) Registration procedures should be simple and cost-effective. Therefore, a registration of a manager in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 345/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 346/2013 should also serve the purpose of the registration referred to in Directive 2011/61/EU. Registration decisions and failures to register under Regulation (EU) No 345/2013 or Regulation (EU) No 346/2013 should, where appropriate, be subject to judicial review.
2017/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 113 #

2016/0221(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) It is necessary to emphasise and clarify that the prohibition for the host Member State to impose requirements or administrative procedures in relation to the marketing of qualifying venture capital funds and qualifying social entrepreneurship funds in its territory includes the prohibition to impose fees and other charges on the managers of those funds.
2017/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 115 #

2016/0221(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) Regulation (EU) No 345/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 346/2013 now require that managers of qualifying venture capital funds and qualifying social entrepreneurship funds have sufficient own funds at all times. To ensure a consistent understanding across the Union of what constitutes sufficient own funds for thosehis requirement given the nature of these funds, the sophistication of the investor as well as the separation between the fund and fund managers, the European Supervisory Authority (‘ESMA’) should be required to draw up draft regulatory technical standards which prescribe the methodologies to determine what constitutes sufficient own fundmay be deemed excessive. Another option would be to set a reasonable initial capital requirement of below EUR 30 000 for all funds using these labels as is currently seen in some Member States.
2017/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 148 #

2016/0221(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EU) No 345/2013
Article 10 – paragraph 3
3. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the methodologies to determine what constitutes sufficient own funds. Those methodologies shall: (a) distinguish between what constitutes sufficient own funds for internally managed qualifying venture capital funds and sufficient own funds for managers of qualifying venture capital funds which are external managers; (b) take into account the size and internal organisation of the managers referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 2 in order to ensure neutral conditions of competition between those managers and managers referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article; (c) ensure that the amounts resulting from the application of those methodologies do not exceed the amounts laid down in Article 9 of Directive 2011/61/EU. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [18 months after the date of entry into application of this Regulation]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.;deleted
2017/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 268 #

2016/0221(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This Regulation shall apply as of [3 months after its entry into force], with the following exceptions: (a) in the case of managers of qualifying venture capital funds and qualifying social entrepreneurship funds existing on [date of publication in the OJ]: (i) this Regulation applies from 18 months following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union; and (ii) points 3 and 5 of paragraph 1 of Article 1 and points 3 and 5 of paragraph 1 of Article 2 shall not apply in relation to those existing funds, during their existing terms; (b) the following provisions of this Regulation shall apply from [6 months after its entry into force]: (i) points 1, 2(c), 5, 6 and 9 of paragraph 1 of Article 1; and (ii) points 1, 2(b), 5, 6 and 9 of paragraph 1 of Article 2.
2017/01/31
Committee: ECON
Amendment 10 #

2016/0110(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 b (new)
(4a) The activities and performance of EFRAG do not appear to have been disadvantaged by it being granted funding over a shorter timeframe than that of PIOB and the IFRS Foundation. It is recognised that there is a need to balance the objectives of EFRAG accountability with organisational continuity and planning.
2016/09/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 2 #

2015/2113(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Strongly believes that a long-term and resilient Energy Union should be based on cost effectiveness, increased energy efficiency, renewable energyenergy conservation, renewable energy, cleaner fuel technologies, interconnection, with particular attention to European islandsislands within the EU, improved self- sufficiency, co-operation and cbooperationsting internal energy production based on indigenous energy resources;
2015/08/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 14 #

2015/2113(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Notes thatWelcomes the inclusion of energy chapters in trade agreements canwhich should aim at improveing access to energy resources and foreign markets both with established long term partners and new prospective partner countries in such areas as, but not limited to, Central Asia, North Africa and the Americas; calls for coherence between the EU's trade policy and the principles of EU energy policy in this regard;
2015/08/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 21 #

2015/2113(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that EU trade policy should aim to increase energy security in line with Article 194 TFEU and diversify the European energy mix and, reduce import dependencying dependency on single points of supply and transit, while respecting the relevant division of competences between the EU and its Member States; stresses that the reducedtion of dependence on one supplier should not lead to an increased in dependence on another;
2015/08/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 24 #

2015/2113(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes that that a key long term strategic priority of the EU should be to promote global governance initiatives and internationally agreed rules in order to decrease international tensions and improve legal stability in this area, welcomes the work done by the International Energy Forum but believes that a more prominent role should be played by the WTO, with a view to ensuring market transparency and reducing abuse and manipulation of the market;
2015/08/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 30 #

2015/2113(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that rationalising energy demand and promoting sustainable and indigenous energy sources available in the EU are among the most effective tools for reducing dependency on external energy dependency from volatile international energy suppliers and achieving EU climate objectives;
2015/08/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 45 #

2015/2113(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights the importance trade can play in the promotion and development of future-oriented energy technology, particularly regarding energy storage and transport and the development of international standards for energy efficiency, stresses that EU trade policy should aim to eliminate tariff and non- tariff barriers to trade in innovative energy technologies, allowing for stable, predictable and transparent trade;
2015/08/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 49 #

2015/2113(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Welcomes the negotiations for a Green Goods Initiative between the EU and 13 other WTO Members covering products, services and technologies that contribute to green growth, environmental protection, climate action and sustainable development, calls for the completion of talks by the end of 2015 at the WTO Ministerial in Nairobi;
2015/08/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 64 #

2015/2113(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Member States to increase, where appropriate, their cooperation on the information exchange mechanism on intergovernmental agreements with third countries in the field of energy; in addition, calls on the Commission, furthermore, to explore the options available for the joint negotiation of energy contracts with external suppliers on behalf of the EU, but reiterates that assistance should only come when specifically requested by one or more Member States;.
2015/08/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 147 #

2015/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Article 255 – paragraph 8 a (new)
(8a) EBA shall develop draft regulatory standards to specify in greater detail the conditions to allow institutions to calculate KIRB for the underlying pools of securitisation in accordance with paragraph 4, in particular with regard to: (a) internal credit policy and models for calculating KIRB for securitisations; (b) use of different risk factors on the underlying pool to estimate PD and LGD; and (c) use of proxy data; and (d) due diligence requirements to monitor the actions and policies of receivables sellers. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory standards to the Commission by one year after entry into force of this Regulation. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to this paragraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2016/09/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 148 #

2015/0225(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013
Article 257 – paragraph 2
(2) By derogation from paragraph 1, institutions shall only use the final legal maturity of the tranche to determine its maturity (MT) in accordance with point (b) of paragraph 1 where the contractual payments due under the tranche are conditional or dependent upon the actual performance of the underlying exposures.deleted
2016/09/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 36 #

2014/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13 a (new)
(13a) Since the adoption of the Regulation, international capital flows have both intensified and gained in complexity. The increased use of special purpose vehicles and legal constructions for channelling capital flows have made it more difficult to monitor such flows in order to ensure their adequate traceability and to avoid double or multiple accounting. The provisions of Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 should therefore be updated so as to improve transparency and granularity concerning BOP, ITS and FDI by enhancing reporting and publication requirements to take advantage of, but not limited to, recent innovations, such as the global legal entity identifier (GLEI), which forms part of the OECD’s proposals for improving reporting on financial account information, as well as by using recent legal innovations such as the registries of ultimate beneficial ownership established in the framework of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive
2015/05/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 37 #

2014/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13 b (new)
(13b) Where methodologically possible, the statistics produced in the context of Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 should make it possible to distinguish greenfield FDI from FDI resulting in takeovers which for a given period do not increase the gross capital formation in the Member State or do not increase the working capital of the economic unit concerned by the change in ownership
2015/05/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 44 #

2014/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 184/2005
Article 3 – paragraph 1
(1a) In Article 3, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: 1. Member States shall collect the information required pursuant to this Regulation using all the sources they consider relevant and appropriate. These may include, but are not limited to, administrative data sources such as business registers including the central registers of information on the ultimate beneficial owners of corporate and other legal entities referred to in the Anti- Money Laundering Directive xxx or the GLEI established by the OECD and the databases established in the framework of the Coordinated Direct Investment Survey (CDIS) initiative of the IMF.
2015/05/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 48 #

2014/0194(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 184/2005
Article 5
(2a) Article 5 is replaced by the following Article 5 Data flows 1. The statistics to be produced shall be grouped for transmission to the Commission (Eurostat) according to the following data flows: (a) balance of payments euro indicators; (b) balance of payments quarterly statistics; (c) international trade in services; (d) foreign direct investment (FDI) flows; (e) FDI positions. The data flows2. Where methodologically possible the statistics to be produced shall aggregate FDI outflows on the basis of the country of incorporation of the ultimate beneficial owner of the economic unit controlling the outflow. 3. Where methodologically possible the statistics to be produced shall differentiate foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows between flows resulting in greenfield investments by an increase in gross capital formation or an increase in working capital of an economic unit from takeovers which result only in a change in ownership of an economic unit over the yearly reference period. 4. The statistics produced in conformity with paragraphs 1 to 3 shall be transmitted to the Commission (Eurostat). 5. The data flows referred to in paragraph 1 shall be as further specified in Annex I.
2015/05/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 101 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
(3 a) Since the publication of the HLEG the Union and its Member States have adopted a vast variety of legislation aiming at breaking the link between sovereign and banks to avoid future bail- outs. In this context it is crucial to restore resolvability and liability of credit institutions. A structural reform of the banking sector can install transparency and eliminate cross subsidisation of trading activities by deposits eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 2014/49/EU1a. To assure a credible bail-in and, thus, a liability for risks and losses, significantly higher capital requirements than under current regulation are needed. The Financial Stability Board's proposal of a Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity represents a first step into this direction. __________________ 1aDirective 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on deposit-guarantee schemes. OJ L 173, 12.06.2014, p.149.
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 227 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)
(g a) to refute any market assumption that large credit institutions benefit from an implicit government subsidy.
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 238 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(b a) the introduction of a liquidity transfer pricing mechanism to eliminate cross subsidisation of trading activities by deposits eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 2014/49/EU1a; __________________ 1aDirective 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on deposit-guarantee schemes. OJ L 173, 12.06.2014, p.149
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 242 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) any credit institution or an EU parent, including all its branches and subsidiaries irrespective of where they are located, when it or its EU parent is identified as a global systemically important institution (G-SIIs) in application of Article 131 of Directive 2013/36/EU;
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 265 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) EU branches of credit institutions established in third countries or financial holding companies or subsidiaries of credit institutions established in third countries if they are subject to a legal framework deemed equivalent in accordance with Article 27(1);
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 266 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) building societies or credit unions.
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 268 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Chapter III of this regulation shall not apply to any entity or EU parent where qualifying deposits held within the Union in a credit institution or credit institutions are less than EUR 50 billion.
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 274 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 4
4. ‘proprietary trading’ means using own capital or borrowed money to take positions inenter into any type of transaction to purchase, sell or otherwise acquire or dispose of any financial instrument or commodities for the sole purpose of making a profit for own account, and without any connection to actual or anticipated client activity or for the purpose of hedging the entity’s risk as result of actual or anticipated client activity, through the use of desks, units, divisions or individual traders specifically dedicated to such position taking and profit making, including through dedicated web- based proprietary trading platforms;
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 289 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 16
16. ‘core credit institution’ means a credit institution that at the minimum takes deposits eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 94/19/EC33 ; __________________ 33Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, OJ L 135, 31.05.1994 pages 0005 to 0014.qualifying deposits;
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 291 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 16 a (new)
16 a. "qualifying deposits" are deposits eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 2014/49/EU1a, excluding deposits from individuals who have held assets to the value of at least €250,000 for a period of at least 12 months and excluding deposits from large undertakings with income of not less than €6.5m, a balance sheet not less than €3.25m, or not less than 50 employees. __________________ 1aDirective 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on deposit-guarantee schemes. OJ L 173, 12.06.2014, p.149
2015/02/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 342 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The restrictions laid down in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall not apply with regard to closed-ended and unAIFs, which are not significantly leveraged AIFs as defined in Directive 2011/61/EU where those AIFs are established in the Union or, if they are not established in the Union, they are marketed in the Union according to Articles 35 or 40 of Directive 2011/61/EU ,and Article 111 of the Regulation 231/2013 to qualifying venture capital funds as defined in Article 3(b) of Regulation (EU) No 345/2013, to qualifying social entrepreneurship funds as defined in Article 3(b) of Regulation (EU) No 346/2013, and to AIFs authorized as ELTIFs in accordance with Regulation (EU) No [XXX/XXXX].
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 355 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7
Without prejudice to the remuneration rules laid down in Directive 2013/36/EU, the remuneration policy of the entities referred to in Article 3 shall be designed and implemented in such a way that it does not, directly or indirectly, encourage or reward the carrying out by any staff member of activities prohibited in Article 6(1).Article 7 deleted Rules on remuneration
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 372 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) taking deposits that are eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council40 ; __________________ 40Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (OJ L 135, 31/05/1994, pages 0005 to 0014).qualifying deposits;
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 425 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the competent authority may decide not to review the activities of any credit institution for the purposes of this Chapter, provided that: (a) the core credit institution shall be statutorily prevented from engaging in the regulated activity of dealing in investments as principal and holding trading assets, with limited exceptions to allow the core credit institution to undertake risk-mitigating activities for the purpose of prudently managing its capital, liquidity and funding and to provide limited risk management services to customers; or (b) if the core credit institution belongs to a group, it shall be legally separated from group entities that engage in the regulated activity of dealing in investments as principal or hold trading assets and meets the following conditions: (i) it is able to make decisions independently of other group entities; (ii) it has a management body that is independent of other group entities and independent of the credit institution itself; (iii)it is subject to capital and liquidity requirements in its own right; (iv) it may not enter into contracts or transactions with other group entities other than on terms similar to those referred to in Article 13(7). Separation or restrictions under national legislation must be achieved on a timetable comparable to separation under this Regulation.
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 495 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Where the competent authority concludes that, following the assessment referred to in Article 9(1), the limits and conditions linked to the metrics referred to in points (a) to (h) of Article 9(2) and specified in the delegated act referred to in paragraph 5 are met, and it therefore deems that there is a threat to the resolvability or the financial stability of the core credit institution or to the Member State or the Union financial system as a whole, taking into account the objectives referred to in Article 1, it shall, no later than two months after the finalisation of that assessment, start the procedure leading to a decision as referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3.
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 513 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Notwithstanding a decision by the competent authority to require a credit institution to not carry out trading activities listed in its conclusions, in due course and with due respect to market conditions, the competent authority may require capital ratios or liquidity requirements significantly larger than under CRR/CRD IV.
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 526 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Unless the core credit institution demonstrates, within the time limit referred to in the first subparagraph, to the satisfaction of the competent authority, that the reasons leading to the conclusions are not justified, the competent authority shall adopt a decision addressing the core credit institution and, requiring it to not to carry out the trading activities specified in those conclusions. TIf a decision by the competent authority shall state the reasons for its decision and publicly disclose itdoes not include a requirement to stop certain activities, the core credit institution shall implement measures necessary to protect retail depositors eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 2014/49//EU by addressing any cross- subsidisation of risky trading activity through the introduction of a liquidity transfer pricing mechanism according to next subparagraph.
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 527 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
The liquidity transfer pricing mechanism must ensure the full and fair remuneration of deposits eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 2014/49/EU used to fund trading activities. The mechanism shall ensure the fair allocation of specific liquidity costs to trading activities as far as is possible at an individual transaction level. The mechanism shall ensure the full and fair remuneration of deposits eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 2014/49/EU based on the prevailing market rates for wholesale funding and terms of funding transactions between third party entities.
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 528 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 b (new)
The mechanism shall be developed and administered by an area of the credit institution independent of the trading function. The competent authority shall review and monitor the operation of the liquidity transfer mechanism to ensure all liquidity costs, benefits and risks are properly captured.
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 538 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4 a (new)
For the purpose of the conclusions referred to in paragraphs 1 or 2 and any decision referred to in this paragraph, the competent authority shall take account of the activities of any EU branches of credit institutions established in third countries and of the activities of subsidiaries of a credit institution or EU Parent within scope of this Regulation where that subsidiary is legally constituted outside of the EU. The competent authority shall not address the conclusions referred to in paragraphs 1 or 2 and any decision referred to in this paragraph, in whole or in part, to the EU branches of credit institutions established in third countries or to the subsidiaries of a credit institution or EU Parent within scope of this Regulation where that subsidiary is legally constituted outside of the EU.
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 575 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to the remuneration rules laid down in Directive 2013/36/EU, the remuneration policy applicable to staff of the core credit institution engaged in hedging activities shall: (a) aim at preventing any residual or hidden proprietary trading activities, whether disguised as risk management or otherwise; (b) reflect the legitimate hedging objectives of the core credit institution as a whole and ensure that remuneration awarded is not directly determined by reference to the profits generated by such activities but takes account of the overall effectiveness of the activities in reducing or mitigating risk. The management body shall ensure that the remuneration policy of the core credit institution is in line with the provisions set out in the first subparagraph, acting on the advice of the risk committee, where such a committee is established in accordance with Article 76(3) of Directive 2013/36/EU.deleted
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 687 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) take deposits that are eligible under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme in accordance with Directive 94/19/EC except where the said deposit relates to the exchange of collateral relating to trading activities;qualifying deposits
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 694 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21
[...]deleted
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 772 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3
3. Competent authorities shall have the power to request an EU parent, that is not a regulated entity but that has at least one subsidiary which is a regulated entity, to ensure that its regulated subsidiaries comply with this Regulation.deleted
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 779 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
When the subsidiary of an EU parent is established in another Member State and supervised by a different supervisor than the EU parent and when the subsidiary is significant in accordance with Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, the consolidating supervisor shall consult endeavour to reach agreement with the competent authority of the home Member State of the significant subsidiary with regard to any decision to be made by the consolidating supervisor pursuapursuant to this Regulation. Where it is not possible to reach such agreement, the decisions on the EU parent and the subsidiary shall be taken independently. Where it is not possible to reach such agreement, to this Regulationhe decisions on the EU parent and the subsidiary shall be taken independently.
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 783 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
This Regulation shall not extend the powers of the ECB beyond the limits established in Regulation 1024/2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, either in respect of territories covered, institutions within scope, or otherwise.
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 787 #

2014/0020(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 4
4. The EBA shall establishmay conclude non-binding framework co-operation arrangements with the relevant competent authorities of third countries whose legal and supervisory frameworks have been considered equivalent to this Regulation in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 3. Such arrangements shall specify at least a minimum information sharing regime between relevant competent authorities of both jurisdictions. Such arrangements shall not make provision in relation to specific institutions and shall not impose legal obligations upon Member States. Competent authorities shall conclude non-binding cooperation arrangements in line with the EBA framework arrangement with the relevant third- country authorities referred to in the previous subparagraph. This Article shall not prevent Member States or their competent authorities from concluding bilateral or multilateral arrangements with third countries in accordance with Article 33 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.
2015/02/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 130 #

2013/2175(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Believes that sound fair value accounting principles for institutional investors can enhance the transparency and consistency of financial information; stresses that those principles should avoid creating incentives for pro-cyclical strategies; notes the on-going debate in the EU and elsewhere, including Japan, around the use of fair value accounting, particularly mark-to-market and mark-to- model, and its role in exacerbating market instability as a consequence of its inherent pro-cyclicality; urges the International Accounting Standards Board and other relevant stakeholders to complete its project updating IAS 39 on loan-loss provisioning, but also questions whether current exposure drafts tackle the deeper problems associated with the 'capital markets' approach to accounting; urges the International Accounting Standards Board to recognise the central importance of prudence in the revision of its Conceptual Framework; notes ESMA's recent conclusions that EU bank accounts completed in accordance with IFRS are opaque and not comparable, in spite of these being two core reasons for shifting from national GAAPs to IFRS to enhance the Single Market; calls on the Commission to thoroughly investigate the role international financial reporting standards have had and continue to have not only on the transparency and comparability of banks' balance sheets, but also on their impact on management behaviour and corporate governance in banks and other financial institutions;
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 5 #

2013/2145(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Insists, however, in the light of the continuing problematic fiscal and economic situation in the Member States, that any desired increase in appropriations should be offset with commensurate reductions, redeployments or reallocations elsewhere in the budget, allowing for the principle of budget neutrality to be respected;
2013/08/02
Committee: INTA
Amendment 7 #

2013/2145(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. RegretNotes the sharp decrease in commitments for the Instrument for Macro-Financial Assistance and the European Neighbourhood Instrument, which will undermine the EU's capacity to stabilise and assist its neighbouringunderlines that this reduction should not lead to a diminishment in the capacity of the EU to enhance economic and trading relations with third countries, including those with whom it negotiates deep and comprehensive free trade agreements (DCFTAs);
2013/08/02
Committee: INTA
Amendment 12 #

2013/2145(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that the drop in the annual ceiling for possible use of the European Globalisation Fund for 2014-2020 is bound to reduce the effectiveness of this fund, the purpose of which is to help workers affected by globalisation and trade agreements;Deleted
2013/08/02
Committee: INTA
Amendment 3 #

2013/2127(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Believes that, in order to promote financial participation aimed at creating a new form of company financing and enabling employees to be more connected to the company that employs them, share capital subscriptions or specific debt securities (bonds) shouldmay be offered; takes the view that the capital subscriptions should be voluntary for the employee, either individually or in a group as well as for the company;
2013/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 5 #

2013/2127(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Is of the view that EFP can also be a form of direct remuneration or bonus for the employee, through capital participation or specific bonds issued as a type of deferred compensation, depending on the financial product used and the type of company;
2013/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 11 #

2013/2127(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Believes that sovereign state taxation should affect income taxMember States should be able to adjust tax rates to take into account the benefits of introducing EFPs, by bringing the cost of salariesremuneration closer to what is actually received by employees, considering among other variables the bond’s market value, its nominal value, its carrying value in the company’s financial statements, the possibility of it being deferred over time and/or the possible profitability of the bond issued;
2013/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 12 #

2013/2127(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 4
Takes the view that subscriptions by former workers whose contract has been terminated before time due to a company crisis (who thus intend to finance voluntarily, in association, the initiation or resumption of business by the beneficiary company, with their savings or unemployment benefits) should be directed towards the re-employment of those former workers; considers that, in any case, the relevant legislation should be different for listed companies;Deleted
2013/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 22 #

2013/2127(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Notes that, as indicated before the financial crisis, remuneration policies that encourage excessively risky behaviour by employees can undermine the sound and efficient management of credit institutions and investment funds;
2013/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 24 #

2013/2127(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Believes that any measure relating to the financial participation of employees in company income should be sustainable in the long term and be on a voluntary basis, especially for SMEs. Emphasizes that despite understanding the utility of EFP schemes, this area is not a competence of the EU.
2013/10/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 11 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas in the five years since the 2008 global economic and financial crisis, the EU economy has remained in a state of recession, with Member States providing subsidies and implicit guarantees to banks through such schemes as the deposit guarantee scheme as well as liquidity provision from central banks and outright nationalisation of banks which are at risk of insolvency;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 22 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas excessive risk-taking, excessive leverage, inadequate capital and liquidity requirements and, the excessive complexity and consequent opacity of the overall banking system were at the rootcauses of the financial crisis, resulting in markets not functioning properly;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 27 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the loss of prudence in accounting standards as a consequence of the adoption of international financial reporting standards played and continues to play a central role in allowing banks to give a view of their accounts that was and is not always true and fair with particular reference to IAS 39 on loan loss provisioning;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 36 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas the current post-crisis weakness in the structurstate of European markets, in particular the weak financial state of EUmany banks, demonstrates the need for further reform in order to serveensure that the banks do not benefit from being 'too big to fail', ensuring that the markets once again can begin serving the wider needs of the economy;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 47 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the recent bailout package in Cyprus originally included a tax on all bank deposits, thereby undermining confidence in the deposit guarantee scheme of that country;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 51 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas research by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) suggests that once bank assets exceed a country's GDP, its financial sector has a negative impact on economic growth, as human and financial resources are drained from other areas of economic activity6 ; also notes that the ability for any country to withstand the fallout from a collapse of such a systemically relevant bank will be called into question and that the fiscal health of the country in question will be severely undermined;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 66 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas the financial crisis demonstrated the problem of cross- contamination between banks' retail and investment activities, whilst also noting that 'risky' activities took place in both retail and investment arms of banks;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 85 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas, since it is neither feasible nor desirable to effect a bank separation post- failure, an effective recovery and resolution regime is needed in order to provide authorities with a credible set of tools, including a bridge bank, so that they can intervene sufficiently early and quickly in an unsound or failing bank to enable its essential financial and economic functions to continue, while minimising the impact on financial stability and ensuring that appropriate losses are imposed on the shareholders and creditors who bore the risk of investing in the institution in question, and not by taxpayers or depositors; whereas such recovery and resolution plans are not necessary for other types of private company, suggesting that there is a specific problem with the market in financial services; whereas if the market were functioning properly, financial institutions would be able to fail without any need for a recovery and resolution plan; whereas therefore the problem lies within the structures and interconnections between financial institutions;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 98 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas the EU banking sector remains highly concentrated: 14 European banking groups are global systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs), and 15 European banks own 43 % of the market (in terms of asset size) and represent 150 % of EU-27 GDP, with individual Member States citing even higher ratios; whereas the ratio of bank size to GDP has tripled since 2000; whereas there is a huge degree of diversity in the European banking sector both in terms of size and business model;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 99 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas currently the state guarantees and implicitly subsidises the whole financial system via liquidity support, deposit guarantee schemes and nationalisation programmes; whereas it is only appropriate for the state to guarantee essential services that ensure the smooth running of the real economy, such as payment systems and overdraft facilities; whereas structural reform is simply about ensuring the state only guarantees essential services and that non essential services are priced by the market;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 121 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Takes the view that while current proposals for reforms of EU banking sector rules (including the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation, the Recovery and Resolution Directive, the Single Supervisory Mechanism, the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive and shadow banking initiatives) are vital, a more fundamental reform of the banking structure is essential, and complementary to the other proposals; notes that the above initiatives do not tackle the issue of 'too big to fail' but are primarily about strengthening existing structures; suggests that further reform is required in order to allow markets to function, which would in turn allow banks to be resolved without state intervention.
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 133 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. notes that consumer confidence in the financial services sector can only be restored if banks act in the interests of their customers, and not solely in the interests of their shareholders and employees; emphasises the need for customers to be alerted to the fact that their money is not kept in the bank itself but lent out to other enterprises, companies and governments; notes that on this basis, deposits are in fact investments in the bank and that retail investors must have this made clear to them when opening deposit accounts;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 159 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Reminds the Commission of the warning issued by the European Banking Authority and the European Central Bank (ECB) that financial innovation can undermine the objectives of structural reforms, and insists that structural reforms be subject to periodic review7 to ensure that financial institutions are not benefiting from regulatory arbitrage;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 167 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that the HLEG did not look at the issue of accounting standards and their role in financial crisis in sufficient depth; notes that European company law requires that accounts must be true and fair in order for directors of a company to discharge their liabilities to creditors and shareholders of companies; suggests that as a consequence of international financial reporting standards being overly complex and being principally about providing information to the share trading part of capital markets, these standards did and do not give a true and fair view of banks' accounts; notes that despite commitments from the IASB to update IAS 39 on loan loss provisioning from an incurred to expected loss model, its adoption has been delayed due to concerns expressed by FASB that the revised IASB model is still not a lifetime expected loss model; notes that although moving to an expected loss model recognises the problems caused by IAS 39 during the crisis, the added complexity may well create problems of their own; argues that, therefore, structural reform must include a thorough assessment of what role accounts should play in driving better governance of banks;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 180 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. notes that existing proposals, although welcome, seek to tackle specific activities, relationships and products that are perceived to be problematic; argues that the ongoing crisis is in part due to the fact that banks and sovereigns are inappropriately connected via implicit and explicit state guarantees as a consequence of certain banks being too big to fail; suggests that further reform is required in order to ensure that banks do not benefit from implicit or explicit state guarantees and they are subject to market forces as other private companies are;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 186 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Suggests that banking reform must identify which financial systems, services and processes must be protected in the event of a crisis to ensure civil order is maintained; argues that it is only appropriate for the state to guarantee these essential systems, services and processes; points out that non essential services should be priced at the market rate;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 190 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that an effective banking system must deliver a change in banking culture in order to reduce complexity, enhance competition, limit interconnectedness between risky and commercial activities, improve corporate governance, create a responsible remuneration system, allow effective bank resolution and recovery, reinforce bank capital and deliver credit to the real economy; suggests that this will be achieved by introducing a greater degree of personal liability to ensure the managers of companies take responsibility for the actions and decisions of their employees;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 228 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Urges the Commission to come forward with a proposal for mandatory separation of banks' retail and investment activities in order to ensure that the state only guarantees essential banking services;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 248 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Urges the Commission to come forward with a proposal for such mandatory separation through the establishment of a thorough, transparent and credible ‘ring fence’ around bank activities that are vital for the real economy, such as those relating to credit functions, payment systems and deposits; takes the view that in the event of a bank failure, the ring fence must ensure that the retail entity continues business unaffected by operational problems, financial losses, funding shortages or reputational damage resulting from the resolution or insolvency of the investment entity; notes that simply banning certain activities does not tackle the problem of the state guarantees and subsidies being used by the arms of the bank involved in non essential banking services;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 260 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Urges the Commission to come forward with a proposal for such mandatory separation through the establishment of a thorough, transparent and credible ‘ring fence’ around bank activities that are vital foressential for the functioning of the real economy, such as those relating to credit functions, payment systems and deposits; takes the view that in the event of a bank failure, the ring fence must ensure that the retail entity continues business unaffected by operational problems, financial losses, funding shortages or reputational damage resulting from the resolution or insolvency of the investment entity;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 275 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Urges the Commission to ensure that trading activities are priced by the market and do not benefit from implicit guarantees, the use of insured deposits or taxpayer bailouts and that these activities do not pose a risk to the delivery of ring- fenced retail services;,
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 305 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point a
(a) separate legal entities, with separate sources of funding for the bank's retail and investment entities, in order to ensure that the state guarantee and subsidy for the retail arm does not cross subsidise the investment entity;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 341 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Urges the Commission to take into account the ECB's proposal to establish clear and enforceable criteria for separation8 ; urges the Commission to identify services essential to the functioning of the real economy; argues that such services should be within the ringfence and that all other non essential services should be outside the ringfence to ensure they are priced by the market free from distortion by state guarantees and subsidies;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 415 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Urges the Commission to include provisions introducing personal accountability and liability for board members on both sides of the ring fence and at group level; suggests that in this context the Commission should explore how to encourage a return to the partnership model of company management;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 449 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Urges the Commission to conduct a study to ensure that accounting standards used by financial institutions give a genuinely true and fair view of banks' financial health; points out that accounts are the main source of information for an investor to understand whether or not a company is a going concern or not; notes that auditors can only sign off accounts if they are true and fair, independent of the financial standards used by preparers of financial statements; believes that if auditors are unsure that a company is a going concern they should not sign off the company's accounts, even if they have been drawn up in line with accounting standards; this should however be a driver of better management of the company in question; suggests that international financial reporting standards do not necessarily give a true and fair view of accounts, as shown by numerous examples of banks collapsing despite their accounts having been signed off by auditors;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 459 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Urges the Commission to require banks to explain to their customers when opening deposit accounts that their money is in fact loaned to the bank and is not necessarily on deposit; emphasises that customers be made fully aware of what their deposits are being spent on; suggests that such information should be given to the customer before the account is opened; argues that this will incentivise individuals to learn more about how risky a bank's business model is and will ensure consumers are fully aware of the risks of their money being left with the bank in question; notes that deposit guarantee schemes protect up to €100,000 but also notes that deposit guarantee schemes can be bypassed, that they are only as resilient as the state that stands behind them and that they encourage moral hazard;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 478 #

2013/2021(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
31. Asks the Commission to bring forward measures to facilitate consumer switching between banks including the idea of bank account number portability and assist in improving consumer choice in the banking sector by reducing the barriers to entry and exit and applying proportionate rules to new entrants to the market;
2013/04/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 131 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
(1) The pricing of many financial instruments and financial contracts depends on the accuracy and integrity of benchmarks. Cases of manipulation of interest rate benchmarks such as LIBOR and EURIBOR, as well as allegations that energy, oil and foreign exchange benchmarks have been manipulated, have demonstrated that benchmarks whose setting processes share certain characteristics, such as being subject to conflicts of interest, the use of discretion and weak governance, may be vulnerable to manipulation. Failures in, or doubts about, the accuracy and integrity of indices used as benchmarks may undermine market confidence, cause losses to consumers and investors and distort the real economy. It is therefore necessary to ensure the accuracy, robustness and integrity of benchmarks and the benchmark -setting process for certain critical, vulnerable or systemically relevant benchmarks.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 134 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) Benchmarks are vital in pricing cross- border transactions and thereby facilitating the effective functioning of the internal market in a wide variety of financial instruments and services. Many benchmarks used as reference rates in financial contracts, in particular mortgages, are produced in one Member State but used by credit institutions and consumers in other Member States. In addition, these credit institutions often hedge their risks or obtain the funding for granting these financial contracts in the cross border interbank market. Only two Member States have adopted national legislation on critical benchmarks, but their respective legal frameworks on benchmarks already show divergences regarding aspects such as the scope of application. In addition, the International Organisation Securities Commissions (IOSCO) has recently agreed principles on benchmarks and, since these principles provide a certain flexibility as to their exact scope and means of their implementation and in relation to certain terms, Member States are likely to adopt legislation at national level which would implement such principles divergentlthat should be taken into account to ensure global consistency.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 136 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7) It is appropriate and necessary for those rules to take the legislative form of a Regulation in order to ensure that provisions directly imposing obligations on persons involved in benchmark production, contribution and use are applied in a uniform manner throughout the Union. Since a legal framework for the provision of benchmarks necessarily involves measures specifying precise requirements on all different aspects inherent to the provision ofsome aspects of the provision of critical, vulnerable or systemically relevant benchmarks, even small divergences on the approach taken regarding one of these aspects could lead to significant impediments in the cross border provision of benchmarks. Therefore, the use of a Regulation, which is directly applicable without requiring national legislation, should reduce the possibility of divergent measures being taken at national level, and should ensure a consistent approach, greater legal certainty and prevent the appearance of significant impediments in the cross-border provision of benchmarks.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 137 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) The scope of this Regulation should be as broad as necessary to create a preventive regulatory framewolimited to critical, vulnerable or systemically relevant benchmarks. The production of critical, vulnerable or systemically relevant benchmarks involves discretion in their determination and is inherently subject to certain types of conflicts of interest, which implies the existence of opportunities and incentives to manipulate those benchmarks. These risk factors are common to all benchmarks, and all of them should be made subject to adequate governance and control requirements. Since the vulnerability and importance of a benchmark varies over time, restricting the scope by reference to currently important or vulnerable indices would not address the risks that those critical, vulnerable or systemically relevanyt benchmark may pose in the future. In particular, benchmarks that are currently not widely used may be so used in the future, so that, in their regard, even a minor manipulation may have significant impacts, and should therefore be made subject to adequate governance and control requirements.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 144 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) The critical determinant of the scope of this Regulation should be whether the output valuerisk-based and proportionate based ofn the benchmark determines the value of a financial instrument, financial contract or measures the performance of an investment fund. Therefore the scope should not be dependent on the nature of the input data. Benchmarks calculated from economic input data, such as share prices and non- economic number or values such as weather parameters should thus be included. The framework should cover those benchmarks subject to these risks, but should also provide for a proportionate response to the risks that different benchmarks pose. This Regulation should therefore cover all benchmarks which are used to price financial instruments listed or traded on regulated venuesway in which data is inputted into the benchmark setting process since it is at this point that a benchmark is manipulated. This means that a benchmark should only be deemed to be in the scope of this Regulation if it is deemed to be a critical, vulnerable or systemically relevant benchmark.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 153 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) All bBenchmark administrators are potentially subject to conflicts of interest, exercise discretion and may have inadequate governance and control systems in place. Further, as administrators control the benchmark process, requiring authorisation and supervision of administrators is the most effective way of ensuring the integrity of benchmarks.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 155 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) An administrator is the natural or legal person that has control over the provision of a benchmark, in particular who administers the benchmark, collects and analyses the input data, determines the benchmark and in some cases publishes the benchmark. However, where a person merely publishes or refers to a benchmark as part of his or her journalistic activities but does not have control over the provision of that benchmark, that person should not be subject to the requirements imposed on administrators by this Regulation.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 160 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) Vulnerabilities in the process of providing a benchmark that are not subject to adequate governance create the possibility to manipulate a benchmark. Where benchmarks are available to the public the full extent of these risks may not be taken into account and so insufficient controls and governance may be implemented. In order to ensure the integrity of benchmarks, benchmark administrators should be required to implement adequate governance arrangements to control these conflicts of interest and to safeguard confidence in the integrity of benchmarks. Even where effectively managed, most administrators are subject to some conflicts of interest and may have to make judgements and decisions which affect a diverse group of stakeholders. It is therefore necessary that administrators have an independent function to oversee the implementation and effectiveness of the governance arrangements that provide effective oversight.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 166 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
(26) The integrity and accuracy of benchmarks depends on the integrity and accuracy of the input data provided by contributors. It is essential that the obligations of the contributors in respect of this input data are clearly specified, can be relied on and are consistent with the benchmark administrator's controls and methodology. It is therefore necessary that the benchmark administrator produces a code of conduct to specify these requirements, where proportionate, and that the contributors are bound by that code of conduct.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 172 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
(29) Different types of critical, vulnerable or systemically relevant benchmark and different benchmark sectors have different characteristics, vulnerabilities and risks. The provisions of this Regulation should be further specified for particular benchmark sectors and types. Interbank interest rate benchmarks are benchmarks that play an important role in the transmission of monetary policy and so it is necessary to specify how these provisions would apply to these benchmarks in this Regulation. Commodity benchmarks are widely used and have sector specific characteristics and so it is necessary to specify how these provisions would apply to these benchmarks in this Regulation.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 176 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) The failure of certain critical benchmarks may have a significant impact on financial stability, market orderliness or investors and it is therefore necessary that additionalthe requirements in this Regulation apply to ensure the integrity and robustness of these critical benchmarks. Where a benchmark references a significant value of financial instruments it willmay have such an impact. It is therefore necessary that the Commission determines those benchmarks that reference financial instruments above a certain threshold and should be considered critical benchmarks.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 184 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
(34) This Regulation should take into account the Principles for financial benchmarks issued by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) (hereinafter referred to as ‘IOSCO Principles’) on the 17 July 2013 which serve as a global standard for regulatory requirements for benchmarks. It is necessary for investor protection that an assessment that the supervisionors and regulation in any third country are equivalent to Union supervision and regulation of benchmarks takes place before any benchmark provided from that third country can be used in the Unioncompliant with these principles.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 196 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
(41) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to respect for private and family, the protection of personal data, the right to freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, the right to property, the right to consumer protection, the right to an effective remedy, the right of defence. Therefore, this Regulation should be interpreted and applied in accordance with those rights and principles. In this regard, in order to uphold the rules governing the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression in other media, this Regulation shall not apply to the press, other media and journalists or in any way prevent Member States from applying their constitutional rules relating to freedom of the press or freedom of expression.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 204 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation shall apply to the provision of benchmarks, the contribution of input data to athe following benchmarks: a) critical benchmarks; b) benchmarks that the competent authority has investigated and concluded by way of a reasoned decision requires supervision due to its vulnerability ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards, taking into account the different characteristics of benchmarks and the use of a benchmark within the Union. contributors, in terms of differences in input data and methodologies, whether the contributions are voluntary, the risks of input data being manipulated, the need to ensure international convergence of supervisory practices and the need for proportionality, to determine the specific criteria for determining whether a benchmark is defined as laid out in paragraphs a) and b) ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [...]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 212 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(b a) the press, other media and journalists in the conduct of their journalistic activities, including the provision of information relating to or used as indices or benchmarks.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 259 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 20
(20) ‘commodity benchmark’ means a benchmark where the underlying asset for the purposes of point (1)(c) of this Article is a commodity within the meaning of point (2) of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/200627 ; Emission allowances as defined in point (11) of Section C of Annex I of [MiFID] shall not be considered commodities for the purpose of this Regulation; __________________ 27 OJ L 241, 2.9.2006, p. 1.deleted
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 264 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 21
(21) 'critical benchmark' means a benchmark, the majority of contributors to which are supervised entities and that reference financial instruments having a notional value of at least 500 billion euro;, is systemically-relevant and/or for which there is no reasonable substitute so that cessation of the benchmark would have a significant adverse impact on financial stability, the orderly functioning of the markets, consumers or the real economy.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 274 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 22 a (new)
(22 a) 'expert judgement' means "the exercise of discretion by an Administrator or Submitter with respect to the use of data in determining a Benchmark. Expert Judgment includes extrapolating values from prior or related transactions, adjusting values for factors that might influence the quality of data such as market events or impairment of a buyer or seller's credit quality, or weighting firm bids or offers greater than a particular concluded transaction."
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 279 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4
Article 4 Exclusion of administrators unaware of the use of benchmarks provided by them and non consenting administrators 1. This Regulation shall not apply to an administrator in respect of a benchmark provided by him where that administrator is unaware and could not reasonably have been aware that that benchmark is used for the purposes referred to in point (2) of Article 3(1). 2. This Regulation shall not apply to the administrator of a benchmark referred to in Article 25(3) in respect of that benchmark.deleted
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 286 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. An administrator shall comply with the governance and control requirements set out in Section A of Annex 1.deleted
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 288 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated actsESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards, taking into accordance with Article 37 to further specify the governance and control requirements under Section A of Annex 1. The Commission shall take account of the following: (a) developments in benchmarks and financial markets in light of international convergence of supervisory practice in relation to governance requirements of benchmarks; (b) specific features of different types of benchmarks and administrators; (c) existing or potential conflicts of interest in the provision of benchmarks, the vulnerability of the benchmarks to manipulation and the importance of benchmarks to financial stability, markets and investorsunt the different characteristics of benchmarks and contributors, in terms of differences in input data and methodologies, whether the contributions are voluntary, the risks of input data being manipulated, the need to ensure international convergence of supervisory practices and the need for proportionality, to further specify the governance and control requirements laid down in paragraph 1. ESMA shall focus specifically on requirements for governance and conflicts of interest management, oversight, control and accountability. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [...]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 292 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. Where outsourcing takes place, an administrator shall ensure that the outsourcing requirements set out in Section B of Annex 1 are satisfideleted.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 296 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. Where an administrator outsources functions or any relevant services and activities in the provision of a benchmark to any service provider, it shall remain fully responsible for discharging all of its obligations under this Regulation. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards, taking into account the different characteristics of benchmarks and contributors, in terms of differences in input data and methodologies, whether the contributions are voluntary, the risks of input data being manipulated, the need to ensure international convergence of supervisory practices and the need for proportionality, to determine the specific requirements on administrators where outsourcing takes place. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [...]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 298 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a – paragraph 1
The input data shall be transaction data. If available transaction data is not sufficient to represent accurately and reliably the market or economic reality that the benchmark is intended to measure, input data which is not transaction data may be used provided that such data is verifiable or if expert judgement as defined in Article 3 paragraph 1 – point 21 b (new) is considered by the administrator to be necessary or publicly sourced from regulatory filings.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 308 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. An administrator shall comply with the requirements concerning input data and methodology set out in Section C of Annex I.deleted
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 310 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 37 concerning measures to further specify the controls in respect of input data, the circumstances under which transaction data may not be sufficient and how this can be demonstrated to supervisors and the requirements for developing methodologies . The Commission shall take account of the following:ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards, taking into account the different characteristics of benchmarks and contributors, in terms of differences in input data and methodologies, whether the contributions are voluntary, the risks of input data being manipulated, the need to ensure international convergence of supervisory practices and the need for proportionality, to specify requirements to ensure: (a) Sufficient and accurate data and representative contribution requirements (b) Robust and reliable methodologies (c) Transparency of the methodology ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [...]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 311 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) developments in benchmarks and financial markets in light of international convergence of supervisory practice in relation to benchmarks;deleted
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 312 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) specific features of different benchmarks and types of benchmarks; andeleted
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 313 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) the vulnerability of benchmarks to manipulation in light of the methodologies and input data used;deleted
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 317 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The administrator shall monitor the input data and contributors in order to identify breaches of the [Market Abuse Regulation] and any conduct that may involve manipulation or attempted manipulation of the benchmark and notify the relevant competent authority in accordance with Article 11(2) of the [Market Abuse Regulation] and provide all relevant information where it suspectsthe administrator has a reasonable suspicion that, in relation to the administrator's benchmark, there has been:
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 326 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. The code of conduct shall be signprovided by the administrator and the contributors and, insofar as is practicable with regard to the nature and location of the contributors, shall be legally binding on all parties to it.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 333 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated actsESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards, taking into accordance with Article 37 concerning measures to further specify unt the different characteristics of benchmarks and contributors, in terms of differences in input data and methodologies, whether terms of the code of conduct in Section D of Annex I for different types of benchmarks, and in order to take account of developments in benchmarks and financial he contributions are voluntary, the risks of input data being manipulated, the need to ensure international convergence of supervisory practices and the need for proportionality, to specify the terms of the code of conduct for critical or vulnerable benchmarkets.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 334 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
The CommissionESMA shall take into account the different characteristics of benchmarks and contributors, notably in terms of differences in input data and methodologies, whether the contributions are voluntary and the risks of input data being manipulated and international convergence of supervisory practices in relation to benchmarks and the proportionality of this Regulation. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [...]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 343 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. A supervised contributor shall comply with the requirements concerning systems and controls set out in Section E of Annex Ito be specified by ESMA, subject to paragraph 4.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 345 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. A supervised contributor shall fully cooperate with the administrator and the relevant competent authority in the auditing and supervision of the provision of a benchmark and make available the information and records kept in accordance with Section E of Annex 1standards to be specified by ESMA, subject to paragraph 4.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 347 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 37 concerning measures to furtherESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards, taking into account the different characteristics of benchmarks and contributors, in terms of differences in input data and methodologies, whether the contributions are voluntary, the risks of input data being manipulated, the need to ensure international convergence of supervisory practices and the need for proportionality, to specify the requirements concerning systems and controls set out in Section E of Annex I for different types of benchmarksfor supervised contributors as laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [...]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 348 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
The Commission shall take into account the different characteristics of benchmarks and supervised contributors, notably in terms of differences in input data provided and methodologies used, the risks of manipulation of the input data and the nature of the activities carried out by the supervised contributors, and the developments in benchmarks and financial markets in light of international convergence of supervisory practices in relation to benchmarks.deleted
2013/12/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 351 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Title 3
SPECTORALIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERBANK INTEREST RATE BENCHMARKS AND CRITICAL BENCHMARKS
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 353 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. In addition to the requirements of the Title II, the specific requirements set out in Annex II shall apply to inter-bank interest rate benchmarks.deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 357 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. In addition to the requirements of the Title II, the specific requirements set out in Annex III shall apply to commodity benchmarks.deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 358 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated actsESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards, taking into accordance with Article 39 to specify, or adjust, in light of market and technological developments and international developments, the following elements of Annexes II and III: unt the different characteristics of benchmarks and contributors, in terms of differences in input data and methodologies, whether the contributions are voluntary, the risks of input data being manipulated, the need to ensure international convergence of supervisory practices and the need for proportionality, to determine the additional requirements for interbank interest rate benchmarks. These shall include:
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 361 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) The period of time after which input data shall be published (Annex II point 6)Requirements for accurate and sufficient data, where the input data is estimates or quotes.
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 363 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) The processes for election and nomination and responsibilities of the oversight committee (Annex II points 8, 9 and 10)Requirements for data transparency in addition to Article 16 in the case of input data composed of estimates
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 364 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) The frequency of audits (Annex II point 12)Requirements for administrator governance including an independent oversight function, internal and external audits
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 365 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) The processes by which input data is provided to be specified in the code of conduct (Annex II point 13)Requirements for a code of conduct in addition to those laid out in Article 9.
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 366 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point e
(e) The systems and controls of a contributor (Annex II point 16)Requirements for contributor systems and controls in addition to those laid out in Article 11.
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 367 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point f
(f) The records which are to be kept by a contributor and the medium in which they are to be kept(Annex II point 17 and 18deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 368 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point g
(g) The findings to be reported to management by the compliance function of the contributor (Annex II point 19)deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 369 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point h
(h) The frequency of internal reviews of input data and procedures (Annex II point 20)deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 370 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point i
(i) The frequency of external audits of the contributor’s input data (Annex II point 21)deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 372 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point j
(j) The criteria and procedures for developing the benchmark (Annex III point 1 a)deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 374 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point k
(k) The elements to be included in the methodology and the description of the methodology (Annex III point 1 and 2)deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 376 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point l
(l) The requirements of the administrator regarding the quality and the integrity of the benchmark calculation and the content of the description attached to each calculation (Annex III point 5 and 6)deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 377 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)
ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [...]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 395 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where contributors, comprising at least 20% of the contributors to a critical benchmark have ceased contributing, or there are sufficient indications that at least 20% of the contributors are likely to cease contributing, in any year, tThe competent authority of the administrator of a critical benchmark shall have the power to:
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 401 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The competent authority of the administrator of the critical benchmark may include new and existing contributors in the determination laid down in paragraph 2.
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 419 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) describes or listsprovides a non-exhaustive list of the purposes for which it is appropriate to use the benchmark and the circumstances in which it may cease to be fit for such purposes;
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 421 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. In order to ensure compliance with paragraph 1, an administrator shall comply with the detailed requirements set out in Section F of Annex 1. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards, taking into account the different characteristics of benchmarks and contributors, in terms of differences in input data and methodologies, whether the contributions are voluntary, the risks of input data being manipulated, the need to ensure international convergence of supervisory practices and the need for proportionality, to specify detailed requirements for the content of a benchmark statement required for critical, vulnerable or systemically relevant benchmark ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [...]. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 427 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. An administrator shall publish the input data or the methodology used to determine the benchmark immediately aftat appropriate intervals except where publication of the benchmark except where publicationwould interfere with intellectual property rights, would cause the administrator to breach a duty of confidentiality or would have serious adverse consequences for the contributors or adversely affect the reliability or integrity of the benchmark. In such cases publication may be delayed for a period that significantly diminishes these consequences. Any pPersonal data included in input data shall not be published.
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 437 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18
Article 18 Assessment of suitability 1. Where a supervised entity intends to enter into a financial contract with a consumer, that supervised entity shall first obtain the necessary information regarding the consumer’s knowledge and experience with respect to the benchmark, his financial situation and his objectives in respect of that financial contract, and the benchmark statement published in accordance with Article 15 and shall assess whether referencing the financial contract to that benchmark is suitable for him. 2. Where the supervised entity considers, on the basis of the assessment under paragraph 1, that the benchmark is not suitable for the consumer, the supervised entity shall warn the consumer in writing with reasons.deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 452 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Benchmarks provided by an administrator established in a third country may be used by supervised entities in the Union provided that the following conditions are complied with:legal framework, supervisory practice, or rules of the producer or administrator of the benchmark in that third country comply with IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks or other international standards for benchmarks.
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 457 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the Commission has adopted an equivalence decision in accordance with paragraph 2, recognising the legal framework and supervisory practice of that third country as equivalent to the requirements of this Regulation;deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 461 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the administrator is authorised or registered in, and is subject to supervision in, that third country;deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 464 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the administrator has notified ESMA of its consent that its actual or prospective benchmarks may be used by supervised entities in the Union, the list of the benchmarks which may be used in the Union and the competent authority responsible for its supervision in the third country;deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 468 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the administrator is duly registered under Article 21; andeleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 471 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) the cooperation arrangements referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article are operational.deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 476 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) administrators authorised or registered in that third country comply with binding requirements which are equivalent to the requirements resulting from this Regulation, in particular taking into account if the legal framework and supervisory practice of a third countrynational rules or legislation that ensures compliance with the IOSCO principles on financial benchmarks published on 17 July 2013; and
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 480 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the binding requirementsnational rules or legislation are subject to effective supervision and enforcement on an on-going basis in that third country.
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 483 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. ESMA shall establish cooperation arrangements with the competent authorities of third countries whose legal framework and supervisory practice have been recognised as equivalent in accordance with paragraph 2complying with IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks or other international standards for benchmarks. Such arrangements shall specify at least:
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 505 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25
Article 25 Notification to ESMA of use of an index in a financial instrument 1. Whenever a competent authority becomes aware that an index is being used as a reference to a financial instrument, or that a request for admission to trading has been made to a trading venue supervised by that competent authority in respect of a financial instrument that references an index, that competent authority shall notify ESMA within 10 working days. 2. Within 10 working days of any notification ESMA shall notify the relevant administrator of the benchmark providing full details of its use and requesting the administrator to confirm that it consents to this use of the benchmark within 10 working days. 3. Without prejudice to Article 30 [MIFIR], where the administrator does not confirm to ESMA its consent within the time limit set out in paragraph 2, ESMA shall notify the relevant competent authority which shall request that the trading venue withdraw the listing of that financial instrument or refuse its admission to trading within 10 working days. 4. ESMA shall publish on its website a list of all notifications under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the procedures and forms for exchange of information referred to in paragraph 1 and 2. ESMA shall submit the draft implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraphs to the Commission by [XXXX]. Power is conferred to the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation 1095/2010.deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 534 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) thepersistent or intentional breaches of Articles 5(1), 6, 7(1), 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22 and 23 of this Regulation; and
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 539 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the presence or absence of intent and degree of responsibility of the responsible person;
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 566 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 10 – subparagraph 2
Without prejudice to Article 258 TFEU, ESMA may act in accordance with the powers conferred on it under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. ESMA may also assist the competent authorities in developing consistent cooperation practices on its own initiative in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of that Regulation.deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 584 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 1
[...]deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 638 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 2
[...]deleted
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 644 #

