8 Amendments of Sven GIEGOLD related to 2016/2188(DEC)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Acknowledges that, in the opinion of the Court of Auditors, ESMA’'s transactions underlying the annual accounts for the year ended 31 December 2015 are legal and regular in all material aspects; deplorunderlines that ESMA’'s follow-up on the Court’'s comments made in its 2011 and 2012 reports have still not been fully implemented;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that, while ensuring that all assignments are carried out in full, ESMA should carefully adhere to the tasks assigned to it by the Union legislator and should not seek to de facto broaden its mandate beyond those assignments; emphasises, in this respect, that, where possible, ESMA, and that it needs to pay particular attention to the principle of proportionality;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the initiative reducingTakes note of the 2015 budget reduction through two subsequent budget amendments, thereby using Union funds rationally; believes that ESMA’s budget still has rationalisation potential; stresses, therefore, that any potential increases in ESMA’s means should be accompanied by adequate rationalisation measuresis of the opinion that a gradual increase of the means available to the ESAs commensurate with the increasing amount of work which they are legally mandate to deliver as a part of the Banking Union single rulebook is required while ensuring an appropriate level of prioritisation and efficiency as regards resource allocation; stresses that more resources should be deployed to control the effective enforcement of EU law and investor protection;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Believes that ESMA should fully use the leeway provided by its mandate to effectively foster regulatory proportionality;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Notes with concern that ESMA does not fully exercise all its prerogatives established in its legal framework and in particular when it comes to breaches of EU law, peer reviews, binding mediation and consumer protection; underlines that ESMA should make sure that resources are maximised in order to fully fulfil its legal mandate;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. ConcludesIs of the opinion that ESMA’'s financing arrangement is to be reviewed; calls on the Commission to examine the possibility of modifying the current financing arrangement by introducing additional appropriately and proportionately calibrated fees for market participants, possibly replacing in part the contributions of national competent authorities;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the minutes of meetings of the Board of Supervisors and of the Stakeholder Groups, which are publicly available, should be published more swiftly to reduce the current time lag of up to three months between meetings and disclosure of minutes and that they should provide better insight into the discussions held, members’' positions and voting behaviour; believes that outreach to the general public could also be enhanced by web streaming events.; deplores the de facto unequal accessibility of documents and information from internal meetings to different stakeholders, including the European Parliament;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Welcomes that ESMA has already established a whistle-blower channel thereby taking a frontrunner position among the ESAs;