15 Amendments of Thierry CORNILLET related to 2017/2253(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas equivalence, and passporting rights and mutual recognition are distinctly different concepts, providing different rights to and obligations for financial institutions and market participants;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
G a. whereas it is necessary for the purposes of the Union's financial stability to fully consider the interconnectedness between third country markets and the EU's single market;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. NoteRecalls that the Member States may not always entirely support international cooperkey objective of EU legislation owing to concerns about the protection of national interests anhe area of financial services is to safeguard the finherent incentive to shift risks to other jurisdictancial stability of the Unions;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that, in many cases, the granting of equivalence is a unilateral and discretionary decision taken by the EU and is not applied in a reciprocal manner by third countries; considers that international cooperation could be better advanced by dint of international agreements negotiated between the EU and third countries; notes that, unlike equivalence, international agreements can provide mutual access between the EU and third countries for financial institutions and for the mutual recognition of rules;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. emphasises that the EU should encourage other jurisdictions to grant access to their financial markets to EU market participants;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises that one of the key objectives for equivalence is to promote regulatory convergence on the basis of international standards, while maintaining the ability to safeguard the stability of EU financial markets;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that, as it stands, the EU’s process for granting equivalence lacks certainty and sufficient transparency, and requires a structured and practical framework outlining clear procedurin some cases clarity, with regards to procedures underlying the recognition of third countries supervisory frameworks; takes the view that guiding principles should underline the EU's equivalence regimes, whereby the process would be more transparent and provide greater clarity for third countries;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that equivalence decisions and international agreements should be objective, proportionate, risk- sensitive and be taken in the best interests of the Union and its citizens;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that the Commission has the right to withdraw equivalence decisions, and believes that Parliament should be consulted in a timely manner bethe Commission should explain in detail to Parliament the reasons fore such a withdrawal decision isbeing taken; calls for the introduction of clear procedures and timelines governing the adoption, withdrawal or suspension of equivalence decisions;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Is concerned that there is no consistent framework for ongoing supervision of an equivalent third country’s regime; considers that the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) should be equipped with the power to monitor regulatory developments in third countries assess the effect such developments may have based on, inter alia, the interconnectedness of the third countries' financial system with that of the Union, and demands that Parliament should be kept informed of ongoing regulatory developments and monitoring thereof in third countries;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Commission to adopt at least a set of guiding principles, and if appropriate, a legislative act establishing a clear frameworkapproach for a transparent, coherent and consistent application of equivalence procedures which introduces a standardised process for the determination of equivalence;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for equivalence decisions to be reviewed at least once every three years by the relevant ESA and for such reviews to be made public; highlights that such reviews should be based on, at least, the relevant legislation and its implementation, as well as the relevant supervisory practices in the third country concerned;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Calls furthermore on the Commission to make ad hoc assessments of equivalence provisions based on reasoned requests from the Parliament, Council, ESAs, and where relevant the ECB, NCAs and the ESRB;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls the importance of National Competent Authorities (NCAs) in the authorisation process for financial institutions that wish to delegate part of their portfolio management or risk management to service providers in third countries where the regulatory regime is comparableat the ESAs must have an ever more important role in the analysis of third country supervisory frameworks as the EU continues to build towards the completion of Capital Markets Union; calls, in this respect, for the relevant ESAs to that ofve the EU; considers that NCAs have sufficient technical knowledge and expertise to properly assess delegation approval requests; encourages the ESAs to develop further cooperation between capacity and powers to collect, collate and analyse data; recalls the importance of close cooperation between ESAs and National Competent Authorities (NCAs) in order to share best practice concerning regulatory cooperation and activities with third countries;