2013/0314(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 3
[...] __________________ 28deleted OJ L 241, 2.9.2006, p. 1.
2013/12/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 42 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
(2) On the demand side, MMFs are short- term cash management tools that provide a high degree of liquidity, diversification, stability of value of the principal invested combined with a market-based yield. MMFs are mainly used by corporationused by a wide range of entities including charities, housing associations, local authorities and larger professional investors like corporations and pension funds seeking to invest their excess cash for a short time frame. MMFs, therefore, represent a crucial link bringing together demand and offer of short-term money.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 43 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) Events that occurred during the financial crisis have shed light on several features of MMFs that make them vulnerable when there are difficulties in financial markets and therefore may spread or amplify risks through the financial system. When the prices of the assets in which the MMFs are invested in start to decrease, especially during stressed market s. However, as highlighted in the European Commission's Economic Paper 472, published in 2012, "Non-bank financial instituations, the MMF cannot always maintain the promise to redeem immediately and to preserve the pri: Assessment of their impact on the stability of the financipal value of a unit or share issued by the MMF to investors. This situation may trigger massive and sudden redemption requests, potentially causing broader macroeconomic consequencesystem", the activities of money market funds were not the underlying causes of financial instability during the financial crisis.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 45 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) In the context of the financial crisis, it must be noted that the underlying cause of risks to financial stability operating through money market funds did not originate in money markets. In particular, risks arose within the banking sector (due to securitised loan assets) that fed through to prime MMFs and due to the behaviour of investors in response to falling NAVs. Moreover, the impact on MMF investors in terms of realised losses were either zero or very small.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 46 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) Large redemption requests force MMFs to sell some of their investment assets in a declining market, fuelling a liquidity crisis. In these circumstances, money market issuers can face severe funding difficulties if the market of commercial papers and other money market instruments dries up. Any contagion to the short term funding market could then also represent direct and major difficulties for the financing of the financial institutions, corporations and governments, thus the economy. It should be noted that those MMFs that suffered the biggest redemptions during the crisis did so because of their real or perceived exposure to the financial sector, and had little to do with their being CNAV or VNAV. The European Commission's Economic Paper 472, published in 2012, makes no distinction between CNAV or VNAV funds.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 50 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7) Uniform rules on MMFs are also necessary to ensure smooth operation of the short term funding market for financial institutions, corporate issuers of short term debt and governments. They are also required to ensure equal treatment among MMF investors and to avoid that late redeemers have to support additional inconvenience when redemptions are temporarily suspended or when the MMF is liquidated. However in stressed market conditions, redemption gates and/or fee provisions may be used by the CNAV MMF manager in order to eliminate the 'first mover' advantage whilst protecting investors' money.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 62 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
(29) The MMF should have a responsibility to invest in high quality eligible assets. Therefore, a MMF should have a prudent and rigorous internal assessment procedure for determining the credit quality of the money market instruments in which it intends to invest. In accordance with Union legislation limiting over-reliance on credit ratings, it is important that MMFs avoid any mechanistic reliance on ratings issued by rating agencies when assessing the quality of eligible assets. For this purpose the MMF should establish an internal rating system based on a harmonised rating scale and an internal assessment procedure.deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 64 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29 a (new)
(29a) Taking note of the work done by international bodies, such as IOSCO and the FSB, as well as in European legislation, such as Regulation 462/2013 and Directive 2013/14/EU, on reducing investor overreliance on credit ratings, it is not appropriate to explicitly ban any product, not just MMFs, from soliciting or financing an external credit rating.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 65 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) For the purpose of avoiding that MMF managers use different assessment criteria for evaluating the credit risk of a money market instrument and thus attribute different risk characteristics to the same instrument, it is essential that managers rely on the same criteria. To this effect the rating criteria should be precisely defined and harmonized. Examples of internal rating criteria are quantitative measures on the issuer of the instrument, such as financial ratios, balance sheet dynamics, profitability guidelines, which are evaluated and compared to those of industry peers and groups; qualitative measures on the issuer of the instrument, such as management effectiveness, corporate strategy, which are analysed with a view to determining that the issuer's overall strategy does not impede on its future credit quality. The highest internal ratings should reflect the fact that the creditworthiness of the issuer of the instruments is maintained at all times at the highest possible levels.deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 67 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
(31) In order to develop a transparent and coherent internal rating system, the manager should document the procedures used for the internal assessment. This should ensure that the procedure follows a clear set of rules that can be monitored and that the methodologies employed are communicated upon request to the interested stakeholders.deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 75 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
(39) It is important that the risk management of MMFs not be biased by short-term decisions influenced by the possible rating of the MMF. Therefore, it is necessary to prohibit a MMF or its manager from requesting that the MMF is rated by a credit rating agency in order to avoid that this external rating is used for marketing purposes. The MMF or its manager should also refrain from using alternative methods for obtaining a rating of the MMF. Should the MMF be awarded an external rating, either on the own initiative of the credit rating agency or following request by a third party that is independent of the MMF or the manager and does not act on behalf of any of them, the MMF manager should refrain from relying on criteria that would be attached to that external rating. For ensuring appropriate liquidity management it is necessary that the MMFs establish sound policies and procedures to know their investors. The policies that the manager has to put in place should help understanding the MMF's investor base, to the extent that large redemptions could be anticipated. In order to avoid that the MMF faces sudden massive redemptions, particular attention should be paid to large investors representing a substantial portion of the MMF's assets, as with one investor representing more than the proportion of daily maturing assets. In this case the MMF should increase its proportion of daily maturing assets to the proportion of that investor. The manager should whenever possible look at the identity of the investors, even if they are represented by nominee accounts, portals or any other indirect buyer.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 83 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
(41) In order to reflect the actual value of assets, the use of marking to market should be the preferred method for valuing the assets of MMFs. A manager should not be allowed to use the marking to model valuation method when marking to market provides a reliable value of the asset, as the mark to model method is prone to provide less accurate valuation. Assets such as treasury and local authority bills, medium- or short-term notes are generally the ones that are expected to have a reliable marking to market. For valuing commercial papers or certificates of deposit, the manager should check if accurate pricing is provided by a secondary market. The buy- back price offered by the issuer should also be considered to represent a good estimate of the value of the commercial paper. In all other cases the manager should estimate the value, for example using market data such as yields on comparable issues and comparable issuers. Any model used in 'mark-to-model' pricing should be reviewed and approved by the appropriate competent authority and pricing data should be provided by recognised independent pricing vendors.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 84 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41 a (new)
(41a) During the financial crisis, both CNAV and VNAV funds experienced dramatic and serious outflows due to investors' fears about their exposure to the financial sector, rather than concerns about the MMF vehicle itself. Although it is true that many CNAV funds in the US were subject to extreme pressures, in the EU, many VNAV funds faced similar problems. There is no evidence to suggest that CNAVs are more systemically risky than VNAV funds, a point born out by the European Commission's Economic Paper 472, published in 2012, "Non-bank financial institutions: Assessment of their impact on the stability of the financial system".
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 90 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45
(45) In order to be able to absorb day-to- day fluctuations in the value of amitigate potential client redemptions in times of severe market stress, all CNAV MMF's assets and allow it to offer a constant NAV per unit or share, the CNAV MMF should have at all times a NAV buffer amounting to at least 3% of its assets. The NAV buffer should serve as an absorbing mechanism for maintaining the constant NAV. All differences between the constant NAV per unit or share and the NAV per unit or share should be neutralized by using the NAV buffer. During stressed market situations, when the differences can rapidly increase, a procedure should ensure that the whole chain of management is involved. This escalation procedure should permit the senior management to take rapid remedy acmust have in place, and use when appropriate, a redemption gate and/or fee provisions to enable MMF managers to respond to periods of extreme market stress, and which prevent and/or disincentivise 'early redemptions' from leaving other investors unfairly exposed to market stress. The liquidity fee shall be equivalent to the actual cost of liquidating assets to meet the client redemption during periods of market stress and not a penal charge over and above what would offset losses imposed on other investors by the redemptions.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 96 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
(46) As a CNAV MMF that does not maintain the NAV buffer at the required level is not capable of sustaining a constant NAV per unit or share, it should be required to fluctuate the NAV andshall cease to be a CNAV MMF. T wherefore, where despite the, having use ofd the escalation procedure the amount of the NAV buffer remains for one month below the required 3% by 10 basis points, the CNAV MMF should automatically convert into a MMF that is not allowed to use amortised cost accounting or rounding to the nearest percentage point. If before the end of the one month allowed for the replenishment a competent authority has justifiable reasons demonstrating the incapacity of the CNAV MMF to replenish the buffer, it should have the power to convert the CNAV MMF into a MMF other than a CNAV MMF. The NAV buffer is the only vehicle through which external support to a CNAV MMF can be providredemption gates and/or fees, the MMF has not been repaired within 30 days. In that case, the CNAV MMF should automatically convert to a VNAV fund or be liquidated.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 99 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
(2) On the demand side, MMFs are short- term cash management tools that provide a high degree of liquidity, diversification, stability of value of the principal invested combined with a market-based yield. MMFs are mainly used by corporationused by a wide range of entities including charities, housing associations, local authorities and larger professional investors like corporations and pension funds seeking to invest their excess cash for a short time frame. MMFs, therefore, represent a crucial link bringing together demand and offer of short-term money.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 101 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
(48) Investors should be clearly informed, before they invest in a MMF, if the MMF is of a short-term nature or of a standard nature and if the MMF is of a CNAV type or not. In order to avoid misplaced expectations from the investor it must also be clearly stated in any marketing document that MMFs are not a guaranteed investment vehicle. CNAV MMFs should clearly explain to investors the buffer mechanism they are applying to maintain the constant NAV per unit or share.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 102 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) Events that occurred during the financial crisis have shed light on several features of MMFs that make them vulnerable when there are difficulties in financial markets and therefore may spread or amplify risks through the financial system. When the prices of the assets in which the MMFs are invested in start to decrease, especially during stressed market situations, the MMF cannot always maintain the promise to redeem immediately and to preserve. However, as highlighted in the European Commission's Economic Paper 472, published in 2012, "Non-bank financial institutions: Assessment of their impact on the stability of the prifinancipal value of a unit or share issued by the MMF to investors. This situation may trigger massive and sudden redemption requests, potentially causing broader macroeconomic consequencesystem", the activities of money market funds were not the underlying causes of financial instability during the financial crisis.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 104 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) In the context of the financial crisis, it must be noted that the underlying cause of risks to financial stability operating through money market funds did not originate in money markets. In particular, risks arose within the banking sector (due to securitised loan assets) that fed through to prime MMFs and due to the behaviour of investors in response to falling NAVs. Moreover, the impact on MMF investors in terms of realised losses were either zero or very small.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 105 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 b (new)
(3b) During the financial crisis, both CNAV and VNAV funds experienced dramatic and serious outflows due to investors' fears about their exposure to the financial sector, rather than concerns about the MMF vehicle itself. Although it is true that many CNAV funds in the US were subject to extreme pressures, in the EU, many VNAV funds faced similar problems. There is no evidence to suggest that CNAVs are more systemically risky than VNAV funds, a point borne out by the European Commission's Economic Paper 472, published in 2012, "Non-bank financial institutions: Assessment of their impact on the stability of the financial system".
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 106 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
(54) It is essential to carry out a review of this Regulation in order to assess the appropriateness of exempting certain CNAV MMFs that concentrate their investment portfolios on debt issued by the Member States from the requirement to establish a capital buffer that amounts to at least 3 % of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets. Therefore, during the three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission should analyse the experience acquired in applying this Regulation and the impacts on the different economic aspects attached to the MMFs. The debt issued or guaranteed by the Member States represents a distinct category of investment displaying specific credit and liquidity traits. In addition, sovereign debt plays a vital role in financing the Member States. The Commission should evaluate the evolution of the market for sovereign debt issued or guaranteed by the Member States and the possibility to create a special framework for MMF that concentrate their investment policy on that type of debt.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 107 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) During the 2008 crisis, it was only dollar-denominated CNAV funds which experienced mass redemptions, not those denominated in sterling or euro, which in fact experienced mass inflows. There was a flight to quality within the CNAV fund sector, not a flight from the CNAV sector itself.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 112 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7) Uniform rules on MMFs are also necessary to ensure smooth operation of the short term funding market for financial institutions, corporate issuers of short term debt and governments. They are also required to ensure equal treatment among MMF investors and to avoid that late redeemers have to support additional inconvenience when redemptions are temporarily suspended or when the MMF is liquidated. However in stressed market conditions, redemption gates and/or fee provisions may be used by the CNAV MMF manager in order to eliminate the 'first mover' advantage whilst protecting investors' money.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 134 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) debt securities
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 136 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
(29) The MMF should have a responsibility to invest in high quality eligible assets. Therefore, a MMF should have a prudent and rigorous internal assessment procedure for determining the credit quality of the money market instruments in which it intends to invest. In accordance with Union legislation limiting over-reliance on credit ratings, it is important that MMFs avoid any mechanistic reliance on ratings issued by rating agencies when assessing the quality of eligible assets. For this purpose the MMF should establish an internal rating system based on a harmonised rating scale and an internal assessment procedure.deleted
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 139 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29 a (new)
(29a) Taking note of the work done by international bodies, such as IOSCO and the FSB, as well as in European legislation, such as Regulation (EU) No 462/2013 and Directive 2013/14/EU, on reducing investor overreliance on credit ratings, it is not appropriate to explicitly ban any product, not just MMFs, from soliciting or financing an external credit rating.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 140 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) For the purpose of avoiding that MMF managers use different assessment criteria for evaluating the credit risk of a money market instrument and thus attribute different risk characteristics to the same instrument, it is essential that managers rely on the same criteria. To this effect the rating criteria should be precisely defined and harmonized. Examples of internal rating criteria are quantitative measures on the issuer of the instrument, such as financial ratios, balance sheet dynamics, profitability guidelines, which are evaluated and compared to those of industry peers and groups; qualitative measures on the issuer of the instrument, such as management effectiveness, corporate strategy, which are analysed with a view to determining that the issuer's overall strategy does not impede on its future credit quality. The highest internal ratings should reflect the fact that the creditworthiness of the issuer of the instruments is maintained at all times at the highest possible levels.deleted
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 143 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
(31) In order to develop a transparent and coherent internal rating system, the manager should document the procedures used for the internal assessment. This should ensure that the procedure follows a clear set of rules that can be monitored and that the methodologies employed are communicated upon request to the interested stakeholders.deleted
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 150 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
(39) It is important that the risk management of MMFs not be biased by short-term decisions influenced by the possible rating of the MMF. Therefore, it is necessary to prohibit a MMF or its manager from requesting that the MMF is rated by a credit rating agency in order to avoid that this external rating is used for marketing purposes. The MMF or its manager should also refrain from using alternative methods for obtaining a rating of the MMF. Should the MMF be awarded an external rating, either on the own initiative of the credit rating agency or following request by a third party that is independent of the MMF or the manager and does not act on behalf of any of them, the MMF manager should refrain from relying on criteria that would be attached to that external rating. For ensuring appropriate liquidity management it is necessary that the MMFs establish sound policies and procedures to know their investors. The policies that the manager has to put in place should help understanding the MMF's investor base, to the extent that large redemptions could be anticipated. In order to avoid that the MMF faces sudden massive redemptions, particular attention should be paid to large investors representing a substantial portion of the MMF's assets, as with one investor representing more than the proportion of daily maturing assets. In this case the MMF should increase its proportion of daily maturing assets to the proportion of that investor. The manager should whenever possible look at the identity of the investors, even if they are represented by nominee accounts, portals or any other indirect buyer.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 157 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
(41) In order to reflect the actual value of assets, the use of marking to market should be the preferred method for valuing the assets of MMFs. A manager should not be allowed to use the marking to model valuation method when marking to market provides a reliable value of the asset, as the mark to model method is prone to provide less accurate valuation. Assets such as treasury and local authority bills, medium- or short-term notes are generally the ones that are expected to have a reliable marking to market. For valuing commercial papers or certificates of deposit, the manager should check if accurate pricing is provided by a secondary market. The buy- back price offered by the issuer should also be considered to represent a good estimate of the value of the commercial paper. In all other cases the manager should estimate the value, for example using market data such as yields on comparable issues and comparable issuers. Any model used in 'mark-to-model' pricing should be reviewed and approved by the appropriate competent authority and pricing data should be provided by recognised independent pricing vendors.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 177 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45
(45) In order to be able to absorb day-to- day fluctuations in the value of amitigate potential client redemptions in times of severe market stress, all CNAV MMF's assets and allow it to offer a constant NAV per unit or share, the CNAV MMF should have at all times a NAV buffer amounting to at least 3% of its assets. The NAV buffer should serve as an absorbing mechanism for maintaining the constant NAV. All differences between the constant NAV per unit or share and the NAV per unit or share should be neutralized by using the NAV buffer. During stressed market situations, when the differences can rapidly increase, a procedure should ensure that the whole chain of management is involved. This escalation procedure should permit the senior management to take rapid remedy acmust have in place, and use when appropriate, a redemption gate and/or fee provisions to enable MMF managers to respond to periods of extreme market stress, and which prevent and/or disincentivise 'early redemptions' from leaving other investors unfairly exposed to market stress. The liquidity fee shall be equivalent to the actual cost of liquidating assets to meet the client redemption during periods of market stress and not a penal charge over and above what would offset losses imposed on other investors by the redemptions.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 189 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16
[...]deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 190 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
(46) As a CNAV MMF that does not maintain the NAV buffer at the required level is not capable of sustaining a constant NAV per unit or share, it should be required to fluctuate the NAV anshould cease to be a CNAV MMF. T wherefore, where despite the, having use ofd the escalation procedure the amount of the NAV buffer remains for one month below the required 3% by 10 basis points, the CNAV MMF should automatically convert into a MMF that is not allowed to use amortised cost accounting or rounding to the nearest percentage point. If before the end of the one month allowed for the replenishment a competent authority has justifiable reasons demonstrating the incapacity of the CNAV MMF to replenish the buffer, it should have the power to convert the CNAV MMF into a MMF other than a CNAV MMF. The NAV buffer is the only vehicle through which external support to a CNAV MMF can be providredemption gates and/or fees, the MMF has not been repaired within 30 days. In that case, the CNAV MMF should automatically convert to a VNAV fund or be liquidated.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 200 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17
Article 17 Internal rating system 1. Each issuer of a money market instrument in which a MMF intends to invest shall be assigned an internal rating pursuant to the internal assessment procedure. 2. The structure of the internal rating system shall comply with all of the following requirements: (a) the internal rating system shall be based on a single rating scale which exclusively reflects quantification of the credit risk of the issuer. The rating scale shall have six grades for non-defaulted issuers and one for defaulted issuers; (b) there shall be a clear relationship between issuer grades reflecting the credit risk of an issuer and the rating criteria used to distinguish that level of credit risk; (c) the internal rating system shall take into account the short-term nature of money market instruments. 3. The rating criteria referred to in paragraph 2(b) shall fulfil all of the following requirements: (a) comprise at least quantitative and qualitative indicators on the issuer of the instrument, and the macro-economic and financial market situation; (b) refer to the common numerical and qualitative reference values used to assess the quantitative and qualitative indicators; (c) be adequate for the particular type of issuer. At least the following types of issuers shall be distinguished: sovereign, regional or local public authority, financial corporations, and non-financial corporations. (d) In case of exposure to securitisations, take into account the credit risk of the issuer, the structure of the securitisation and the credit risk of the underlying assets.deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 206 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
(48) Investors should be clearly informed, before they invest in a MMF, if the MMF is of a short-term nature or of a standard nature and if the MMF is of a CNAV type or not. In order to avoid misplaced expectations from the investor it must also be clearly stated in any marketing document that MMFs are not a guaranteed investment vehicle. CNAV MMFs should clearly explain to investors the buffersafeguard mechanisms they are applying to maintain the constant NAV per unit or shareand reinforce their resilience to losses and their ability to satisfy significant redemption requests.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 212 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18
Article 18 Documentation 1. A manager of a MMF shall document its internal assessment procedure and the internal rating system. Documentation shall include: (a) the design and operational details of its internal assessment procedures and internal rating systems in a manner that allows competent authorities to understand the assignment to specific grades and to evaluate the appropriateness of an assignment to a grade; (b) the rationale for and the analysis supporting the manager's choice of the rating criteria and of its frequency of review. This analysis shall include the parameters, the model and the limits of the model used to choose the rating criteria; (c) all major changes in the internal assessment procedure, including identification of the triggers of changes; (d) the organisation of the internal assessment procedure, including the rating assignment process and the internal control structure; (e) complete internal rating histories on issuers and recognised guarantors; (f) the dates of assignment of internal ratings; (g) the key data and methodology used to derive the internal rating, including key rating assumptions; (h) the person or persons responsible for the internal rating assignment. 2. The internal assessment procedure shall be detailed in the fund rules or rules of incorporation of the MMF and all documents referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made available upon request by the competent authorities of the MMF and the competent authorities of the manager of the MMF.deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 216 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
(54) It is essential to carry out a review of this Regulation in order to assess the appropriateness of exempting certain CNAV MMFs that concentrate their investment portfolios on debt issued by the Member States from the requirement to establish a capital buffer that amounts to at least 3 % of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets. Therefore, during the three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission should analyse the experience acquired in applying this Regulation and the impacts on the different economic aspects attached to the MMFs. The debt issued or guaranteed by the Member States represents a distinct category of investment displaying specific credit and liquidity traits. In addition, sovereign debt plays a vital role in financing the Member States. The Commission should evaluate the evolution of the market for sovereign debt issued or guaranteed by the Member States and the possibility to create a special framework for MMF that concentrate their investment policy on that type of debt.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 222 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19
Article 19 Delegated acts The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 44 specifying the following points: (a) the conditions under which the assignment methodologies are deemed to be prudent, rigorous, systematic and continuous and the conditions of the validation, referred to in Article 16(2); (b) the definitions of each grade with respect to the quantification of the credit risk of an issuer referred to in Article 17(2)(a), and the criteria to determine the quantification of the credit risk referred to in Article 17(2)(b); (c) the precise reference values for each qualitative indicator and the numerical reference values for each quantitative indicator. These reference values of the indicators shall be specified for each rating grade taking into account the criteria in Article 17(3); (d) the meaning of material change as referred to in Article 16(3)(c).deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 228 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20
Article 20 Governance of the credit quality assessment 1. The internal assessment procedures shall be approved by the senior management, the governing body, and, where it exists, the supervisory function of the manager of the MMF. These parties shall have a good understanding of the internal assessment procedures, the internal rating systems and the assignment methodologies of the manager and detailed comprehension of the associated reports. 2. Internal ratings-based analysis of the MMF's credit risk profile shall be an essential part of the reporting to the parties referred to in paragraph 1. Reporting shall include at least the risk profile by grade, migration across grades, estimation of the relevant parameters per grade, and comparison of realised default rates. Reporting frequencies shall depend on the significance and type of information and shall be at least annual. 3. Senior management shall ensure, on an on-going basis that the internal assessment procedure is operating properly. Senior management shall be regularly informed about the performance of the internal assessment process, the areas where deficiencies were identified, and the status of efforts and actions taken to improve previously identified deficiencies.deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 243 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A standard MMF shall comply at all times with all of the following requirements:
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 250 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. A standard MMF may invest up to 10% of its assets in money market instruments issued by a single body.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 251 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. Notwithstanding the individual limit laid down in paragraph 2, a standard MMF may combine, where this would lead to investment of up to 15% of its assets in a single body, any of the following: (a) investments in money market instruments issued by that body; (b) deposits made with that body; (c) OTC financial derivative instruments giving counterparty risk exposure to that body.deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 258 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 4
4. All portfolio assets that a standard MMF invests in according to paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be disclosed to MMF investors.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 259 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5
5. A standard MMF shall not take the form of a CNAV MMF.deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 265 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the sophisticationprofile of the different investors;
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 267 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the risk aversion of the different investors;deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 270 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Where the MMF investors route their investments via an intermediary, the MMF manager should seek, and the intermediary should provide, data allowing the manager of the MMF to manage appropriately the liquidity and investor concentration of the MMF.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 298 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
WheAny model used in 'marking -to -model, no valuation models based on amortised cost shall be used' pricing should be revised and approved by the appropriate competent authority and pricing data should be provided by recognised independent pricing vendors.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 305 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1
1. A CNAV MMF shall not use the amortised cost method for valuation, or advertise a constant NAV per unit or share, or round the constant NAV per unit or share to the nearest percentage point or its equivalent when the NAV is published in a currency unit unless it has been explicitly authorised as a CNAV MMF. have in place redemption gates and/or fee provisions. The MMF board or management company shall decide whether to implement a redemption gate and/or fees once a specific trigger has been breached. If the MMF board or management company decides to implement a redemption and/or fees, the MMF board of management company must alert ESMA and/or the relevant competent authorities. The redemption fee should be set to ensure that remaining shareholders do not suffer the liquidity costs of redeeming shareholders. The redemption fee shall be equivalent to the actual cost of liquidating assets to meet the client redemption in stressed market conditions and not a penal charge over and above what would offset losses imposed on other investors by the redemption. If the redemption gate and/or fee have not repaired the CNAV MMF within 30 days, the CNAV MMF shall convert to a VNAV MMF or be liquidated.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 306 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. ESMA shall determine the nature of the trigger for redemption gates and/or fees and how the fee should be calculated to ensure that the fee is no greater than that which would be charged for redemptions in normal market conditions.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 307 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2
2. A CNAV MMF shall satisfy all the following additional requirements: (a) it has established a NAV buffer in accordance with the requirements in Article 30; (b) the competent authority of the CNAV MMF is satisfied with a detailed plan by the CNAV MMF specifying the modalities of the use of the buffer in accordance with Article 31; (c) the competent authority of the CNAV MMF is satisfied with the CNAV MMF's arrangements to replenish the buffer and with the financial strength of the entity expected to fund the replenishment; (d) the rules or instruments of incorporation of the CNAV MMF provide clear procedures for the conversion of the CNAV MMF into a MMF that is not allowed to use the amortised cost accounting or the rounding methods; (e) the CNAV MMF and its manager have clear and transparent governance structures that unambiguously identify and assign responsibilities for the different governance levels; (f) the CNAV MMF has established clear and effective communication tools towards investors that ensure prompt information in relation to any use or replenishment of the NAV buffer and the conversion of the CNAV MMF; (g) the rules or instruments of incorporation of the CNAV MMF state clearly that the CNAV MMF cannot receive external support other than through the NAV buffer.deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 331 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30
[...]deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 345 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31
Article 31 Use of the NAV buffer 1. The NAV buffer shall only be used in case of subscriptions and redemptions to equalise the difference between the constant NAV per unit or share and the NAV per unit or share. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, in case of subscriptions: (a) where the constant NAV at which a unit or share is subscribed is higher than the NAV per unit or share, the positive difference shall be credited to the reserve account; (b) where the constant NAV at which a unit or share is subscribed is lower than the NAV, the negative difference shall be debited from the reserve account. 3. For the purposes of paragraph 1, in case of redemptions: (a) where the constant NAV at which a unit or share is redeemed is higher than the NAV per unit or share, the negative difference shall be debited from the reserve account; (b) where the constant NAV at which a unit or share is redeemed is lower than the NAV per unit or share, the positive difference shall be credited to the reserve account.deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 349 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32
Article 32 Escalation procedure 1. A CNAV MMF shall establish and implement an escalation procedure that ensures that the negative difference between the constant NAV per unit or share and the NAV per unit or share is considered by persons competent to act for the fund in a timely manner. 2. The escalation procedure shall require that: (a) where the negative difference reaches 10 basis points or its equivalent when the NAV is published in a currency unit, the senior management of the manager of the CNAV MMF be informed; (b) where the negative difference reaches 15 basis points or its equivalent when the NAV is published in a currency unit, the board of directors of the manager of the CNAV MMF, the competent authorities of the CNAV MMF and ESMA be informed; (c) the competent persons assess the cause of the negative difference and take appropriate action to reduce the negative effects.deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 355 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33
Article 33 Replenishment of the NAV buffer 1. Whenever the amount of the NAV buffer falls below 3% it shall be replenished. 2. When the NAV buffer has not been replenished and for one month the amount of the NAV buffer stays below the 3% referred to in Article 30(1) by 10 basis points the MMF shall automatically cease to be a CNAV MMF and be prohibited from using the amortised cost or rounding methods. The CNAV MMF shall inform immediately each investor thereof in writing and in a clear and comprehensible way.deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 360 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34
Article 34 Powers of the competent authority concerning the NAV buffer 1. The competent authority of the CNAV MMF shall be immediately notified of any decrease below 3% in the amount of the NAV buffer. 2. The competent authority of the CNAV MMF and ESMA shall be immediately notified when the amount of the NAV buffer decreases by 10 basis points below the 3% referred to in Article 30(1). 3. Following the notification referred to in paragraph 1, the competent authority shall closely monitor the CNAV MMF. 4. Following the notification in paragraph 2, the competent authority shall control that the NAV buffer has been replenished or the MMF has ceased to hold itself as a CNAV MMF and informed accordingly its investors.deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 365 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1
1. A CNAV MMF may not receive external support other than in the form and under the conditions laid down in Articles 30 to 34.deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 368 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2
2. MMFs other than CNAV MMFs shall not be allowed to receive external support, except under the conditions laid down in Article 36.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 374 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4
4. The aggregate amount of cash provided to the same counterparty of a MMF in reverse repurchase agreements shall not exceed 210% of its assets.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 381 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Investors in an MMF shall receive at least monthly the following information: a) the liquidity profile of the MMF including the cumulative percentage of investments maturing overnight and within one week and how that liquidity is achieved; b) the credit profile and portfolio composition; c) the WAM and WAL of the MMF; d) the cumulative concentration of the top 5 investors in the MMF.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 382 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 5
5. In addition to the information to be provided in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 4, a CNAV MMF shall explain clearly to investors and potential investors the use of the amortised cost method and/or of rounding. A CNAV MMF shall indicate the amount of its NAV buffer, the procedure to equalise the constant NAV per unit or share and the NAV per unit or share and shall state clearly the role of the buffer and the risks related to it. The CNAV MMF shall clearly indicate the modalities of replenishing the NAV buffer and the entity expected to fund the replenishment. It shall make available to investors all information concerning compliance with the conditions set out in Article 29(2)(a) to (g)procedure to apply the redemption gate and/or fees and the circumstances under which these will be triggered.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 388 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. An MMF shall disclose on a regular basis how much of its overall portfolio consists of: a) money market instruments issued by the MMF sponsor; b) if applicable, securitisations issued by the MMF sponsor; c) if the sponsor is a credit institution, cash deposits with the MMF sponsor; and d) exposure to the MMF sponsor as a counterparty to OTC derivative transactions.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 389 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Where and when the MMF sponsor invests in the shares or units of the MMF, the fund shall disclose to the other investors in the MMF the total amount the sponsor has invested in the MMF, and shall subsequently notify the other investors of any change to the total shares or units held.
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 399 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16
[...]deleted
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 416 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17
1. Each issuer of a money market instrument in which a MMF intends to invest shall be assigned an internal rating pursuant to the internal assessment procedure. 2. The structure of the internal rating system shall comply with all of the following requirements: (a) the internal rating system shall be based on a single rating scale which exclusively reflects quantification of the credit risk of the issuer. The rating scale shall have six grades for non-defaulted issuers and one for defaulted issuers; (b) there shall be a clear relationship between issuer grades reflecting the credit risk of an issuer and the rating criteria used to distinguish that level of credit risk; (c) the internal rating system shall take into account the short-term nature of money market instruments. 3. The rating criteria referred to in paragraph 2(b) shall fulfil all of the following requirements: (a) comprise at least quantitative and qualitative indicators on the issuer of the instrument, and the macro-economic and financial market situation; (b) refer to the common numerical and qualitative reference values used to assess the quantitative and qualitative indicators; (c) be adequate for the particular type of issuer. At least the following types of issuers shall be distinguished: sovereign, regional or local public authority, financial corporations, and non-financial corporations. (d) In case of exposure to securitisations, take into account the credit risk of the issuer, the structure of the securitisation and the credit risk of the underlying assets.Article 17 deleted Internal rating system
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 418 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 3
3. By way of derogation from the first sentence of Article 30(1), an existing UCITS or AIF that meets the criteria for the definition of a CNAV MMF set out in Article 2(10) shall establish a NAV buffer of at least (a) 1% of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets, within one year from the entry into force of this Regulation; (b) 2% of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets, within two years from the entry into force of this Regulation; (c) 3% of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets, within three years from the date of entry into force of this Regulationdeleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 422 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18
1. A manager of a MMF shall document its internal assessment procedure and the internal rating system. Documentation shall include: (a) the design and operational details of its internal assessment procedures and internal rating systems in a manner that allows competent authorities to understand the assignment to specific grades and to evaluate the appropriateness of an assignment to a grade; (b) the rationale for and the analysis supporting the manager's choice of the rating criteria and of its frequency of review. This analysis shall include the parameters, the model and the limits of the model used to choose the rating criteria; (c) all major changes in the internal assessment procedure, including identification of the triggers of changes; (d) the organisation of the internal assessment procedure, including the rating assignment process and the internal control structure; (e) complete internal rating histories on issuers and recognised guarantors; (f) the dates of assignment of internal ratings; (g) the key data and methodology used to derive the internal rating, including key rating assumptions; (h) the person or persons responsible for the internal rating assignment. 2. The internal assessment procedure shall be detailed in the fund rules or rules of incorporation of the MMF and all documents referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made available upon request by the competent authorities of the MMF and the competent authorities of the manager of the MMF.Article 18 deleted Documentation
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 423 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 4
4. For the purposes of paragraph 3 of this Article, the reference to 3% in Articles 33 and 34 shall be interpreted as referring to the amounts of the NAV buffer mentioned in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 3 respectively.deleted
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 426 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 44 specifying the following points: (a) the conditions under which the assignment methodologies are deemed to be prudent, rigorous, systematic and continuous and the conditions of the validation, referred to in Article 16(2); (b) the definitions of each grade with respect to the quantification of the credit risk of an issuer referred to in Article 17(2)(a), and the criteria to determine the quantification of the credit risk referred to in Article 17(2)(b); (c) the precise reference values for each qualitative indicator and the numerical reference values for each quantitative indicator. These reference values of the indicators shall be specified for each rating grade taking into account the criteria in Article 17(3); (d) the meaning of material change as referred to in Article 16(3)(c).Article 19 deleted Delegated acts
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 428 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20
1. The internal assessment procedures shall be approved by the senior management, the governing body, and, where it exists, the supervisory function of the manager of the MMF. These parties shall have a good understanding of the internal assessment procedures, the internal rating systems and the assignment methodologies of the manager and detailed comprehension of the associated reports. 2. Internal ratings-based analysisArticle 20 deleted Governance of the MMF's credit risk profile shall be an essential part of the reporting to the parties referred to in paragraph 1. Reporting shall include at least the risk profile by grade, migration across grades, estimation of the relevant parameters per grade, and comparison of realised default rates. Reporting frequencies shall depend on the significance and type of information and shall be at least annual. 3. Senior management shall ensure, on an on-going basis that the internal assessment procedure is operating properly. Senior management shall be regularly informed about the performance of the internal assessment process, the areas where deficiencies were identified, and the status of efforts and actions taken to improve previously identified deficiencies.quality assessment
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 429 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
By three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall review the adequacy of this Regulation from a prudential and economic point of view. In particular the review shall consider the operation of the CNAV buffer and the operation of the CNAV buffer to those CNAV MMFs that, in future, might concentrate their portfolios on debt issued or guaranteed by the Member States. The review shall:
2013/12/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 434 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) at least 105% of its assets shall be comprised of daily maturing assets. A short-term MMF shall not acquire any asset other than a daily maturing asset when such acquisition would result in the short-term MMF investing less than 105% of its portfolio in daily maturing assets;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 438 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) at least 230% of its assets shall be comprised of weekly maturing assets. A short-term MMF shall not acquire any asset other than a weekly maturing asset when such acquisition would result in the short-term MMF investing less than 230% of its portfolio in weekly maturing assets.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 443 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A standard MMF shall comply at all times with all of the following requirements:
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 450 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) at least 105% of its assets shall be comprised of daily maturing assets. A standard MMF shall not acquire any asset other than a daily maturing asset when such acquisition would result in the standard MMF investing less than 105% of its portfolio in daily maturing assets;
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 454 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) at least 230% of its assets shall be comprised of weekly maturing assets. A standard MMF shall not acquire any asset other than a weekly maturing asset when such acquisition would result in the standard MMF investing less than 230% of its portfolio in weekly maturing assets.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 461 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. A standardn MMF may invest up to 10% of its assets in money market instruments issued by a single body.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 463 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. Notwithstanding the individual limit laid down in paragraph 2, a standard MMF may combine, where this would lead to investment of up to 15% of its assets in a single body, any of the following: (a) investments in money market instruments issued by that body; (b) deposits made with that body; (c) OTC financial derivative instruments giving counterparty risk exposure to that body.deleted
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 469 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 4
4. All portfolio assets that a standard MMF invests in according to paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be disclosed to MMF investors.
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 470 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5
5. A standard MMF shall not take the form of a CNAV MMF.deleted
2015/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 472 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23
The MMF or the manager of the MMF shall not solicit or finance a credit rating agency for rating the MMF.Article 23 deleted MMF credit ratings
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 480 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the sophisticationprofile of the different investors;
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 483 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the risk aversion of the different investors;deleted
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 484 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Where the MMF investors route their investments via an intermediary, the MMF manager should seek, and the intermediary should provide, data allowing the manager of the MMF to manage appropriately the liquidity and investor concentration of the MMF.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 519 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
WheAny model used in 'marking -to -model, no valuation models based on amortised cost shall be used' pricing should be revised and approved by the appropriate competent authority and pricing data should be provided by recognised independent pricing vendors.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 523 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5
5. In addition to the marking to market method referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 and marking to model method referred to in paragraph 4, the assets of a CNAV MMF may also be valued by using the amortised cost method where its board of directors or the board of directors of its management company determines in good faith that the methodology reflects accurately the fair value of the relevant money market instruments held in the portfolio in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Where it is considered that amortization method can be used to fairly assess the value of a money market instrument, it must ensure that this will not result in a material discrepancy between the value of the money market instrument and the value calculated according to the amortization method.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 566 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1
1. A CNAV MMF shall have in place redemption gates and/or fee provisions. The weekly maturing assets in the portfolio of a CNAV MMF shall constitute at least 30% of the assets of that CNAV MMF. The manager of a CNAV MMF shall establish, implement and consistently apply prudent and rigorous liquidity management procedures for controlling the weekly liquidity thresholds applicable to such funds. The liquidity management procedures should be clearly described in the fund rules or instruments of incorporation, as well as in the prospectus and any marketing materials. Whenever the proposition of weekly maturing assets falls below 30% the manager of the CNAV MMF shall immediately inform the Board of the MMF. Following a thorough assessment of the situation and acting exclusively in the best interest of the investors, the MMF board or management company shall decide whether to implement a redemption gate and/or fees. If the MMF board or management company decides to implement a redemption and/or fees, the MMF board or management company must inform the competent authority. The redemption fee should be set to ensure that remaining shareholders do not suffer the liquidity costs of redeeming shareholders. The redemption fee shall be equivalent to the actual cost of liquidating assets to meet the client redemption in stressed market conditions and not a penal charge over and above what would offset losses imposed on other investors by the redemption. If the redemption gate and/or fee have not repaired the CNAV MMF within 30 days, the CNAV MMF shall convert to a VNAV MMF or be liquidated. MMF shall not use the amortised cost method for valuation, or advertise a constant NAV per unit or share, or round the constant NAV per unit or share to the nearest percentage point or its equivalent when the NAV is published in a currency unit unless it has been explicitly authorised as a CNAV MMF.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 569 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2
2. A CNAV MMF shall satisfy all the following additional requirements: (a) it has established a NAV buffer in accordance with the requirements in Article 30; (b) the competent authority of the CNAV MMF is satisfied with a detailed plan by the CNAV MMF specifying the modalities of the use of the buffer in accordance with Article 31; (c) the competent authority of the CNAV MMF is satisfied with the CNAV MMF's arrangements to replenish the buffer and with the financial strength of the entity expected to fund the replenishment; (d) the rules or instruments of incorporation of the CNAV MMF provide clear procedures for the conversion of the CNAV MMF into a MMF that is not allowed to use the amortised cost accounting or the rounding methods; (e) the CNAV MMF and its manager have clear and transparent governance structures that unambiguously identify and assign responsibilities for the different governance levels; (f) the CNAV MMF has established clear and effective communication tools towards investors that ensure prompt information in relation to any use or replenishment of the NAV buffer and the conversion of the CNAV MMF; (g) the rules or instruments of incorporation of the CNAV MMF state clearly that the CNAV MMF cannot receive external support other than through the NAV buffer.deleted
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 608 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30
[...]deleted
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 637 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31
1. The NAV buffer shall only be used in case of subscriptions and redemptions to equalise the difference between the constant NAV per unit or share and the NAV per unit or share. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, in case of subscriptions: (a) where the constant NAV at which a unit or share is subscribed is higher than the NAV per unit or share, the positive difference shall be credited to the reserve account; (b) where the constant NAV at which a unit or share is subscribed is lower than the NAV, the negative difference shall be debited from the reserve account. 3. For the purposes of paragraph 1, in case of redemptions: (a) where the constant NAV at which a unit or share is redeemed is higher than the NAV per unit or share, the negative difference shall be debited from the reserve account; (b) where the constant NAV at which a unit or share is redeemed is lower than the NAV per unit or share, the positive difference shall be credited to the reserve account.Article 31 deleted Use of the NAV buffer
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 642 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32
1. A CNAV MMF shall establish and implement an escalation procedure that ensures that the negative difference between the constant NAV per unit or share and the NAV per unit or share is considered by persons competent to act for the fund in a timely manner. 2. The escalation procedure shall require that: (a) where the negative difference reaches 10 basis points or its equivalent when the NAV is published in a currency unit, the senior management of the manager of the CNAV MMF be informed; (b) where the negative difference reaches 15 basis points or its equivalent when the NAV is published in a currency unit, the board of directors of the manager of the CNAV MMF, the competent authorities of the CNAV MMF and ESMA be informed; (c) the competent persons assess the cause of the negative difference and take appropriate action to reduce the negative effects.Article 32 deleted Escalation procedure
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 653 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33
Replenishment of the NAV buffer 1. Whenever the amount of the NAV buffer falls below 3% it shall be replenished. 2. When the NAV buffer has not been replenished and for one month the amount of the NAV buffer stays below the 3% referred to in Article 30(1) by 10 basis points the MMF shall automatically cease to be a CNAV MMF and be prohibited from using the amortised cost or rounding methods. The CNAV MMF shall inform immediately each investor thereof in writing and in a clear and comprehensible way.Article 33 deleted
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 665 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34
1. The competent authority of the CNAV MMF shall be immediately notified of any decrease below 3% in the amount of the NAV buffer. 2. The competent authority of the CNAV MMF and ESMA shall be immediately notified when the amount of the NAV buffer decreases by 10 basis points below the 3% referred to in Article 30(1). 3. Following the notification referred to in paragraph 1, the competent authority shall closely monitor the CNAV MMF. 4. Following the notification in paragraph 2, the competent authority shall control that the NAV buffer has been replenished or the MMF has ceased to hold itself as a CNAV MMF and informed accordingly its investors.Article 34 deleted Powers of the competent authority concerning the NAV buffer
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 682 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1
1. A CNAV MMF may not receive external support other than in the form and under the conditions laid down in Articles 30 to 34.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 687 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2
2. MMFs other than CNAV MMFs shall not be allowed to receive external support, except under the conditions laid down in Article 36.deleted
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 701 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36
1. In exceptional circumstances justified by systemic implications or adverse market conditions the competent authority may allow a MMF other than a CNAV MMF to receive external support referred to in Article 35 that is intended for or in effect would result in guaranteeing the liquidity of the MMF or stabilising the NAV per unit or share of the MMF provided that all of the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the MMF duly justifies the necessity of external support and demonstrates through conclusive evidence the urgent need for external support; (b) the external support is limited in terms of the amount provided and the period of time when it is made available; (c) the competent authority is satisfied that the provider of the external support is financially sound and has sufficient financial resources to withstand without any adverse effects possible losses resulting from the external support granted. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1(c), in case the provider of the external support is an entity subject to prudential supervision the agreement of the supervisory authority of that entity shall be sought in view of ensuring that the support to be granted by the entity is subject to adequate own funds provided by that entity and is in line with the risk management system of that entity. 3. Where the conditions referred to in paragraph 1 for receiving external support are fulfilled the MMF shall immediately inform each investor thereof in writing and in a clear and comprehensible way.Article 36 deleted Exceptional circumstances
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 723 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 5
5. In addition to the information to be provided in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 4, a CNAV MMF shall explain clearly to investors and potential investors the use of the amortised cost method and/or of rounding. A CNAV MMF shall indicate the amount of its NAV buffer, the procedure to equalise the constant NAV per unit or share and the NAV per unit or share and shall state clearly the role of the buffer and the risks related to it. The CNAV MMF shall clearly indicate the modalities of replenishing the NAV buffer and the entity expected to fund the replenishment. It shall make available to investors all information concerning compliance with the conditions set out in Article 29(2)(a) to (g)procedure to apply the redemption gate and/or fees and the circumstances under which these will be triggered.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 731 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Investors in an MMF shall receive at least monthly the following information: a) the liquidity profile of the MMF including the cumulative percentage of investments maturing overnight and within one week and how that liquidity is achieved; b) the credit profile and portfolio composition; c) the WAM and WAL of the MMF; d) the cumulative concentration of the top 5 investors in the MMF.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 732 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. An MMF shall disclose on a regular basis how much of its overall portfolio consists of: a) money market instruments issued by the MMF sponsor; b) if applicable, securitisations issued by the MMF sponsor; c) if the sponsor is a credit institution, cash deposits with the MMF sponsor; and d) exposure to the MMF sponsor as a counterparty to OTC derivative transactions.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 733 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Where and when the MMF sponsor invests in the shares or units of the MMF, the fund shall disclose to the other investors in the MMF the total amount the sponsor has invested in the MMF, and shall subsequently notify the other investors of any change to the total shares or units held.
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 766 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 3
3. By way of derogation from the first sentence of Article 30(1), an existing UCITS or AIF that meets the criteria for the definition of a CNAV MMF set out in Article 2(10) shall establish a NAV buffer of at least (a) 1% of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets, within one year from the entry into force of this Regulation; (b) 2% of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets, within two years from the entry into force of this Regulation; (c) 3% of the total value of the CNAV MMF's assets, within three years from the date of entry into force of this Regulationdeleted
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 783 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 4
4. For the purposes of paragraph 3 of this Article, the reference to 3% in Articles 33 and 34 shall be interpreted as referring to the amounts of the NAV buffer mentioned in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 3 respectively.deleted
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 792 #

2013/0306(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
By three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall review the adequacy of this Regulation from a prudential and economic point of view. In particular the review shall consider the operation of the CNAV buffer and the operation of the CNAV buffer to those CNAV MMFs that, in future, might concentrate their portfolios on debt issued or guaranteed by the Member States. The review shall:
2015/01/09
Committee: ECON
Amendment 34 #

2013/0278(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 5
In cases where such data may prove useful to academic researchers, the national authorities may decide to make such information available as long as privacy and confidentiality rules are complied with.
2013/11/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 38 #

2013/0278(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 9
EC 638/2004
Article 13a – paragraph 2
2. When exercising the powers delegated in Articles 3(4), 6(2), 10(3) (4) and (5), 12(1)(a) and (2), the Commission shall ensure that the delegated acts do not impose a significant additional administrative burden burden on the Member States and on the respondents and reductions to the burden are pursued. In addition, the Member States and on the rCommission shall duly justify the actions in those delegated acts and shall provide information with input from Member Statesp ondents burden and production costs as referred to in Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009.
2013/11/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 41 #

2013/0278(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 9
Regulation (EC) 638/2004
Article 13a – paragraph 3
3. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 3(4), 6(2), 10(3) (4) and (5), 12(1)(a) and (2) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time5 years from [(Publication office: please insert the exact date of the entry into force of the amending Regulation)]is Regulation]. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than 9 months before the end of the 5 year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than 3 months before the end of each period.
2013/11/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 45 #

2013/0278(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 10
EC638/2004
Article 14 – paragraph 2a (new)
2a. Where the committee delivers no opinion, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act and the third subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.
2013/11/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 62 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
(2) On the demand side, ELTIFs can provide a steady and safe income stream for pension administrators, insurance companies and other entities that face regular and recurrent liabilities. While providing less liquidity than investments in transferable securities, ELTIFs can provide a steady and safe income stream for individual investors that rely on the regular cash flow that an ELTIF can produce. ELTIFs can also offer good opportunities for capital appreciation over time for those investors not receiving a steady and safe income stream.
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 67 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) WhileGiven that individual retail investors may be interested in investing in an ELTIF, the illiquid nature of most investments in long-term projects precludes an ELTIF from offering regular redemptions to its investors. The commitment of the individual investor to an investment in such assets is by its nature made to the full term of the investmentand given that retail investors may not have the necessary resources or a sufficiently diversified portfolio that would allow them to lock-up their capital for a long period of time, other than when the investment is held within a personal pension arrangement, an ELTIF should be allowed to consider offering redemption rights to investors. At the same time, given the illiquid nature of most of the investments and the long-term character of the projects, a clear and predefined redemption rights regime should be in place. ELTIFs should, consequently, be structured so as not to offer regular redemptions before the end of, where applicable under the redemption policy regime, regular redemptions during the life of the ELTIF. A report, three years after the adoption of this Regulation, shall investigate whether this rule will have achieved the expected results in terms of ELTIF distribution or whether the introduction, in a limited number of cases, of the possibility, for some individual retail investors, to redeem their units or shares before the end of the ELTIF, may contribute to increase the distribution of ELTIF among the individual retail investors.
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 88 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) The definition of what constitutes a long-term investment is broad. Without necessarily requiring long-term holding periods for the ELTIF manager, eligible investment assets are generally illiquid, require commitments for a certain period of time, and have an economic profile of a long-term nature. Eligible investment assets are non-transferable securities and therefore do not have access to the liquidity of secondary markets. They often require fixed term commitments which restrict their marketability. The economic cycle of the investment sought by ELTIFs is essentially of a long-term nature due to the high capital commitments and the length of time required to produce returns. As a result such assets do not suit investments with redemption rights.
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 110 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) In order to allow ELTIF managers to raise further capital during the life of the fund, they should be permitted to borrow cash amounting to up to 340% of the capital of the fund. This should serve to provide additional return to the investors. In order to eliminate the risk of currency mismatches, the ELTIF should only borrow in the currency the manager expects to acquire the asset in.
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 114 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
(32) Notwithstanding the fact that ELTIFs do not offer redemption rights before the end of life of the ELTIF, nothing should prevent an ELTIF from seeking admission of these shares or units to a regulated market as defined in Article 4(14) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments,10 to a multilateral trading facility as defined in Article 4(15) of Directive 2004/39/EC, or to an organised trading facility as defined in point (...) of Regulation (...), thus providing investors with an opportunity to sell their units or shares before the end of life of the ELTIF. The rules or instruments of incorporation of an ELTIF should therefore not prevent units or shares from being admitted to or from being dealt ion regulated markets, nor should they prevent investors from freely transferring their shares or units to third parties who wish to purchase those shares or units. __________________ 10 OJ L 145, 30.4.2004, p.1.
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 119 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
(36) As ELTIFs target both professional and retail investors across the Union, it is necessary that certain requirements be added to the marketing requirements laid down in Directive 2011/61/EU in order to ensure an appropriate degree of investor protection, particularly for individual or retail investors. Thus, facilities should be made available for making subscriptions, making payments to unit- or shareholders, repurchasing or redeeming units or shares and making available the information which the ELTIF and its managers are required to provide. Moreover, in order to ensure that individual or retail investors are not disadvantaged with respect to experienced professional investors certain safeguards have to be put in place when ELTIFs are marketed to individual or retail investors, such as redemption rights at least at mid-term of the ELTIF's life.
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 134 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
An ELTIF shall onlmay be marketed in the Union wherewhole Union or any of the EU Member States provided that it has been authorised in accordance with this Regulation.
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 150 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The competent authority shall provide the applicant ELTIF with an answer within 30 days.
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 153 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) fine art and jewellery on sale through auction houses registered in the EU.
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 210 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) it represents no more than 340% of the capital of the ELTIF;
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 221 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Investors shall not be able to ask for redemption of their units or shares before the end of life of the ELTIFELTIFs may either indicate a specific date as the end of the initial life of the ELTIF or specify a regular redemption policy. In the case that the ELTIF rules or instruments of incorporation indicate a specific date as the end of the initial life of the ELTIF, investors shall not be able to ask for redemption of their units or shares before that date. This date, and the inability of investors to redeem their investment before it, shall be clearly stated in any marketing or point of sale documentation. Redemption to investors shall be possible as of the day following the date defining the end of the initial life of the ELTIF. In the case that the ELTIF intends to operate a policy of regular redemptions, the rules or instruments of incorporation or any marketing or point of sale documentation of the ELTIF shall indicate: i. Any initial lock-up period, before which redemptions are not possible (e.g. not before the mid-term of the life of the ELTIF). ii. The periods or specified dates at which purchases or redemptions are possible. iii. Any restrictions as to the amount of purchases of or redemptions from the fund during any one redemption period. iv. That the redemption value of the shares or units of the ELTIF shall be based on the latest valuation. v. The method of valuation of the ELTIF's underlying assets and the methodology used to price its shares or units. For such ELTIFs, the frequency of valuation of the ELTIF's assets and the frequency of pricing of the ELTIF's shares or units shall be aligned with the frequency of redemption dates.
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 228 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
The ELTIF rules or instruments of incorporation and disclosures to investors shall lay down the procedures for redemption and disposal of assets and state clearly that redemption to investors shall commence on the day following the date defining the end of life of the ELTIFfor the purchase or redemption of fund shares or units.
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 234 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3
3. Investors may request the winding down of the ELTIF if their redemption requests made in accordance with the ELTIF's redemption policy have not been satisfied within one year after the end of life of the ELTIFdate when they have been made.
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 244 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the capital appreciation realized after the disposal of an asset, but excluding the original capital commitments made.
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 253 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 – point b
(b) inform investors about the end of the initial life of the ELTIF where applicable;
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 256 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 – point d
(d) state thate right of investors shall have no right to redeem their investment until the end of the lifein accordance with Article 16(1) and with the rules or instruments of incorporation of the ELTIF;
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 266 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1
1. TIn the case of ELTIFs that operate a regular redemption policy, the manager of anthe ELTIF shall, in each Member State where it intends to market units or shares of that ELTIF, put in place facilities available for making subscriptions, making payments to unit- or shareholders, repurchasing or redeeming units or shares and making available the information which the ELTIF and its managers are required to provide.
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 291 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the impact of the provision in Article 16(1) that excludeallows investors fromto redeeming their units or shares before the end ofat mid-term of the life of the ELTIF. The review, taking into account ELTIF's distribution to different investor categories, shall also assess whether exempting a limited number of individual retail investors from such a rule would havehas the effect of increasing demand for ELTIF amongst individual or retail investors;
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 294 #

2013/0214(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the impact on asset diversification of the application of the minimum threshold of 70% of eligible investment assets laid down in Article 12(1), in particular to assess whether increased measures on liquidity would be necessary should a limited number of individual retail investors be exempted from the prohibition on redeeming their units before the end of life of the ELTIFand after the mid-term of the life of the ELTIF in exceptional cases;
2013/12/05
Committee: ECON
Amendment 119 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
(3) However, more can be done to improve and develop the single market for retail banking. In particular, the lack of transparency and comparability of fees as well as the difficulties in switching payment accounts still pose barriers to the deployment of a fully integrated market, although it is not clear that there is significant demand for cross-border switching of payment accounts.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 120 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
(4) The current conditions of the Single Market may deter payments services providers from exercising their freedom to establish or to provide services within the Union because of the difficulty in attracting customers when entering a new market. Entering new markets often entails large investments. Such investments are only justified if the provider foresees sufficient opportunities and a corresponding demand from consumers. The low level of mobility of consumers with respect to retail financial services is to a large extent due to the lack of transparency and comparability as regards the fees and services on offer, as well as difficulties in relation to the switching of payment accounts. These factors also stifle demand. This is particularly true in the cross-border context.deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 123 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
(5) Moreover, significant barriers to the completion of the single market in the area of payment accounts may be created by the fragmentation of existing national regulatory frameworks. Existing provisions at national level with respect to payment accounts, and particularly with respect to the comparability of fees and payment account switching diverge. For switching, the lack of uniform binding measures at EU level has led to divergent practices and measures at national level. These differences are even more marked in the area of comparability of fees, where no measures, even of a self-regulatory nature, exist at EU level. Should these differences become more significant in the future, as banks tend to tailor their practices to national markets, this would raise the cost of operating cross-border relative to the costs faced by domestic providers and therefore make the pursuit of business cross-border less attractive. Cross-border activity in the internal market is hampered by obstacles to consumers opening a payment account abroad. Existing restrictive eligibility criteria may prevent European citizens from moving freely within the Union. Providing all consumers with access to a payment account will permit their participation in the internal market and allow them to obtain the benefits of the single market.deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 125 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) Moreover, since some prospective customers do not open accounts, either because they are denied them or becauseThere is a significant degree of variation between Member States in terms of they are not offered adequate products the potential demand for payment account services in the EU is currently not fully exploited. Wider consumer participation in the internal market would further incentivise payment service providers to enter new markets. Also, creating the conditions to allow all consumers to access a paymentbility of consumers to access payment accounts. However in those Member States where there are significant unbanked populations, this appears to be more ac count is a necessary means to foster their participation in the internal market and to allow them to reap the benefits the Single Market has broughnsequence of incomplete banking infrastructure and/or the consumer's preference not to open a payment abccount.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 127 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) Transparency and comparability of fees have been addressed in a self-regulatory initiative, initiated by the banking industry. However, no final agreement was found on these guidelines. As regards switching, the common principles established in 2008 by the European Banking Industry Committee provide a model mechanism for switching between bank accounts offered by payment service providers located in the same Member State. However, given their non- binding nature, these principles have been applied in an inconsistent manner throughout the EU and with ineffective results. Moreover, the Common Principles only address bank account switching at national level and do not address cross- border switching. Finally, as regards access to a basic payment account, the Commission Recommendation 2011/442/EU of 18 July 2011 invited Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure its application at the latest six months after its publication. To date, only few Member States comply with the main principles of the Recommendation.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 130 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) It is vital, therefore, to establish a uniform set of rules to tackle the issue of low customer mobility and in particular to improve comparison of payment account services and fees and to incentivise payment account switching as well as avoid that consumers who intend to purchase a payment account cross-border are discriminated on the basis of residency. Moreover, it is essential to adopt adequate measures to foster customers' participation in the payment accounts market. These measures will incentivize entry for payment service providers in the internal market and ensure a level playing field, thereby strengthening competition and the efficient allocation of resources within the EU financial retail market to the benefit of businesses and consumers. Also, transparent fee information and switching possibilities combined with the right of access to basic account services will allow EU citizens to move and shop around more easily within the Union and therefore benefit from a fully functioning internal market in the area of retail financial services and contribute to its further development.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 133 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) It is also vital to ensure that this Directive does not hamper innovation in the area of retail financial services. Each year, new technologies become viable, which sometimes have the potential to render the current model of payment accounts out of date. In particular, mobile banking services, peer-to-peer services and stored value payment cards must be encouraged as alternatives to traditional banking services.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 137 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
(11) It is vital for consumers to be able to understand fees so that they can compare offers from different payment service providers and make informed decisions as to which account is most suitable for their needs. Comparison between fees cannot be achieved where payment service providers use different terminology for the same payment services and provide information in different formats. Standardised terminology, coupled with targeted fee information for the most representative payment services in a consistent format, can help consumers to both understand and compare fees at national level. Despite this, it must be recognised that there is a huge amount of variation across member states. For those member states with 'free retail banking models', identifying a large number of fee terms may be impossible.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 139 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
(12) Consumers would benefit most from informationneed information on fees relating to their payment account that is concise and easy to compare between different payment service providers. The tools made available to consumers to compare payment account offers would not have a positive impactIn this context, the EC adopted Directive 2007/64/EC which, ifn the time invested in going through lengthy lists of fees for different offers outweighed the benefit of choosing the offer that repinterest of transparency, lays down conditions and information requiresments the best value. Accordingly, ffor payment transactions. Fee terminology should only be standardised for the most representative terms and definitions within Member States in order to avoid the risk of excessive information.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 142 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
(13) The fee terminology should be determined by national competent authorities, allowing for consideration of the specificities of local markets. To be considered representative, services should be subject to a fee at a minimum of one payment service provider in Member States. In addition, where possible, fee terminology should be standardised at EU level, thus allowing for comparison across the Union. The European Banking Authority (EBA) should establish guidelines to assist Member States to determine the most representative payment services subject to a fee at national level.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 146 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
(14) Once national competent authorities have determined a provisional list of the most representative services subject to a fee at national level together with terms and definitions, the Commission should review them to identify, by means of delegated acts, the services that are common to the majority of Member States and propose standardised EU level terms and definitions for them.deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 154 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
(15) In order to help consumers compare payment account fees throughout the single market easily, payment service providers should provide consumers with a list of fees charged for the services listed in the standardised terminology at national level. This would also contribute towards establishing a level playing field between credit institutions competing in the payment account market. The fee information document should only contain information on the most representative payment services in each Member State, using the terms and definitions established at EU level where relevant. In order to help consumers understand the fees they have to pay for their payment account, a glossary providing explanations for at least the fees and services contained in the list should be made available to them. The glossary should serve as a useful tool to encourage a better understanding of the meaning of fees, contributing towards empowering consumers to choose from a wider choice of payment account offers. An obligation should also be introduced for payment service providers to inform consumers, at least annually, of all the fees charged on their account. Ex-post information should be provided in a dedicated summary. It should provide a complete overview of the fees incurred to enable a consumer to understand what fee expenditures relate to, and to assess the need to either modify consumption patterns or move to another provider. This benefit would be maximised by the ex-post fee information covering the same services as the ex-ante information.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 155 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) To meet the needs of consumers, it is necessary to ensure that fee information on payment accounts is accurate, clear and comparable. This Directive should therefore lay down common presentation requirements for the fee information document and the statement of fees, in order to ensure that they are understandable and comparable for consumers. The same format, order of items and headings should be followed for every fee information document and statement of fees in each Member State, allowing consumers to compare the two documents, thereby maximising understanding and use of the information. The fee information document and statement of fees should be clearly distinguishable from other communications. They should be identified by a common symbol.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 157 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
(17) In order to ensure the consistent use of applicable EU level terminology across the Union, Member States should establish an obligation for payment service providers to use the applicable EU level terminology together with the remaining national standardised terminology identified in the provisional list when communicating with consumers, including in the fee information document and the statement of fees. Except for in the fee information document and statement of fees, payment service providers may use brand names to denote services.deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 162 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
(18) Comparison websites are an effective means for consumers to assess the merits of different payment account offers in a single space. They can provide the right balance between the need for information to be clear and concise, yet complete and comprehensive, by enabling users to obtain more detailed information where this is of interest to them. They can also reduce search costs as consumers will not need to collect information separately from payment service providers.deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 163 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) In order to obtain impartial information on bank fees, consumers should be able to access comparison websites which are operationally independent from payment service providers. Member States should therefore ensure that at least one such website is available to consumers in their respective territories. Such comparison websites may be operated by competent authorities, other public authorities and/or accredited private operators. Member States should establish a voluntary accreditation scheme allowing private operators of comparison websites to apply for accreditation in accordance with specified quality criteria. A comparison website operated by a competent authority or other public authority should be established where a privately operated website has not been accredited. Such websites should also comply with the quality criteria.deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 166 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) It is current practice for payment service providers to offer a payment account in a package with other financial products or services. This practice can be a means for payment service providers to diversify their offer and to compete against each other, and in the end it can be beneficial for consumers. However the Commission study on tying practices in the financial sector conducted in 2009 as well as relevant consultations and consumer complaints have showed that payment service providers may offer bank accounts packaged with products not requested by consumers and which are not essential for payment accounts, such as household insurance. Moreover, it has been observed that these practices may reduce transparency and comparability of prices, limit purchasing options for consumers and negatively impact upon their mobility. Therefore, Member States should ensure that when payment service providers offer packaged payment accounts packaged with other financial services consumers are provided with information on the applicable fees for the payment account and for each other financial service included in the package separately. T, whesre obligations should not apply to services which are naturally connected to the use of the payment account, such as withdrawals, wire transfers or payment cards. As a result, these services should be excluded from the scope of this provisionit is possible for consumers to buy the payment account and the bundled services separately.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 170 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
(21) Consumers are only incentivised to switch accounts if the process does not entail an excessive administrative and financial burden. The procedure for switching payment accounts to another payment service provider should be clear and quick. The fees, if any, charged by payment service providers in relation to the switching service should be in line with the actual cost incurred by payment service providers. In order to have positive impact on competition, switching should also be facilitated at cross-border level. Given that switching cross-border could be more complex than the switching at national level and may require payment service providers to adapt and refine their internal procedures, longer deadlines for the cross-border switch should be foreseen. The need to maintain different deadlines should be evaluated in the Consumers are only incentivised to switch accounts if the process does not entail an excessive administrative and financial burden. The procedure for switching payment accounts to another payment service provider should be clear and quick. The fees, if any, charged by payment service providers in relation to the switching service should be in line with the actual cost incurred by payment service providers. Moreover, the offering of such services will be challenging as technical standards, business rules and legal requirements between the payment schemes of the EU Member States are different. In addition, Regulation 260/2012 that will enter into force as from 1 February 2014 will make such services obsolete for consumers that move within the Eurozone. For those consumers moving between a Eurozone country and a non-Eurozone country, multi-banking is a very commonly used practice. It allows consumers to open a new account while at the same time maintaining their old accountext of the review of the proposed Directive, or only closing it if all their obligations with local providers have been ended.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 174 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
(22) The switching process should be as straightforward as possible for the consumer. Accordingly Member States should ensure that the receiving payment service provider is responsible for initiating and managing the process on behalf of the consumer. The requirements of this Directive relating to the provision of the switching service can be complied with through law, self-regulation or voluntary agreement.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 181 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
(27) Consumers who are legally resident in the Union and who do not hold a payment account in a certain Member Statehave previously been denied access to a basic payment account, are resident in and can justify a sufficient relationship with the Member State of the PSP where they apply for access to a payment account with basic features should be in a position to open and use a payment account with basic features in that Member State. In order to ensure the widest possible access to such accounts, consumers should have access to them irrespective of their financial circumstances, such as unemployment or personal bankruptcy, and of their place of residence. Moreover, the right to access a payment account with basic features in any Member State should be granted in conformity with the requirements set out in Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, in particular with regard to customer due diligence procedures.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 195 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
(29) To exercise their right to access a basic payment account, consumers should not already hold a payment account in the same territoryand must have been denied access to a payment account in the Member State. They should justify a sufficient relationship with the Member State of the PSP where they apply for access to a payment account with basic features. When it is not possible to use electronic systems to establish whether or not a consumer already holds a payment account, payment service providers should accept a declaration by consumers as a reliable means of verifying that they do not already holdhave been denied access to a payment account.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 207 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
(36) In order to attain the objectives set out in this Directive, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission in respect of identifying the standardised terminology at EU level for payment services common to a number of Member States and the related definitions for these termsdeleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 209 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
(37) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. These powers relate to the definition of the format of the fee information document, its common symbol and the order in which the services contained in it shall be presented, as well as to the format of the statement of fees, its common symbol and the order in which the services contained in it shall be presented. These powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers.deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 211 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
(39) A review of this Directive should be carried out five years after its entry into force in order to take account of market developments, such as the emergence of new types of payment accounts and payment services, as well as developments in other areas of Union law and the experiences of Member States. The review should assess whether the measures introduced have improved consumer understanding of payment account fees, the comparability of payment accounts and the ease of switching accounts. It should also determine how many basic payment accounts have been opened including by previously unbanked consumers. It should also assess whether extended deadlines for payment service providers performing cross-border switching are to be maintained for a longer period. Also, it should assess whether the provisions on the information to be provided by payment service providers when offering packaged products are sufficient or whether additional measures are needed. A study should also be conducted looking at whether there is demand for a cross- border switching service, or whether the status quo is responsive to consumer demand. The Commission should submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 217 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Directive lays down rules concerning the transparency and comparability of fees charged to consumers on their payment accounts held within the European Union and provided by payment service providers located in the Union and rules concerning the switching of payment accounts within the Uniona Member State.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 225 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. In order to adhere to the requirements set out in this Directive, Member States shall ensure that a payment service provider has access to comprehensive, functional databases by which they are able to verify the address, identity and credit worthiness of consumers in the Member State, in order to assist with fraud prevention, monitoring the consumers' compliance with credit obligations and compliance with their requirements under Directive 2005/60/EC. The conditions for such access shall be non-discriminatory. Mandatory fields within these databases should include name, address, date of birth, country of residence and nationality. Access to such databases will also enable Member States to fulfil the requirements set out in Article 16 of Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit agreements relating to residential property.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 226 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) ‘payment account’ means an account held in the name of one or more payment service users which is used for the execution of payment transactions;. For the purposes of this Directive, a 'payment account' does not include: i) accounts primarily designed as deposit or savings accounts ii) credit cards iii) current account mortgages; and iv) e-wallets, e-money and e-payment cards.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 240 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point r a (new)
(ra) 'business day' means a day on which the relevant payment service provider of the payer or the payee involved in the execution of a payment transaction is open for business as required for the execution of a payment transaction, as defined in Article 4 (27) of Directive 2007/64/EC;
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 252 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities referred to in Article 20, determine a provisional list of at least 20list of payment services accounting for at least 80% of the most representative payment services subject to a fee at national level. The list shall contain terms and definitions for each of the services identified.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 258 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the competent authorities shall have regard to the services: (1) most commonly used by consumers in relation to their payment account; (2) which generate the highest cost for consumers per service; (3) which generate the highest overall cost for consumers; (4) which generate the highest profit for payment service providers per service; (5) which generate the highest overall profit for payment service providers. The EBA shall develop guidelines pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 to assist the competent authorities.deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 263 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall notify to the Commission the provisional lists referred to in paragraph 1 within 6 months of the entry into force of this Directive.deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 266 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 24, concerning the setting out, on the basis of the provisional lists submitted pursuant to paragraph 3, of an EU standardised terminology for those payment services that are common to at least a majority of Member States. The EU standardised terminology will include common terms and definitions for the common services.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 286 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Where one or more payment services referred to in paragraph 1 is offered as part of a package of financial services, the fee information document shall disclose which of the services referred to in paragraph 1 arepayment services for which there is a package fee, the fee information document shall disclose the fee for the entire package, the services included in the package, and the fee for the entire package and the fee for anyany of those payment services that isare not referred to in paragraph 1covered by the package fee.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 294 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The title ‘fee information document’ shall prominently appear at the top of the first page of the fee information document next to a common symbol to distinguish the document from other documentation.deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 307 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 6
6. The fee information document and the glossary shall be made available free of charge at all timupon request by payment service providers on a durable medium at premises accessible to consumers and shall be made available in electronic form on their websites.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 314 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 7
7. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt implementing acts pursuant to Article 26 toMember States shall define the format of the fee information document, its common symbol and the order in which the services referred to in paragraph 5 of Article 3 shall be presented in the fee information document.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 332 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the unit fee charged for each service, the number of times the service was used during the relevant period and the date on which the service was used;deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 346 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The title ‘statement of fees’ shall prominently appear at the top of the first page of the statement next to a common symbol to distinguish the document from other documentation.deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 350 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt implementing acts pursuant to Article 26 toMember States shall define the format of the statement of fees, its common symbol and the order in which the services referred to in paragraph 51 of Article 3 shall be presented in the statement of fees.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 368 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7
Article 7 Comparison websites 1. Member States shall ensure that consumers have access to at least one website comparing fees charged by payment service providers for services offered on payment accounts at national level in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3. 2. Member States shall establish a voluntary accreditation scheme for websites comparing fees charged by payment service providers for services offered on payment accounts operated by private operators. In order to be granted accreditation, comparison websites operated by private operators shall: (a) be operationally independent of any payment service provider; (b) use plain language and, where relevant, the terms referred to in Article 3, paragraph 5; (c) provide up-to-date information; (d) provide a sufficiently broad overview of the payment accounts market; (e) operate an effective enquiry and complaints handling procedure. 3. Where no website is accredited pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall ensure that a website operated by the competent authority referred to in Article 20 or any other competent public authority is established. Where a website has been accredited pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States may decide to establish an additional website operated by the competent authority referred to in Article 20 or any other competent public authority. Websites operated by a competent authority pursuant to paragraph 1 shall comply with paragraphs 2 (a) to (e). 4. Member States shall retain the right to refuse or withdraw accreditation from private operators in the event of a failure to comply with the obligations in paragraph 2. 5. Member States shall ensure that adequate information about the websites referred to in paragraph 1 is available to consumers. This shall include, where relevant, the maintenance of a publicly accessible register of accredited comparison websites.deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 397 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Without prejudice to Article 4(2), Member States shall ensure that when a payment account is offered together with another financial service or product as part of a package, the payment service provider informs the consumer of whether it is possible to buy the payment account separately and, if so, provides separate information regarding the costs and fees associated with each of the other financial products and services offered in the package, where it is possible to buy each of those financial products and services separately.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 411 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that payment service providers provide a switching service as described in Article 10 to any consumer who holds a payment account with a payment service provider located in the Unionthe Member State where the consumer resides.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 457 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) set up within seven calendarbusiness days the standing orders for credit transfers requested by the consumer and execute them from the date specified in the authorisation;
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 475 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 6 – point a
(a) send the receiving payment service provider the information indicated in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 3 within seven calendarbusiness days of receiving the request;
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 488 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 8
8. Member States shall ensure that the provisions contained in paragraphs 1 to 7 also apply when the switching service is initiated by a payment service provider located in another Member State.deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 493 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 9
9. In the case indicated in paragraph 8, the deadlines indicated in paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 shall be doubled. The present provision shall be subject to review pursuant to Article 27.deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 546 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that consumers legallywho are resident in the Union have the right to open and use a payment account with basic featuresor can prove a sufficient relationship with the Member State of the PSP where they apply for access to a payment account with basic features have the right to open and use such account with the payment service provider or providers identified pursuant to paragraph 1. Such a right shall apply irrespective of theMember States shall ensure that the exercise of the right is granted to consumer's place of residence. Member States shall ensure that the exercise of the right is not made excessively difficult or burdensome for the consumer. Before opening the payment account with basic features, payment service providers shall verify whether the consumer holds or does not holdwho can give information about the purpose and intended nature of business relationship which justifies the opening of a payment account in the territory of the PSP and that this is not made excessively difficult or burdensome for the consumer. Member States shall ensure that the right to open a payment account with basic features is guaranteed solely for customers who were previously denied access to a payment account in their territory.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 561 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) Where a consumer already holds a payment account, with a payment service provider located in their territory, which allows him to make use of the payment services listed in Article 176(1);
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 567 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) where the conditions established by Chapter II of Directive 2005/60/EC are not satisfied. and in particular the consumer's duty to give information on the purpose and intended nature of the relationship which justifies the opening of a payment account in the Member State of the PSP where the application is made
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 571 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) where the consumer cannot prove that it has previously been denied access to a "regular" payment account;
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 578 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – point b b (new)
(bb) where the termination grounds mentioned in Art. 18 (2) of this Directive have not been met at the time of the application for the payment account.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 709 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 23
Article 23 Delegated acts The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 24 concerning Article 3(4).
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 712 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 24
Article 24 Exercise of the delegation 1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. The delegation of power referred to in Article 23 shall be conferred for an indeterminate period of time from the date of entry into force of this Directive. 3. The delegation of powers referred to in Article 23 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 23 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.Deleted
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 730 #

2013/0139(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by [onetwo years after entry into force of this Directive] at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
2013/09/10
Committee: ECON
Amendment 14 #

2012/2711(RSP)


Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that Japan is pursuing its interest in other major free trade agreements such as the potential Japan- China-South Korea FTA and the Trans- Pacific Partnership, as well as negotiating several other bilateral agreements; believes that the EU should not fall behind other major economies in developing its trade relations with Japan and should instead capitalise on the current momentum in bilateral commercial relations; as well as drawing on its experience with the South Korea FTA in order to aim to achieve comparable market access penetration in negotiations with Japan.
2012/09/20
Committee: INTA
Amendment 26 #

2012/2711(RSP)


Paragraph 6 c (new)
Calls on the Japanese Government to reconfirm at the onset of formal negotiations of an EU-Japan FTA its commitments made in the scoping exercise, especially with regards to removing non-tariff barriers to trade (NTBs).
2012/09/20
Committee: INTA
Amendment 32 #

2012/2711(RSP)


Paragraph 8
8. Accordingly, requests that, as a condition for authorising the Commission to negotiate an FTA with Japan, the Council insists on a binding review clause to allow for a thorough assessment of the implementation of the roadmaps for NTBs and the roadmap on public procurement for railways and urban transport agreed in the scoping exercise;
2012/09/20
Committee: INTA
Amendment 39 #

2012/2711(RSP)


Paragraph 8 a (new)
Calls on the Commission to dedicate one of the initial negotiation rounds of the EU-Japan FTA to removing NTBs and to therefore ensure that an independent impact assessment can be conducted as part of the review clause one year after the start of the negotiations to objectively assess the progress made on this key concern for the European Parliament.
2012/09/20
Committee: INTA
Amendment 46 #

2012/2711(RSP)


Paragraph 10
10. Notes that the removal of non-tariff barriers is significantly more difficult to monitor and implement than the elimination of import tariffs; urges the Commission to fully take into account Parliament's recommendations as outlined in its resolution of 13 December 2011 on Trade and Investment Barriers and to draw conclusions from the NTB commitments in the EU-South Korea FTA to develop best practise implementation and monitoring mechanisms;
2012/09/20
Committee: INTA
Amendment 70 #

2012/2711(RSP)


Paragraph 11, sixth indent
- The removal of a substantial number of those barriers and obstacles that are of the greatest hindrance to market access for European SMEs;
2012/09/20
Committee: INTA
Amendment 87 #

2012/2711(RSP)


Paragraph 12
12. Reiterates its belief that, if these conditions are met, an EU-Japan FTA has the potential to lead to a win-win situation, beneficial for both economies; considers, in this regard, that the EU should also address potential Japanese requests with regards to the elimination of possible EU NTBs that would unjustifiably hamper the open and fair access to the EU single market by Japanese companies;
2012/09/20
Committee: INTA
Amendment 9 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that regulation of adequate, sustainable retirement income is the sole responsibility of the Member States in question and that the Commission should, where appropriate, encourage the Member States to look critically at their systems and engage in exchanges of experience and best practice;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 15 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on those Member States which are lagging behind to make their systems demographically sound as soon as possiblein the process of strengthening their pension systems to recognise the challenges posed by ageing populations;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 16 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Welcomes the recognition that Pillar 2 and Pillar 3 pension schemes are to be encouraged, given the need for individuals to take responsibility for their own finances and futures;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 20 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls on the Commission to clarify the legal basis for any proposals relating to Member State pension systems at the earliest possible moment;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 22 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the strengthening of the EU's social dimensionrecognition that Member States must strengthen their pension systems in the face of long term demographic changes, market instability and ultra-low interest rates and stresses the validity of the principle of subsidiarity in the areas affected by Initiative 1;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 38 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that 2nd pillar systems must be secure, for the sake of employees; notes in some Member States, employers' already support their pension schemes through protection schemes, segregation of assets, independent governance of schemes and priority creditor status of pension schemes ahead of shareholders in case of company insolvency; argues that these provisions offer the security that employees need without the costs associated with quantitative capital requirements;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 40 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that there are considerable differences between the Member States in terms of the composition of the 2nd pillar, making clear that harmonisation should only be explored where there are possible benefits in terms of encouraging free movement of workers.
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 49 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
10. Rejects regulatory harmonisation of quantitative or qualitative precautionary measures at EU level on the basis that pension systems are deeply embedded in the cultural, social, political and economic circumstances of each Member State;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 53 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that Commission proposals regarding quantitative and qualitative precautionary measures are only of value if they lay stress on taking into account the differences between the systems and comply strictlyshould not only comply with the principle of subsidiarity but also with the principle of proportionality in terms of the financial, administrative and technical burden involved;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 59 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
12. Considers with regard to qualitative precautionary measures that proposalany review of the IORP directive should be restricted to areas concerning corporate governance and risk management and thoseareas regarding transparency and information disclosure obligations are useful, subject to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality being respected;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 66 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
13. Is strongly opposed to Europe-wide harmonised requirements concerning own capital or evaluation; rejects any review of the Pension Funds Directive (the IORP Directive) which aims to achieve this; notes that in order to meet these requirements, employers would have to redirect capital away from other investments such as infrastructure to pension funds, which could have serious implications for EU competitiveness and economic growth;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 83 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
15. Considers the further development of variations to Solvency II, such as the Holistic Balance Sheet Model (HBS), to be useful only if specific national requirements are complied with and if they are presented as recommendations; cautions against the HBS being used as a means of introducing Solvency 2 style provisions; categorically rejects these as components of EU-level regulations on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 90 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
16. Rejects the establishment of equal competition between life insurance and 2nd pillar systems, as the latter are not financial service providers, have a fundamentally different risk profile, do not seek to make a profit and can therefore not be compared with life insurance providers;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 112 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 25
25. Stresses that maintaining appropriate provisioindividuals must take responsibility for their own fin the 1st pillar, with its spirit of solidarity, should be the number one priority in the Member States and that the 3rd pillar can play a supplementary role as the demographic pressure decreases; rejectancial futures and that on this basis Pillar 1 pension schemes should act as a safety net; notes that Pillar 2 and 3 pension systems are more sustainable in the longer term and emphasise the importance of individual responsibility; therefore welcomes the reduction of the 1st pillar and a corresponding increase in the 2nd and 3rd pillar;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 121 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 31
31. Calls onHighlights that the Commission to investigate the vulnerability of 3rd pillar systems to crises and to put forward proposals to reduce the riskhas already indirectly introduced an wide range of regulations to encourage better risk management for 3rd pillar systems but notes there could be scope for further work to be done in this area such as enabling portability for workers' pensions;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 130 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 35
35. Regards discriminatory taxes as a major barrier to mobility and calls for their swift withdrawal while noting limited EU competence in the area of member state tax policy;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 132 #

2012/2234(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 38
38. Stresses that unsustainable 1st pillar systems pose a major threat to national budgets; therefore welcomes the greater emphasis being placed on Pillar 2 and Pillar 3 systems;
2012/12/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 23 #

2012/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Agrees with the Commission that Europe's economic success largely depends on growth based on SMEs; but emphasises that SMEs are part of a broader 'ecosystem' of enterprises; notes that larger companies rely extensively on a broad network of smaller SMEs, highlighting the importance of encouraging economic growth across the spectrum of companies, regardless of size; notes also the need to ensure that there is an equal focus on improving access to finance for microenterprises or sole traders;
2012/10/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 32 #

2012/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that, because of the crisis, many SMEs have difficulties in accessing finance and that SMEs need to comply with more stringent regulatory criteria than before, although there have been steps to reduce administrative burdens on certain groups of enterprises;
2012/10/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 36 #

2012/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the responsibility of banks to invest wisely in theNotes that banks are being asked to simultaneously increase lending to SMEs, which are often high risk, and to the real economy and more specifically in SMEwidely, which is currently unstable, and to strengthen their balance sheets; notes that, in some Member States, SMEs do not have problems in accessing credit; points out that reducing investments to a minimuthe EU there is an overreliance on banks for corporate funding, approaching 70%, as opposed to less than 20% in the USA; underlines, therefore, the need to allow banks to strengthen their balance sheets and to encourage a shift away from cban lead to a credit crunchk finance to alternative methods of funding;
2012/10/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 58 #

2012/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that there is no one-size-fits-all mode of finance and calls on the Commission to support the development of a broad range of tailored programmes and instruments, both in equity (such as business angels, crowd funding and multilateral trading facilities) and in debt instruments (such as small-ticket company bonds and guarantee facilities) as well as other models of lending, such as peer-to-peer lending; notes that equity financing could be encouraged to a greater extent, particularly for SMEs, given that debt is currently the preferred funding model for SMEs;
2012/10/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 65 #

2012/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Alerts the Commission that a lot of new and more stringent financial services regulation has been put in place without an overall and inclusive impact assessment; urges the Commission to come forward with such an assessment, specifically focusing on SMEs, looking at both indirect and direct impacts; calls on the Commission to halt its plans to apply Solvency 2 capital requirements on pension funds, which would starve the real economy of many billions of euros of investment;
2012/10/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 112 #

2012/2134(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Urges the swift resolution of discussions on the EU Venture Capital Regulation in order to facilitate SME's access to venture capital finance;
2012/10/19
Committee: ECON
Amendment 4 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas regulated entities in the regular banking system take part extensively in those activities defined as part of the shadow banking system, and are in many ways interconnected with shadow banking entities;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 19 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas SB as a global phenomenon requires a coherent global regulatory approach, based on FSB recommendations as well as any other relevant national or supranational regulatory bodies;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 22 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission's Green Paper as a first step towards the stricter monitoring and supervision of SB; endorses the Commission's approach based on indirect regulation of SB, at the same time underlining the need for direct regulation of some of its aspects in a functional way while avoiding overlap and ensuring consistency with existing regulations, where existing regulation is found to be insufficient and where impact assessments have shown absolute necessity;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 28 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Agrees with the FSB's definition of SB as ‘a system of intermediaries, instruments, entities or financial contracts generating a combination of bank-like functions but outside the regulatory perimeter or under a regulatory regime which is either light or addresses issues other than systemic risks, and without access to central bank liquidity facility or public sector credit guarantees’; underlines the challenge involved in implementing this definition in a monitoring, regulatory and supervisory context;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 31 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. underlines the challenge involved in implementing this definition in a monitoring, regulatory and supervisory context; emphasises that existing regulation already has had and will have far-reaching effects on the shadow banking system; urges that duplication and replication of regulation is avoided as far as possible to ensure regulatory arbitrage is made as difficult as possible;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 32 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that since the crisis some of the practices of SB have vanished; notes, however, that the innovative nature of the SB system may lead to new developments that may pose a source of systemic risk, which should be tackled; stresses, therefore, the need to collect more and better data on shadow banking transactions, market participants, financial flows and interconnections, in order to obtain a full overview of the sector, while recognising that 'data overload' could make the gathering of this information counterproductive;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 37 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that a fuller overview and better monitoring and analysis will allow the identification of both those aspects of the SB system which have beneficial effects for the real economy and those raising concerns related to systemic risk or regulatory arbitrage; sStresses the need for stronger risk assessment procedures, disclosure and oversight, for all institutions presenting a concentrated risk profile with systemic relevance;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 42 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Supports, therefore, as a first step, the creation by the ECB of a central EU the exploration of whether a database on euro repo transactions, and invites the Commission to submit a legislative proposal for the creation of such a database by the end of 2013, after undertaking a feasibility study in relevant currencies would be helpful to regulators to identify systemic risk; urges the Commission to undertake a feasibility study and impact assessment and, subject to understanding links to existing data repositories in the context of other regulatory initiatives, put forward ideas for possible legislative proposals;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses, further, the need to obtain a fuller overview of risk transfers by financial institutions, in order to determine who has purchased what from whom and how the transferred risks are supported; inviturges the Commission, therefore, to undertake a study (in early 2013)feasibility study and impact assessment and, submit a report (by mid-2013) regarding the feasibility of setting up a public non- profit utility as a central registry for risk transfers, which should be able to capture and monitor risk transfer data in real timeject to understanding links to existing regulatory initiatives, put forward ideas for possible legislative proposals;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 64 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that theseshould new tasks will requirebe necessary, a sufficient level of new resources may be required that should come from the existing EU budget;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 66 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises that some SB activities and entities may be either regulated or unregulated depending on the country; notes further that the financial interdependence between the banking sector and shadow banking entities is currently excessiat a high level;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 70 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises that some SB activities and entities may be either regulated or unregulated depending on the country; notes further that the financial interdependence between the banking sector and shadow banking entities ican be excessive; notes cfurrently excessivther that supervision is only as good as underlying legislation and vice versa and underlines the danger of supervisory and /or legislative arbitrage;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 77 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the reports of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on CRD IV2 , currently being discussed with the Council, represent an important step in tackling shadow banking in a positive way by imposing capital treatment of liquidity lines to structured investment vehicles and conduits, and by setting the large exposurBelieves further that the extension of capital requirements, bank-type regulation and supervision to certain non- bank finance companies and securities dealers that are financed materially by short-term debt and that are not covered by the definition in the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) needs careful consideration ; believes that firms taking similar risks should be regulated in similar manner but also recognises the need to ensure that there is not a disproportionate limit of 25% of own funds for all unregulated entitiepact on non-lending investment firms which may be better regulated through legislation relating to investment firms than as credit insititutions;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 80 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses thatTakes note of the reports of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on CRD IV2 , currently being discussed with the Council, represent an important step in tackling shadow banking in a positive way by imposingwhich propose the imposition of capital treatment of liquidity lines to structured investment vehicles and conduits, and by setting the large exposure limit of 25% of own funds forto all unregulated entitiesexposures to such entities; recognises that the latter proposal needs further consideration given the serious impacts this could have on funding of the real economy, for example in vehicle finance;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 85 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Believes further that the proposed extension of CRD IV to non-deposit- capital requirements, bank-type regulation and supervision to certaking non- bank finance companies not covered by the definition in the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) is necessaryand securities dealers that are financed materially by short-term debt and that are not covered by the definition in the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) needs careful consideration; believes that firms taking similar risks should be regulated in similar manner but also recognises the need to ensure that there is not a disproportionate impact on non-lending investment firms which may be better regulated through legislation relating to investment firms than as credit insititutions;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 100 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Takes note of the importance of the repo and security lending market; inviturges the Commission to adopt measures, by the beginning of 2013, to increase transparency, as well as to allow regulators to impose minimum haircuts or margin levels for the collateralised financing marketundertake a feasibility study and impact assessment and, subject to understanding links to existing regulatory initiatives and having identified the systemic relevance of a specific activity, put forward ideas for possible legislative proposals;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 107 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Believes that incentives associated with securitisation need to be adequately addressed; inviturges the Commission to examine the securitisation market and to submit a legislative proposal at the latest by the beginning of 2013 for limiting the number of times a financial product can be securitisedundertake a feasibility study and impact assessment and, subject to understanding links to existing regulatory initiatives, put forward ideas for possible legislative proposals; calls on it to impose particular requirements on suppliers of securitisation (e.g. originators or sponsors) to retain part of the risks associated with securitisation and of measures to achieve transparency, by the introduction of an external valuer of the underlying assets and standardisation of securitisation products as well as resolution processes; calls on the Commission to look at loss provisioning for securitised products and for the underlying asset to be directly linked to the securitised product;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 118 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Recognises the important role money market funds (MMFs) fulfil in the financing of financial institutions, sovereigns and non financial corporates in the short run and in allowing for risk diversification; recognises the different role and structure of MMFs based in the EU and the US; recognises that the 2010 ESMA guidelines imposed stricter standards on MMFs (credit quality, maturity of underlying securities and better disclosure to investors); notes, however, that some MMFs, in particular those offering a stable net asset value to investors, are vulnerable to massive runs; stresses, therefore but that these standards remain less stringent than those introduced in the USA in 2010 to Rule 2a- 7 funds; notes that MMFs, both VNAV and CNAV, may experience outflows of funds from certain types of bad debt, in particular bank debt and sovereign debt during periods of financial instability; highlights that investors in these funds appear to be aware that MMFs are not guaranteed, even if these funds are CNAV, and that changes introduced in the USA in 2010 were stress-tested in 2011 during a period of market instability; believes, however, that additional measures may need to be taken in the EU as part of the UCITS 6 review to improve the resilience and transparency of these funds and to cover the liquidity risk; invites the Commission to submit a legislative proposal at the beginning of 2013 requiring MMFs either to adopt a variable asset value with a daily evaluation or, if retaining a constant value, to be subject to capital requirements; , while also noting that capital buffers/requirements or mandatory redemption restrictions would render MMFs uneconomical, resulting in funds currently residing in them shifting to bank deposit accounts leading to a further concentration of risk;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 124 #

2012/2115(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Recognises the benefits Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) provide by giving retail investors access to a wider range of assets (such as commodities, in particular), but stresses the risks ETF carry in terms of complexity, counterparty risk, liquidity of products and possible regulatory arbitrage; inviturges the Commission, therefore, to submit a legislative proposal at the beginning of 2013 to tackle these potential structural vulnerabilitieso undertake a feasibility study and impact assessment and, subject to understanding links to existing regulatory initiatives, in particular UCITS and ESMA ETF guidelines, put forward ideas for possible legislative proposals, if necessary;
2012/09/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 2 #

2012/2094(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that the Internet has become a public space which has given rise to new methodpart of the public domain where new ways of cross-border trade and innovative market development, as well as social and cultural interaction, are achieved;
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 6 #

2012/2094(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recognises as vital for the development of innovation, growth and job creation to appropriately safeguard intellectual property rights (IPR) for those companies in the EU (European Union) that rely on them to sustain employment in the ICT (information and communications technology) and media sector;
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 7 #

2012/2094(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Understands that EU companies lose billions of euros each year as a result of counterfeiting and piracy and deeply regrets the impact of both on rising EU unemployment rates;
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 13 #

2012/2094(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Is cUnderstands that Commissioncern Kroes feels dismayed that some citizens seeview the current system of copyright protection as a tool with which to punish and withhold, instead of a tool tooppress, rather than being one that recognises and reward’1;s content creators1: __________________ 1 http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesActi on.do?reference=SPEECH/11/777"Sadly, many see the current system as a tool to punish and withhold, not a tool to recognise and reward."
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 17 #

2012/2094(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Realises that though it is preferable for these matters to be regulated at member state level, article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union clearly stipulates that, "intellectual property shall be protected";
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 19 #

2012/2094(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Also understands, therefore, that the Digital Freedom Strategy in EU Foreign Policy along with the new Common Commercial Policy could be tools that ensure that the intellectual property rights of EU citizens and businesses are protected in the best possible way, and that if combined, could form a basis for implementing ambitious levels of IPR protection in trade and investment agreements to which the EU is a party;
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 21 #

2012/2094(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Calls on Member States and the Commission to develop IPR policy to continue to allow those who wish to create their own content and share it without IPR to be allowed to do so;
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 26 #

2012/2094(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Is of the opinionRealises that some anti-IPR lobbying groups feel that the European Union should stop negotiating international agreements on IPR in plurilateral and bilwhere IPR-related matteral settingss are at stake until the issues regarding IPR oin the Iinternet and the free use of the Iinternet have been addressed internally addressed and duly resolvdefined;
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 34 #

2012/2094(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission and the Council not toto justify its actions thoroughly when concludeing trade agreements with countries where EU ICT companies are required to restrict access to websites access, remove user-generated content or provide personal information in ways that breachcontravene fundamental rights and curtail the freedom to conduct business; calls on the EU to minimise the extra-territorial application of third-country legislation on EU citizens online;
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 38 #

2012/2094(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Commission and the Council to include a safeguard mechanism in all future trade agreements, and especially those with an IPR and/or internet chapter, in order to ensure that EU ICT companies are not required by third parties to restrict websites access, remove user-generated content or provide personal information in ways that contravene fundamental rights and freedoms;
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 40 #

2012/2094(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Calls on the EU to ensure that the application of third country legislation on EU citizens online fully complies with fundamental rights and freedoms;
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 48 #

2012/2094(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that the EU should include in future FTAsconsider the possibility of implementing objective and transparent bilateral safeguards preserving unrestricted access to the open Iinternet and ensuring the free flow of information, in compliance with existing legislation, in future Free Trade Agreements (FTAs);
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 52 #

2012/2094(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines the need for more stringent supply- chain controls and voluntary corporate responsibility schemes in respect of trading in products –the trade of products and services, from equipment to mobile devices – and services, which, that can be used to curtailabuse human rights and curtail digital freedom; regardsasks members states to exercise caution when exporting jamming and interception technology products and services as ‘single use’ items whose export should be subject to ex-ante approvalto countries where citizens are denied the right to free expression.
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 1 #

2012/2092(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Notes that ongoing smart fiscal consolidation is likely to result in scarcity of budgetary resources for the year in 2013; in this regard, expresses its willingness to identify both positive and negative priorities, as called for in paragraph 4 of the Parliament's report on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2013 Draft Budget, that, while allowing for fiscal consolidation, will foster sustainable growth;
2012/08/06
Committee: INTA
Amendment 2 #

2012/2092(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the external dimension of the EU shouldmust remain a key priority of the EU budget, reflecting the EU2020 strategy, and that growth coming from international trade under the heading 4 of the budget should be supported as much as other sources of growth under heading 1;
2012/08/06
Committee: INTA
Amendment 5 #

2012/2092(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the budget for 2013 shcould feature slight increases for the funding for the Macro financial assistance, the external trade relations, the Aid for Trade and the DCI, provided that, as a principle of sound financial management, the budgetary authority should first seek to fund these increases with reallocations and transfers from other areas of spending with less added value;
2012/08/06
Committee: INTA
Amendment 1 #

2012/2016(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that the European Union's budget should take into account the priorities defined for the common commercial policy as part of the EU2020 strategy as well as its long term strategic interests, notes in this regard the conclusions of the ''Global Trends 2030'' document produced by the European Strategy Policy Analysis System (ESPAS); recalls the need to prepare funding for the review of the EU's trade policy strategy in 2013;
2012/05/07
Committee: INTA
Amendment 10 #

2012/2016(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for public communication campaigns to be mounted with a view to ensuring that European citizens are well informed about EU trade policy; emphasises the need – particularly in a time of crisis – to enhance budgetary allocations for social and employment tools that are used to adjust to economic shocks and trade liberalisationsure appropriate funding for EU internal structural adjustment policies;
2012/05/07
Committee: INTA
Amendment 14 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) As well as playing a central role in ensuring investors are equipped with important information relating to the balance sheet, profit and loss statement and cash flows, accounts represent a major element of the corporate governance framework, as laid out in Article 15 of the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976, which requires that directors can only make distributions out of unqualified accounts for which the paramount requirement is that they give a true and fair view, or where the accounts are qualified they give a true and fair view subject to matters not material to the lawfulness of a distribution. Directors and auditors can only sign off accounts which give a true and fair view of a company's finances, which is an objectively measurable standard.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 15 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 b (new)
(2b) It is important to recognise the fundamental differences between the US and EU accounting traditions. The former rules-based system, introduced in 1933, is based on the narrower view that accounts are only about providing timely and reliable information about a company's finances to the capital markets. The latter principles-based system not only has this requirement but also plays a much more central role in ensuring directors do not sign off accounts illegally. It should be noted that there has never been a requirement for accounts to be true and fair in US GAAP and such a requirement is nowhere present in the IASB's Conceptual Framework, despite this being the overriding principle of European accounting law. Although it is clear that attempts have been made by the IASB to introduce a principles-based system, there is some disagreement as to whether convergence with a legally different system is possible or desired.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 16 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 c (new)
(2c) As well as accounts playing vital roles in protecting shareholder and creditor interests, they form the bedrock of prudential regulation in the sense that all major financial services initiatives rely on companies' accounts, including CRD IV, EMIR and many others. Regulators rely on accounting terminology to understand what risks a company is taking and therefore what is required of that company.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 17 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) In a global economy, there is a need for a global accounting language, while taking into account the many different accounting traditions and languages already used. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) developed by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) are adopted and used in many jurisdictions around the world, although it must be noted that there are no processes currently in place to ensure that IFRS have been fully implemented in those jurisdictions. Such international accounting standards need to be developed under a transparent and democratically accountable process. To ensure that the interests of the Union are respected and that global standards are of high quality and compatible with Union law, it is essentivital that the interests of the Union are adequately taken into account in that international standard-setting processIASB accepts the central idea at the heart of European accounting, which is the requirement for accounts to be prepared on a prudent basis and to be true and fair for all the functions required of accounts by Union law.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 21 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) According to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards, IFRS should only be incorporated into Union law to be applied by companies with securities listed on a regulated market in the Union, provided that the IFRS meet the criteria set out in that regulation and the requirements of the fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 and the seventh Council Directive 83-3497EEC of 13 June 1983. IFRS therefore play a major role in the functioning of the internal market and thus the Union has a direct interest in ensuring that the process through which IFRS are developed and approved delivers standards that are consistent with the requirements of the legal framework of the internal market. It should be noted that the IAS Regulation 2002 uses the conceptual framework from 2001 which has now been changed in several significant manners, particularly around the word 'prudence', which includes not booking unrealised profits, and stewardship, which includes the capital maintenance function of accounts.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 22 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) IFRS are issued by the IASB and related interpretations are issued by the IFRS Interpretations Committee, two bodies within the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation. It is therefore important to establish appropriate funding arrangements for the IFRS Foundation. These funding arrangements will be reliant on the IASB achieving certain milestones in terms of updating its own governance and specific standards and also overhauling its Conceptual Framework to ensure it properly reflects Union company law requirements.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 23 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
(6) The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) was founded in 2001 by European organisations representing issuers, investors and the accountancy profession involved in the financial reporting process. In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002, EFRAG provides the Commission with opinions on whether an accounting standard issued by the IASB or an interpretation issued by the IFRS Interpretations Committee, which is to be endorsed, complies with the endorsement criteria set out in that Regulation. EFRAG is also taking up the role of the ‘single European accounting voice’ in the global arena. In that capacity, EFRAG provides input to the IASB's standard-setting process.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 25 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) There are also calls for EFRAG to take up the role of the 'single European accounting voice'. It must be clearly understood whether there is appetite for such a role from national standard-setters and regulators, given the significant differences of opinion that already exist between Member States. If this role is given to EFRAG, all interactions with the IASB must be made fully transparent and any decisions taken by EFRAG should be made in full consultation with national standard-setters.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 28 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7) Taking into account EFRAG's keysingle role in supporting internal market law and policy and in repensuring that IFRS are compliant with the requiresmenting European interests in the standard-setting process at international levels of Union company law and policy, as laid out in the IAS Regulation 2002, it is necessary for the Union to ensure EFRAG's stable financing and thus contribute to its funding. Such financing arrangements should be reassessed in the light of any decision taken to give EFRAG more responsibilities in terms of influencing the IASB in addition to fulfilling the basic task required by the IAS Regulation 2002.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 29 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) Bodies working in the field of accounting and auditing are highly dependent on funding and play major roles in the Union which are decisive for the functioning of the internal market. The proposed beneficiaries of the Programme established by Decision No 716/2009/EC have been co-financed by operating grants from the Union budget, which has allowed them to increase their financial independence from private-sector and ad- hoc fundingsources, thereby raising their capacity and credibility. Public funding in itself however should not be seen as having confirmed this independence from the private sector. In particular, greater transparency around membership of the IASB's and EFRAG's board and other committees should be required to ensure all stakeholders are represented in the endorsement process. All employees of EFRAG and IASB should be required to declare other relevant financial or job interests or commitments.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 32 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) Experience has shown that Union co- financing ensures that beneficiaries benefit from clear, stable, diversified, sound and adequate funding and it contributes to enabling the beneficiaries to accomplish their public interest mission in an independent and efficient manner. Therefore, sufficient funding should continue to be provided by means of a Union contribution towards the functioning of international accounting and auditing standard-setting, and in particular to the IFRS Foundation, EFRAG and the PIOB, subject to certain milestones being achieved in terms of updating the conceptual framework of the IFRS Foundation and clarifying what roles EFRAG and PIOB play.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 38 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) In addition to changing their funding patterns, the IFRS Foundation and EFRAG have undergone governance reforms to ensure that through their structure and processes they accomplish their public interest mission in an independent, efficient, transparent and democratically accountable manner. In relation to the IFRS Foundation, the Monitoring Board was created in 2009 to ensure public accountability and oversight, the effectiveness of the Standards Advisory Council has been enhanced, transparency has been improved and the role of impact assessments has been formalised as part of the due process of the IASB. Given that the convergence project with the US has stalled, it would be appropriate for the IASB to reassess the role and presence of representatives of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) on the IASB.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 40 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
(15) The co-financing programme to be established by this Regulation is expected to contribute to the objectives of ensuring comparability and transparency of company accounts throughout the EU, to the global harmonization of financial reporting standards by promoting the international acceptance of IFRS and to promoting convergence and high quality international standards for auditing in all Member States. This programme also contributes to the Europe 2020 strategy by reinforcing the single market of financial services and capital, and contributes to the strategy's external dimension as well. The co-financing programme should not be used to encourage the adoption of or market IFRS in third countries.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 42 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) This Regulation should provide for the possibility of co-financing activities of certain bodies pursuing an objective forming part of and supporting the Union policy in the field of designing standards, endorsing standards or supervising standard-setting processes related to financial reporting and auditing. This financing should only be given to the bodies in question if it is clear that European accounting concepts, in particular around prudence and the requirement for a true and fair view, are embedded at the core of their conceptual frameworks or structures.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 45 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) In order to promote the Union's interests in the fields of financial reporting and auditing and flexibly adapt to eventual governance and institutional changes in those fields, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of selecting new beneficiaries for the Programme. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, national standard-setters and the European Parliament. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 46 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20 a (new)
(20a) A review must be carried out within six months of the adoption of this Regulation to identify whether or not existing IFRSs and in particular the IASB's conceptual framework fulfil the requirements of Union company law. In this review, the Commission should explore the possibility of introducing tougher liability standards for directors and auditors and also to introduce a legally binding true and fair override, that if the accounts prepared in accordance with IFRS do not give a true and fair view, the accounts cannot be signed off. The review must also ensure existing governance arrangements in EFRAG and IASB are overhauled to ensure all private sector interests and commitments are made fully public.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 50 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. The Programme covers the activities of developing or providing input to the development of standards, applying, assthe IASB, which develops IFRS, EFRAG, which assesses whether or not an IFRS is compliant with Union company law as part of the implementation of Union policiess ing or monitoring standards or oversee the field of financial reporting standard-setting processes in suppo auditing and PIOB, which assesses whether or not an ISA is compliant with Union company law as part of the implementation of Union policies in the field of financial reporting and auditing.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. The objective of the Programme is to improve the conditions for the functioning of the internal market, the ability for regulators to enforce prudential regulation and to strengthen corporate governance by supporting transparent and independent development of international financial reporting and auditing standards.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 56 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. This objective will be measured in particular through the number of countries using International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and International Standards on Auditing (ISA).deleted
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 61 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 9 to select new beneficiaries for the Programme and to amend paragraph 1 accordingly.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 64 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Any new beneficiary shall be a non- profit making legal person pursuing an objective forming part of and supporting the Union policy in the field of financial reporting and auditing and shall be a direct successor of one of the beneficiaries listed in paragraph 1.deleted
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 68 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Financing under the Programme shall be provided in the form of operating grants, renewed annually after the Commission has conducted an assessment of whether the beneficiaries have achieved the goals laid out in the Programme and subject to approval from the European Parliament.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 72 #

2012/0364(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
The financial envelope for the implementation of this Regulation over the period 2014-2020 shall be EUR 58 010 000 in current prices, although this figure can be reduced or adjusted if it is found that the beneficiaries have not achieved certain milestones.
2013/06/13
Committee: ECON
Amendment 24 #

2012/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
(2) It is essential that the Union possesses appropriate instruments to ensure the effective exercise of the Union's rights under international trade agreements, in order to safeguard its economic interests. This is particularly the case in situations where third countries enact trade restrictive measures that diminish the benefits accruing to the Union's economic operators under international trade agreements. The Union should be in a position to react swiftly and in a flexible manner in the context of the procedures and deadlines set out by the international trade agreements which it has concluded. The Union should therefore adopt legislation defining the framework for exercising the Union's rights in certain specific situations, ensuring that the resources available are efficiently used.
2013/07/29
Committee: INTA
Amendment 28 #

2012/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) The WTO and other, including regional or bilateral, dispute settlement mechanisms aim at finding a positive solution to any disputes arising between the Union and the other party or parties to those agreements. The Union should, nevertheless, suspend concessions or other obligations, in accordance with those dispute settlement rules, when other avenues to find a positive solution to a dispute have proven unsuccessful. Action by the Union in such cases serves the purpose of inducing compliance of the third country concerned with the relevant international trade rules, in order to restore a situation of reciprocal benefits. The Union should always use the most efficient dispute settlement mechanism available, regardless of the status of Free Trade Agreement negotiations potentially taking place in parallel.
2013/07/29
Committee: INTA
Amendment 35 #

2012/0359(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) The Commission should evaluate the functioning of this Regulation no later than three yearsas soon as possible after the first instance of its implementation with a view to assessing and, if necessary, improving its efficiencectiveness. The Commission should include analysis in its reports on whether the enforcement tools in use are delivering results, as outlined in the Commission's note on "Trade, Growth and World Affairs" as part of the Europe 2020 strategy.
2013/07/29
Committee: INTA
Amendment 66 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
(1) Retail investors are increasingly offered a wide variety of different types of packaged retail investment products when they consider making an investment. These products often provide specific investment solutions tailored to the needs of retail investors, but are frequently complex and difficult to understand. Existing disclosures to investors for such investment products are uncoordinated and often fail to aid retail investors compare between the different products, and in comprehending their features. As a consequence, retail investors have often made investments with risks and costs that were not fully understood by those investors, and have thereby on occasion suffered unforeseen losses.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 69 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
(2) Improving provisions on transparency of packaged retail investment products offered to retail investors is an important investor protection measure and a precondition for rebuilding confidence of retail investors in the financial market. First steps in this direction have been already been taken at Union level through the development of the key investor information regime established in Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS).
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 70 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) Different rules that vary according to the industry that offers the packaged retail investment products and national regulation in this area create an un-level playing field between different products and distribution channels, erecting additional barriers to a Single Market in financial services and products. Member States have already taken divergent and uncoordinated action to address shortcomings in investor protection measures and it is likely that this development would continue. Divergent approaches to packaged retail investment product disclosures impede the development of a level playing field between different packaged retail investment product manufacturers and those selling these products and thus distort competition. It would also create an uneven level of investor protection with the Union. Such divergences represent an obstacle to the establishment and smooth functioning of the Single Market. Consequently, the appropriate legal basis is Article 114 TFEU, as interpreted in accordance with the consistent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 72 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) It is necessary to establish uniform rules at the level of the Union applying across all participants of the packaged retail investment product market on transparency so as to prevent divergences. A Regulation is necessary to ensure that a common standard for key information documents is established in such a uniform fashion so as to be able to harmonise the format and the content of these documents. The directly applicable rules of a Regulation should ensure that all participants in the packaged retail investment product market are subject to the same requirements. This should also ensure uniform disclosures by preventing divergent national requirements as a result of the transposition of a Directive. The use of a Regulation is also appropriate to ensure that all those selling packaged retail investment products are subject to uniform requirements in relation to the provision of the key information document to retail investors.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 74 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) Whilst improving packaged retail investment product disclosures is essential in rebuilding the trust of retail investors in the financial markets, effectively regulated sales processes for these products are equally important. This Regulation is complementary to measures on distribution (including investment advice, investor protection measures and other sales services) in the Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and the Council. It is also complementary to measures taken on the distribution of insurance product in Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 82 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
(6) This Regulation should apply to all products regardless of their form or construction that are manufactured by the financial services industry to provide investment opportunities to retail investors, where the return offeredamount repayable to the investor is exposed to the performance of one or more assets or reference values other than an interest ratesubject to fluctuations because of exposure in reference values or in the performance of one or more assets which are not directly purchased by the investor. This should include, among others, such investment products as investment funds, life insurance policies with an investment element, and retail structured producdeposits. For these products, investments are not of a direct kind achieved when buying or holding assets themselves. Instead these products intercede between the investor and the markets through a process of ‘packaging’, wrapping or bundling together assets so as to create different exposures, provide different product features, or achieve different cost structures as compared with a direct holding. Such ‘packaging’ can allow retail investors to engage in investment strategies that would otherwise be inaccessible or impractical, but can also require additional information to be made available, in particular to enable comparisons between different ways of packaging investments.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 83 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) CEBS, CESR and CEIOPS, as bodies with highly specialized expertise, submitted their findings in relation to the requirement for a KID to the Commission. In their final Task Force Report (6 October 2010) a definition was agreed upon and subsequently taken on board by the Commission. The definition is the result of an extensive dialogue and consultation with all interested stakeholders and should be respected. Limiting the scope of the regulation to packaged retail investment products will make the KID more effective in practice due to it being a more focused approach and more useful for consumers by targeting only those products where the KID could clearly be of use. A review of the scope at a later date will allow the initial impact of the KID to be assessed, and any possible future extension of scope that may be needed, if arbitrage and consumer detriment are identified, could be made after a full cost benefit analysis.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 89 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7) In order to ensure this Regulation applies solely to such packaged retail investment products, insurance products that do not offer investment opportunities and deposits, other than structured deposits, products solely exposed to interest rates should thereby be excluded from the scope of the Regulation. Assets that would be held directly, such as corporate shares or sovereign bonds, are not packaged investment products, and should therefore be excluded. Since the focus of this Regulation is on improving the comparability and comprehensibility of information about packaged retail investment products being marketed to retail investors, occupational pension schemes which fall under the scope of Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision or Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 November 2009 and on the taking up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), should not be subject to this Regulation. Similarly, certain occupational pension products which fall outside the scope of Directive 2003/41/EC should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation, provided that a financial contribution from the employer is required by national law, and provided that the employee has no choice as to the pension product providers well as officially recognised pension products and social security schemes subject to national or Union Law. Investment funds dedicated to institutional investors are not within the scope of this Regulation either since they are not for sale to retail investors. However, investment products with the purpose of accumulating savings for individual pensions should remain in scope because they often compete with the other products under this Regulation and are distributed in a similar way to the retail investor.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 103 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) IPackaged retail investment product manufacturers – such as fund managers, insurance undertakings, issuers of securities, credit institutions or investment firms – should draw up the key information document for the packaged retail investment products they manufacture, as they are in the best position to know the product and are responsible for it. The document should be drawn up by the packaged retail investment product manufacturer before the products can be sold to retail investors. However, where a product is not sold to retail investors, there is no necessity to draw up a key information document, and where it is impractical for the packaged retail investment product manufacturer to draw up the key information document, this may be delegated to others. In order to ensure widespread dissemination and availability of key information documents, this Regulation should allow for publication by the packaged retail investment product manufacturer by means of a website of their choice.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 105 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) To meet the needs of retail investors, it is necessary to ensure that information on packaged retail investment products is accurate, fair, clear and not misleading for those investors. This Regulation should therefore lay down common standards for the drafting of the key information document, in order to ensure that it is comprehensible for retail investors. Given the difficulties many retail investors have in understanding specialist financial terminology, particular attention should be paid to the vocabulary and style of writing used in the document. Rules should also be laid down on the language in which it should be drawn up. Furthermore, retail investors should be able to understand the key information document on its own without referring to other information.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 112 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) Retail investors should be provided with the information necessary for them to take an informed investment decision and compare different packaged retail investment products, but unless the information is short and concise there is a risk they will not use it. The key information document should therefore only contain key information, notably as regards the nature and features of the product, including whether it is possible to lose capital, the costs and risk profile of the product, as well as relevant performance information, and certain other specific information which may be necessary for understanding the features of individual types of products, including those intended to be used for retirement planning. However the firm selling the packaged retail investment may still, in addition to the stand-alone KID, need to provide further personalised information and product calculations to a customer before the final conclusion of a transaction, depending on the nature of the packaged retail investment product.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 117 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) The key information document should be drawn up in a standardised format which allows retail investors to compare different packaged retail investment products, since consumer behaviours and capabilities are such that the format, presentation and content of information must be carefully calibrated to maximise understanding and use of information. The same order of items and headings for these items should be followed for each document. In addition, the details of the information to be included in the key information document for different products and the presentation of this information should be further harmonised through delegated acts that take into account existing and on-going research on consumer behaviour, including results from testing the effectiveness of different ways of presenting information with consumers. In addition, some packaged retail investment products give the retail investor a choice between multiple underlying investments. Those products should be taken into account when drawing up the format.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 123 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
(15) In order to ensure that the key information document contains reliable information, this Regulation should require packaged retail investment product manufacturers to keep the key information document up to date. To this end, it is necessary that detailed rules relating to the conditions and frequency of the review of the information and the revision of the key information document are laid down in a delegated act to be adopted by the Commission.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 128 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) Key information documents are the foundation for investment decisions by retail investors. For this reason, packaged retail investment product manufacturers have an important responsibility towards retail investors in ensuring that they comply with the rules of this Regulation. It is therefore important to ensure that retail investors who relied on a key investor document for their investment decision have an effective right of redress. It should also be ensured that all retail investors across the Union have the same right to seek compensation for damages they may suffer due to failures on the part of packaged retail investment product manufacturers in complying with the requirements set out in this Regulation. Therefore, rules regarding the liability of the packaged retail investment product manufacturers should be harmonised. This Regulation should establish that the retail investor should be able to hold the product manufacturer liable for an infringement of this Regulation in case a loss is caused through the use of the key information document. that was misleading, inaccurate or inconsistent with the prospectus or, where no prospectus is prepared, the terms and conditions of the product.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 130 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) As retail investors in general do not have close insight as to the internal procedures of investment product manufacturers, a reversal of the burden of proof should be established. The product manufacturer would have to prove that the key information document was drawn up in compliance with this Regulation. However, it would be for the retail investor to demonstrate that his loss has occurred due to the use of the information in the key information document because this matter falls within the direct personal sphere of the retail investor.deleted
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 135 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) Regarding matters concerning tThe civil liability of a packaged retail investment product manufacturer and which are not covered by this regulation, such matters should be governed by the applicable national law determined by the relevant rules of International Private Law. The competent court to decide on a claim for civil liability brought by a retail investor should be determined by the relevant rules on International Jurisdiction.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 139 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) So that the retail investor is able to take an informed investment decision, persons selling packaged retail investment products should be required to provide the key information document in good time before any transaction is concluded. This requirement should generally apply irrespective of where or how the transaction takes place. Persons selling include both distributors and the packaged retail investment product manufacturer themselves where they choose to sell the product directly to retail investors. To ensure necessary flexibility and proportionality, retail investors who wish to conclude a transaction using a means of distance communication should be able to receive the key information document after the conclusion of the transaction. Even in this case the key information document would be useful for the investor, for instance to allow the investor to compare the product purchased with that described in the key information document. This Regulation is without prejudice to the Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and the Council.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 141 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
(20) Uniform rules should be laid down in order to give the person selling the packaged retail investment product a certain choice with regard to the medium in which the key information document is provided to retail investors allowing for use of electronic communications where it is appropriate having regard to the circumstances of the transaction. However, the retail investor should be given the option to receive it on paper. In the interest of consumer access to information, the key information document should always be provided free of charge.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 144 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
(21) To ensure the trust of retail investors in packaged retail investment products, requirements should be established for appropriate internal procedures which ensure that retail investors receive a substantive response from the investment product manufacturer to complaints.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 148 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
(22) Procedures for alternative dispute resolution allow for a quicker and less expensive settlement of disputes than the courts and lighten the burden on the court system. For that purpose packaged retail investment product manufacturers and the persons selling packaged retail investment products should be under an obligation to participate in those procedures initiated by retailed investors concerning the rights and obligations established by this Regulation, subject to certain safeguards in conformity with the principle of effective judicial protection. In particular, the procedures for alternative dispute resolution should not infringe the rights which the parties to such procedures have to bring legal proceedings before the courts.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 150 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) As the key information document should be produced for packaged retail investment products by entities operating in the banking, insurance, securities and fund sectors of the financial markets, it is of utmost importance to ensure a smooth co- operation between the various authorities supervising packaged retail investment product manufacturers so that they have a common approach to the application of this Regulation.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 151 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
(24) In line with the Commission Communication of December 2010 on reinforcing sanctioning regimes in the financial sector and in order to ensure that the requirements set out in this Regulation are fulfilled, it is important that Member States take necessary steps to ensure that breaches of this Regulation are subject to appropriate administrative sanctions and measures. In order to ensure that sanctions have a dissuasive effect and to strengthen investors' protection by warning them about investment products marketed in breach of this Regulation, sanctions and measures should normally be published, except in certain well defined circumstances.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 155 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
(29) A review of this Regulation should be carried out four years after the entry into force of this Regulation in order to take account of market developments, such as the emergence of new types of packaged retail investment products, as well as developments in other areas of Union law and the experiences of Member States. The review should assess whether the measures introduced have improved the average retail investors' understanding of packaged retail investment products and the comparability of the products. It should also consider whether the transitional period applying to UCITS should be extended, or whether other options for the treatment of UCITS might be considered. On the basis of the review, the Commission should submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals. Such a review could also consider whether it would be in the interest of retail consumer protection to extend the KID or develop a document similar to the KID for other retail products that do not have a form of packaging, such as ordinary deposit accounts, shares and bonds.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 158 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) In order to give packaged retail investment product manufacturers and persons selling investment products sufficient time to prepare for the practical application of the requirements of this Regulation, the requirements of this Regulation should not become applicable until two years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 161 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
(32) Since the objective of the action to be taken, namely to enhance retail investors' protection and improve their confidence in packaged retail investment products, including where these products are sold cross-border, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting independently of one another, and only action at the European level could address the identified weaknesses, and can therefore by reason of its effects be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty of the European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives,
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 169 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
This Regulation shall apply to the manufacturing and selling of packaged retail investment products.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 175 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) life insurance products, which do not offer a surrender value or where that surrender value is not wholly or partially exposed, directly or indirectly, to market fluctuationsith or without profit sharing, where the investment risk is not borne by the policyholder and which fall under Annex I (I) of Directive 2002/83/EC and annex II (I) of Directive 2009/138/EC;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 185 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) other securities which do not embed a derivativeith a rate of return that is determined in relation to an interest rate and which are held directly;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 191 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) all pension products as defined under Article 4(d) and pension products for which a financial contribution from the employer is required by national law and where the employeer has nomade the relevant choice as to the pension product provider.; and
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 198 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
(fa) officially recognised pension products and social security schemes as defined under national or Union law.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 203 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Where investment product manufacturers subject to this Regulation are also subject to Directive 2003/71/EC, this Regulation and Directive 2003/71/EC shall both apply. Information contained in the key investor information document shall comply with this Regulation and shall be regarded by competent authorities as appropriate information with respect to information on risk and expenses and deemed as satisfying the requirements laid down in Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/71/EC relating to the content of the key information as specified in Article 2(1)(s)(ii) and (iii) of that Directive.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 206 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. Where investment product manufacturers subject to this Regulation are also subject to Directive 2009/138/EC, this Regulation andInformation contained in the key information document shall be regarded by competent authorities as appropriate information with respect to information on the risks underlying the contract which are assumed by the policy holder and shall be deemed as satisfying the requirements laid down in Article 185(4) of Directive 2009/138/EC shall both apply.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 214 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ‘packaged retail investment product’ means an investment where regardless of the legal form of the investment the amount repayable to the investor is exposed to fluctuations in reference values or in the performance of one or more assets which are not directly purchased by the investor;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 218 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b – introductory part
(b) ‘packaged retail investment product manufacturer’ means:
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 248 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. The key information document shall be a stand-alone document, clearly separate from marketing materials and shall not contain any marketing material or any recommendation to invest.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 253 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
(2a) For those PRIPs that offer variations in investment term, particular benefits or payment options or multiple underlying fund choices to the individual investor, or PRIPs for which specific information may otherwise vary according to the personal characteristics or choices of the individual retail customer, the information required by Article 8 (2) can be set out in summary terms or as indicative figures, for example giving a range of values. In these cases the KID should prominently state those additional documents to which retail customers will need to refer in order to obtain information specific to their personal circumstances.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 264 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point b – point iii
(iii) acronyms and technical terms are avoided when everyday words can be used instead.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 269 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) focused on the key information that investors need.
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 281 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
‘This document provides you with key information about this investment product. It is not marketing material. The information is required by law to help you understand the nature, benefits and risks of this investment product and the risks of investing in it. You are advised to read it so that you can take an informed decision about whether to investo assist you in making comparisons between this product and alternative investment products. Before making a final decision to invest you should carefully consider all of the relevant documents that set out the terms and conditions of your investment, alongside this document. This document only provides information and as such it does not indicate whether a product is suitable for your specific, personal circumstances.’
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 290 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) under a section at the beginning of the document, the name of the packaged retail investment product and identity of the packaged retail investment product manufacturer (name and address of its headquarters);
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 302 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b – introductory part
(b) under a section titled ‘What is this investment?’, the nature and main features of the packaged retail investment product, including
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 305 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b – point i
(i) the type of the packaged retail investment product;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 309 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b – point ii
(ii) its objectives and the means for achieving them;, including a description of the underlying instruments or variables and how the return is determined
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 311 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b – point ii a (new)
(iia) a sentence describing in simple terms the implicit underlying expectation of an investor purchasing the packaged retail investment product;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 312 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b – point iii
(iii) an indication of whether the investment product manufacturer targets specific environmental, social or governance outcomes, either in respect of his conduct of business or in respect of the investment product, and if so, an indication of the outcomes being sought and how these are to be achieved;deleted
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 327 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b – point iv
(iv) where the packaged retail investment product offers insurance benefits, details of these insurance benefits;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 331 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b – point v
(v) the term of the packaged retail investment product, if known;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 348 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point c – introductory part
(c) under a section titled ‘Could I lose money?’, a brief indication of whether loss of capital is possible, including"What are the possible risks and reward?
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 354 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point c – point i
(i) any guarantees or capithe risk and reward profile of the packaged retail protection provided, as well as any limitations to theseinvestment product, including a summary indicator of this profile and warnings in relation to any specific risks that may not be fully reflected in the summary indicator;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 359 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point c – point ii
(ii) whether the investment product is covered by a compensation or guarantee sca brief indication of whether loss of capital is possible, including any guarantees or capital protection provided, as well as any limitations to themse;
2013/02/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 372 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) under a section titled ‘What is it for?’ an indication of the recommended minimum holding period and the expected liquidity profile of the product including the possibility and conditions for any disinvestments before maturity, having regard to the risk and reward profile of the packaged retail investment product and the market evolution it targets;
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 373 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) under a section titled ‘What are the risks and what might I get back?’, the risk and reward profile of the investment product, including a summary indicator of this profile and warnings in relation to any specific risks that may not be fully reflected in the summary indicator;deleted
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 392 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) under a section titled ‘What are the costs?’, the costs associated with an investment in the investment product, comprising both direct and indirect costs to be borne by the investor, including summary indicators of these costs; containing all annual charges and other payments taken from the product over a defined period. In addition, the key information document shall, if relevant, list and explain any charges taken from the investor under specific conditions, the basis on which the charge is calculated, and when the charge applies. The key information document shall also refer to the existence of variable charges (such as transaction costs, stock exchange taxes), which cannot be included in the calculations of costs.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 407 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) under a section titled ‘How has it done in the past?’, the past performance of the packaged retail investment product, if this is relevant having regard to the nature of the product and the length of its track record;
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 420 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point h a (new)
(h a) under a section titled "What other documents must I read prior to investing", a brief description of documentation (including a prospectus, where relevant) and an explanation that all such documents (including the KID) should be taken into consideration prior to taking an investment decision.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 432 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. The packaged retail investment product manufacturer may only include other information where it is necessary for the retail investor to take an informed investment decision about a specific packaged retail investment product.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 441 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. The information referred to in paragraph 2 shall be presented in a common format including the common headings and following the standardised order set out in paragraph 2, so as to allow for comparison with the key information document for any other packaged retail investment product. The key information document shall prominently display a common symbol to distinguish the document from other documents.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 451 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 23 specifying the details of the presentation and the content of each of the elements of information referred to in paragraph 2, the presentation and details of the other information the packaged retail investment product manufacturer may include within the key information document as referred to in paragraph 3, and the details of the common format and the common symbol referred to in paragraph 4. The Commission shall take into account the differences between packaged retail investment products and the capabilities of retail investors as well as the features of packaged retail investment products that allow the retail investor to select between different underlying investments or other options provided for by the product, including where this selection can be undertaken at different points in time, or changed in the future.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 463 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
The draft regulatory technical standards shall take into account the different types of packaged retail investment products. The European Supervisory Authorities shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by […].
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 467 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Marketing communications that contain specific information relating to the packaged retail investment product shall not include any statement that contradicts the information contained in the key information document or diminishes the significance of the key information document. Marketing communications shall indicate that a key information document is available and supply information on how to obtain it.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 473 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. The packaged retail investment product manufacturer shall review the information contained in the key information document regularly and revise the document where the review indicates that changes need to be made.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 479 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the specific conditions under which information contained in the key information document must be reviewed or the key information document revised where an packaged retail investment product is made available to retail investors in a non- continuous manner;
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 482 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) the circumstances in which retail investors are to be informed about a revised key information document for an packaged retail investment product purchased by them.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 486 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. WThere an investment product manufacturer has produced a key information document which does not comply with the requirements of Articles 6, 7 and 8 on which a retail investor has relied when making an investment decision, such a retail invest information in the key information document shall constitute pre-contractual information. It shall be fair, clear and not misleading. The key infor may claim from the invetion document shall be consistment product manufacturer damagewith any prospectus for any loss caused to that retail investor through the use of the key information document., if no prospectus has been published, the terms and conditions of the packaged retail investment product
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 498 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. WThen a retail investor demonstrates a loss resulting from the use of the information contained in the key information document, the investment product manufacturer has to prove that information in the key information document shall constitute pre-contractual information. It shall be fair, clear and not misleading. Where binding contractual documents exist, the key information document shasll been drawn up in compliance with Articles 6, 7 and 8 of this Regulation consistent with those documents.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 510 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. The distribution of the burden of proof referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be alteredpackaged retail investment product manufacturer shall incur civil liability inf advance through an agreement. Any clause in such agreements in advance shall not ben investor suffers loss because the Key Information Document is misleading, inaccurate or inconsistent with the other binding con the retail investortractual documents for the packaged retail investment product. This civil liability shall not be limited or excluded by contract.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 514 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. A person selling an packaged retail investment product to retail investors shall provide them with the key information document in good time before the conclusion of a transaction relating to the packaged retail investment product. Where a packaged retail investment product is recommended to a client, the key information document shall be provided without delay.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 525 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1,In no event shall a person selling an packaged retail investment product may provide the retailto retail investors provide such investors with thea key information document immediately after the conclusion of the transaction where:without first obtaining the written permission of the packaged retail investment product manufacturer to do so. Such permission may be given by the packaged retail investment product manufacturer on an indefinite basis for a limited period of time or subject to other conditions. Where any specified condition is not met, such permission will no longer be valid for the purposes of this paragraph.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 535 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point a – point c
(c) where the person selling the packaged retail investment product has informed the retail investor of this fact.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 537 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point a – point c a (new)
(c a) the retail investor gives his express consent to be provided with the key information document immediately after the conclusion of the transaction
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 542 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
3. Where successive transactions regarding the same investment product are carried out on behalf of a retail investor in accordance with instructions given by that investor to the person selling the investment product prior to the first transaction, the obligation to provide a key information document under paragraph 1 shall only apply to the first transactionIn the event a person selling a packaged retail investment product to retail investors either: (a) fails to provide investors with a key information document; or (b) provides investors with a key information document in respect of which it has not obtained the permission required under paragraph 2 above, the sole responsibility for this breach will lie with the person selling such a packaged retail investment product and, unless the packaged retail investment product manufacturer is the person making such sale, no liability shall arise for the packaged retail investment product manufacturer.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 551 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The person selling an packaged retail investment product shall provide the key information document to the retail investor in one of the following media:
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 552 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. The person selling an packaged retail investment product shall provide the key information document to retail investors free of charge.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 559 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) the provision of the key information document by means of a website is appropriate in the context of the business conducted between the person selling an packaged retail investment product and the retail investor;
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 563 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 5 – point d
(d) where the key information document has been revised in accordance with Article 10 all revisedthe latest versions shall also be made available to the retail investor; on request, previous versions shall be made available to the investor;
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 565 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 6
6. For the purposes of paragraph 4 and 5, the provision of information using a durable medium other than paper or by means of a website shall be regarded as appropriate in the context of the business conducted between the person selling an packaged retail investment product and the retail investor, if there is evidence that the retail investor has regular access to the Internet. The provision by the retail investor of an e-mail address for the purposes of that business shall be regarded as such evidence.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 583 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
The investment product manufacturer shall establish appropriate procedures and arrangements which ensure that retail investors who have submitted a complaint in relation to the key information document receive a substantive reply in a timely and proper manner, in accordance with the directive on alternative dispute resolution.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 584 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15
1. Where a retail investor initiates a procedure for alternative dispute resolution laid down in national law against an investment product manufacturer or a person selling investment products with regard to a dispute concerning rights and obligations established under this Regulation, the investment product manufacturer or the person selling investment products shall participate in that procedure, provided that it fulfils the following requirements: (a) the procedure results in decisions which are not binding; (b) the limitation period for bringing the dispute before a court is suspended for the duration of the procedure for alternative dispute resolution; (c) the period of prescription of the claim is suspended for the duration of the procedure; (d) the procedure is free of charge or at moderate cost, as specified in national legislation; (e) electronic means are not the only means by which the parties can gain access to the procedure; (f) interim measures are possible in exceptional cases where the urgency of the situation so requires. 2. Member States shall notify the Commission of the entities with competence to deal with the procedures referred to in paragraph 1 by [insert concrete date 6 months after entry into force/application of this Regulation]. They shall notify the Commission without delay of any subsequent change concerning those entities. 3. Entities with competence to deal with the procedures referred to in paragraph 1 shall cooperate with each other on the resolution of cross-border disputes arising under this Regulation.Article 15 deleted
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 611 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall notify the Commission of the entities with competence to deal with the procedures referred to in paragraph 1 by [insert concrete date 6 months after entry into force/application of this Regulation]. They shall notify the Commission without delay of any subsequent change concerning those entities.deleted
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 612 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. In the exercise of their powers in Article 19, competent authorities shall cooperate closely to ensure that the administrative measures and sanctions produce the desired results of this Regulation and coordinate their action in order to avoid possible duplication and overlap when applying administrative measures and sanctions to cross border casesCompetent authorities shall have, in accordance with national law, all supervisory powers, including investigatory powers, available to them as necessary to fulfil their duties under this Regulation.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 613 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. In the exercise of their powers under Article 19, competent authorities shall cooperate closely to ensure that the administrative measures and sanctions produce the desired results of this Regulation and coordinate their action in order to avoid possible duplication and overlap when applying administrative measures and sanctions to cross border cases.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 614 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. Entities with competence to deal with the procedures referred to in paragraph 1 shall cooperate with each other on the resolution of cross-border disputes arising under this Regulation.deleted
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 615 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. This Article applies to the following breaches:any breach of the Regulation.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 618 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the key information document does not comply with Article 6 (1) to (3) and Article 7;deleted
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 620 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the key information document does not contain the information set out in Article 8 (1) and (2) or is not presented in accordance with Article 8 (4);deleted
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 622 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) a marketing communication contains information relating to the investment product that contradicts the information in the key information document, in breach of Article 9;deleted
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 624 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the key information document is not reviewed and revised in accordance with Article 10;deleted
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 626 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) the key information document has not been provided in good time in accordance with Article 12 (1);deleted
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 628 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) the key information document has not been provided free of charge in accordance with Article 13 (1).deleted
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 630 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) an order prohibiting the marketing of an packaged retail investment product;
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 631 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) an order suspending the marketing of an packaged retail investment product;
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 633 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) an order for the publication of a new verprohibiting the provision of a key information document. which does not comply with the requirement of Articles 6, 7, 8 and 10
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 635 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(d a) pecuniary penalties.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 640 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that, where the competent authorities have imposed one or more administrative measures and sanctions in accordance with paragraph 2, the competent authorities have the power to issue or require the packaged retail investment product manufacturer or person selling theadvising on or selling the packaged retail investment product to issue a direct communication to the retail investor concerned, giving them information about the administrative measure or sanction, and informing them where to lodge complaints or submit claims for redress.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 641 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The competent authorities shall apply the administrative measures and sanctions referred to in Article 19(2) taking into account all relevant circumstances including, where appropriate:
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 643 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the degree of responsibility of the responsible natural or legal person;
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 645 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the cooperative behaviour of the natural or legal person responsible for the breach;
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 647 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) any previous breaches by the responsible natural or legal person.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 649 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(e a) other relevant factors.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 676 #

2012/0169(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1
1. Four years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall review this Regulation. The review shall include a general survey of the practical application of the rules laid down in this Regulation, taking due account of developments in the market for retail investment products. As regards UCITS as defined in Article 1 (2) of Directive 2009/65/EC, the review shall assess whether the transitional arrangements under Article 24 of this Regulation shall be prolonged, or whether, following the identification of any necessary adjustments, the provisions on key investor information in Directive 2009/65/EC might be replaced by or considered equivalent to the key investor document under this Regulation. The review shall also reflect on a possible extension of the scope of this Regulation to other financial producto cover other products and instruments available to retail clients.
2013/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1 #

2011/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 22 a (new)
- having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 13 December 2011 on trade and investment barriers (2011/2115(INI))4 __________________ 4 Text adopted P7_TA-PROV(2011)0565
2012/05/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 26 #

2011/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas the European sovereign debt and roll-over risks, as well as deficiencies and barriers to trade and to the completion of the internal market, including non-tariff barriers and data restrictions, may limit the EU region's ability to attract both European and international investors;
2012/05/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 29 #

2011/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas, as shown in the Commission's Alert Mechanism Report (COM (2012)0068), national budget constraints and high unemployment rates highlight the need, especially with regard to current account balances, export market shares and private and public debt, to introduce effective structural reforms in order to improve the business environment, while cutting red tape and optimising the added value of the structural funds and the European Investment Bank's activities, especially in the countries benefitting from the European neighbourhood policy;
2012/05/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 43 #

2011/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point 1 (new)
(1) Urges the Commission to improve international regulatory cooperation, including in multilateral fora, and convergence of regulatory requirements on the basis of international standards and, where possible, engage in regulatory dialogue to address existing or potential future barriers to trade with a view to limiting disputes and associated trade costs;
2012/05/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 55 #

2011/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that excessively reducing public investment due to the fiscal crisis in crucial sectors such as health, education, research and infrastructures canould adversely affect competitiveness and attractiveness to investors, especially if this becomes a long-term pattern;
2012/05/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 66 #

2011/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Asks the Commission to step up coordination of Member States' economic, tax and social policies with a view to attracting foreign investments, while taking into account the economic and social divergences observed between euro- area members and between EU Member States;deleted
2012/05/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 69 #

2011/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Welcomes the ECB's longer-term refinancing operations (LTRO); cCalls on the ECB to further act in a decisive way in addressing the current euro-area debt crisis by maintaining price stability while at the same time minimising negative spill-over effects on the real economy and on the investments that the banking sector's liquidity problems could generate;
2012/05/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 79 #

2011/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Calls on the Commission to take any appropriate measures to improve the third country regimes embedded in financial services regulation in view of the need to attract foreign investment, including private equity and venture capital, to the Union's single market; considers, in this regard, that improving the regulatory structures in relation to third country regimes in financial services regulation becomes a horizontal priority;
2012/05/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 84 #

2011/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Expresses concern about the high youth unemployment figures observed in a number of Member States and the negative employment prospects; notes with concern the EU's limited ability to attract high- quality human capital while there are significant human capital flows from the EU towards the third world; considers, in this regard, that the EU should step up its efforts to achieve the employment objectives of the EU 2020's strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth by focusing, amongst other, on reducing red tape and labour costs for EU companies, including through shifting taxes away from labour, and by implementing flexicurity principles;
2012/05/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 89 #

2011/2288(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for greater fiscal coordination, on both the revenue and expenditure sides; eExpresses concern about the heavy administrative burdens and high tax compliance costs that European businesses are facing, which create disincentives for investment in the EU; asks the Commission and Member States to cooperate further on their respective tax policies against double taxation, double non-taxation, tax fraud, tax evasion and dumping, and to combat the use of tax havens for illicit purposes;
2012/05/03
Committee: ECON
Amendment 15 #

2011/2087(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls that revenue in the area of sport is normally used to finance events and competitions, participating organisations, the construction and maintenance of infrastructure and the promotion of youth and amateur and grassroots sport; points out, therefore, that organisers need to have the right to merchandise their events themselves, in line with EU competition rules;
2011/09/06
Committee: ECON
Amendment 237 #

2011/2087(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Calls on the governing body of world football, FIFA, to thoroughly investigate the allegations of corruption surrounding recent World Cup bids and emphasises that significant changes must be made in order to improve the transparency of FIFA and its decision-making process;
2011/09/09
Committee: CULT
Amendment 7 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Takes the view that the debate on the role of the auditor should take place alongside a review of the role of the audit committee – now largely ineffective – and of the financial and risk reporting that companies are required to carry out;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 16 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that statutory auditing of public interest companies/bodies has a social function and is in the public interest, as it is an absolutely fundamenta useful component of the democratic economic and political system;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 21 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to look into how the role of the auditor might be extended to include audo increase the qualitsy of risk reports providduced by the entity being audited, in addition to verification of the information supplied in the main financial statements;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 26 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Takes the view that auditors should be subject to an obligation to Code of Practice whereby they alert supervisors or the relevant authorities when they spot problems that might jeopardise the future of the entity being audited;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 30 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Takes the view that audit reports should be brief, with clear, concise conclusions, and that ithey should include an annexbe for the audit committee report to containing additional explaninformations on general issues such as the methodology used, and specific issues such as key indicators, materiality figures, assessments of the risk involved in the material accounting estimates or materiality judgements made, and any particular problems encountered whilst carrying out the audit;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 35 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that fluent, regular dialogue between the external auditor, the internal auditor and the audit committee is vital to allow effective auditing, as the shareholders need to be kept informed, for example as to why an auditor is appointed, reappointed or withdrawn, or by means of specific clarifications relating to the audit committee report;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 37 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Takes the view that auditors should have the right to be heard at general meetings of the company in matters that relate to their role as auditors;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 46 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Agrees that there is an inevitable conflict in the auditor being appointed and paid by the audited entity; nevertheless, does not currently see any justification for this appointment to be made by a third party; with this in mind, calls for the audit committee's role to be strengthened;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 52 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that, in order to guarantee the independence of audits, auditing contracts should run for no longer than eight years; takes the view that an initial contract should be concluded forthere is no need for firm rotation, as there is no evidence that lack of independence is an issue in audits. Existing partner rotation arrangements provide the independence necessary four years, renewable only once for a further period of four years, followed by a period of at least four years – eight years for public interest entities – during which the audit firm concerned cannot audit the same company again; considersthe audit to be effective. Evidence suggests that any compulsory audit rotation would be likely only to increase the concentration in the audit market, and there is good evidence that thereis would be a need, at the end of the initial four-year period, for a new team to be appointed from within the audit firmimpose significant costs on business, which should be avoided;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 55 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Takes the view that companies should conduct a compulsory open tendering process for statutory appointments of external auditors every eight years, on a renewable basis; notes that for Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs), this should be reduced to every four years;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 59 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Considers it vital that steps be taken to prevent attempts to get round the mandatory rotation rule by appointing another audit firm from within the same group or by using the same auditors working for a different company;deleted
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 66 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Takes the view that there should be ano ban on services other than auditing being provided to the audited company, as ethis would pose a risk to the auditor's independence; takes the view, furthermore, that under no circumstances should internal and external cal guidelines at Member State level already forbid certain non-auditing services be provided simultaneously; points out that this would restrict ‘lowballing’, the practice of offering cut- price auditing with a view to obtaining compensation by charging for additional services; therefore takes the view that the ban must apply to all firms and their clients, particularly where major audit firms are concernedy the auditor, particularly of listed companies, and subject permitted non-audit services to significant disclosure and transparency. However internal and external auditing services should not be provided simultaneously;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 71 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Takes the view that areas of audit services which are deemed to incur a conflict of interest should be carried out by different companies, including evaluations of complex structured products;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 78 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Calls on the Commission to explore the likely demand for a relaxation of ownership rules on audit firms that would allow audit firms to raise capital from external sources; this would allow firms to recapitalise in the event of audit firm collapse and allow firms to grow their practices to enable them to enter the audit market for the largest companies;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 90 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Takes the view that firms that arno audit firm should be deemed ‘too big to fail’ as to do so could create the risk of moral hazard and that the contingency plans relating to the major auditing firms should be reinforced; believes, furthermore, that these plans should be designed to minimise the risk of an audit firm leaving the market without good reason and reduce the uncertainty and disruption that would cause, whilst ensuring that the market does not end up being dominated by an even tighter oligopoly;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 92 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Takes the view that the contingency plans ought to include a mechanism via which the regulator is informed of any problems threatening an audit firm nationally or internationally, these plans being designed to stabilise audit firms and prevent a sudden collapse resulting from an exodus of clients and staff whilst an investigation is ongoing; takes the view that there should be an objective study of the causes of the problem, irrespective of the penalties imposed, establishing whether the problems are intrinsic to the audit firm concerned or whether the firm can be rescued either in part or entirely; takes the view that there should also be a and that all audit firms should put in place response plans in which the regulator establishes whether, and under which conditions, the audit firm should continue to receive aid; takes the view that, where necessary, the plan should providecluding provisions for the orderly transfer of clients and staff to other audit firms where feasible;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 94 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Considers that there is a need to create, or encourage the creation of, a voluntary code of ethics for the Big Four firms, encouraging them to restrict their own growth, thereby protecting the development of medium-sized audit firms, which would ultimately also be beneficial for the survival of the major firms themselves;deleted
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 102 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. States that it is vital to introduce a ban on restrictive clauses in contracts that favour the Big Four firms; calls for mergers between small and medium-sized audit firms to be encouraged; urges the Commission to look into creating a quality certificate and register for audit companies so that small and medium- sized audit firms can show that their work is of a satisfactory standard;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 109 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission to bring inpropose that Member States put in place a system of compulsory tendering on a periodic basis forwhen public interest entities put their audits out to tender, under which at least one non-Big Four company would have to be inclube invited to tendedr; takes the view that the audit committee must be given a key role in this process, in which shareholders must also take part;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 117 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Title 5 a (new) after paragraph 23
SMEs
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 118 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Since there are no systemic risks to reducing mandatory audit requirements for unlisted companies, calls on the Commission to make audits for most unlisted medium sized companies voluntary. This would be a major reduction of burden for the companies that are the engine for growth of the European economy;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 120 #

2011/2037(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the Commission to step up its efforts to increase convergenceMember States to encourage cooperation between national audit supervisors by the formation of Colleges of national supervisors;
2011/03/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 3 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas, in the wake of the global financial crisis, it appears more important than ever to provide a coherent European contract law regime in order to realise the full potential of the internal market,deleted
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 17 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas such transaction costs are perceived as important obstacles toising from legal cross- border trade, as confirmed by 60 % of EU retailers interviewed in 20082 , and whereas 46 % said harmonised rules woults relating directly to contract law issues may be marginal in comparison to other transaction costs incurred whelp to increase cross-border sales, 1 2n attempting to contract cross-border, Or. en Eurobarometer 224, 2008, p. 4. Eurobarometer 224, 2008, p. 4.
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 25 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas there is evidence that the online market remains fragmented: in a survey, 61 % of 10 964 test cross-border orders failed, inter alia because traders refused to serve the consumer's country1 ; whereas, on the other hand, cross-borde existing data indicates that harmonised laws would have little effect upon traders' cross-border activities, while consumers rank other issues such as transacting in their own language, with retailers established in their own Member State or sthopping appears to increase consumers' chances of finding a cheaper offer2 and of finding products not available domestically online3 se that are at least well known to them, as much more important than difficulties which are perceived to arise in relation to contract law when deciding whether to purchase goods,
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 28 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas an optional instrument would introduce autonomous legal concepts, would lack the advantage of an established and clear body of jurisprudence, would accordingly be uncertain and unpredictable in its effect, and would therefore be unlikely to prove commercially attractive; but whereas the introduction of an optional instrument would entail costs, disruption and confusion to consumers and businesses alike, for example in the training of legal professionals, the revision of commercial practices, and the education of consumers,
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 30 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H
H. whereas any steps taken now towards a large revision in the area of European contract law must be coherent with the expectedwould be premature in view of the recent revision of the Consumer Rights Directive,
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 35 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Favours the option of setting up an optional instrument (OI) by means of a regulation; believes that such an OI could be complemented by a ‘toolbox’ that should be endorsed by means of an interinstitutional agreement;deleted
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 49 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that a ‘toolbox’ could possibly be put into practice step-by-step, starting as a Commission tool, and being converted, once agreed between the institutions, into a tool for the Union legislator; points out that a ‘toolbox’ would provide the necessary legal backdrop and underpinning against which an OI could operate;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 52 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers it important that any toolbox does not serve to predetermine the legal principles and substance of future legislation in the field of contract law, and that it includes among its 'tools' concepts from across the diverse range of legal traditions within the EU, rather than just those embodied in the Draft Common Frame of Reference;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 54 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that an OI would generate European added value, in particular by ensuring legal certainty through the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, providing at a stroke the potential to surmount both legal and linguistic barriers, as an OI would naturally be available in all EU languages;deleted
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 64 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Sees a compelling practical advantage in the flexible and voluntary nature of an opt-in instrument; calls, however,Calls on the Commission to include in any proposal for an OIa 'toolbox' a mechanism for regular monitoring and review, with the close involvement of all parties concerned;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 69 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that both business-to-business and business-to-consumer contracts should be covered; emphasises that the level of consumer protection would need to be high, as mandatory national provisions, including in the area of consumer law, would be replaced;deleted
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 79 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Sees no reason why an OI should not be available as an opt-in both in cross- border and domestic situations, as this would have the advantages of simplicity and cost-saving, especially for the SME sector; believes, however, that the effects of a domestic opt-in on national bodies of contract law merit specific analysis;deleted
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 84 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Acknowledges that e-commerce or distance-selling contracts account for an important share of cross-border transactions; believes, however, that an OI should not be limited to these types of transaction;deleted
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 91 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that the scope of a ‘toolbox’ could be quite broad, whereas any OI should be limited to the core contractual law issues;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 97 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Sees benefits in an OI 'toolbox' containing specific provisions for the most frequent types of contract, in particular for the sale of goods and provision of services; reiterates its earlier call to include insurance contracts within the scope of the OI, believing that such an instrument could be particularly useful for small- scale insurance contracts; points out that some specific issues in connection with which an OI might be beneficial have been raised, such as digital rights and beneficial ownership; considers that, on the other hand, there might be a need to exclude certain types of complex public law contracts;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 104 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that according to the re seems to be a clear constituency among SMEs which is expecting benefits from an OI, with the caveat that it should be drawn up in a manner which makes it simple and attractive to use fsponses to the recent Commission consultation, many businesses and consumers organisations are highly sceptical about any alleged advantages of an OI but would support all parties toolbox option;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 106 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that whilst an OI will have the effect of providing a single body of law, there will still be a need to seek provision of standard terms and conditions of trade which can be produced in a simple and comprehensible form, available off-the-shelf for SMEs and with some form of trust mark system to ensure consumer confidence;deleted
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 112 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. RecallConsiders that further work on cross- border alternative dispute resolution (ADR), in particular for SMEs and consumers, remains a priority, but emphasises that, if tshould be a higher parties use one body of law provided by an OI, ADR will be further facilitated; calls on the Commission to consider synergies when putting forward a proposalriority than action in European contract law;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 116 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Suggests that lack of confidence in cross-border redress systems could be further tackled by a direct linkage between the OI and the European Order for Payment Procedure and the European Small Claims Procedure;deleted
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 123 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Notes concerns that consumers seldom feel they have a choice with regard to contract terms and are confronted with a ‘take it or leave it’ situation; strongly believes that an attractive OI, by opening up business opportunities and strengthening competition, will actually broaden the overall choice available toOI will not broaden the overall choice available to consumers, and indeed will be imposed rather than being a possible option in many cases on consumers;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 126 #

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Appreciates that both expert and stakeholder groups already have a varied geographical and sectoral background; believes that stakeholder contributions will become even more important once the consultation phase is over and theif a legislative procedure as such, which willould need to be as inclusive and transparent as possible, is launched;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 2 #

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
– having regard to the continuous, relevant work of the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue (TLD) and the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD),
2011/05/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 80 #

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Urges the World Trade Organization (WTO) to take an active role in identifying and addressing possible trade distortions in financial services caused by differing regulatory regimes;
2011/05/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 130 #

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Encourages the IMF and G20 to seek, and act on, input and advice from global economies with low budget deficits and disciplined government expenditures;
2011/05/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 151 #

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. RNotes the US and EU together account for almost 40% of global trade and almost 50% of global GDP and recommends an enhanced macro- prudential dialogue, with a focus on the Atlantic dialogue, even-handed implementation of the Basel III package and further discussions on widening the scope of supervision to non-bank financial institutions;
2011/05/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 152 #

2011/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Respects the path of the G20, WTO, Basel III and other multinational bodies whilst recognising the potential perils of over-regulation and regulatory competition;
2011/05/24
Committee: ECON
Amendment 19 #

2011/0442(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 1 b (new)
(1b) Since its establishment in 1990 in response to major changes in the political and economic climate in central and eastern Europe, the EBRD has assisted the countries of that region to encourage their transition towards market economies and pluralistic democratic societies. The EBRD's countries of operation should be extended to SEMED countries in order to promote similar objectives.
2012/03/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 22 #

2011/0442(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) The EBRD's expansion to the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean is an expression of the Union's support for the hopes, encouraged by the Arab Spring, of a transition in those countries towards market economies and pluralistic democratic societies.
2012/03/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 45 #

2011/0442(COD)

Proposal for a decision
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The representatives of the Union in the governing bodies of the EBRD shall encourage the EBRD to: - continue implementing the best prudential banking practices in order to further preserve its very strong capital position, - focus on areas consistent with the key objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, - provide on the EBRD's website appropriate information about beneficiaries of its funds, the impact of its financial intermediary operations and the evaluations of projects.
2012/03/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 35 #

2011/0418(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
(1) Increasingly, as investors also pursue social goals and are not only seeking financial returns, a social investment market has been emerging in the Union, comprised in part by investment funds targeting social undertakings. Such investment funds provide funding to social undertakings which are acting as drivers of social change by offering innovative solutions to social problems and making a valuable contribution to meeting the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy, while taking into account the long-term challenges facing Member States of the Union, such as those identified in the European Strategy and Policy Analysis System's report, Global Trends 2030.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 38 #

2011/0418(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) In order to clarify the relationship between this Regulation and generally applicable Union rules on collective investment undertakings and their managers, it is necessary to establish that this Regulation should only apply to managers of collective investment undertakings other than UCITS in accordance with Article 1 of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations, and administrative provisions, relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) and who are established in the Union and are registered with the competent authority in their home Member State in accordance with Directive 2011/61/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 20011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010. Furthermore, this Regulation should only apply to managers who manage portfolios of EuSEFs whose assets under management in total do not exceed a threshold of EUR 500 million, irrespective of whether such qualifying assets, together with other non-qualifying assets, managed by a manager, exceed EUR 500 million. In order to make the calculation of this threshold operational, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of specifying the calculation of this threshold. When exercising this empowerment, the Commission should, in order to ensure consistency in rules on collective investment undertakings, take into account measures adopted by the Commission in accordance with point (a) of Article 3 (6) of Directive 2011/61/EC.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 56 #

2011/0418(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) ‘European Social Entrepreneurship Fund’ (EuSEF) means a collective investment undertaking that invests at least 70 percent of its aggregate capital contributions and uncalled committed capital in assets that are qualifying investments;
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 65 #

2011/0418(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d – point i – indent 1
– the undertaking provides services or goods to vulnerable or, marginalised, disadvantaged or excluded persons; or
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 67 #

2011/0418(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d – point i – indent 1 a (new)
- the undertaking provides goods and services in a manner which advances its social or environmental objective,
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 75 #

2011/0418(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 24 specifying the typexamples of services or goods and the methods of production of services or goods that embody a social objective referred to in point (i) of paragraph 1 (d) of this Article taking into account the different kinds of qualifying portfolio undertakings and those circumstances in which profits can be distributed to owners and investors.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 83 #

2011/0418(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. EuSEF managers shall not borrow, issue debt obligations, provide guarantees, at the level of the EuSEF, nor employ any method, at the level of the EuSEF, by which the exposure of the fund will be increased, whether through borrowing of cash or securities, the engagement into derivative positions or by any other means.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 87 #

2011/0418(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Without prejudice to other Union law and subject to risk diversification rules and cash guarantees being in place, the EuSEF may also be entitled to act as guarantor to portfolio undertakings.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 90 #

2011/0418(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
EuSEF managers shall market the units and shares of the EuSEFs under management exclusively to investors which are consideredom they reasonably believe to be professional clients in accordance of Section I of Annex II of Directive 2004/39/EC, or may, on request, be treated as professional clients in accordance with Section II of Annex II of Directive 2004/39/EC, or to other investors where:
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 91 #

2011/0418(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) those other investors commit to invest a minimum of EUR 100.50 000;
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 109 #

2011/0418(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. EuSEF managers shall make available an annual report to the competent authority of the home Member State for each EuSEF under management no later than 6 months following the end of the financial year. The report shall describe the composition of the portfolio of the EuSEF and the activities of the past year. It shall contain the audited financial accounts for the EuSEF. It shall confirm that money and assets are held in the name of the fund and that the EuSEF manager has established and maintained adequate records and controls in respect of the use of any mandate or control over the money and assets of the EuSEF and its investors. It shall be produced in accordance with existing reporting standards and the terms agreed between the EuSEF manager and the investors. EuSEF managers shall provide the report to investors on request. EuSEF managers and investors may agree additional disclosures amongst themselves.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 131 #

2011/0418(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 5
5. A delegated act shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2three months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2three months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 133 #

2011/0418(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the scope of this Regulation, including the threshold of EUR 500 millionpossibility of extending the marketing of EuSEFs to retail investors.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 36 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
(1) Venture capital provides finance to undertakings that are generally very small, in the initial stages of their corporate existence and display a strong potential for growth and expansion. In addition, venture capital funds provide these undertakings with valuable expertise and knowledge, business contacts, brand-equity and strategic advice. By providing finance and advice to these undertakings, venture capital funds stimulates economic growth, contribute to the creation of jobs, boost innovative undertakings, increase their investment in research and development and foster entrepreneurship, innovation and competitiveness in the Unionline with the objectives of EU 2020 Strategy and in the context of the long-term challenges of the Member States, such as those identified in the European Strategy and Policy Analysis System's report, Global Trends 2030.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 43 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) In order to clarify the relationship between this Regulation and rules on collective investment undertakings and their managers, it is necessary to establish that this Regulation should only apply to managers of collective investment undertakings, other than UCITS in accordance with Article 1 of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), who are established in the Union and are registered with the competent authority in their home Member State in accordance with Directive 2011/61/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010.Furthermore, it should only apply to managers who manage portfolios of qualifying venture capital funds whose assets under management in total do not exceed a threshold of EUR 500 million. In order to make the calculation of this threshold operational, the power to adopt acts , irrespective of whether such qualifying accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of specifying the calculation of this threshold. When exercising this empowerment, the Commission should, in order to ensure consistency in rulesssets, together with non-qualifying assets, managed by a manager exceed EUR 500 million. In order to make the calculation of this threshold operational, the method onf collective investment undertakings, take into account measures adopted by the Commission in accordance with point (a) of Article 3 (6) ofalculating such thresholds should be identical to that applicable under Directive 2011/61/ECU.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 50 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) In line with the aim of precisely circumscribing the collective investment undertakings which will be covered by this Regulation and in order to ensure their focus on providing capital to small undertakings in the initial stages of their corporate existence, the designation ‘European Venture Capital Fund’ should be restricted only to those funds that dedicateinvest at least 70 percent51 % of their aggregate capital contributions and uncalled committed capital to investments in such undertakings in the form of equity or quasi equity instruments.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 56 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) In order to allow venture capital fund managers a certain degree of flexibility in the investment and liquidity management of their qualifying venture capital funds, secondary trading should be permitted up to a maximum threshold not exceeding 30 percent of aggregate capital contributions and uncalled capital investments. Short term holdings of cash and cash equivalent49 % of capital drawn down for investment purposes. Holdings of cash and cash equivalents and capital drawn down to cover costs and expenses should not be taken into account when calculating this limit.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 64 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) In order to ensure the integrity of the designation ‘European Venture Capital Fund’ this Regulation should also contain quality criteria as regards the organisation of a venture capital fund manager. Therefore, this Regulation should lay down uniform, proportionate requirements for the need to maintain adequate technical and human resources as well as sufficient own funds for the proper management of qualifying venture capital funds.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 65 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) In order to specify the requirements set out in this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of specifying the methods to be used for calculating and monitoring the threshold as referred to in this Regulation, and specifying the types of conflicts of interests venture capital funds managers need to avoid and the steps to be taken in that respect. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 67 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
(31) The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 68 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
(32) At the latest four years after the date on which this Regulation becomes applicable a rev review of this Regulation should be carriewd of this Regulation should be carrut at the same time as or immediately after the reviedw outf Directive 2011/61/EU in order to take account of the development of the venture capital market. On the basis of the review, the Commission should submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative changes.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 72 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation applies to managers of collective investment undertakings as defined in point (b) of Article 3 who are (a) that manage portfolios of qualifying venture capital funds; (b) the assets of which, under management in qualifying venture capital funds, do not exceed EUR 500 million, regardless of whether they fall within the scope of Directive 2011/61/EU with respect to their funds other than qualifying venture capital funds; (c) that are established in the Union; and (d) that are subject to registration with the competent authorities of their home Member State in accordance with point (a) of Article 3 (3) of Directive 2011/61/ECU or authorised in accordance with that Directive, provided that those managers manage portfolios of qualifying venture capital funds, whose assets under management in total do not exceed a threshold of EUR 500 million or, in the Member States where the Euro is not the official currency, the corresponding value in the national currency on the date of the entry into force of this Regulation.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 79 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – point a
(a) 'qualifying venture capital fund' means a collective investment undertaking that invests at least 70 percent51 % of its aggregate capital contributions and uncalled committed capitaldrawn down for investment purposes in assets that are qualifying investments;
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 95 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – point d
(d) 'qualifying portfolio undertaking' means: (i) an undertaking that, at the time of an investment by the qualifying venture capital fund, is not listed on a regulated market as defined in point (14) of Article 4 (1) of Directive 2004/39/EC which employs fewer than 250 persons, and either has an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million, or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million, and which is not itself a collective investment undertaking; or (ii) a qualifying venture capital funds;
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 101 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. The venture capital fund manager shall ensure that, when acquiring assets other than qualifying investments, no more than 30 percent49 % of the fund's aggregate capital contributions and uncalled committed capitaldrawn for investment purposes is used for the acquisition of assets other than qualifying investments; short term holdings in cash and, cash equivalents shall not beand capital drawn to cover costs and expenses is not taken into account for calculating this limit.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 111 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – introductory part
Venture capital fund managers shall market the units and shares of qualifying venture capital funds exclusively to investors which are consideredom they reasonably believe to be professional clients in accordance with Section I of Annex II of Directive 2004/39/EC or may, on request, be treated as professional clients in accordance with Section II of Annex II of Directive 2004/39/EC, or to other investors where:
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 113 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – point a
(a) those other investors commit to invest a minimum of EUR 100.50 000;
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 130 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1, Member States may permit qualifying venture capital fund managers to market to other categories of investor within their jurisdiction.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 132 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – point d
(d) apply a high level ofdue diligence in the selection and ongoing monitoring of investments in qualifying portfolio undertakings;
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 138 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. The venture capital fund manager shall make available an annual report to the competent authority of the home Member State for each qualifying venture capital fund under management no later than 6 months following the end of the financial year. The report shall describe the composition of the portfolio of the qualifying venture capital fund and the activities of the past year. It shall contain the audited financial accounts for the qualifying venture capital fund. It shall confirm that money and assets are held in the name of the fund and that the venture capital fund manager has established and maintained adequate records and controls in respect of the use of any mandate or control over the money and assets of the qualifying venture capital fund and its investors. It shall be produced in accordance with existing reporting standards and the terms agreed between the venture capital fund manager and the investors. The venture capital fund manager shall provide the report to investors on request. Venture capital fund managers and investors may agree additional disclosures amongst themselves.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 146 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 5
5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 2 or paragraph 5 of Article 8 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of twohree months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by twohree months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 147 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. At the latest four years after the date of application of this Regulationsame time as or immediately after the review of Directive 2011/61/EU, the Commission shall review this Regulation. The review shall include a general survey of the functioning of the rules in this Regulation and the experience acquired in applying them, including:
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 148 #

2011/0417(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the scope of this Regulation, including the threshold of EUR 500 millionpossibility of extending the marketing of EuVCFs to retail investors.
2012/03/29
Committee: ECON
Amendment 25 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) Annual financial statements should give a true and fair view of an undertaking’s assets and liabilities, financial position and profit or loss. To this endhe true and fair view is the minimum standard of presenting the accounts in order to discharge the duties of the directors to the company, which includes, that the company is capable of being a going concern by virtue of the net assets in its balance sheet being sufficient to support the creditor interest1. That test requires that assets are not stated at above their realisable amounts and that prospective liability and prospective contingent liabilities are included. Also a mandatory layout should be prescribed for the balance sheet and the profit and loss account and the minimum content of the notes to the financial statements and the management report should be laid down. According to the ‘think-small-first’ principle the mandatory requirements for small undertakings should be fully harmonised in legislation. In order to avoid disproportionate burdens on these entities, Member States should not be entitled to require the presentation of further information. Member States may however impose further requirements on medium- sized and large undertakings. __________________ 1 European Court of Justice, Tomberger Case C-234/94 27th June 1996, and DE + ES Bauunternehmung Case C-275/97 14th September 1999. Also see Article 15 of the 2nd Directive 2006/68/EC, which also sets a net assets test for determining whether a dividend can be paid.
2012/04/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 30 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
(31) The annual financial statements and consolidated financial statements should be audited. The requirement is that an audit opinion should state whether the annual or consolidated financial statements give a true and fair view in accordance with the relevant financial reporting framework does not represent a restriction of the scope of that opinion but clarifies the context in which it is expressed. The annual financial statements of small undertakings should not be covered by this audit obligation, as audit can be a significant administrative burden for this category of undertaking, whilst for many small undertakings the same persons are both shareholders and management and therefore have limited need for third party assurance on the financial statements.
2012/04/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 55 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The annual financial statements shall give a true and fair view of the undertaking’s assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss. Where the application of the provisions of this Directive would not be sufficient to give a true and fair view of the undertaking’s assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss, additional information shall be given.
2012/04/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 61 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5
5. By way of derogation from Article 5(1)(i), Member States may in respect of any assets and liabilities which qualify as hedged items under a fair value hedge accounting system, or identified portions of such assets or liabilities, permit measurement at the specific amount required under that system, subject to that being consistent with the true and fair view principle.
2012/04/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 62 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 6
6. By way of derogation from paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article, Member States may permit or require the recognition, measurement and disclosure of financial instruments in conformity with international accounting standards adopted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002, subject to that being consistent with the true and fair view principle.
2012/04/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 101 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) Annual financial statements should give a true and fair view of an undertaking's assets and liabilities, financial position and profit or loss. To this endhe true and fair view is the minimum standard of presenting the accounts in order to discharge the duties of the directors to the company, which includes that the company is capable of being a going concern by virtue of the net assets on its balance sheet being sufficient to support the creditor interest1. That test requires that assets are not stated at above their realisable amounts and that prospective liabilities and prospective contingent liabilities are included. Also a mandatory layout should be prescribed for the balance sheet and the profit and loss account and the minimum content of the notes to the financial statements and the management report should be laid down. According to the ‘think-small-first’ principle the mandatory requirements for small undertakings should be fully harmonised in legislation. In order to avoid disproportionate burdens on these entities, Member States should not be entitled to require the presentation of further information. Member States may however impose further requirements on medium- sized and large undertakings.. __________________ 1 European Court of Justice, judgment of 27 June 1996 in Case C-234/64, Tomberger v Gebrüder von der Wettern (ECR 1996, p. I-03133); and judgment of 14 September 1999 in Case C-275/97, DE + ES Bauunternehmung (ECR 1999, p. I- 05331). Also see Article 15 of the Second Company Law Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital , with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (OJ L 26, 31.1.1977, p. 1), which also sets a net assets test for determining whether a dividend can be paid.
2012/05/09
Committee: JURI
Amendment 103 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
(31) The annual financial statements and consolidated financial statements should be audited. The requirement that an audit opinion should state whether the annual or consolidated financial statements give a true and fair view in accordance with the relevant financial reporting framework does not represent a restriction of the scope of that opinion but clarifies the context in which it is expressed. The annual financial statements of small undertakings should not be covered by this audit obligation, as audit can be a significant administrative burden for this category of undertaking, whilst for many small undertakings the same persons are both shareholders and management and therefore have limited need for third party assurance on the financial statements.
2012/05/09
Committee: JURI
Amendment 124 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The annual financial statements shall give a true and fair view of the undertaking's assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss. Where the application of the provisions of this Directive would not be sufficient to give a true and fair view of the undertaking's assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss, additional information shall be given.
2012/05/09
Committee: JURI
Amendment 130 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5
5. By way of derogation from Article 5(1)(i), Member States may in respect of any assets and liabilities which qualify as hedged items under a fair value hedge accounting system, or identified portions of such assets or liabilities, permit measurement at the specific amount required under that system, subject to that being consistent with the true and fair view principle.
2012/05/09
Committee: JURI
Amendment 131 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 6
6. By way of derogation from paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article, Member States may permit or require the recognition, measurement and disclosure of financial instruments in conformity with international accounting standards adopted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002, subject to that being consistent with the true and fair view principle.
2012/05/09
Committee: JURI
Amendment 194 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 38 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the total amount of payments, including payments in kind, made to each level of government, be that local, regional, national or federal within a financial year;
2012/05/09
Committee: JURI
Amendment 196 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 38 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the total amount per type of payment, including payments in kind, made to each level of government, be that local, regional, national or federal within a financial year;
2012/05/09
Committee: JURI
Amendment 198 #

2011/0308(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 38 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) where those payments have been attributed to a specific project the amount per type of payment, including payments in kind, made for each such project within a financial year, and the total amount of payments for each such project.deleted
2012/05/09
Committee: JURI
Amendment 24 #

2011/0307(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 3 – Paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The home Member State may make an issuer subject to requirements more stringent than those laid down in this Directive, except requiring issuers to publish periodic financial information other thann a more frequent basis than annual financial reports referred to in Article 4 and half- yearly financial reports referred to in Article 5. Member States may however impose publication of additional periodic financial information other than the annual financial reports referred to in Article 4 and the half-yearly financial reports referred to in Article 5 for the following purposes: - protection of financial stability; and - prudential and conduct regulation of institutions.
2012/04/27
Committee: ECON
Amendment 28 #

2011/0307(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The home Member State may not make a holder of shares, or a natural person or legal entity referred to in Articles 10 or 13, subject to requirements more stringent than those laid down in this Directive, except when: (i) setting lower or additional notification thresholds than those laid down in Article 9(1). ; (ii) applying more stringent requirements than those referred to in Article 12; and (iii) applying laws, regulations or administrative provisions adopted in relation to takeover bids, merger transactions and other transactions affecting the ownership or control of companies, regulated by the supervisory authorities appointed by Member States pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids.
2012/04/27
Committee: ECON
Amendment 49 #

2011/0307(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) financial instruments that, on maturity, give the holder, under a formal agreement, either the unconditional right to acquire or the discretion as to his right to acquire, shares to which voting rights are attached, alreadywhether already issued or to be issued, of an issuer whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market;
2012/04/27
Committee: ECON
Amendment 50 #

2011/0307(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) financial instruments which are not included in point (a) but which are referenced to shares referred to in that point and with economic effects similar to thosefinancial instruments referred to in that point (a), whether they give right to a physical settlement or not.
2012/04/27
Committee: ECON
Amendment 51 #

2011/0307(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The number of voting rights shall be calculated by reference to the full notional amount of shareESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the method to calculate the number of voting rights underlying the financial instrument. For this purpose, the holder shall aggregate and notify all financial instruments relating to the same underlying issuer. Only long positions shall be taken into account for the calculation of voting rights. Long positions shall not be netted with short positions relating to the same underlying issuer.
2012/04/27
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #

2011/0307(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point c
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The Commission shall be empowered to adoptESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the contents of the notification to be made, the notification period and to whom the notification is to bye means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 27(2a), (2b) and (2c), and subjectade as referred to in paragraph 1. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 31 December 2013. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the conditions of Articles 27a and 27b, measures to: first sub-paragraph in accordance with Articles 10-14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
2012/04/27
Committee: ECON
Amendment 55 #

2011/0307(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point c
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) modify the method to calculate the number of voting rights relating to the financial instruments referred to in paragraph 1a;deleted
2012/04/27
Committee: ECON
Amendment 56 #

2011/0307(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point c
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) specify the types of instruments to be considered as financial instruments within the meaning of paragraph 1b;deleted
2012/04/27
Committee: ECON
Amendment 57 #

2011/0307(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point c
Directive 2004/109/EC
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) specify the contents of the notification to be made, the notification period and to whom the notification is to be made, as referred to in paragraph 1.deleted
2012/04/27
Committee: ECON
Amendment 242 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) Insurance or assurance undertakings the activities of which are subject to appropriate monitoring by the competent prudential-supervision authorities and which are subject to Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) should be excluded, except as described in Article 1(4).
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 243 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) Investments are often sold to clients in the form of insurance contracts as an alternative to or substitute for financial instruments regulated under this Directive. To deliver consistent protection for retail clients, it is important that investments under insurance contracts are subject to the same conduct of business standards – in particular those relating to managing conflicts of interest, restrictions on inducements, and rules on ensuring the suitability of advice or appropriateness of non-advised sales. The investor protection and conflicts of interest requirements in this Directive should therefore be applied equally to those investments packaged under insurance contracts. Since investments involving insurance can have specific features that differ from other financial instruments (for example, because such investment products can involve an element of life insurance and so may need to be personalised to the client), the Directive provides for ESMA and EIOPA to work together to ensure as much consistency as possible in the conduct of business standards for insurance packaged retail investment products subject to this Directive, and any subsequent provisions in level 2 as relevant.
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 370 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 3
3. The following provisions shall also apply to credit institutions authorised under Directive 2006/48/EC, when providing one or more investment services and/or performing investment activities and when selling or advising clients in relation to deposits other than those with a rate of return which is determined in relation to an interest rate : – Articles 2(2), 9(6), 14, 16, 17 and 18, – Chapter II of Title II excluding second subparagraph of Article 29(2), – Chapter III of Title II excluding Articles 36(2), (3) and (4) and 37(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (9) and (10), – Articles 69 to 80 and Articles 84, 89 and 90linked solely and directly to a key benchmark interest rate at Member State or EU level, or at a generally accepted international reference interest rate of a third country.
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 375 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The following provisions shall also apply to insurance undertakings and insurance intermediaries, including tied insurance intermediaries, authorised or registered under, respectively, Directive 2002/83/EC, Directive 2009/138/EC or Directive 2002/92/EC, when selling or advising clients in relation to insurance- based investments: - Article 16(3); - Articles 23 to 26; and - Articles 69-80 and 83-91 where necessary for competent authorities to give effect to the above Articles in relation to insurance-based investments.
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 378 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) insurance undertakings or undertakings carrying on the reinsurance and retrocession activities referred to in Directive 2009/138/EC, except as described in Article 1(4);
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 490 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point 33 a (new)
33a) 'Insurance-based investments' means insurance contracts where the amount payable to the client is exposed to the market value of an asset or payout from an asset or reference value, and where the client does not directly hold the asset;
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 494 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point 33 b (new)
33b) "Total provider cost" means all the costs which a client is required to pay to an investment firm when purchasing an investment service or financial instrument, which shall include, calculated on a per annum basis: a) the annual management charge; b) custody and administration costs; c) performance fees, based on the latest 12 months disclosed performance fee or average of up to 3 years if the data is available; d) dealing costs, based on the latest 12 months disclosed performance fee or average of up to 3 years if the data is available; e) the total costs of all underlying funds in terms of their ongoing charges when the fund invests in any UCITS funds, ETFs or closed ended investment funds or any other pooled vehicle; f) any other costs not included above; The total provider cost shall be calculated as a percentage on a per annum basis.
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 496 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point 33 c (new)
33c) "Total cost of investment" means all the costs which a client is required to pay when purchasing an investment service or financial instrument via a sales channel, which shall include the total provider cost and, calculated on a percentage per annum basis: a) platform fees, where not already included in the total provider cost; b) entry and exit costs, amortized over five years as the assumed length of the investment unless otherwise stated; c) adviser fees less any rebates returned to clients, amortised over five years as the assumed length of the investment unless otherwise stated; d) any other costs not included above. The total cost of the investment shall be calculated on a percentage per annum basis.
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 671 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 23 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States shall ensure that any income received directly by any fund should be returned net of all direct costs to the fund's holders. Where these direct costs are set by associate companies of the fund management group, they must be proportionate to equivalent external costs and signed off by independent directors.
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 686 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 2
2. All information, including advertising and marketing communications, addressed by the investment firm to clients or potential clients shall be fair, clear and not misleading. Marketing communications shall be clearly identifiable as such. Any advertising or marketing communications shall specify clearly and prominently, in the format outlined in Annex IIa: a) the total provider cost, in the case of an investment service or financial instrument being promoted by an investment firm; b) the total cost of investment, in the case of an investment service or financial instrument being promoted via a sales channel whereby additional charges or rebates are applied.
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 702 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – indent 2
– financial instruments and proposed investment strategies; this should include a full breakdown of all underlying holdings held both directly and indirectly, and a commitment to provide a full percentage breakdown on at least a quarterly basis with a maximum reporting delay of 60 days and appropriate guidance on and warnings of the risks associated with investments in those instruments or in respect of particular investment strategies,
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 707 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – indent 4
– costs and associated charges, including a full breakdown of management fees, all underlying costs or charges, and: a) the total provider cost, in the case of an investment service or financial instrument being promoted to a client or potential client by an investment firm; b) the total cost of investment, in the case of an investment service or financial instrument being promoted to a client or potential client via a sales channel.
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 797 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Member States shall allow investment firms when providing investment services that only consist of execution or the reception and transmission of client orders with or without ancillary services , with the exclusion of the ancillary service specified in Section B (1) of Annex 1 , to provide those investment services to their clients without the need to obtain the information or make the determination provided for in paragraph 2 where all the following conditions are met:
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 803 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a – point i
(i) shares admitted to trading on a regulated market or on an equivalent third-country market or on a MTF, where these are shares in companies, and excluding shares in non-UCITS collective investment undertakings and shares that embed a derivative;
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 807 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a – point ii
(ii) bonds or other forms of securitised debt, admitted to trading on a regulated market or on an equivalent third country market or on a MTF, excluding those that embed a derivative or incorporate a structure which makes it difficult for the client to understand the risk involved;
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 812 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a – point iii
(iii) money market instruments, excluding those that embed a derivative or incorporate a structure which makes it difficult for the client to understand the risk involved;
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 821 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a – point iv
(iv) shares or units in UCITS excluding structured UCITS as referred to in Article 36 paragraph 1 subparagraph 2 of Commission Regulation 583/2010;
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 828 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a – point v
(v) other non-complex financial instruments for the purpose of this paragraph , including structured UCITS and shares in non- UCITS, which are assessed by an investment firm as non-complex.
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 869 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 5 – subparagraphs 1 a and 1 b (new)
Investment firms shall provide full and complete information on their investment services and financial instruments to tied agents, to be updated on at least a quarterly basis with a maximum reporting delay of 60 days. Tied agents shall be required to provide this information to the client or potential client in advance of receiving orders or placing financial instruments.
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1321 #

2011/0298(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Annex 2 a (new)
Annex IIa Specifications of costs for advertising or marketing communications % Notes pa (All calculations based on minimum required investment or typical size if no minimum) % Annual Management Charge (AMC) % Custody & admin costs etc % Performance fee Based on 12 months disclosed performance fee or average of up to three years if data available. % Dealing costs Based on latest 12 months or average of up to three years if data available. Dealing costs = Portfolio Turnover Rate X estimated full cost buying/selling underlying assets. Most funds will simply use a common agreed schedule of costs. % Any other costs E.g. extra costs of underlying funds when investing in a “fund of fund” structure if not already included above. Less any other recurring E.g. net securities lending revenues or revenues other recurring income received based on last 12 months or average of up to last three years if data available. Total Provider Cost (TPC) This is the figure that should be advertised by fund managers. Platform fees via Sales Channel Where not already included in above A figures. Entry / Exit costs via Sales Any charges should be amortised over Channel A five years as the assumed length of investment unless stated otherwise e.g. for pensions. Advisor fees / rebates or any Amortised over five years unless clearly other charges/recurring revenues stated as per above. not included above via Sales Channel A Total Cost of Investment (TCI) This is the figure that should be via Sales Channel A advertised by the sales channel.
2012/05/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 10 #

2011/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal and calls on the Commission to conduct a comprehensive and transparent consultation of all interested stakeholders following the adoption of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights1, which modified consumer law significantly, and to prepare a revised, independent and comparative impact assessment of a Common European Sales Law and the alternative of model contracts before presenting a revised proposal, if such a law has been deemed to be cost-beneficial. _________________ 1 OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64.
2012/07/23
Committee: ECON
Amendment 20 #

2011/0269(COD)

The Committee on International Trade calls on the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.
2012/05/07
Committee: INTA
Amendment 36 #

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) Financial contributions from the EGF should be primariexclusively directed at active labour market measures aimed at reintegrating redundant workers rapidly into employment, either within or outside their initial sector of activity, including the agricultural sector. The inclusion of pecuniary allowances in a coordinated package of personalised services should therefore be restricted.
2012/05/07
Committee: INTA
Amendment 37 #

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) When drawing up the coordinated package of active labour market policy measures, Member States should favour measures that will significantly contributelead to the reemployabilityment of the redundant workers. Member States should strive towards the reintegration into employment or new activities of at least 50 % of the targeted workers within 12 months of the date of application.
2012/05/07
Committee: INTA
Amendment 44 #

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) In the interest of the redundant workers, the Member States and the Union institutions involved in the EGF decision- making process should do their utmost to reduce processing time and simplify procedures. Notes however that length of the application and decision making procedure results from the supranational character of the instrument and that a reduction could lead to concerns of accountability.
2012/05/07
Committee: INTA
Amendment 50 #

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3
Actions benefiting from financial contributions by the Fund pursuant to Article 2(a) and (b) shall aim to ensure that a minimum of 50 % of workers participating in these actions find stable employment within a year from the date of applicationat effective and rapid integration of concerned workers into the labour market.
2012/05/07
Committee: INTA
Amendment 67 #

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) Tailor-made training and re-training, including information and communication technology skills and certification of acquired experience job- search assistance, job creation measures, occupational guidance, advisory services, mentoring, outplacement assistance, entrepreneurship promotion, aid for self-employment and business start-up or for changing or adjusting activity (including investments in physical assets), co-operation activities, tailor-made training and re-training, including information and communication technology skills and certification of acquired experience;
2012/05/07
Committee: INTA
Amendment 68 #

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) special time-limited measures, such as job-search allowances, employers’ recruitment incentives, mobility allowances, subsistence or training allowances (including allowances for carers or farm relief services), all of which limited to the duration of the documented active job search or life-long learning or training activities;
2012/05/07
Committee: INTA
Amendment 70 #

2011/0269(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) measures to stimulate in particular disadvantaged or older workers to remain in or return to the labour market.
2012/05/07
Committee: INTA
Amendment 3 #

2011/0167(NLE)

Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1
1. Declines to consent to conclusion of the agreementides to suspend the vote on consent to the draft Council decision; the decision on whether to consent to or reject the agreement will be reviewed once the European Parliament is in a position to take into account the opinion of the European Court of Justice on the compatibility of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement with the Treaties;
2012/05/31
Committee: INTA
Amendment 3 #

2011/0006(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 2 – point 30 – point a
Directive 2009/138/EC
Article 138 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
In the event of an exceptional fall in financial markets, as determined by EIOPAthe supervisory authority in accordance with this paragraph, the supervisory authority may extend the period set out in the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 3 by an appropriate period of time taking into account all relevant factors. The supervisory authority shall notify EIOPA promptly of any extension granted.
2011/05/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 4 #

2011/0006(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 2 – point 30 – point b
Directive 2009/138/EC
Article 138 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4
Without prejudice to the powers of the EIOPA under Article 18 of Regulation …/…, for the purposes of this paragraph, EIOPA shall, following a request by the supervisory authority concerned, address an individual decision to the requesting supervisory authority declaring the existence of an exceptional fall in financial markets. AFor the purposes of this paragraph, an exceptional fall in financial markets exists, where one or more insurance or reinsurance undertakings are unable to meet one of the requirements set out in paragraph 3 of this Article within the time period defined therein as a consequence of a fall in financial markets which is unforeseen, sharp and steep, which is different from the downturns that occur as part of the economic cycle and which has already affected seriously and adversely the financial situation of one or more insurance and reinsurance undertakings collectively representing a substantial part of the insurance or reinsurance market in one or more Member States.
2011/05/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 5 #

2011/0006(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 2 – point 30 – point b
Directive 2009/138/EC
Article 138 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 5
EIOPA shall at least once a month review whether the conditionsWithin one month following the receipt of a notification as referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph and at the end of each subsequent 3 months period during the extension period referred to in the fourthirst subparagraph still apply as of the date of the review and repeal that decision where one or more of the conditionsof this paragraph, EIOPA shall consider whether in its view an exceptional fall in financial markets exists or persists as of the date of the review and shall issue an opinion to the supervisory authority and the insurance or reinsurance undertaking if it considers that an exceptional fall in financial markets has ceased to exist. Where EIOPA has issued an opinion to the supervisory authority in accordance with the second subparagraph of this paragraph, the supervisory authority shall duly consider that opinion and determine whether any adjustment to the extension period referred to in the fourthirst subparagraph on which the decision was basedf this paragraph is appropriate. The supervisory authority shall provide its no longer fulfilled. To this edecision to the insurance or reinsurance undertaking and EIOPA, shall address an individual decision to the supervisory authority concerned declaring that an exceptionaltating its reasons in full and containing an explanation of any significant deviation from EIOPA’s opinion. In the report referred to in Article 43(5) of Regulation …/… EIOPA shall specify which supervisory authorities have chosen not to faoll in financial markets has ceased to exist. ow its opinion referred to in the second subparagraph of this paragraph.
2011/05/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 6 #

2011/0006(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 2 – point 31
Directive 2009/138/EC
Article 143 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 301a and subject to the conditions of Articles 301b and 301c, specifying the procedures to be followed by EIOPA when determining the existence of an exceptional fall in the financial markets, and the factors to be taken into account for the purpose of the application of Article 138(4) including the maximum appropriate period of time, expressed in total number of months, which shall be the same for all insurance and reinsurance undertakings as referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 138(4).
2011/05/30
Committee: JURI
Amendment 1 #

2010/2156(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that, with a decline in the EU's competitiveness in traditional industries, the development of trade in cultural and creative-industry (CCI) goods and services will constitutes an important driver of economic growth and job creation in Europe and the world; observes that, according to estimates, world trade in CCI goods and services has nearly doubled in the past ten years;
2010/12/10
Committee: INTA
Amendment 11 #

2010/2156(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Strongly believes that greater trade openness in the CCI sector would greatly benefit the gboth the European and Global economy;ies, notes that while world trade in CCI goods and servicee opportunities that globalisation has to offer in this aremains dominated by developed countria and urges, the market share of developing countries has been constantly increasing Commission to do more to allow for open trade of CCI goods and services, including the past ten years, particularly reflecting the rise of Chinatackling of non-tariff barriers;
2010/12/10
Committee: INTA
Amendment 15 #

2010/2156(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights ihas an issue central to role to play in securing the European cultural and creative industries andin EU Member States, while maintaining incentives for companies, to develop new service and business models and for artists and creators to innovate;
2010/12/10
Committee: INTA
Amendment 6 #

2010/2152(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas fifty countries (thirty if the EU is counted as one entity) account for eighty percent of world trade,
2011/03/25
Committee: INTA
Amendment 8 #

2010/2152(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H
H. whereas growth, prosperity, and jobs andcontribute to maintaining the European social model, and are all interlinked and underpin each other,
2011/03/25
Committee: INTA
Amendment 32 #

2010/2152(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Reminds all stakeholders that a modern trade policy is required to take into account other policy areas such ascan contribute to improvements in addressing:
2011/03/25
Committee: INTA
Amendment 33 #

2010/2152(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point c
(c) fundamental labour rights and ILO core labour standards
2011/03/25
Committee: INTA
Amendment 52 #

2010/2152(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Regrets that many Union citizens equate globalisation with falling European output and job losses; calls therefore on the Commission and the Member States to adopt a better communication strategy on the Union’s trade policy and thow to take advantages and disadvantages of of the opportunities provided by globalisation and international trade;
2011/03/25
Committee: INTA
Amendment 92 #

2010/2152(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 11
As bilateral trade agreements give countries the ability to build up trading capacity and the confidence to engage in trade negotiations, Parliament demands more and better results from high-level dialogues with major trading partners such as the US, China, Japan and Russia
2011/03/25
Committee: INTA
Amendment 109 #

2010/2152(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Calls on the European Union and United States to show moral leadership in reducing agricultural subsidies and taking the lead in the unilaterally opening markets;
2011/03/25
Committee: INTA
Amendment 121 #

2010/2152(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Reiterates that the pursuit of further trade liberalisation makes it all the more necessary for the EU to preserve its ability to protect itself against unfair trading practices; regards Trade Defence Instruments (TDI) therefore as an indispensable component of the EU’s strategy; welcomes all efforts to streamline its TDI procedures and accessibility for Union industry, especially SMEs; recalls that TDIs can have a negative impact on distributors, retailers and consumers;
2011/03/25
Committee: INTA
Amendment 125 #

2010/2152(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Recognises that TDIs are often set- up as protectionist measures which uncompetitive companies use to shield themselves from competition;
2011/03/25
Committee: INTA
Amendment 165 #

2010/2152(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
29. Recalls that Parliament is committed to free and fair trade. Not only the Member States but also the Union as a whole have a social responsibility; both the EU cohesion funds and the Globalisation Adjustment Fund have to be used and further developed in the interest of the people and to support the continued creation of new competitive jobs within the Union; but not to be used as an excuse for EU companies to avoid restructuring in order to meet the challenges of globalisation;
2011/03/25
Committee: INTA
Amendment 174 #

2010/2152(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
30. Notes that outside Europe, Parliament supports the Commission in its goal to promote - inter alia - sustainable development, international labour standards and decent work, for example by negotiating EPAs, which combine European and ACP interests, by fostering development by promoting regional integco- operation, creating opportunities for trade and investment and improving economic governance, reminding all stakeholders that other regions of the globe have shown how trade can contribute to welfare; asks the Commission for an integrated approach on trade, foreign, development, social and environmental policies;
2011/03/25
Committee: INTA
Amendment 185 #

2010/2152(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
32. Is critical ofWelcomes the sentiments behind emergency trade aid for countries hit by natural disasters; but asks the Commission is asked to present concrete examples of measures which could bring relief to an emergency in the short term instead of only having an impact on mid- and long-term development. before asking Parliament’s consent for such measures;
2011/03/25
Committee: INTA
Amendment 214 #

2010/2152(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 a (new)
40a. Recognises that in a world of increased storage capacity, processing power and bandwidth, the price of some digital services decreases towards zero and calls on the European Commission not to use IPR as an excuse to protect out- of-date business models;
2011/03/25
Committee: INTA
Amendment 2 #

2010/2102(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the objective of liberalising trade with the developing countries must be to promote theshould promote mutually beneficial sustainable economic growth and the development of these countries; notes that the elimination of customs duties will inevitably entail a loss of customs revenue and must therefore be under better control, be more gradual and go hand in hand with implementation ofby developing countries is best implemented in parallel to their tax reforms mobilising alternative formsources of revenue to make up the shortfallfor their public budgets offsetting the shortfall in customs revenue (VAT, property tax, income tax);
2010/10/28
Committee: INTA
Amendment 4 #

2010/2102(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Calls for systematic implementation, in the framework of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), of measures to support tax reforms in developing countries, in the form of both material assistance (IT systems) and organisational assistance (legal and tax training for tax authority staff); underlines the need to make a special effort with African countries which still do not receive long-term assistance on taxation mattersfor developing countries to step up their own efforts in the area of taxation, mainly as regards tax collection and the fight against tax evasion, which are crucial to achieving a sound fiscal policy;
2010/10/28
Committee: INTA
Amendment 6 #

2010/2102(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 3
3. Calls on the Commission to adopt more stringent criteria for the identification of tax havens and to work towards an internationally binding multilateral automatic tax-information exchange agreement envisaging countermeasures in the event of non-compliance while recognising that developing countries may seek to adopt competitive tax rates in order to attract inward investment thereby creating jobs for local citizens;
2010/10/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 7 #

2010/2102(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Reaffirms the need to enhance the coherence between the European Union's development policy and its trade policy; recalls that while the crisis hasmay have exacerbated the volatility of commodities prices and has caused a decrease in capital and aid flows to developing countries, to dry uphe European Union as a whole, including its Member States, remains the leading development aid donor, accounting for 56% of the worldwide total, worth €49 billion in 2009; stresses that, in this context, it isought to be a priority for developing countries to put in place an efficient tax system so as to reduce developing countries' dependence on foreign aid and other, unpredictable external financial flows;
2010/10/28
Committee: INTA
Amendment 12 #

2010/2102(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 5
5. Proposes the inclusion of a specific provision related to good tax governance in the review of the Cotonou Agreement while recognising that lower import taxes to facilitate trade flows can encourage governments to diversify tax revenue streams and create more balanced tax systems;
2010/10/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 13 #

2010/2102(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that a system of low-rate taxation founded on a broader tax basis and excluding allallowing discretionary tax exemptions and preferences, including for the extractive industries, is indispensablin exceptional cases, is a first step to encouraging respect for tax discipline; emphasises the need for incentive measures to involve investors more closely in projects with a positive local impact in economic, social and environmental terms;
2010/10/28
Committee: INTA
Amendment 15 #

2010/2102(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 7 a (new)
7 a. Points out that development experts often express concerns that in many poorer countries governments can come to rely on aid which disincentivises them to investigate other ways of broadening their tax base/tax revenue stream.
2010/10/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 19 #

2010/2102(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the development of an efficient tax system must be one of the objectives ofin developing countries must become the backbone of their public finances; considers that the new EU investment policy in developing countries in ordershould contribute to establishing an environment more favourable to foreign and domestic private investment and to create the conditions for more effective international assistance; recalls that the EU's investment policy must focus on SMEs development, including through micro-credit, encourage innovation, public service efficiency, public-private partnerships and knowledge transfer to promote growth;
2010/10/28
Committee: INTA
Amendment 23 #

2010/2102(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for the creation, in the EPA framework, of an independent monitoring mechanism to assess the net tax impact of removing customs duties and at the same time progress being made in the area of tax reform in each country; calls for a clause to be introduced providing for a mandatory overall review of all EPAs after five years and for the provisions of each agreement to be amended, where necessary, in line with the requirements identified thereinindividual countries progress on implementing tax reforms or efficient tax collection in line with the latest updates of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital.
2010/10/28
Committee: INTA
Amendment 141 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) It is appropriate and necessary for the provisions to take the legislative form of a Regulation as some provisions impose direct obligations on private parties to notify and disclose net short positions relating to certain instruments and regarding uncovered short selling. This Regulation does not impose notification and disclosure obligations with respect to long positions, as such obligations are the subject matter of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market1. A regulation is also necessary to confer powers on the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESA (ESMA) established by Regulation (EU) No […/…]1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council16 to coordinate measures taken by competent authorities or to take measures itself. __________________ 1 OJ 390, 31.12.2004, p. 38.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 147 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) Short selling contributes to the efficiency of markets. It increases market liquidity (as the short seller sells securities and then later repurchases those securities to cover the short sale). Also, by allowing investors to act when they believe a security is overvalued short selling leads to the more efficient pricing of securities, helps to mitigate price bubbles and can act as an early indicator of underlying problems relating to an issuer. It is also an important tool for hedging and other risk management activities and market making.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 150 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
(6) Enhanced transparency relating to significant net short positions in specific financial instruments is likely to be of benefit to both the regulator and to market participants. For shares admitted to trading on a trading venue in the Union, a two-tier model should be introduced that provides for greater transparency of significant net short positions in shares at the appropriate level. At a lowerdefined threshold, notification of a position should be made privately to the regulators concerned to enable them to monitor and, where necessary, investigate short selling that may create systemic risks or be abusive; at a higher threshold, positions should be publicly disclosed to the market in order to provide useful information to other market participants about significant individual short selling positions in shares.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 157 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) The notification requirements for sovereign debt should apply to the debt issued by the Union and Member States, including any ministry, department, central bank, agency or instrumentality that issues debt on behalf of a Member State but excluding regional bodies or quasi public bodies that issue debt. This Regulation should not cover debt instruments of corporate issuers in the Union which are not issued on behalf of a Member State.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 162 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) To be useful to regulators and the market, any transparency regime should provide complete and accurate information about a natural or legal person's positions. In particular, information provided to the regulator or the marketn a private basis and should take into account both short and long positions so as to provide valuable information about the natural or legal person's net short position in shares, sovereign debt and credit default swaps. To avoid regulators receiving notifications that provide information with no material, systemic or supervisory value, the thresholds for private notification should be carefully assessed and the costs and benefits of different thresholds should be considered in detail by ESA (ESMA), which should then advise the Commission as to the appropriate thresholds to be used.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 170 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) In addition to the transparency regime for the disclosure of net short positions in shares, a requirement for the marking of sell orders that are executed on trading venues as short orders should be introduced to provide supplementary information about the volume of short sales of shESA (ESMA) should conduct a quantitative and qualitative impact assessment investigating the costs and benefits of establishing a requirement for the marking of sell orders that ares executed on trading venues. Information about short orders should be collated by the trading venue and published in summary form at least daily in order to also help competent authorities and market participants to monitor levels of short selling as short orders and whether the objective is better achieved by the transparency regime for the disclosure of net short positions in shares.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 175 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13) Buying credit default swaps without having a long position in underlying sovereign debt or other property or securities located in or issued by entities in the relevant jurisdiction whose value is likely to be negatively impacted by a decline in the creditworthiness of the relevant sovereign can be, economically speaking, equivalent to taking a short position on the underlying debt instrument. The calculation of a net short position in relation to sovereign debt should therefore include credit default swaps relating to an obligation of a sovereign debt issuer. The credit default swap position should be taken into account both for the purposes of determining whether a natural or legal person has a significant net short position relating to sovereign debt that needs to be notified to a competent authority or a significant uncovered position in a credit default swap relating to an issuer of sovereign debt that needs to be notified to the authority.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 184 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) Uncovered short selling of shares and sovereign debt is sometimes viewed as increasing the potential risk of settlement failure and volatility. To reduce such risks it is appropriate to place proportionate restrictions on uncovered short selling. The detailed restrictCommissions should take into account the different arrangements currently used for covered short selling. It is also appropriate to include requirements on trading venues relating to buy-in procedures and fines for failed settlement of transactions in those instruments. The buy-in procedures and late settlement requirements should set basic standards relating to settlement discipline. However, measures related to settlement and buy-ins should be dealt with in other Union legislation, in a context other than short selling as they are not unique to short selling.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 188 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) While settlement discipline is an important component of well-functioning financial markets, it is recognised that the causes of settlement fails are diverse and not limited to short selling. Although settlement discipline, including fines for late settlement and other appropriate measures, should not be included in the scope of this Regulation, the Commission should make concrete proposals in this field by the end of 2011, in parallel with a proposal to create a harmonised legal framework for central securities depositories.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 193 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) Measures relating to sovereign debt and sovereign credit default swaps including increased transparency and restrictions on uncovered short selling should impose requirements which are proportionate and at the same time avoid an adverse impact on the liquidity of sovereign bond markets and sovereign bond repurchase (repo) markets. Sovereign credit default swaps are legitimately used to hedge risks other than direct exposure to sovereign debt. This Regulation should not therefore restrict or prohibit uncovered positions in sovereign credit default swaps.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 197 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) Market making activities play a crucial role in providing liquidity to markets within the Union and market makers need to take short positions to perform that role. Imposing requirements on such activities could severely inhibit their ability to provide liquidity and have a significant adverse impact on the efficiency of the Union markets. Further market makers would not be expected to take significant short positions except for very brief periods. It is therefore appropriate to exempt natural or legal persons involved in such activities from requirements which may impair their ability to perform such a function and therefore adversely affect the Union markets. In order to capture equivalent third country entities a procedure is necessary to assess the equivalence of the third country markets. The exemption should apply to the different types of market making activity but not to exempt proprietary tradingthat contribute addressable liquidity. It is also appropriate to exempt certain primary market operations such as those relating to sovereign debt and stabilisation schemes as they are important activities that assist the efficient functioning of markets. Competent authorities should be notified of the use of exemptions and should have the power to prohibit a natural or legal person from using an exemption if they do not fulfil the relevant criteria in the exemption. Competent authorities should also be able to request information from the natural or legal person to monitor their use of the exemption.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 203 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
(27) Powers of intervention of competent authorities and ESMA to restrict short selling, credit default swaps and other transactions should only be temporary in nature and should only be exercised for such a period and to the extent necessary to deal with the specific threat.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 212 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 3
(3) debt instruments issued by a Member State or the Union and derivatives set out in Annex I Section C points (4) to (10) of Directive 2004/39/EC that relate or are referenced to such debt instruments issued by a Member State or the Union or to an obligation of a Member State or the Union.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 214 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point c
(c) "credit default swap" means a derivative contract in which one party pays a fee to another party in return for compensation or a payment in the event of a default by a reference entity, or a credit event relating to that reference entity and any other derivative contract that has a similar economic effect;
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 227 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. For the purposes of this Regulation, a position resulting from either of the following (in the case of point (b), on a delta-adjusted basis) shall be considered a short position relating to the issued share capital of a company or issued sovereign debt of a Member State or the Union:
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 232 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) a natural or legal person entering into transaction which creates or relates toin a financial instrument other than the instruments referred to in point (a) and thewhere the direct effect or one of the direct effects of the transaction is to confer a financial advantage on the natural or legal person in the event of a decrease in the price or value of the share or debt instrument.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 236 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. For the purposes of this Regulation, a position resulting from either of the following (in the case of point (b) on a delta-adjusted basis) shall be considered a long position relating to the issued share capital of a company or issued sovereign debt of a Member State or the Union:
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 249 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. The calculation of a net short position and a net long position for the purposes of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 shall include any financial instrument giving rise to an economic exposure, whether direct or indirect, to the issued share capital of a company or sovereign debt of a Member State or the Union, provided that: (a) any economic interest held as part of a basket, index or exchange traded fund is determined on the basis of the information as to the composition of the relevant index or basket of securities or of the holdings of the exchange traded fund publicly available at the time of making the calculation and the natural or legal person making the calculation is not required to obtain up-to-date information with respect to such composition from any person; and (b) calculation of a long position is included any interest in debt securities convertible into shares of the relevant issuer.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 255 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. For the purposes of this Regulation, a natural or legal person shall be considered to have an uncovered position in a credit default swap relating to an obligation of a Member State or the Union, to the extent that the credit default swap is not serving to hedge against the risk of default of the issuer where the natural or legal person has a long position in the sovereign debt of that issuer or any long position in the debt of an issuer for which the pricerisks associated with the relevant Member State or the Union or with risks associated with property or securities located in ofr its debt has a high correlation with the price of the obligatssued by entities in the relevant jurisdiction held in the portfolion of a Member State or the Unithe natural or legal person. The party under a credit default swap that is obliged to make the payment or pay the compensation in the event of a default or a credit event relating to the reference entity does not by reason of that obligation have an uncovered position for the purposes of this paragraph.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 264 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. A relevant notification threshold is a percentage that equals 0.2% of the value of the issued share capital of the company concerned and each 0.1% above that.deleted
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 266 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission mayshall, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 36 and subject to the conditions of Articles 37 and 38, modspecify the thresholds mentioned in paragraph 2, taking into account the developments in financial markets1.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 267 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6
Marking of short orders on trading venue A trading venue that has shares admitted to trading shall establish procedures that ensure that natural or legal persons executing orders on the trading venue mark sell orders as short orders if the seller is entering into a short sale of the share. The trading venue shall publish at least daily a summary of the volume of orders marked as short orders.Article 6 deleted
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 280 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7
Public disclosure of significant net short 1. A natural or legal person who has a net short position in relation to the issued share capital of a company that has shares admitted to trading on a trading venue shall disclose to the public details of the position whenever the position reaches or falls below a relevant publication threshold referred to in paragraph 2. 2. A relevant publication threshold is a percentage that equals 0.5% of the value of the issued share capital of the company concerned and each 0.1% above that. 3. The Commission may, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 36 and subject to the conditions of Articles 37 and 38, modify the thresholds mentioned in paragraph 2, taking into account the developments in financial markets.Article 7 deleted positions in shares
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 293 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8
Notification to competent authorities of significant net short positions in sovereign 1. A natural or legal person who has any of the following positions shall notify the relevant competent authority whenever any such position reaches or falls below a relevant notification threshold for the Member State concerned or the Union: (a) a net short position relating to the issued sovereign debt of a Member State or of the Union; (b) an uncovered position in a credit default swap relating to an obligation of a Member State or the Union. 2. The relevant notification thresholds shall consist of an initial amount and then additional incremental levels in relation to each Member State and the Union, as specified in the measures taken by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 3. 3. The Commission shall, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 36 and subject to the conditions of Articles 37 and 38, specify the amounts and incremental levels referred to in paragraph 2. It shall take into account all of the following elements: (a) that the thresholds shall not be set at such a level as to require notification of positions which are of minimal value; (b) the total value of outstanding issued sovereign debt for each Member State and the Union and the average size of positions held by market participants relating to the sovereign debt of that Member State or the Union.Article 8 deleted debt and credit default swaps
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 313 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Any notification or disclosure under Articles 5, 7 or 8 shall set out details of the identity of the natural or legal person who has the relevant position, the size of the relevant position, the issuer in relation to which the relevant position is held and the date on which the relevant position was created, changed or ceased to be held.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 316 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. The relevant time for calculation of a net short position shall be at 12.001.59 pm of the trading day on which the natural or legal person has the relevant position. The notification or disclosure shall be made not later than 3.30 pm on the next trading day. The times shall be calculated by reference to the time zone of the principal place of business of the natural or legal person.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 321 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. The competent authority may decide whether any disclosure shall be made under any Article of positions held on the coming into force of this Regulation unless on or after the coming into force of this Regulation the percentage value of the position of a natural or legal person changes to reach or fall below a relevant notification or publication threshold by a deliberate act of that person.
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 330 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A natural or legal person may only enter into a short sale of a share admitted to trading on a trading venue or a short sale of a sovereign debt instrument, where that sale is expected to result in a net short position in the relevant share at the close of business, where one of the following conditions is fulfilled:
2011/01/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 337 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the natural or legal person has borrowed the share or sovereign debt instrument;
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 345 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the natural or legal person has entered into an agreement to borrow the share or sovereign debt instrument;
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 355 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the natural or legal person has an arrangement with a third party under which that third party has confirmed that the share or sovereign debt instrument has been located and reserved for lending for the natural or legal person so that settlement can be effected when it is due.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 376 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13
Buy-in procedures and fines for late 1. A trading venue that has shares or sovereign debt admitted to trading shall ensure that it, or the central counterparty that provides clearing services for the trading venue, has procedures in place which comply with all of the following requirements: (a) where a natural or legal person who sells shares or sovereign debt instruments on the venue is not able to deliver the shares or sovereign debt instrument for settlement within four trading days after the day on which the trade takes place, or six trading days after the day on which the trade takes place in the case of market making activities, then procedures are automatically triggered for the trading venue or central counterparty to buy-in the shares or sovereign debt instrument to ensure delivery for settlement; (b) where the trading venue or central counterparty is not able to buy-in the shares or the sovereign debt instrument for delivery then cash compensation is paid by the trading venue or the central counterparty to the buyer based on the value of the shares or the debt to be delivered at the delivery date plus an amount for any losses incurred by the buyer; (c) the natural or legal person who fails to settle pays an amount to the trading venue or central counterparty to reimburse the trading venue or central counterparty for all amounts paid pursuant to points (a) and (b). 2. A trading venue that has shares or sovereign debt instruments admitted to trading shall ensure that it has procedures in place, or that the settlement system that provides settlement services for the shares or sovereign debt instrument has procedures in place, which ensure that where a natural or legal person who sells shares or sovereign debt instrument on the venue fails to deliver the shares or sovereign debt instrument for settlement by the date on which settlement is due, then such natural or legal person is subject to the obligation to make daily payments to the trading venue or settlement system for each day that the failure continues. The daily payments shall be sufficiently high not to allow the seller to make a profit from the settlement failure and to act as a deterrent to natural or legal persons failing to settle. 3. A trading venue that has shares or sovereign debt admitted to trading shall have in place rules that enable it to prohibit a natural or legal person that is a member of the trading venue from entering into further short sales of shares or sovereign debt instruments on the trading venue as long as that person fails to settle a transaction resulting from a short sale on that trading venue.Article 13 deleted settlement
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 414 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Articles 5, 6, 7, to 8 and 12 shall not apply to the activities of an investment firm or a third country entity or a local firm that is a member of a trading venue or of a market in a third country, whose legal and supervisory framework has been declared equivalent pursuant to paragraph 2, when it deals as principal in any financial instrument, whether traded on or outside a trading venue, in either or both including equities, options, derivatives, sovereign debt and corporate debt, whether traded on or outside a trading venue or as a systemic internaliser, in one or more of the following capacities:
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 419 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) by posting firm, simultaneous two way quotes of comparable size and at competitive prices, with the result of providing liquidity on a regular and ongoing basis to the marketin a way that ordinarily has the effect of providing liquidity on a regular basis to the market on both bid and offer sides of the market of comparable size;
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 423 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) as part of its usual business, by fulfilling orders initiated by clients or in response toand other market makers or in response to or in anticipation of clients' requests to trade, and by hedging positions arising out of those dealings, whether on a partial or macro basis.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 433 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. Articles 8 and 12 and any restrictions or requirements imposed in relation to sovereign debt under Article 16, 17, 18 or 24 shall not apply to the activities of a natural or legal person when, acting as an authorised primary dealer pursuant to an agreement with an issuer of sovereign debt, it and which is dealing as principal in a financial instrument in relation to primary or secondary market operations relating to the sovereign debt. of a Member State.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 438 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5
5. The exemptions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 shall only apply where the natural or legal person concerned has first notified the competent authority of its home Member State, in writing that ithey intends to make use of the exemption. The notification shall be made not less than thirty calendar days before the natural or legal person intends to use the exemptionce shall stipulate the type of financial instrument in which the natural or legal person intends to make a market, such as equities, derivatives, corporate bonds, sovereign bonds or options. The notification shall be made not less than thirty calendar days before the natural or legal person intends to use the exemption for trading in any stipulated type of financial instrument unless the competent authority consents to a shorter notice period.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 442 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The competent authority of a Member State may require natural or legal persons who have net short positions in relation to a specific financial instrument or class of financial instruments to notify it orhare admitted to trading on a trading venue to disclose to the public details of the position whenever the position reaches or falls below a notification threshold fixed by the competent authority, where all the following conditions are fulfilled:
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 448 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to financial instruments in respect of which transparency is already required under Articles 5 to 8The competent authority of a Member State shall not be permitted to require natural or legal persons who have net short positions in relation financial instruments in respect of which transparency is already required under Articles 5 to 8 of Chapter II, to make additional notifications to it or additional public disclosure in relation to such positions that exceed the requirements set out in Articles 5 to 8 of Chapter II.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 454 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The competent authority of the Member State may prohibit or impose conditions relating to natural or legal persons entering into:stablishing or increasing net short positions in relation to shares admitted to trading on a trading venue in the Member State.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 456 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) a short sale;deleted
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 458 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) a transaction other than a short sale which creates, or relates to, a financial instrument and the effect or one of the effects of that transaction is to confer a financial advantage on the natural or legal person in the event of a decrease in the price or value of another financial instrument.deleted
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 461 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18
transactions in exceptional situations 1. The competent authority of a Member State may limit natural or legal persons from entering into credit default swap transactions relating to an obligation of a Member State or the Union or limit the value of uncovered credit default swap positions that may be entered into by natural or legal persons that relate to an obligation of a Member State or the Union, where both the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) there are adverse events or developments which constitute a serious threat to financial stability or to market confidence in the Member State or one or more other Member States; (b) the measure is necessary to address the threat. 2. A measure under paragraph 1 may apply to credit default swap transactions of a specific class or to specific credit default swap transactions. The measure may apply in circumstances or be subject to exceptions specified by the competent authority. Exceptions may in particular be specified to apply to market making activities and primary market activities.Article 18 deleted Restrictions on credit default swap
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 467 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Where the price of a financial instrument on a trading venue has during a single trading day fallen by the value referred to in paragraph 4 from the closing price on that venue on the previous trading day, the competent authority of the home Member State for that venue shallmay consider whether it is appropriate to prohibit or restrict natural or legal persons from engaging in short selling of the financial instrument on the trading venue or otherwise limit transactions in that financial instrument on that trading venue in order to prevent a disorderly decline in the price of the financial instrument.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 469 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Where the competent authority is satisfied under the first subparagraph that it is appropriate to do so, it shallmay in the case of a share or debt prohibit or restrict persons from entering into a short sale on the trading venue or in the case of another type of financial instrument, limit transactions in that financial instrument on that trading venue and make public its reasons for so doing.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 479 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
4. The fall in value shall be 10% or more in the case of a share and for oan amount to be specified by ther classes of financial instruments an amount to be specified by the Commissionompetent authority on an individual basis.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 480 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
The Commission shall, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 36 and subject to the conditions of Articles 37 and 38, specify the fall in value for financial instruments other than shares, taking into account the specificities of each class of financial instrument.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 482 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 5
5. Powers are delegated to the Commission to adopt regulatory technical standards specifying the method of calculation of the 10% fall for shares and of the fall in value specified by the Commission as referred to in paragraph 4. The regulatory standards referred to in the first subparagraph shall be adopted in accordance with Articles [7 to 7d] of Regulation (EU) No …/….[ESMA Regulation]. ESMA shall submit drafts for those regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [31 December 2011] at the latest.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 483 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
5. Powers are delegated to the Commission to adopt regulatory technical standards specifying the method of calculation of the 10% fall for shares and of the fall in value specified by the Commission as referred to in paragraph 4.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 484 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 3
ESMA shall submit drafts for those regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [31 December 2011] at the latest.deleted
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 486 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Any such measure may be renewed for further periods not exceeding three months at a time if the grounds for taking the measure continue to be applicable. If the measure is not renewed after that three- month period, it shall automatically expire.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 491 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24
ESMA intervention powers 1. In accordance with Article [6a(5)] of Regulation (EU) No …/…. [ESMA Regulation], ESMA shall, where all conditions in paragraph 2 are satisfied, take one or more of the following measures: (a) require natural or legal persons who have net short positions in relation to a specific financial instrument or class of financial instruments to notify a competent authority or to disclose to the public details of any such position; (b) prohibit or impose conditions relating to natural or legal persons entering into a short sale or a transaction which creates, or relates to, a financial instrument and the effect or one of the effects of the transaction is to confer a financial advantage on the natural or legal person in the event of a decrease in the price or value of another financial instrument; (c) limit natural or legal persons from entering into credit default swap transactions relating to an obligation of a Member State or the Union or limit the value of uncovered credit default swap positions that a natural or legal person may enter into relating to an obligation of a Member State or the Union; (d) prevent natural or legal persons from entering into transactions relating to a financial instruments or limit the value of transactions in the financial instrument that may be entered into. A measure may apply in circumstances or be subject to exceptions specified by the relevant competent authority. Exceptions may in particular be specified to apply to market making activities and primary market activities. 2. ESMA shall only take a decision under paragraph 1 if all of the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the measures listed in points (a) to (d) of paragraph 1 address a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union and there are cross border implications; (b) a competent authority or competent authorities have not taken measures to address the threat or measures that have been taken do not sufficiently address the threat. 3. When taking measures referred to in paragraph 1 ESMA shall take into account the extent to which the measure: (a) will significantly address the threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union or significantly improve the ability of competent authorities to monitor the threat; (b) will not create a risk of regulatory arbitrage; (c) will not have a detrimental effect on the efficiency of financial markets, including reducing liquidity in those markets or creating uncertainty for market participants, that is disproportionate to the benefits of the measure. Where a competent authority or competent authorities have taken a measure under Articles 16, 17 or 18, ESMA may take any of the measures referred to in paragraph 1 without issuing the opinion provided for in Article 23. 4. Before deciding to impose or renew any measure referred to in paragraph 1, ESMA shall consult, where appropriate, with the European Systemic Risk Board and other relevant authorities. 5. Before deciding to impose or renew any measure referred to in paragraph 1, ESMA shall notify competent authorities of the measure it proposes. The notification shall include details of the proposed measures, the class of financial instruments and transactions to which they will apply, the evidence supporting those reasons and when the measures are intended to take effect. 6. The notification shall be made not less than 24 hours before the measure is intended to take effect or to be renewed. In exceptional circumstances, ESMA may make the notification less than 24 hours before the measure is intended to take effect where it is not possible to give 24 hours notice. 7. ESMA shall publish on its website notice of any decision to impose or renew any measure referred to in paragraph 1. The notice shall at least specify the following details: (a) the measures imposed including the instruments and class of transactions to which they apply and the duration of the measures; (b) the reasons why ESMA is of the opinion that it is necessary to impose the measures including the evidence supporting the reasons. 8. A measure shall take effect when the notice is published or at a time specified in the notice that is after its publication and shall only apply in relation to a transaction entered into after the measure takes effect. 9. ESMA shall review its measures referred to in paragraph (1) at appropriate intervals and at least every three months. If a measure is not renewed after that three month period, it shall automatically expire. Paragraphs 2 to 8 shall apply to a renewal of measures. 10. A measure adopted by ESMA under this Article shall prevail over any previous measure taken by a competent authority under Section 1.Article 24 deleted
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 498 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25
Further specification of adverse events or The Commission shall adopt by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 36 and subject to the conditions of Articles 37 and 38, measures specifying criteria and factors to be taken into account by competent authorities and ESMA in determining when the adverse events or developments referred to in Articles 16, 17, 18 and 23 and the threats referred to in Article 24(2)(a) arise.Article 25 deleted developments
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 499 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1
ESA (ESMA) may on the request of one or more competent authorities, the European Parliament, the Council, or the Commission or on its own initiative, conduct an inquiry into a particular issue or practice relating to short selling or relating to the use of credit default swaps to assess whether the issue or practice poses any potential threat to financial stability orthe stability of the financial system in the Union and market confidence in the Union appropriate recommendations for action to the competent authorities concerned.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 500 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 2
ESA (ESMA) shall publish a report setting out its findings and any recommendations relating to the issue or practice within three months of the date on which the inquiry was launched.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 503 #

2010/0251(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The competent authority shall inform ESA (ESMA) of any request referred to in the first subparagraph. In case of an investigation or an inspection with cross- border effect, ESMA shall coordinate the investigation or inspection.
2011/01/26
Committee: ECON
Amendment 99 #

2010/0250(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 6
(6) 'financial counterparty' means investment firms as set out inuthorised under Directive 2004/39/EC, credit institutions as defined inuthorised under Directive 2006/48/EC, insurance undertakings as defined inuthorised under Directive 73/239/EEC, assurance undertakings as defined inuthorised under Directive 2002/83/EC, reinsurance undertakings as defined inuthorised under Directive 2005/68/EC, undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS) as defined inuthorised under Directive 2009/65/EC, institutions for occupational retirement provision as defined inuthorised under Directive 2003/41/EC and alternative investment funds managers as defined inuthorised under Directive 2010/.../EU except counterparties whose sole commercial activity consists in managing, developing or owning physical real estate assets;
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 101 #

2010/0250(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The CCP shall institute procedures to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down in paragraph 1, including: (a) making available to the trading venue the right to allocate a technology or interface provider in order to access the system and purchase an unbundled execution or clearing service; (b) utilising agreed communication protocols or making such protocols available for trading venues; (c) publishing transparent particulars of the total costs of clearing services for all users, sufficient to enable consumers to understand those services and their prices, including discount schemes or other schemes.
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 102 #

2010/0250(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Where a request to access a CCP has been formally submitted to a CCP by a venue of execution, the venue shall receive a response to the request within three months.
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 103 #

2010/0250(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Without prejudice to approval by the competent authorities of the Member State of the trading venue and the CCP, access shall be made possible by the CCP within nine months of a positive response to a request for access.
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 104 #

2010/0250(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Where a trading venue has been denied access to a CCP and resubmits a request, the CCP must make a new decision within three months of the resubmission.
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 105 #

2010/0250(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. The CCP and home competent authorities of the requesting trading venue and CCP may only deny the trading venue access to the CCP where such access would significantly harm the functioning of markets. ESMA shall facilitate the adoption of a joint opinion between relevant competent authorities only in accordance with its settlement of disagreement powers under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority)1 (the ESMA Regulation). ____________________ 1 OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 84.
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 106 #

2010/0250(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 f (new)
1f. Where access is refused by a CCP, it shall provide full reasons for its decision and shall notify the venue of execution accordingly.
2011/02/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 53 #

2010/0199(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
(12) The minimum level of compensation was established in 1997 and has not been modified since then. Thisat minimum level should be increased to EUR 530 000 in order to take into account developments in the financial markets and in the Union legislative framework. This amount takes into account the effects of inflation in the Union and the need to better align the level of compensation with the average value of investments held by retail clients in the Member States. In order to increase the protection provided to investors, it is necessary to remove the existing option for Member States to limit or exclude from cover funds in currencies other that those of the Member States. Member States should be free to implement a higher level of compensation at their own discretion.
2011/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 65 #

2010/0199(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 2 – point b
Directive 97/9/EC
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) the competent authorities have determined that an investment firm appears, for the time being, for reasons directly related to the financial circumstances of the investment firm or the financial circumstances of any third party with whom financial instruments have been deposited by the investment firm, to be unable to meet its obligations arising out of investors' claims and has no early prospect of being able to do so,
2011/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 66 #

2010/0199(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 2 – point b
Directive 97/9/EC
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) a judicial authority has made a ruling, for reasons directly related to the financial circumstances of the investment firm or the financial circumstances of any third party with whom financial instruments have been deposited by the investment firm, which has the effect of suspending investors' ability to make claims against the firm or the firm's ability to make claims against the third party.
2011/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 77 #

2010/0199(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 4 – point a
Directive 97/9/EC
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that schemes provide for a minimum level of coverage of EUR 530 000 for each investor in respect of the claims referred to in Article 2(2a) or (2c).
2011/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 84 #

2010/0199(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 4 – point a
Directive 97/9/EC
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Members States which provide for coverage of more than EUR 50 000 at the time of adoption of this Directive, may maintain that level of coverage for no longer than 3 years from the date for the transposition of this Directive. After that date, those Member States shall ensure that the level of coverage is EUR 50 000.deleted
2011/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 158 #

2010/0199(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 8
Directive 97/9/EC
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall ensure that the amount that an investor pays into an investor compensation scheme is clear and transparent information. The amount that each individual investor is charged for a scheme, either as a percentage of their investment or as an amount in addition to the investment, shall be made clear to that actual or intending investor.
2011/03/02
Committee: ECON
Amendment 73 #

2010/0074(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) It is necessary to establish the minimum number of Member States from which citizens must come. In order to ensure that a citizens' initiative is representative of a Union interest, this number should be set at one thirdfifth of Member States.
2010/11/16
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 86 #

2010/0074(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) It is appropriate to provide for statements of support to be collected in paper form as well as online. Online collection systems should have adequate security features in place in order to ensure, inter alia, that the person can be identified and that the data are securely stored. For this purpose, the Commission should be required to set out detailed technical specifications for online collection systems. The requirements in respect of those technical specifications should not, however, present unjustifiable obstacles for organisers wishing to use online collection systems.
2010/11/16
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 87 #

2010/0074(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) It is appropriate to ensure that statements of support for a citizens' initiative are collected within a specific time-limit. In order to ensure that proposed citizens' initiatives remain relevant, whilst taking account of the complexity of collecting statements of support across the European Union, that time-limit should not be longer than 124 months from the date of registration of the proposed initiative.
2010/11/16
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 93 #

2010/0074(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
(15) It is appropriate to provide that, where a citizens' initiative has received the necessary statements of support from signatories and provided it is considered admissible, each Member State should be responsible for the verification and certification of statements of support collected from citizens coming from that State. Taking account of the need to limit the administrative burden for Member States, they should, within a period of threfive months, carry out such verifications on the basis of appropriate checks and should issue a document certifying the number of valid statements of support received.
2010/11/16
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 98 #

2010/0074(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) The Commission should examine a citizens' initiative and set out its conclusions and the actions it envisages to take in response to it, within a period of four months. In the case of a successful citizens' initiative, the Commission should hold an official public hearing at European Union level on the subject raised by the initiative, and ensure that it is represented at an appropriate level. The European Parliament, through its relevant committee or committees, should always be invited to participate in the organising of such hearings.
2010/11/16
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 102 #

2010/0074(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) The Commission should report on the implementation of this Regulation fivthree years after its entry into force.
2010/11/16
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 103 #

2010/0074(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24 a (new)
(24a) This Regulation should ensure that financial costs to Member States as a result of implementation of the citizens' initiative scheme are kept to an absolute minimum, with safeguards being put in place to prevent excessive or unnecessary costs burdening Member States and their taxpayers even further.
2010/11/16
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 108 #

2010/0074(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 1
1. "Citizens" initiative" means an initiative, submitted to the Commission in accordance with the present Regulation, inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties, which has received the support of at least one million eligible signatories coming from at least one thirdfifth of all Member States;
2010/11/16
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 118 #

2010/0074(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1– subparagraphs 1 a, 1 b and 1 c (new)
Organisers shall form a citizens' committee composed of at least six persons who are residents of at least six Member States. The organisers shall designate one representative and one substitute, who shall perform a liaison function between the citizens' committee and the institutions of the European Union throughout the procedure and who shall be mandated to speak and act on behalf of the citizens' committee. The organisers shall notify the Commission of any changes to the membership or designated representatives of the citizens' committee.
2010/11/16
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 131 #

2010/0074(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. Proposed citizens' initiatives which can be reasonably regarded as improper because they are abusive or devoid of seriousnesfrivolous will not be registered.
2010/11/16
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 140 #

2010/0074(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall reject the registration of proposed citizens' initiatives which are manifestly against the values of the Unionrespect for human dignity, liberty, freedom of speech, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights.
2010/11/16
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 147 #

2010/0074(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. All statements of support shall be collected after the date of registration of the proposed initiative and within a period that shall not exceed 124 months.
2010/11/16
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 154 #

2010/0074(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. The report to be submitted by the Commission in accordance with Article 21 shall include its conclusions concerning the possibility of setting up a single website to replace the organising committee websites that are based in individual Member States.
2010/11/16
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 171 #

2010/0074(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. The competent authorities shall, within a period that shall not exceed threfive months, verify the statements of support provided on the basis of appropriate checks, and deliver to the organiser a certificate in accordance with the model set out in Annex VII, certifying the number of valid statements of support for that Member State.
2010/11/16
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 17 #

2010/0073(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
(1) Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union provides that the Union 'shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment', taking into consideration that these goals may be best achieved through open markets.
2010/10/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 20 #

2010/0073(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) The need to supplement already existing indicators with data that incorporate environmental and social aspects in order to allow more coherent and comprehensive policy making has been recognised in Commission Communication COM(2009) 433 of August 2009 on GDP and beyond. To this end, environmental accounts offer a means of monitoring the pressures exerted byall the effects of the economy on the environment and of exploring how these might be abated. In line with the polluter- pays principle, the tenets of sustainable development and the drive to achieve a low-carbon economy, embedded in the Lisbon Strategy and various major initiatives, developing a data framework that consistently includes environmental issues along with economic ones becomes all the more imperative.
2010/10/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 24 #

2010/0073(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. In order for this Regulation to contribute to building a system of ‘European sustainability statistics’ (ESS) providing a comprehensive overview of European interests of environmental relevance, the Commission shall conduct an impact assessment on developing a number of modules, including: (a) modules for financial factors: (i) environmental expenditure accounts; (ii) environmental manufacturing and service provision accounts; (iii) accounts for environment-related subsidies and measures; (iv) accounts for use of resources; (b) modules for tangible factors: (i) energy accounts; (ii) water accounts; (iii) waste accounts; (iv) accounts for international raw- materials cycles; (v) accounts for imported emissions; (c) asset modules: (i) forestation accounts; (ii) biodiversity accounts; (iii) accounts for protected natural areas.
2010/10/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 5 #

2009/2150(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the significant decrease in export revenues in developing countries is threatening to shatterhas reduced the growth and development of the South; calls on the Commission – when negotiating and implementing trade agreements, in particular the Economic Partnership Agreements – to strengthen EU Policy Coherence for Development and the promotion of decent workwealth and job creation and to ensure respect for the priorities of each country and adequate consultation of key actors, local entrepreneurs and civil society;
2010/02/02
Committee: INTA
Amendment 10 #

2009/2150(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Is convinced that a fair and development-oriented conclusion of the Doha Round in 2010 could help the WTO in aiding the economic recovery from the crisis and continuing the fight against protectionism in developed, developing and less-developed countries and could contribute to poverty alleviation in developing and less-developed countries, the creation of good-quality jobs and the reduction of consumer prices;
2010/02/02
Committee: INTA
Amendment 16 #

2009/2150(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Asks the Commission and Member States to support measures to ease developing countries’ access to credit, including the substantial capitalisation of multilateral development banks, and creating a framework to allow the licensing of a diversity of financial services providers to meet local citizens’ needs;
2010/02/02
Committee: INTA
Amendment 1 #

2009/2002(BUD)

Draft opinion
Recital B
B. whereas the possible entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty would require the development of a communications campaign aiming to explain to citizens the changes that would be introduced by the Treaty, notably the new powers of the European Parliament and of national Parliaments, as well as the introduction of the citizens' initiative, which would provide citizens with a new tool with which to influence European policies,deleted
2009/08/06
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 2 #

2009/2002(BUD)

Draft opinion
Recital C
C. whereas Parliament, in its resolution of 10 March 2009 on the Guidelines for the 2010 budget procedure1, drew "attention to the need for sufficient funding to be made available for communication policy, notably that it be in alignment with the objectives set out in the common Declaration on Communicating Europe in Partnership adopted by Parliament, the Council and the Commission in October 2008", _______________________________ 1 Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2009)0096.deleted
2009/08/06
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 3 #

2009/2002(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the need for developing a wide-ranging communications policy so as to raise awareness of both the benefits and the drawbacks that are linked to European integration and to provide a basis for a real dialogue with European citizens; hence stresses that these activities need further financial support;
2009/08/06
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 4 #

2009/2002(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that, although the overall Draft Budget (DB) for 2010 provides for an increase in commitment appropriations compared to the 2009 budget, the amount under heading 3.2 (Citizenship) is to decrease; considers that such a decrease in this crucial policy area is regrettable and stresses, therefore, that the amounts must be increased and optimally used;
2009/08/06
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 5 #

2009/2002(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that the information outlets and EU representations have a potentially pivotal role to play in this communications strategy, as they represent a means of reaching the citizens and bringing the European Union closer to them, and therefore stresses the need for supporting their activities and enhancing their impact;deleted
2009/08/06
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 6 #

2009/2002(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Considers the emergence of real pan- European parties to be desirablea possible option, notably in view of future European elections, in order toas it might increase turnout; belinotes, howevesr, that such a goal could be achieved notably through a inorganically creasted financing of political foundations and parties at EU levelpan-European parties have been attempted in the past with limited success;
2009/08/06
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 7 #

2009/2002(BUD)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls the importance of the initiative Communicating Europe in Partnership, which will notably help in reinforcing both the coherence and efficiency of the European communication strategy; recommends that the funds to be allocated in 2010 take into account the supplementary challenges that are likely to follow the possible institutional reforms linked to the Lisbon Treaty.deleted
2009/08/06
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 189 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
(6) In order to avoid imposing excessive or disproportionate requirements, this Directive provides for an exemption for AIFM where the cumulative AIF under management fall below a threshold of EUR 100 m billion. The activities of the AIFM concerned are unlikely to have significant consequences for financial stability or market efficiency. For AIFM which only manage unleveraged AIF and do not grant investors redemption rights during a period of five years a specific threshold of EUR 500 m1,5 billion applies. This specific threshold is justified by the fact that managers of unleveraged funds, specialised in long term investments, are even less likely to cause systemic risks. Furthermore, the five years lock-up of investors eliminates liquidity risks. AIFM which are exempt from this Directive should continue to be subject to any relevant national legislation. They should however be allowed to be treated as AIFM subject to the opt-in procedure foreseen by this Directive.
2010/02/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 199 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) This Directive aims at providing a harmonised and stringent regulatory and supervisory framework for the activities of AIFM. Authorisation in accordance with this Directive should cover the services of management and administrationmanagement of AIF throughout the CommunityUnion. In addition, authorised AIFM should be entitled to market AIF in the Community to professionalUnion to investors, subject to a notification procedure.
2010/02/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 206 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) This Directive shall not prevent or restrict investors from disposing of units or shares which they hold in AIF on the capital market. Such investors, or their intermediaries, may offer or place such shares or units to or with investors in a Member State in accordance with the national law of that Member State. , Where such offer or placement is at the initiative of the AIFM managing such AIF, however, the offer or placement shall be treated as marketing by such AIFM for the purposes of this Directive.
2010/02/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 208 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) In order to ensure a high level of protection of clients of investment firms within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC, AIF should not be considered as non-complex financial instruments for the purposes of that Directive. That Directive should therefore be amended accordingly.deleted
2010/02/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 218 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
(12) It is necessary to ensure that AIFM operate subject to robust governance controls. AIFM should be managed and organised so as to minimise conflicts of interest. Recent developments underline the crucial need to separate asset safe- keeping and management functions, and segregate investor assets from those of the manager. To this end, the AIFM has to appoint a depositary and entrust it withAlthough AIFM manage AIF with different business models and arrangements for, inter alia, asset safe- keeping, it is essential that a depositary separate from the AIFM is appointed to provide depository functions with respect to AIF. The depositary will be responsible for the booking of investor money on a segregated accounts, the safe-keeping of financial instruments, including the holding in custody of financial instruments that can be kept, and the verification of whether the AIF or the AIFM on behalf of the AIF has obtained ownership of all other assets. A depositary may maintain a common segregated account for several AIF.
2010/02/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 223 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) The Leaders’ statement following the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh on 24 and 25 September 2009 set out the international consensus concerning remuneration of staff in banks and other systemically important financial services firms. Those principles should apply to AIFM which fall within the scope of this Directive in a proportionate manner. The principles governing remuneration policies should recognise that AIFM may apply the provisions in different ways according to their size and the size of the AIF they manage, their internal organisation and the nature, the scope and the complexity of their activities. It is acknowledged that principles governing remuneration policies for AIFM may be implemented in a different form from those adopted by credit institutions, due to their differing business models.
2010/02/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 229 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
(13) Reliable and objective asset valuation is crucial for the protection of investor interests. Different AIFM employ different methodologies and systems for valuing assets, depending on the assets and markets in which they predominantly invest. It is appropriate to recognise these differences but to, nevertheless, require the valuation of assets to be undertaken by an entity which is independent of the AIFM. The process for valuation of assets and calculation of the net asset value (NAV) should be functionally independent from the investment management functions of the AIFM. Where appropriate, it should be possible to delegate or assign the valuation of assets and the calculation of the NAV to a third party, in accordance with national law.
2010/02/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 237 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
(15) Given that an AIFM may employing high levels of leverage inat their investment strategies level of the AIF and may, under certain conditions, contribute to the build up of systemic risk or disorderly markets, special requirements should be imposed on AIFM using certain techniques giving rise to particular riskemploying leverage on a systemically significant basis. The information needed to detect, monitor and respond to those risks has not been collected in a consistent way throughout the CommunityUnion, and shared across Member States so as to identify potential sources of risk to the stability of financial markets in the CommunityUnion. To remedy this situation, special requirements should apply to AIFM, which consistently use highemploy leverage at the levels of leverage in their investment strategies. Thosethe AIF on a systemically significant basis. Such AIFM should be obliged to disclose information regarding their use and sources of leverage. That information in their AIF. Information gathered by competent authorities should be aggregated and shared with other authorities in the CommunityUnion, so as to facilitate a collective analysis of the impact of the leverage of thoseAIF managed by AIFM on the financial system in the CommunityUnion, as well as a common response.
2010/02/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 246 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) Activities of AIFM based on the use of high levels of leverage could be detrimental to the stability and efficient functioning of financial markets. It is considered necessary to allow the Commission to impose limits on the level of leverage that AIFM could use, in particular in those cases where AIFM employ high levels of leverage on a systematic basisIt is considered necessary to allow the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM to impose limits on the level of leverage that AIFM could employ in AIF where the stability and integrity of the financial system may be threatened. Those limits to the maximum amount of leverage should take into account aspects related to the source of leverage and the strategies employed by the AIFM, as well as the market conditions in which the AIF operates. They should also take into account the essentially dynamic nature of the management of leverage by most AIFM using a high level of leverage. I in this respect the limits to leverage could for example either consist in a threshold that should not be breached at any point in time or a limit on the average leverage employed during a given period (i.e. monthly or quarterly)eir AIF and possible pro-cyclical effects.
2010/02/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 253 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) Short selling plays an important role in the functioning of the financial markets and is a legitimate investment technique. Nevertheless, there is a concern that, notably in extreme market conditions, short selling may contribute to market disorder. Therefore, short selling should operate in a harmonised regulatory framework to reduce the potential destabilising effect that it may cause.
2010/02/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 276 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) AIFM Member State should also be able to market AIF domiciled in third countries to professional investors both in the home Member State of the AIFM and in other Member States. That right should be subject to notification procedures and the existence of a tax agreement with the third country concerned which ensures an efficient exchange of information with the tax authorities in the domicile of the Community investors. Given the fact that such AIF and the third country in which they are domiciled have to meet additional requirements, some of which first have to be laid down in implementing measures, the rights granted under the Directive to market AIF domiciled in third countries to professional investors should only become effective three years after the transposition period. In the meantime Member States may allow or continue to allow AIFM to market AIF domiciled in third countries to professional investors on their territory subject to national law. During this period of three years, AIFM can however not market such AIF to professional investors in other Member States on the basis of rights granted under this Directiveallow AIFM to market in its territory AIF domiciled in third countries to investors in that Member State if appropriate cooperation arrangements are in place between the competent authorities of the AIFM home Member State and the supervisory authority of the relevant third country.
2010/02/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 283 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) It is appropriate to allow the AIFM to delegate administrative tasks to an entity established in a third country provided that necessary safeguards are in place. Similarly, a depositary may delegate its depositary tasks in respect of AIF domiciled in a third country to a depositary domiciled in that third country, provided that the legislation of that third country ensures a level of protection of investor interests which is equivalent to that in the Community. Under certain conditions, it should also be possible for the AIFM to appoint an independent valuator established in a third countryprovided that it exercises due care, skill and diligence in the selection, appointment and periodic review of that person and of its arrangements in respect of the matters delegated to it.
2010/02/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 299 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
(27) In particular the Commission should be empowered to adopt the measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive. In this respect, the Commission should be able to adopt measures determining the procedures under which AIFM managing portfolios of AIF whose assets under management do not exceed the threshold set out in this Directive may exercise their right to be treated as AIFM covered by this Directive. These measures are also delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty designed to specify the criteria to be used by competent authorities to assess whether AIFM comply with their obligations as regards their conduct of business, the type of conflicts of interests AIFM have to identify, as well as the reasonable steps AIFM are expected to take in terms of internal and organizsational procedures in order to identify, prevent, manage and disclose conflicts of interest. They arshould also be designed to specify when the risk management does not need to be separated and the risk management requirements to be employed by AIFM as a function of the risks which the AIFM incurs on behalf of the AIF that it manages as well as any arrangements needed to enable AIFM to manage the particular risks associated with short selling transactions, including any relevant restrictions that might be needed to protect the AIF from undue risk exposures. They are designed to specify the liquidity management requirements of this Directive and in particular the minimum liquidity requirements for AIF. They are designed to specify the requirements that originators of securitisation instruments have to meet in order for an AIFM to be allowed to invest in such instruments issued after 1 January 2011. They are as well designed to specify the requirements that AIFM have to comply with when investing in such securitisation instruments. They ar. They should also be designed to specify the liquidity management requirements of this Directive and in particular the minimum liquidity requirements for AIF. They should also be designed to specify the criteria under which a valuator can be considered independent in the meaning of this Directive. They arshould also be designed to specify the conditions under which the delegation of AIFM functions should be approved and the conditions under which the manager could no longer be considered to be the manager of the AIF in case of excessive delegation. They arshould also be designed to specify the content and format of the annual report that AIFM have to make available for each AIF they manage and to specify the disclosure obligations of AIFM to investors and reporting requirements to competent authorities as well as their frequency. They arshould also be designed to specify the disclosure requirements imposed on AIFM as regards leverage and the frequency of reporting to competent authorities and of disclosure to investors. They are designed to setting limits to the level of leverage AIFM can employ when managing AIF. They arshould also be designed to determine the detailed content and the way AIFM acquiring controlling influence in issuers and non- listed companies should fulfil their information obligation towards issuers and non-listed companies and their respective shareholders and representatives of employees, including the information to be provided in the annual reports of the AIF they manage. They are designed to specify the types of restrictions or conditions that can be imposed on the marketing of AIF to professional investors in the home Member State of the AIFM. They are designed to specify general criteria for assessing equivalence of valuation standards of third countries where the valuator is established in a third country, the equivalence of legislation of third countries regarding depositaries and, for the purpose of the authorisation of AIFM established in third countries, the equivalence of prudential regulation and ongoing supervision. They are designed to specify general criteria for assessing whether third countries grant Community AIFM effective market access comparable to that granted by the Community to AIFM from third countries. They arshould also be designed to specify the modalities, content and frequency of exchange of information regarding AIFM between the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM and other competent authorities where the AIFM individually or collectively with other AIFM may have an impact on the stability of systemically relevant financial institutions and the orderly functioning of markets. They arshould also be designed to specify the procedures for on- the- spot verifications and investigations.
2010/02/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 307 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
(28) Since those measureacts are of general scope and are designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive, by supplementing it with new non-essential elements, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutinyprocedure provided for in Article 5a290 of Decision 1999/468/ECthe Treaty. Measures not falling under the above category should be subject to the regulatory procedure provided in Article 5 of that Decision. Those measures are designed to state that the fund valuation standards of a specific third country are equivalent to those applicable in the Community where the valuator is established in a third country. They are designed to state that the legislation on depositaries of a specific third country is equivalent to this Directive. They are designed to state that the legislation on prudential regulation and on-going supervision of AIFM in a specific third country is equivalent to this Directive. They are designed to state whether a specific third country grants Community AIFM effective market access comparable to that granted by the Community to AIFM from that third country. They are designed to 1999/468/EC. Those measures should specify standard models for notification and attestations and to specify the procedure for the exchange of information between competent authorities.
2010/02/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 316 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 - introductory part
1. This Directive shall apply to all AIFM established in the Community, which provide management services toUnion which manage one or more alternative investment funds (AIF), irrespective of:
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 319 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) whether the AIF is domicilestablished inside or outside of the CommunityUnion;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 325 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) whether the AIF belongs to the open- ended or closed-ended type;deleted
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 333 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
An AIFM authorised in accordance with this Directive to provide management services tomanage one or more AIF is also entitled to market shares or units of these AIF to professional investors in the CommunityUnion subject to the conditions laid down in Chapter VI and, where relevant, Article 35.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 345 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) AIFM which either directly or indirectly through a company with which the AIFM is linked by common management or control, or by a substantive direct or indirect holding, manage portfolios of AIF whosemanage AIF whose total assets under management, including any assets acquired through use of leverage, in total do not exceed a threshold of 100 million Euro or 500 millions euros when the portfolio of AIF consists ofEUR 1 billion or EUR 1.5 billion when the AIF consists of holdings that (a) are not leveraged; and (b) do not have redemption rights exercisable during a period of 5 years following the date of constitution of the AIF. For the purposes of calculating such thresholds: (i) AIF managed by the AIFM or the management of which is delegated by the AIFM to an undertaking in the same group as the AIFM shall be aggregated; (ii) in relation to AIF that (a) are not leveraged; and with no(b) do not have redemption rights exercisable during a period of 5 years following the date of constitution of eachthe AIF, the thresholds shall be applied to the investors’ net capital interest in the AIF; .
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 354 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) AIFM established in the CommunityUnion which do not provide management services tomanage AIF domiciled in the CommunityUnion and do not market AIF in the CommunityUnion beyond any private placement exemptions allowed for AIF under the national law of a Member State;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 362 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) UCITS or their management or investment companies authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/65/EC [the UCITS Directive], in so far as those management or investment companies do not manage AIF;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 363 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) credit institutions which are covered by Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (recast);deleted
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 364 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) institutions which are covered by Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORP), including where applicable the authorised entities responsible for managing IORP and acting on their behalf referred to in Article2(1) of that Directive or the appointed investment managers pursuant to Article 19(1) of the same Directive, insofar as they do not manage AIF established in the Union;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 370 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
(fa) any person or entity, in so far as they invest solely for their own account;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 379 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g f (new)
(gf) employee participation schemes;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 384 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g j (new)
(gj) securitisation special purpose vehicles.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 389 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g m (new)
(gm) AIFM, insofar as they manage one or more AIF whose only investors are the AIFM themselves or the direct or indirect parent undertakings or subsidiary undertakings of the AIFM or other subsidiaries of those direct or indirect parent undertakings;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 398 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g q (new)
(gq) national central banks;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 400 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g s (new)
(gs) national, regional and local governments and bodies or institutions which manage funds supporting social security and pension systems;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 403 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g v (new)
(gv) AIFM, insofar as they are a company whose business strategy is to take controlling or influential shareholdings in one or more subsidiaries or associated companies and which is not established for the main purpose of generating returns for its investors by means of divestment of its subsidiaries or associated companies within a predetermined timeframe;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 407 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g x (new)
(gx) AIFM insofar as they manage internally-managed AIF which do not grant their shareholders any redemption or repurchase rights, invest predominantly in transferable securities, use no or only limited leverage and have their shares traded on an EU regulated market;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 437 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point a
(a) ‘Alternative investment fund’ or AIF means any collective investment undertaking, including investment compartments thereof, whose object is the collective investment in assets and which does noich raises capital by marketing shares or units in that collective undertaking to professional investors with a view to investing the proceeds in accordance with a defined investment policy on the principle of risk spreading for the benefit of those investors but which does not include any closed-end vehicle or any form of corporate vehicle, any entity that requires authorisation pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 2009/65/EC [the UCITS Directive], any collective investment undertaking for which, under its constitutive documents, the role of manager is primarily the responsibility of the collective investment undertaking itself or of one of its members, or any collective investment undertaking whose investors are solely made up of other AIF;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 448 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point b
(b) ‘manager of alternative investment funds or AIFM means any legal or natural person whose regular business is to manage one or several AIFperson that manages one or several AIF and is responsible for the compliance with the requirements of this Directive and which, depending on the legal form of the AIF, can be either the AIF itself or an external entity;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 456 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point c
(c) ‘Valuator’ means any legal or natural person or company valuing the assets or establishing the value of the shares or units of an AIF;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 461 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point d
(d) ‘management services’ means the activities of managing and administering one or more AIF on behalf of one or more investorsone or more AIF;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 464 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point e
(e) ‘Marketing’ means any general offering or placement of units or shares in an AIF to or with investors domiciled in the Community, regardless of at whose inUnion but does not mean (i) any unsolicited offer or approach or (ii) any offer or approach legitimative the offer or placement takes place; ely made in a Member State under the laws of such Member State and other than any law implementing this Directive.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 474 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point h a (new)
(ha) ‘home Member State of a depositary’ means: (i) if the depositary is a credit institution authorised under Directive 2006/48/EC, the home Member State as defined in Article 4(7) of that Directive; (ii) if the depositary is an investment firm authorised under Directive 2004/39/EC, the home Member State as defined in Article 4(1)(20)(a) of that Directive; (iii) if the depositary is a legal person referred to in Article 17(3)(c) or (d) which is established in the Union, the Member State in which it has its registered office;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 479 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point j a (new)
(ja) ‘Competent authorities of a depositary’ means (i) if the depositary is a credit institution authorised under Directive 2006/48/EC, the competent authorities as defined in Article 4(4) of that Directive; (ii) if the depositary is an investment firm authorised under Directive 2004/39/EC, the home Member State as defined in Article 4(1)(22) of that Directive; (iii) if the depositary is a legal person referred to in Article 17(3)(c) which is established in the Union, the national authorities of its home Member State which are empowered by law or regulation to supervise such legal persons;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 481 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point l
(l) ‘Leverage’ means any method by which the AIFM increases the exposure of an AIF it manages to a particular investments whether through borrowing of cash or securities, or leverage embedded in derivative positions or; the level of leverage shall bye any other meanssessed in all cases on an appropriately netted and risk-adjusted basis;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 490 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Articles 49a, 49b and 49c with a view to clarifying the methods of leverage as defined in point (l) of the first paragraph and for the purpose of Article 21(4) specifying when leverage is considered to be employed on a systemically significant basis and how leverage shall be calculated.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 506 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point o k (new)
(ok) ‘feeder AIF’ means an AIF that invests at least 85% of its assets in the shares or units of another AIF (the master AIF), and references to ‘investing as a Feeder AIF’ shall refer to the investment of at least 85% of the AIF’s assets in the shares or units of the master AIF;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 507 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3a Determination of the AIFM Without prejudice to the right granted under Article 18 to delegate functions, Member States shall ensure that each AIF managed within the scope of this Directive shall have a single AIFM which shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of this Directive. The AIFM shall be an external manager which is a legal person appointed by the AIF or on behalf of the AIF (the appointed AIFM) and which through this appointment is responsible for managing the entire portfolio of the AIF.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 512 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Entities which are neither authorised in accordance with this Directive nor, in case of AIFM not covered by this Directive, in accordance with the national law of a Member State, shall not be allowed to provide management services to AIF or market units or shares thereof within the Community.deleted
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 530 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Without prejudice to Article 18, Member States shall ensure that each AIF falling within the scope of this Directive shall have a single AIFM which shall be responsible for the compliance with the requirements of this Directive.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 606 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 a (new)
Article 9a Remuneration 1. Member States shall require AIFM to have remuneration policies and practices that are consistent with and promote sound and effective risk management and long term value creation and which do not encourage risk-taking which is inconsistent with the risk profiles, fund rules or instruments of incorporation of the AIF it manages. 2. The remuneration policies and practices shall be proportionate to the nature, scale and complexity of the AIFM’s activities and to the AIF it manages.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 612 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 b (new)
Article 9b Notification The AIFM shall inform Member States’ competent authorities about the characteristics of its remuneration policies and practices.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 615 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 c (new)
Article 9c Competent authorities Member States’ competent authorities may react and take appropriate corrective measures to offset risks that may result in the failure of an AIFM to implement sound remuneration policies and practices.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 624 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. The AIFM shall ensure that the functions of risk management and portfolio management are separated and subject to separate reviewso far as is appropriate and proportionate in view of the nature, scale and complexity of the AIFM and the AIF it manages.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 625 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Where it is not considered to be appropriate or proportionate for an AIFM to establish and maintain a risk management function that is separated from the portfolio management, the AIFM must nevertheless be able to demonstrate that the risk management process satisfies the requirements of this article and is consistently effective.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 630 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. In the case of AIFM which engage in short selling when investing on behalf of one or more AIF, Member States shall ensure that the AIFM operates procedures which provide it with access to the securities or other financial instruments at the date when the AIFM committed to deliver them, and that the AIFM implements a risk management procedure which allows the risks associated with the delivery of short sold securities or other financial instruments to be adequately managed.deleted
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 641 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 5 – point b
(b) any arrangements needed to enable AIFM to manage the particular risks associated with short selling transactions, including any relevant restrictions that might be needed to protect the AIF from undue risk exposures.deleted
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 643 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. AIFM shall not be obliged to comply with the provisions of this Article in relation to any Feeder AIF.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 651 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. AIFM shall not be obliged to comply with the provisions of this Article in relation to any Feeder AIF to the extent this Article is complied with in respect of the relevant master AIF.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 655 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13
Investment in securitisation positions In order to ensure cross-sectoral consistency and to remove misalignment between the interest of firms that repackage loans into tradable securities and other financial instruments (originators) and AIFM that invest in these securities or other financial instruments on behalf of one or more AIF, the Commission shall adopt implementing measures laying down the requirements in the following areas: (a) the requirements that need to be met by the originator in order for an AIFM to be allowed to invest in securities or other financial instruments of this type issued after 1 January 2011 on behalf of one or more AIF, including requirements that ensure that the originator retains a net economic interest of not less than 5 per cent; (b) qualitative requirements that must be met by AIFM which invest in these securities or other financial instruments on behalf of one or more AIF. Those measures, designed to amend to amend non-essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 49(3).Article 13 deleted
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 681 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
For the purposes of the first, second and third subparagraphs the following portfolios shall be deemed to be the portfolios of the AIFM but excluding any portfolio of a Feeder AIF to the extent that it consists of shares or units in a master AIF:
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 690 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. The above paragraphs shall not apply to AIFM only managing AIF: (a) which are not leveraged; (b) which have no redemption rights exercisable during a period of five years following the date of constitution of each AIF; (c) which have fixed capital commitments; (d) where fees are based on capital commitments; (e) where investors have the right to change the AIFM; and (f) where specific provisions are included in the contractual agreement regarding the winding-up of an AIFM to protect investors during a transition.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 701 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 - subparagraph 1
1. AIFM shall ensure that, forin respect of each AIF that it manages, a valuator is appointed which is independent of the AIFM to establish: (a) that high level policies for the valuation of assets held or employed by the AIF are adopted and documented; (b) that the calculation of the value of the assets of the AIF is undertaken in accordance with those policies either by a valuator which is independent of the AIFM or by the AIFM (in which case the valuation function and the portfolio management function within the AIFM shall be functionally independent); (c) that the value of the assets acquired by the AIF andof the AIF is calculated at an appropriate frequency and that the value of the shares andor units of the AIF. are calculated at or prior to each time they can be issued or redeemed; and (d) that such valuation policies are periodically reviewed and amended to seek to ensure their continued appropriateness.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 719 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The valuator shall ensure that the assets, shares and units are valued at least once a year, and each time shares or units of the AIF are issued or redeemed if this is more frequent.deleted
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 739 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. AIFM shall ensure that the valuator has appropriate and consistent procedures to value the assets of the AIF in accordance with existing applicable valuation standards and rules, in order to reflect the net asset value of the shares or units of the AIF.deleted
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 755 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3
3. The rules applicable to the valuation of assets and the calculation of the net asset value per unit or share of the AIF shall be laid down in the law of the country where the AIF is domiciled or in the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation.deleted
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 768 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall adopt implementing measures further specifying the criteria under which a valuator can be considered independent in the meaning of paragraph 1. Those measures, designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 49(3).deleted
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 787 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. This Article shall not apply in respect of AIF which are private equity funds.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 796 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. For each AIF it manages, the AIFM shall ensure that a depositary is appointed to fulfil, where relevant, the following taskfunctions:
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 798 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) receive all payments made by investorverify that AIF cash placed on deposit is when subscribing units or shares of an AIF managed by the AIFM and book them on behalf of the AIFMld with one or more Approved Bank(s) , including the depositary if it ins a segregated accountn Approved Bank;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 808 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) safe-keep any financial instruments which belong to the AIF, namely: (i) hold in custody all financial instruments that are physically delivered to it; and (ii) maintain all entitlements in financial instruments credited to it through an established system of registration or indirect holding. All such financial instruments are to be segregated from the assets of the depositary or any custodian and clearly identified on the books of the depositary as belonging to the AIF;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 809 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) ensure that the financial instruments referred to in point (b) may not be re-used without prior consent from the AIFM, and such consent has not been withdrawn;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 811 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) verify whether the AIF or the AIFM on behalf of the AIF has obtained the ownership of all other assets the AIF invests inmaintain records evidencing ownership of assets of the AIF other than those referred to in points (a) and (b).
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 819 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a – introductory part (new)
1a. In addition to the tasks referred to in paragraph 1, the depositary shall verify that:
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 820 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a – point a (new)
(a) the sale, issue, re-purchase, redemption and cancellation of shares or units of the AIF are carried out in accordance with the applicable national law and the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 824 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a – point b (new)
(b) the value of the shares or units of the AIF is calculated in accordance with the applicable national law and the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 828 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a – point c (new)
(c) AIFM instructions have not been in conflict with the applicable national law or the AIF rules or instruments of incorporation;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 832 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a – point d (new)
(d) in transactions involving the AIF’s assets any consideration is remitted to it within the usual time limits;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 839 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a – subparagraph 1 a (new)
By way of derogation, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIF may provide that any of points (a) to (d) do not apply where the AIF is solely marketed to professional and/or sophisticated investors.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 860 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
In the context of their respective roles, the AIFM and the depositary shall act honestly, fairly, professionally, independently and in the interest of all the investors of the AIF collectively.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 866 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 3
3. The depositary shall be either: (a) a credit institution having its registered office in the Community and be authorised in accordance with Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (recast). ;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 876 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point a b (new)
(ab) an investment firm authorised in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC to provide ancillary services in accordance with Section B(1) of Annex I to that Directive, having its registered office in the Union;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 886 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point a g (new)
(ag) an institution which is subject to prudential regulation and ongoing supervision and which can provide sufficient financial and professional guarantees to be able to effectively perform the relevant depositary functions and meet the commitments inherent to those functions;
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 894 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. In addition to the provisions in points (a), (ab) and (ag) of paragraph 3, for AIF which have no redemption rights exercisable during a period of 5 years following the date of constitution of each AIF and which, according to their investment strategy and objectives, make investments and divestments solely on a non-frequent basis, the depositary may be either: (a) a legal person which is subject to prudential regulation and ongoing supervision and which can provide sufficient financial and professional guarantees to be able to effectively perform the relevant depository functions and meet the commitments inherent to those functions; or (b) a legal person which carries out depository functions as part of professional or business activities in respect of which it is subject to mandatory professional registration recognised by law or to legal or regulatory provisions or rules of professional conduct and which can provide sufficient financial and professional guarantees to be able to effectively perform the relevant depository functions and meet the commitments inherent to those functions.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 896 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. For an AIF established in the Union, the appointed depositary shall be established in the home Member State of the AIF. Any appointment of a depositary shall be subject to approval from the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIF. By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIF may allow institutions fulfilling the requirements in paragraph 3 and established in another Member State to be appointed depositary.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 909 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 4
4. DThe depositariesy may delegateappoint their tasks to other depositariesd parties to perform the tasks referred to in paragraph 1.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 922 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Where the depositary uses the services of a sub-custodian in furtherance of the task set out in point (b) of paragraph 1, it must determine that the following conditions are satisfied: (a) the sub-custodian is subject to the required level of supervision in the jurisdiction concerned; (b) the sub-custodian has structures and expertise that are adequate and proportionate to the nature and scale of the entitlements in financial instruments belonging to the AIF; (c) the sub-custodian is subject to periodic audit to ensure that the financial instruments and other securities are in its possession; (d) the sub-custodian segregates the financial instruments and other securities from its own assets; and (e) the sub-custodian may not make use of the financial instruments without prior consent from the AIFM and such consent has not been withdrawn.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 924 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 4 d (new)
4d. The depositary shall exercise all due skill, care and diligence for the selection, appointment and periodic review of any third party as referred to in paragraphs 4 and 4b.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 931 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
5. The depositary shall be liable to the AIFM and or the investors of the AIF for anycollectively for losses suffered by them as a result of its unjustifiable failure to perform or of its improper performance of its obligations pursuant to this Directiveparagraphs 1, 2, 4 and 4a.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 937 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
In case of any loss of financial instruments which the depositary safe- keeps, the depositary can only discharge itself of its liability if it can prove that it could not have avoided the loss which has occurred.deleted
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 944 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2 b (new)
In the event of loss of financial instruments held in custody in accordance with point (b)(i) of paragraph 1, or due to the depositary’s unjustifiable failure to maintain entitlements to financial instruments according to point (b)(ii) of paragraph 1, the depositary shall return the assets or the corresponding amount to the AIF. This obligation shall not be affected by any appointment of a sub-custodian in accordance with paragraph 4. However, the depositary may discharge itself of this liability if it has fulfilled its obligations pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 4a.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 962 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 3
Liability to AIF investors may be invoked either directly or indirectly through the AIFM, depending on the legal nature of the relationship between the depositary, the AIFM and the investors. TSubject to subparagraph 2a, the depositary's liability shall not be affected by any delegationappointment of sub-custodians referred to in paragraphs 4 and 4a.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 965 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
Liability under paragraph 4b and under this paragraph shall not apply in circumstances beyond the control of the depositary, including, inter alia, force majeure, market conditions, terms or conditions imposed by market infrastructure organisations or by participation in market infrastructure systems.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 973 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. The depositary shall make available on request to the competent authorities of its home Member State all information which it has obtained while undertaking its duties and that may be necessary for the competent authorities to supervise the AIFM. If the home Member State of the AIFM is different from that of the depositary, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the depositary shall share the information received without delay with the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 978 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 5 e (new)
5e. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Articles 49a, 49b and 49c further specifying: (a) the means and methods for placing deposits with Approved Banks; (b) the notions of safe-keeping and custody, including the means and methods for the segregation of financial instruments in different accounts and when there is a loss of financial instruments; (c) the supervisory duties of depositaries; (d) the conditions for the appointment of sub-custodians, including the due diligence duties of depositaries and the need for cooperation agreements with other jurisdictions; (e) the conditions for approval of depositaries, including an assessment of whether the depositary can provide sufficient financial and professional guarantees to be able to effectively perform the relevant depositary functions and meet the commitments inherent to those functions. These acts, designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
2010/02/15
Committee: ECON
Amendment 984 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. AIFM which intend to delegate to third parties the task of carrying out on their behalf one or more of their material functions shall request prior authorisation from the competent authorities of the home Member State for each delegationinform in advance the competent authorities of the home Member State for each delegation as soon as practicable prior to the delegation becoming effective. The competent authorities may within one month of such notification reject such delegation if it can be shown that the rejection would be in the best interests of investors in the relevant AIF.
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 995 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b
(b) where the delegation concerns theis of portfolio management or the risk management, the third party must also be authorised as an AIFM to manage an AIF of the same typrisk management (in whole or in part) the mandate may only be given to undertakings which are authorised or registered for the purpose of asset management and subject to prudential supervision; where this condition cannot be satisfied, delegation may only be given if the AIFM has received prior authorisation from the competent authority of its home Member State;
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 998 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) where the delegation concerns the portfolio management or risk management and is given to a third country undertaking, there must be, in addition to the requirements in point (b), appropriate cooperation arrangements in place between the competent authority of the AIFM and the supervisory authority of the third country entity;
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1020 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 3
3. The third party may not sub-delegate any of the functions delegated to it provided that the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled.
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1030 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. An AIFM shall, for each of the AIF it manages, make available an annual report for each financial year. The annual report shall be made available to investors and competent authorities no later than four months following the end of the financial year or, in circumstances where information is required from third parties, such as the audit of any underlying investments of the AIF, no later than six months following the end of the financial year.
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1037 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) the amount of remuneration, split into fixed and variable remuneration, paid by a systemically important AIFM and, where relevant, by any AIF managed by such an AIFM, to senior executives and other employees having a material impact on the firm’s risk exposure.
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1041 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 3
3. The accounting information given in the annual report shall be prepared in accordance with the accounting standards or principles required by the applicable AIF rules or instruments of incorporation or formation and audited by one or more persons empowered by law to audit accounts in accordance with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC. The auditor's report, including any qualifications, shall be reproduced in full in the annual report.
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1048 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
4. The Commission shall adopt implementing measuredelegated acts further specifying the content and format of the annual report. These measuresose acts shall be appropriate and proportionate and shall be adapted to the type of AIFM to which they apply and the AIF to which the report relates, taking account of the different size, resources, complexity, nature, investments, investment strategies and techniques, structures and investors of different types of AIFM and the AIF that they manage.
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1055 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. AIFM shall ensure that, insofar as applicable to the AIF concerned, AIF investors receive the following information before they invest in the AIF, as well as any changes thereof:
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1063 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) a description of the investment strategy and objectives of the AIF, all thethe types of assets which the AIF can invest in and of the techniques it may employ and of allthe associated risks, any applicable investment restrictions, the circumstances in which the AIF may use leverage, the types and sources of leverage permitted and the associated risks and of any restrictions toin the use of leverage;
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1071 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the identity of the AIF's, if applicable, of the AIF's current or proposed depositary, valuator, auditor and any other current or proposed critical or important service providers and a description of their duties and the investors' rights should any failure arise;
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1078 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) a description of any critical or important delegated management or depositary function and the identity of the third party to whom the function has been delegated;
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1083 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) where the AIF has exercisable redemption rights, a description of the AIF's liquidity risk management, including the redemption rights both in normal and exceptional circumstances, existing redemption arrangements with investors, and how the AIFM ensures a fair treatment of investors;
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1088 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) a description of all fees, charges and expenses and of the maximum amounts or rates thereof which are directly or indirectly borne by investors;
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1094 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) whenever an investor obtains a preferential treatment or the right to obtain preferential treatment, the identity of the investor and a description of that preferential treatment;
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1096 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point j
(j) the latest annual report if there is such a report in relation to the AIF.
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1109 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. For each AIF that an AIFM manages and in respect of which redemption rights are exercisable, it shall periodically disclose to investors:
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1127 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
3. The Commission shall adopt implementing measuredelegated acts further specifying the disclosure obligations of AIFM and the frequency of the disclosure referred to in paragraph 2.These measureacts shall be adapted to the type of AIFM to which they apply. and be proportionate, taking account, inter alia, of the different size, resources, complexity, nature, investments, investment strategies and techniques, structures and investors of different types of AIFM.
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1135 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
It shall provide aggregated information on the main instruments in which it is trading, markets of which it is a member or where it actively trades, and on the principal trading exposures and most important resulting concentrations of each of the AIF it manages.
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1165 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) an annual report of each AIF managed by the AIFM for each financial year, within four months from the end of the periods to which it relates or, in circumstances where information is required from third parties (such as the audit of any underlying investments of the AIF), no later than six months from the end of the financial year;
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1170 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. An AIFM managing one or more AIF employing leverage on a systemically significant basis shall make available to the competent authorities of its home Member State information about the overall level of leverage employed by each AIF it manages, a break-down between leverage arising from borrowing of cash or securities and leverage embedded in financial derivatives and, where known, the extent to which AIF's assets have been re-used under leveraging arrangements. That information shall include the identity of the five largest sources of borrowed cash or securities for each of the AIF managed by the AIFM, and the amounts of leverage received from each of those entities for each of the AIF managed by the AIFM.
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1173 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities of the home Member State of an AIFM have access to information on the use of short selling on account of AIF managed by the AIFM for the purposes of identifying the extent to which the use of short selling contributes to the build-up of systemic risk in the financial system or risks of disorderly markets. The competent authorities of the home Member States shall also ensure that such information, aggregated in respect of all AIFM that they supervise, is made available to other competent authorities, the ESMA and the ESRB through the procedures set out in Article 46 on supervisory co-operation.
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1174 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
4. The Commission shall adopt implementing measuresdelegated acts in accordance with Articles 49a, 49b and 49c further specifying the reporting obligations referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 and their frequency. Such acts shall be appropriate and proportionate and adapted to the type of AIFM and AIF to which they apply, taking account, inter alia, of the different size, resources, complexity, nature, investments, investment strategies and techniques, structures and investors of different types of AIFM.
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1183 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 21 a (new)
Article 21a Confidentiality Nothing in this Directive shall prevent an AIFM from notifying its competent authority that certain information provided by it pursuant to this Directive is a trade secret or confidential information, without prejudice to the possibility for the competent authority to share information with other competent authorities pursuant to this Directive.
2010/02/16
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1186 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 22
Article 22 Scope This section shall apply only to AIFM which manage one or more AIF employing high levels of leverage on a systematic basis. AIFM shall assess on a quarterly basis whether the AIF employs high levels of leverage on a systematic basis and shall inform the competent authorities accordingly. For the purposes of the second subparagraph, an AIF shall be deemed to employ high levels of leverage on a systematic basis where the combined leverage from all sources exceeds the value of the equity capital of the AIF in two out of the past four quarters.deleted
2010/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1217 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 24
Reporting to competent authorities 1. AIFM managing one or more AIF employing high levels of leverage on a systematic basis shall regularly provide, to the competent authorities of its home Member State, information about the overall level of leverage employed by each AIF it manages, and a break-down between leverage arising from borrowing of cash or securities and leverage embedded in financial derivatives. That information shall include the identity of the five largest sources of borrowed cash or securities for each of the AIF managed by the AIFM, and the amounts of leverage received from each of those entities for each of the AIF managed by the AIFM. 2. The Commission shall adopt implementing measures further specifying the disclosure requirements with regard to leverage and the frequency of reporting to competent authorities and of disclosure to investors. Those measures, designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 49(3).deleted
2010/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1239 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 2
2. HThe competent authorities of the home Member States shall ensure that all information receivgathered under Article 241, aggregated in respect of all AIFM that ithey supervises, areis made available to other competent authorities of other Member States, to the ESMA and to the ESRB through the procedure set out in Article 46 on supervisory co-operation. ItThey shall, without delay, also provide information through this mechanism, and bilaterally to the competent authorities of other Member States directly concerned, if an AIFM under itstheir responsibility, or an AIF managed by that AIFM, could potentially constitute an important source of counterparty risk to a credit institution or other systemically relevant institution in those other Member States.
2010/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1262 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The competent authorities shall assess the systemic risks that the use of leverage by an AIFM with respect to the AIF it manages could entail, and when it is deemed necessary in order to ensure the stability and integrity of the financial system, the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall impose limits on the level of leverage that an AIFM may employ with respect to the AIF under its management. The competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM shall duly inform CESR and the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIF of actions taken in that respect.
2010/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1266 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Articles 49a, 49b and 49c setting out principles clarifying the circumstances in which the competent authorities should implement the provisions in paragraph 3a, taking into account different strategies of AIF, different market conditions in which AIF operate and possible pro-cyclical effects following from exercising the provisions.
2010/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1270 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 4
4. In exceptional circumstances and when this is required in order to ensure the stability and integrity of the financial system, the competent authorities of the home Member State may impose additional limits to the level of leverage that AIFM can employ. Measures taken by the competent authorities of the home Member States shall have a temporary nature and should comply with the provisions adopted by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 3.deleted
2010/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1317 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensurequire that when an AIFM is inreaches a position to exercise 30 % orf more of the voting rights of a non- listed company, suchthe AIFM notifiesmakes available to the non- listed company and all other share-holdersshareholders, the identities and addresses of which are available to the AIFM or can be made available by the non-listed company or a register to which the AIFM has or can get access, the information providspecified in paragraph 2. This notificinformation shall be made, available as soon as possible, but not later than four tradten working days, the first of which being the day on which the AIFM has reached the position of being able to exercise 30 % of the voting rightscontrol.
2010/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1325 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 2
2. The notificinformation required under paragraph 1 shall contain the following information: (a) the resulting situation in terms of voting rights; (b) the conditions under which the 30 % threshold has been reachmprise such information as is required to be made available or disclosed to the persons specified, including information about the identity of the different shareholders involved; (c) the date on which the threshold was reached or exceeded paragraph 1 in accordance with current Union law.
2010/03/08
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1505 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 35 – paragraph 1
An AIFM may only market shares or units of an AIF domiciled in a third country to professional investors domiciled in a Member State, if the third country has signed an agreement with this Member State which fully complies with the standards laid down in Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and ensures an effective exchange of information in tax matters Member State may allow AIFM to market on its own territory shares or units of an AIF domiciled in a third country if appropriate cooperation arrangements are in place between the competent authorities of the home Member State of the AIFM and the supervisory authority of that third country.
2010/02/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1516 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 35 a (new)
Article 35a Third-country AIF Professional investors domiciled in a Member State may invest in an AIF domiciled in a third country subject to this being permitted by the national law of that Member State.
2010/02/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1525 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 36
Article 36 Delegation by the AIFM of administrative tasks to an entity established in a third country Member States shall only allow an AIFM to delegate administrative services to entities established in a third country, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (a) the requirements set out in Article 18 are fulfilled; (b) the entity is authorised to provide administration services or registered in the third country in which it is established and is subject to prudential supervision; (c) there is an appropriate co-operation agreement between the competent authority of the AIFM and the supervisory authority of the entity.deleted
2010/02/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1536 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 37
Article 37 Valuator established in a third country 1. Member States shall only allow the appointment of a valuator established in a third country, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (a) the requirements set out in Article 16 are fulfilled; (b) the third country is the subject of a decision taken pursuant to paragraph 3 stating that the valuation standards and rules used by valuators established on its territory are equivalent to those applicable in the Community. 2. The Commission shall adopt implementing measures specifying the criteria for assessing the equivalence of the valuation standards and rules of third countries as referred to in paragraph (1) (b). Those measures, designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 49(3). 3. On the basis of the criteria referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 49(2), adopt implementing measures, stating that the valuation standards and rules of a third country legislation are equivalent to those applicable in the Community.deleted
2010/02/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1548 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 38
Delegation of the depositary tasks in respect of AIF domiciled in third countries 1. 17(4), in respect of AIF domiciled in a third country Member States shall allow the depositary of that AIF appointed in accordance with Article 17 to delegate the performance of one or more of its functions to a sub-depositary domiciled in the same third country provided that the legislation of that third country is equivalent to the provisions of this Directive and is effectively enforced. The following conditions shall also be met: (a) the third country is the subject of a decision taken pursuant to paragraph 4 stating sub-depositaries domiciled in that country are subject to effective prudential regulation and supervision which is equivalent to the provisions laid down in Community law; (b) co-operation between the home Member State and the relevant authorities of the third country is sufficiently ensured; (c) the third country is the subject of a decision taken pursuant to paragraph 4 stating that the standards to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing are equivalent to those laid down in Community law. 2. investors shall not be affected by the fact that it has delegated to a third country depositary the performance of all or a part of its tasks. 3. implementing measures specifying the criteria for assessing the equivalence of the prudential regulation, supervision and standards of third countries as referred to in paragraph 1. Those measures, designed to amend non- essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 49(3). 4. On the basis of the criteria referred to in paragraph 3, the Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 49(2), adopt implementing measures, stating that prudential regulation, supervision and standards of a third country are equivalent to this Directive.Article 38 deleted By way of derogation from Article The depositary's liability towards The Commission shall adopt
2010/02/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 1569 #

2009/0064(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) a cooperation-agreement between the competent authorities of that Member Statethe AIFM is subject to authorisation or registration in the third country in which it is established and theits supervisor of the AIFM exists which ensures an efficient eis a signatory to the IOSCO Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Consultation and Cooperation and the Exchange oOf all iInformation that are relevant for monitoring the potential implications of the activities of the AIFM for the stability of systemically relevant financial institutions and the orderly functioning of markets in which the AIFM is active.or another appropriate cooperation-agreement between the competent authorities of that Member State and the supervisor of the AIFM exists;
2010/02/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 23 #

2008/2205(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to review their priorities at multilateral level by promoting the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers and to foster international trade through appropriate measures to simplify and harmoniseencourage mutual recognition of standards;
2008/11/14
Committee: INTA
Amendment 55 #

2008/2205(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. RegretWelcomes the delay of thed introduction of the Community country of origin marking system for certain products from non-European countries (textiles and footwear) and expresses concern at this clear violation of the rights of European consumers; calls on the Member States and the Commission to remove as a matter of urgency the obstacles which have so far stood in the way of the entry into force of this legislation. Recalls that global supply chains have led to the almost complete destruction of the notion of a product being purely from one country for both large and small firms. Recalls furthermore that every producing region makes goods that vary wildly in quality and tso promote the European origin of such products, often seen by consumers as a guarantee of quality, safety and respect for high production standardsurges the EU not to treat all companies in one region the same regardless of the quality of the product;
2008/11/14
Committee: INTA
Amendment 60 #

2008/2205(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Points out that opening up markets both in the EU and third countries, especially in emerging countries, to European SMEs means creating new jobs and defendingadding value to existing jobs, safeguarding know-how and specific features of European industry and giving EU countries a guarantee of solid and lasting economic growth;
2008/11/14
Committee: INTA
Amendment 84 #

2008/2205(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses the importance of geographically closer markets for SMEs and calls on the Commission to give special attention to SMEs in trade relations with such countries; welcomes, in this context, the reference to the Mediterranean Business Development Initiative contained Recalls that geography plays little difference in modern trade and global supply chains, for large companies and SMEs. Notes, for example, that it can be easier to source from America or China the Paris Summit Declaration of 13 July 2008 on the Union for the Mediterraneanan from countries contiguous with the EU;
2008/11/14
Committee: INTA
Amendment 92 #

2008/2205(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Recalls the importance of access to agricultural markets for European SMEs and third country SMEs in the sector and calls on the Commission, in the context of the future multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations, not to give upto negotiate away the remaining tariff safeguards enjoyed by the sector and instead toin order to unlock a global deal in industrial goods and services, which together account for 97.8% of EU GDP, while guaranteeing that the most competitive and well-known European agricultural products are not unduly penalised by anti-competitive practices introduced by other WTO membersflourish. Regrets that agriculture has been a stumbling block in concluding a deal at the Doha Development Round;
2008/11/14
Committee: INTA
Amendment 105 #

2008/2205(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
33. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the development of the European SMEs through appropriate political and financial support as regards their modernisation and training for their management and workers; considers it essential that the EU take on full responsibility forderegulation and removal of barriers to entry; considers it essential that the EU and Member States should encourage the upholding of this wealth of knowledge, tradition and know-how which SMEs have built up and put to good use;
2008/11/14
Committee: INTA
Amendment 8 #

2008/2204(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas a distinction may be drawn between the delivery of content on physical carrier media and content digitally-encoded and transmitted electronically over the Internet and thus independently from physical carrier media, over fixed and wireless networks,
2008/12/10
Committee: INTA
Amendment 23 #

2008/2204(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital K
K. whereas the lack of central operational control, the anonymity and secrecy, the weak link between domain names and their actual content, the encryption, and proprietary networks pose further risks for the effectiveness of the taxation of online transactionhave contributed to growth in Internet services,
2008/12/10
Committee: INTA
Amendment 37 #

2008/2204(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Supports the unconditional respect for public morals and ethics of states and peoples, but regrets the increasingly abusive recourse to censorship by totalitarian regimes, in respect of online services and products which operates as a disguised trade barrier;
2008/12/10
Committee: INTA
Amendment 49 #

2008/2204(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the Commission's proposal to the WTO to update and expand the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products, also known as the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), setting a short time frame, in order to give an additional boost to trade in these products and to address the increasing challenges of technological development and convergence; supports the Commission's position that a change in ITA criteria can only be made on the basis of consensus amongst all ITA participants, as provided by the agreement itself, and not as a result of litigation by some members; regrets the Commission's interpretation of the current ITA, including with regard to set top boxes and multi functional printers;
2008/12/10
Committee: INTA
Amendment 61 #

2008/2204(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Believes that the participation of the least developed and other developing countries in international trade through the Internet has to be supported through increased investment primarily in basic infrastructure such as telecommunication networks and access devices; underlines the need for low cost and better quality provision of internet services; recognises that telecom liberalisation has led to increased investment in infrastructure, improved service and innovation;
2008/12/10
Committee: INTA
Amendment 63 #

2008/2204(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Recognises that in some countries, users access the Internet via mobile devices;
2008/12/10
Committee: INTA
Amendment 4 #

2008/2199(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Recalls that any standards harmonisation should not lead to the EU and USA creating intentional or unintentional barriers to third country trading partners wishing to access their markets;
2009/01/21
Committee: INTA
Amendment 27 #

2008/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that NTBs represent a major obstacle for EU companies in China and for Chinese and non-EU companies in the EU, particularly for SMEs;
2008/12/08
Committee: INTA
Amendment 31 #

2008/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Deplores continued state intervention in industrial policy and agricultural policy by both China and the EU and explicit discriminatory restrictions, such as unlimited state funds for export financing and limitations on the level of foreign ownership in certain sectors, that distort the Chinese market for EU companies; recognises that EU State aid, trade defence mechanisms and agricultural policy distort the market for Chinese and non-EU companies;
2008/12/08
Committee: INTA
Amendment 43 #

2008/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission to start seeking to resolve trade disputes through dialogue; notes that while trade defence instruments (TDIs) arcan be a tool to ensure fair conditions of trade between China and the EU, and is concerned abouthat the number of anti-dumping cases filed against Chinese producers is due to excessive EU protectionism;
2008/12/08
Committee: INTA
Amendment 66 #

2008/2171(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
38. Stresses that the new EU-China Partnership and Cooperation Agreement should aim to establish free and fair trade and should also include enforceable clause, which in itself will lead to improvements oin human rights, environmental, sustainable development and social issues;
2008/12/08
Committee: INTA
Amendment 9 #

2008/2153(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Whereas a significant factor in global food production is a lack of trade in foodstuffs. Notes that according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, global rice production increased in 2007 while trade in rice fell in the same year;
2008/10/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 12 #

2008/2153(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) and trade liberalisation would lead to a further increase instabilisation of food prices, and even higher price volatility, since a larges the market would be able to react quicker than top down governmental and supranational policies. A cut in agricultural supports in the developed countries would cause a dramatic fall in theirprices and an increase in production; stresses that those worst affectedith the most to gain from liberalisation and a reduction in subsidies and quotas would be the most vulnerable, food-importing developing countries;
2008/10/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 14 #

2008/2153(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes that export restrictions in poorer countries can lead to producers in these countries not being prepared to take advantage of surges in demand;
2008/10/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 19 #

2008/2153(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the potential winners of a successful DDA – i.e. the large food exporting countries (Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, etc.) – could not be regarded as reliable suppliers of staple foods, since they have a tendency to apply export restrictions in extreme market situations caused by high prices, to guarantee the food supply of their own population at reasonable prices; warns that these countries could only increase their production in a non-sustainable way, such as expanding their agricultural area at the expense of rainforests, overpasture, etc.;deleted
2008/10/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 22 #

2008/2153(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Insists that the EU must remain a main food supplier worldwide and guarantee its food security by maintaining the fundamental principles of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): stable prices, increased productivity by technological progress and better crops, and flexible buffer stocks to react to crises akin to those being faced today;deleted
2008/10/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 29 #

2008/2153(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Opposes those newWelcomes the measures resulting from the Health Check of the CAP that do not take account of the lwhich improve the EU´s capacity to resspons learnt from the current crisisd to changes in the market;
2008/10/13
Committee: INTA
Amendment 25 #

2008/2133(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital M a (new)
Ma. whereas the European Union is pursuing ongoing efforts to harmonise IPR enforcement measures, notably with a proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights (COM(2005)0276), and this process should not be circumvented by trade negotiations which are outside the scope of the normal EU decision-making processes,
2008/09/11
Committee: INTA
Amendment 26 #

2008/2133(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital N a (new)
Na. whereas it is also crucial to ensure that the development of IPR enforcement measures is accomplished in a manner that does not impede innovation or competition, undermine IPR limitations and exceptions or personal data, restrict the free flow of information, or unduly burden legitimate commerce,
2008/09/11
Committee: INTA
Amendment 27 #

2008/2133(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital O a (new)
Oa. whereas the European Union has demonstrated its commitment to effective and balanced enforcement of IPR by adopting a set of directives in this field following detailed scrutiny by the European Parliament and the Council over many years,
2008/09/11
Committee: INTA
Amendment 68 #

2008/2133(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that ACTA is not used as a vehicle for modifying the existing European IPR enforcement framework, but fully reflects the balance established by the different directives adopted by the European Parliament and Council in this field, and notably the provision of Recital 2 of the Directive 2004/48/EC;
2008/09/11
Committee: INTA
Amendment 69 #

2008/2133(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Recommends that an effective monitoring mechanism be introduced with regard to possible infringements of IPRs that are protected under the various agreements, coupled with trade incentive tools as part of a specific commitment to the fight against counterfeiting and piracy, such as including developing countries in the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) or granting special treatment to emerging countries in the application of trade defence measures;deleted
2008/09/11
Committee: INTA
Amendment 72 #

2008/2133(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that ACTA only concentrates on IPR enforcement measures and not on substantive IPR issues such as the scope of protection, limitations and exceptions, secondary liability or liability of intermediaries;
2008/09/11
Committee: INTA
Amendment 74 #

2008/2133(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Points out that the GSP regulation also provides for the possibility of temporarily suspending preferences for those partners which implement unfair trading practices; takes the view that in particularly serious cases, the use of such a deterrent should be taken into due consideration by the Commission; 1 OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p.7.deleted Or. en
2008/09/11
Committee: INTA
Amendment 76 #

2008/2133(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. In this context, calls on the Commission to ensure a continuous and transparent public consultation process, and support the benefits of such a process with all the negotiating countries, and to ensure that the European Parliament is regularly and thoroughly informed about the state of play of the negotiations;
2008/09/11
Committee: INTA
Amendment 91 #

2008/2133(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Regrets the failure of the Council to adopt the mark of origin legislation (made in.....), which would allow better traceability and detectability of the origin of imported products and hopes that the obstacles which have so far prevented it from entering into force may be overcome once and for all;deleted
2008/09/11
Committee: INTA
Amendment 7 #

2008/2122(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas the business of microcredit has innovative and subjective elements, such as alternative or nodifferent collateral requirements and non-traditional credit worthiness evaluation, and is often granted not only for profit-making, but serves also a cohesion purpose, by trying to (re-) integrate disadvantaged people into societyfor both profit and non-profit-making reasons,
2008/11/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 15 #

2008/2122(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas the current financial crisis demonstrates the disadvantages of government intervention in lending to credit-challenged individuals and the lack of transparency of some complex financial products and, at the same time, underlines the importance of institutions that focus their business on local development,
2008/11/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 20 #

2008/2122(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital N
N. whereas although private involvement should be assuredthe involvement of non-state providers should be encouraged due to their extent possible, publicisting expertise, state intervention in the microcredit business is necessaryshould not seek to crowd out non-state players,
2008/11/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 42 #

2008/2122(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recommendation 5 – point a
(a) The Commission should, while reviewing the de minimis rules, provide for: (i) the differentiation of the de minimis limits between Member States when it comes to financial support for microcredit providers; (ii) the abolition of the discrimination of de minimis aid granted to an undertaking in the agricultural sector if the aid is granted in connection with microcredit; and (iii) a reduction of the administrative burden if the aid is granted in connection with microcredit: (i) heed the lessons from the sub-prime crisis which was caused by encouraging lending to communities that were not deemed credit worthy; (ii) encourage both non-state and state lenders to offer microcredit to entrepreneurs but who nonetheless are unable to attract credit; (iii) discourage state aid where this reduces market transparency and competition and where accountability for loans is not obvious and could lead to artificial, high-risk loans.
2008/11/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 27 #

2008/0187(COD)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 33
(33) However, measures should be introduced to improve the transparency of retail prices for data roaming services, in particular to eliminate the problem of "bill shock" which constitutes a barrier to the smooth functioning of the internal market, and to provide roaming customers with the tools they need to monitor and control their expenditure on data roaming services. Equally, measures should be put in place to ensure that mobile operators who block applications or technologies which can be a substitute for, or alternative to, roaming services, such as WiFi, VoIP and Instant Messaging services, provide the consumer with this information, thus allowing the consumer to make an informed choice.
2009/02/04
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 34 #

2008/0187(COD)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 2 – point (a)
Regulation (EC) No 717/2007/EC
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
It lays down rules on the charges that may be levied by mobile operators for the provisMeasures should be put in place to ensure that mobile operators who block applications of international roaming services for vor technologies whiceh calls and SMS messages originating and terminating within the Community and for packet switched data communication services used by roaming customers while roaming on a mobile network in another Member State. It applies both to charges levied between network operators at wholesale level and, where appropriate, to charges levied by home providers at retail leveln be a substitute for, or alternative to, roaming services, such as WiFi, VoIP and messaging services, provide the consumer with this information, thus allowing the consumer to make an informed choice.
2009/02/04
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 69 #

2008/0187(COD)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 11
Regulation (EC) No 717/2007/EC
Article 6 a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Such personalised tariff information shall be delivered to the roaming customer's mobile telephone or other device, when the roaming customer enters a Member State or initiates a regulated data roaming service in a particular Member State other than that of his home network for the first time after having entered that Member State. It shall be provided without undue delay and free of charge, by an appropriate means adapted to facilitate its receipt and easy comprehension.
2009/02/04
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 72 #

2008/0187(COD)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 11
Regulation (EC) No 717/2007/EC
Article 6 a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
By 31 JulyDecember 2010 at the latest, theeach home providers shall provide a 'Cut-Off Limit' facility whereby they offer and keep available to all their roaming customers, free of charge, the possibility to specify in advance a maximum financial limit, expressed in the currency in which the roaming customer is billed, for their outstaoffer all of its roaming customers who are subject to a regulated data roaming tariff, free of charge and expressed in the currency in which the roaming customer is billed, a facility which provides real-time information on the customer's accumulated expenditure on that tariff, and which sets a limit of expenditure on that tariff, including provision for suspending chargesing for regulated data roaming services. To this end, the home provider shall offer to such customers one or more maximum financial limits for specified periods of use. One of these limits shall be close to, but not exceed, 50 EUR (excluding VAT) per one month.
2009/02/04
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 92 #

2008/0187(COD)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 11
Regulation (EC) No 717/2007/EC
Article 6 a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
When this Cut-Off Llimit is reached, the home provider shall immediately cease to provide and to charge the roaming customer withfor regulated data roaming services, unless and until the roaming customer requests the continued or renewed provision of those services.
2009/02/04
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 61 #

2008/0000(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that the European Union must phase out export refunds and harmful tariff escalation, as well as support developing countries in identifying and implementing rules regarding special products and effective safeguard mechanisms for the sustainability of their markets and production;
2008/02/28
Committee: INTA
Amendment 74 #

2008/0000(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Recognises that liberalisation of trade in agricultural food products and agricultural primary commodities has exposedoffered many new challenges and opportunities to small scale farmers in developing countries to many new challenges. As small scale farmers are largely comprised ofoften women, this can have a disproportionately positive or negative effect on them if they are not able to cope with the external competition;
2008/02/28
Committee: INTA
Amendment 81 #

2008/0000(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Takes note of the increased scientific and popular criticism regarding the benefits of large-scale agro fuel production as well as production of feed to livestock; warns that competition between land and food, on the one hand, and fuel and feed production, on the other, could further reduce access to food; therefore stresses that the directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources must include strict sustainability criteria that take into account the negative social and environmental impacts of agro fuel production and calls for a reduction of the amount of grains used for livestockeconomic and environmental benefits of agro fuel production; calls on the Commission to stimulate research and innovation on sustainable raw material supply through efficient resource extraction and development, material use and recovery of end of life;
2008/02/28
Committee: INTA
Amendment 87 #

2008/0000(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Renews its call on the Commission and the Council to promote Fair Trade, and other independently monitored trading initiatives contributing to raising social and environmental standards in supporting small and marginalised producers in developing countries, encourages public authorities in Europe to integrate Fair Trade and sustainability criteria into their public tenders and purchasing policifree and fair trade; requests the Commission to identify trade restrictions on raw materials, especially in emerging countries, with an emphasis on export taxes;
2008/02/28
Committee: INTA
Amendment 92 #

2008/0000(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Realises that climate change will hit hardest the communities that already face significant social and economic problems; understands that especially women are a particularly vulnerable group; encourages efforts to adapt on the local level through relevant financial and technical international support; calls on significant increases in additional funding to developing countries from the international community with the European Union as a leading example in the global efforts to combat climate change, which should also comprise trade and investment policies;
2008/02/28
Committee: INTA
Amendment 18 #

2007/2265(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes that if certain countries in ASEAN prove to be reticent about signing an FTA, then those countries that wish to participate should still be offered the choice of signing an FTA bilaterally;
2008/03/06
Committee: INTA
Amendment 29 #

2007/2265(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that a Trade and Sustainable Development Forum, made up of workers' and employers' organisations and civil society representatives, couldmay or may not play a valuable role in ensuring that greater market opening is accompanied by rising environmental and social standards over time as more wealth is created as a result;
2008/03/06
Committee: INTA
Amendment 31 #

2007/2265(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Proposes that a mechanism be established whereby recogniseda variety of workers' and employers' organisations as well as consumers and micro businesses should be able to submit requests for action which would be treated within a specified time period and could result in ongoing follow- up and review provisions, in order to maintain pressure against violations of workers' rightspay attention to workers', entrepreneurs' and consumers' rights; while recognising that less developed and developing countries cannot be expected to adopt similar standards to the EU until they are more developed;
2008/03/06
Committee: INTA
Amendment 36 #

2007/2265(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Gives priority to the effective enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) particularly forincluding design, sound recordings and other cultural goods; emphasises nevertheless that nothing in the agreement should limit the right of countries to regulatencourages the Commission to negotiate the opening of sectors - such as audiovisual - that play a key role into prevent excessive control by state broadcasters and to encourage unbiased and uncontrolled media, while still preserving cultural diversity;
2008/03/06
Committee: INTA
Amendment 39 #

2007/2265(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Believes that aspects of the agreement affecting public procurement should recognise the varying level of development of ASEAN members and respect the right of all participants to regulate public services, particularly those relating to basic needs, this, however, should not prevent private companies filling in the gap where the state fails to do so;
2008/03/06
Committee: INTA
Amendment 43 #

2007/2256(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Understands, to a certain extent, the reluctance of the Commission and the Member States to envisage, at this stage, new structures to ensure that the community customs legislation is applied in a uniform manner; calls, however, for consideration to be given to the possibility of creating an integrated coordination of national customs administrations with a view to moving towards a Community the process towards a Single Window in EU customs administration to be considered a priority, and for Member States to ensure that the deadmlinistration in charge of the customs uniones set out in the Modernised Customs Code and Paperless Customs proposals are met;
2008/04/07
Committee: INTA
Amendment 37 #

2007/2198(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas current TDIs do not sufficiently take into account the consumers, distributers, retailers and companies that have taken advantage of globalisation and global supply chains,
2008/03/26
Committee: INTA
Amendment 39 #

2007/2198(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas many retailers in the EU spread wealth across the world by sourcing globally so that they can pass on low prices to families on low incomes,
2008/03/26
Committee: INTA
Amendment 40 #

2007/2198(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H b (new)
Hb. whereas European competition law has proved highly successful in overseeing trade relations between individual Member States,
2008/03/26
Committee: INTA
Amendment 47 #

2007/2198(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the current TDI system in the EU needs to be updatedcompletely restructured in order to provide a suitable answer to potential unfair behaviour which affects international trade in a globalised world;
2008/03/26
Committee: INTA
Amendment 70 #

2007/2198(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that the current TDI system hafails to take into account the legitimate interest of European economic operators who need to take advantage of global supply chains to have access to raw- materials and tie-in products to stay competitive;
2008/03/26
Committee: INTA
Amendment 88 #

2007/2198(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on the Commission to recognise that many successful European companies begin their manufacturing in low cost economies in order to retain high value research, design and marketing jobs in the Union;
2008/03/26
Committee: INTA
Amendment 114 #

2007/2198(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to take into serious consideration the position of European importers, wholesalers and retailer, retailers, consumers and European producers reliant on global supply chains in TDI investigations;
2008/03/26
Committee: INTA
Amendment 142 #

2007/2198(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission to improve the quality of and access to non- confidential information provided by otherall parties during the investigation and improve access to confidential information in order to strengthen defence rights;
2008/03/26
Committee: INTA
Amendment 189 #

2007/2198(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35a. Urges the Commission to take greater account of consumers, retailers, distributers and European producers reliant on global supply chains when reviewing the Community interest test;
2008/03/26
Committee: INTA
Amendment 191 #

2007/2198(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 b (new)
35b. Asks the Commission to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of imposing no duties on dumped goods given the apparent benefits to consumers, retailers, wholesalers and producers reliant on global supply chains;
2008/03/26
Committee: INTA
Amendment 41 #

2007/0248(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 33
(33) The Authority can contribute to the enhanced level of protection for personal data and privacy in the Community by, among other things, providing expertise and advice, promoting the exchange of best practices in risk management, and establishing common methodologies for risk assessment. In particular, it should contribute to harmonisation of appropriate technical and organisational security measures.
2008/06/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 43 #

2007/0248(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 35
(35) Electronic communications service providers have to make substantial investments in order to combat unsolicited commercial communications (“spam”). They are also in a better position than end- users in possessing the knowledge and resources necessary to detect and identify spammers. Email service providers and other service providers should therefore have the possibility to initiate legal action against spammers for such infringements and thus defend the interests of their customers, as well as their own legitimate business interests.
2008/06/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 44 #

2007/0248(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 35 a (new)
(35a) Where location data other than traffic data can be processed, such data should only be processed when they are made anonymous or with the consent of the users or subscribers. They should be given clear and comprehensive information on the possibility to withdraw their consent for the processing of traffic data at any time.
2008/06/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 57 #

2007/0248(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 2 - point 3 - point b
Directive 2002/58/EC
Article 4 - paragraph 3
3. In case of a serious breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of or access to personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed in connection with the provision of publicly available communications services in the Community, which poses a reasonable threat to cause harm to users, the provider of publicly available electronic communications services shall, without undue delay, notify the subscriber concerned and the national regulatorycompetent authority of such a breach. The notification to the subscribernational regulatory authority shall at least describe the nature of the breach and recommend measures to mitigate its possible negative effects. The notification to the national regulatorycompetent authority shall, in addition, describe the consequences of and the measures taken by the provider to address the breach.
2008/06/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 69 #

2007/0248(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 2 - point 4 a (new)
Directive 2002/58/EC
Article 6 - paragraph 6a (new)
(4a) In Article 6 the following paragraph 6a is added: 6a. Traffic data may be processed by any natural or legal person for the purpose of implementing technical measures to ensure the security of a public electronic communication service, a public or private electronic communications network, an information society service, or related terminal and electronic communication equipment. Such processing must be restricted to what is strictly necessary for the purposes of such security activity.
2008/06/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 71 #

2007/0248(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 2 - point 4 c (new)
Directive 2002/58/EC
Article 9 - paragraph 1
(4c) Article 9(1) shall be replaced by the following: 1. Where location data other than traffic data, relating to users or subscribers of public communications networks or publicly available electronic communications services, can be processed, such data may only be processed when they are made anonymous, or with the prior consent of the users or subscribers to the extent and for the duration necessary for the provision of a value added service. The service provider must inform the users or subscribers, prior to obtaining their consent, of the type of location data other than traffic data which will be processed, of the purposes and duration of the processing and whether the data will be transmitted to a third party for the purpose of providing the value added service. Users or subscribers shall be given the possibility to withdraw their consent for the processing of location data other than traffic data at any time. Users or subscribers shall be given clear and comprehensive information on the possibility to withdraw their consent for the processing of traffic data at any time.
2008/06/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 76 #

2007/0248(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 2 - point 5 a (new)
Directive 2002/58/EC
Article 14 - paragraph 1
(5a) In Article 14, paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following: 1. In implementing the provisions of this Directive, Member States shall ensure, subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, that no mandatory requirements for specific technical features, including, without limitation, for the purpose of detecting, intercepting or preventing infringement of intellectual property rights by users, are imposed on terminal or other electronic communication equipment which could impede the placing of equipment on the market and the free circulation of such equipment in and between Member States.
2008/06/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 77 #

2007/0248(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 2 - point 5 b (new)
Directive 2002/58/EC
Article 14 - paragraph 3
(5a) In Article 14, paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following: 3. Where required, measures may be adopted to ensure that terminal equipment is constructed in a way that is compatible with the right of users to protect and control the use of their personal data, in accordance with Directive 1999/5/EC and Council Decision 87/95/EEC of 22 December 1986 on standardisation in the field of information technology and communications. Such measures shall respect the principle of technology neutrality
2008/06/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 85 #

2007/0248(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 2 - point 7 a (new)
Directive 2002/58/EC
Article 18
(7a) Article 18 shall be replaced by the following: 18. The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council, not later than two years after the date set out in [transposition date] referred to in Article 17(1), a report on the application of this Directive and its impact on economic operators and consumers, in particular as regards the provisions on unsolicited communications, breach notifications, and the use of personal data by third parties - public or private - for purposes not covered by this Directive, taking into account the international environment. For this purpose, the Commission may request information from the Member States, which shall be supplied without undue delay. Where appropriate, the Commission shall submit proposals to amend this Directive, taking account of the results of that report, any changes in the sector and the Treaty of Lisbon, in particular the new competences in matters of data protection as laid down in Article 16, and any other proposal it may deem necessary in order to improve the effectiveness of this Directive.
2008/06/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 88 #

2007/0248(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 - point 12
Directive 2002/22/EC
Article 20 − paragraph 2 − point h
(h) the action that might be taken by the undertaking providing connection and/or services in reaction to significant breaches of security or integrity incidents or threats and vulnerabilities.
2008/06/10
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 105 #

2007/0248(COD)


Recital 22
(22) Given the increasing importance of electronic communications for consumers and businesses, users should be fully informed of the traffic management policies of the service and/or network provider with which they conclude the contract. Where there is a lackany relevant limitations imposed on the use of efflective competition, national regulatory authorities should use the remedies available to them under Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) to ensure that users’ access to particular types of content or application is not unreasonably restrictedronic communications services by the service and/or network provider with which they conclude the contract.
2009/03/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 138 #

2007/0248(COD)


Article 1 – point 13
Directive 2002/22/EC
Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. In order to prevent theaddress unjustified degradation of service and the hindering or slowing down of traffic over networks, Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to set minimum quality of service requirements on an undertaking or undertakings providing public communications networks.
2009/03/16
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 57 #

2007/0247(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 31
(31) It is necessary to strengthen the powers of the Member States vis-à-vis holders of rights of way to ensure the entry or roll out of new network in an environmentally responsible way and independently of any obligation on an operator with significant market power to grant access to its electronic communications network. National regulatory authorities should be able to impose, on a case-by-case basis, the sharing of ducts, masts, and antennas, the entry into buildings and a better coordination of civil works, where there is a lack of infrastructure competition. Improving facility sharing can significantly improve competition and lower the overall financial and environmental cost of deploying electronic communications infrastructure for undertakings.
2008/05/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 59 #

2007/0247(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 33
(33) Where there is a need to agree on a common set of security requirements, power shouldmay, after agreement with the national regulatory authorities, be conferred on the Commission to adopt technical implementing measures to achieve an adequate level of security of electronic communications networks and services in the internal market where industry-led self-regulatory initiatives have not achieved an adequate level of security in the internal market in one or more Member States. The Authority should contribute to the harmonisation of appropriate technical and organisational security measures by providing expert advice. National regulatory authorities should have the power to issue binding instructions relating to the technical implementing measures adopted pursuant to the Framework Directive. In order to perform their duties, they should have the power to investigate and to impose penalties in cases of non-compliance.
2008/05/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 76 #

2007/0247(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 - point 14
Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive)
Article 13a - paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that undertakings providing public communications networks take all necessaryppropriate steps to ensure the integrity of their networks so as to ensure the continuity of supply of services provided over those networks. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities regularly consult with undertakings in order to ensure that appropriate steps have been taken to ensure security or integrity.
2008/05/16
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 78 #

2007/0247(COD)

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 - point 14
Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive)
Article 13a - paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that, where appropriate, undertakings providing public communications networks or publicly available electronic communications services notify the national regulatory authority of any serious breach of security or integrity that had a significant impact on the operation of networks or services. Where appropriate, the national regulatory authority concerned shall inform the national regulatory authorities in other Member States and the Authority. Where disclosure of the breach is in the public interest, the national regulatory authority may inform the public. Every three months, in consultation with the undertaking concerned. Every year, the national regulatory authority shall submit a summary report to the Commission on the notifications received and the action taken in accordance with this paragraph. National regulatory authorities shall determine the definition of "serious breach" in consultation with the national data protection authority and electronic communication service providers.
2008/05/16
Committee: LIBE