BETA

20 Amendments of Roberto GUALTIERI related to 2017/2253(INI)

Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that since the financial crisis, the EU has developed its financial regulation through wide-ranging reforms and implementation of international standards; welcomes the increased regulatory and supervisory cooperation between the EU and third countries; recognises that this has contributed to improveding global consistency in financial regulation and has made the EU more resilient to global financial shocks;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the EU should promote global financial regulatory reforms aimed at reducing systemic risk and should work towards an open, integrated and resilient financial system that supports sustainable economic growth, job creation and investment; stresses that any framework of international regulatory and supervisory cooperation should safeguard financial stability in the Union and respect its regulatory and supervisory regime and standards and their application;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the Member States may not always entirely support international cooperation owing to concerns about the protection of national interests and the inherent incentive to shift risks to other jurisdictions;deleted
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that several EU legislative acts contain specific provisions for regulatory cooperation with third countries, including the possibility to conclude intcoopernational agreements related to supervision and to grant ‘equivalence’;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that, in many cases, the granting of equivalence is a unilateral decision taken by the EU and is not appli equivalence mechanisms and decisions are defined and implemented ion 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 thunilateral basis by the European Union and are based on EU standards, and underlines that for this reason it allows the EU to provide broader market access than international agreements; stresses that only the Single Market can provide mutual recognition of rules and of supervision;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Recognises that the EU’s equivalence regime is an integral part of its regulatory framework for financial services and can offer several benefits, such as: safeguard of financial stability, level playing field, the removal of unnecessary regulatory barriers, increased competition, increased capital flows into the EU, and more instruments and investment choices for EU firms and investors, and stronger investor and consumer protection;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates that equivalence decisions do not grant financial institutions comparable rights to passport financialallow third countries entities to provide services throughout the EU, but recognises that they may give third- country institutions limited access to the single market for certain productinternal market in a limited number of cases;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises that one of the key objectives for equivalence is to promotallow appropriate access to financial services markets, while pregulatory convergence on the basis of international standardsserving financial stability, the integrity of the Single Market and the autonomy of decision making in the European Union, and underlines that equivalence can advance international cooperation in a significant way and that it ties in well with regulatory cooperation;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that, as it stands, the EU’s process for granting equivalence lacks certainty and sufficientwould gain with increased transparency, and requires a structured and practical framework outlining clear procedurecommunication with market participants;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Questions the rationale behind equivalence decisions typically taking the form of implementing acts; insists that the process for granting equivalence to a third country in thConsiders that equivalence decisions, including their withdrawal, require appropriate parea of financial services should always be scrutinised by Parliament and that, owing to their political nature, and for the purposes of greater transparency, these decisions should be taken by means of delegated acliamentary scrutiny; stands ready to discuss with the Commission necessary arrangements;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that the Commission’s decision of 21 December 2017 to grant equivalence to Swiss share trading venues, limited to a 12-month period with the possibility of an extension provided sufficient progress is made on a common institutional framework – was primarily political, and used to gain leverage in a separate policy matter; deplores the fact that Parliament had no input into this decision;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that the Commission has the right to withdraw equivalence decisions, and believes that Parliament should be consulted in a timely manner before such a withdrawal decision is taken; calls for the introduction of clear procedures and timelines governing the adoption, withdrawal or suspension of equivalence decisions;deleted
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Is concerned that there is no consistent framework for ongoing supervision of an equivalent third country’s regimeConsiders that reviewed and improved equivalence mechanisms would enhance the efficacy of this tool; welcomes the ongoing review of equivalence provisions in a number of legislative proposals; considers that the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) should be equipped with the powerable to monitor regulatory developments in third countries and demands that Parliament should be kept duly informed of ongoing regulatory monitoring in third countries;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Commission to adopt a legislative act establishing a clear framework for aimprove the transparentcy, coherentce and consistentcy of the application of equivalence procedures which introduces a standardised process for the determination of, including by providing a thorough assessment of third country legal frameworks; calls on the Commission to assess the benefit of introducing an application process and of adopting a legal framework for a more structured and consistent process for equivalence procedures;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of introducing an application process for granting equivalence which could be opened to third countries on a date specified in a given piece of legislation;deleted
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that close consideration should be given to the equivalence regime between the EU and high-impact third countries in order to develop stable and resilient regulatory relationships with those countries which have close financial links with theimproved and reviewed equivalence mechanisms represent appropriate tools for addressing the situation after the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
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 comparable to that of the EU; considers that NCAs have sufficient technical knowledge and exwelcomes the ongoing review of the ESAs to improve the supertvise to properly assess delegation approval requests; encourages the ESAs to develop further cooperation between NCAs in order to share best practice concerning regulatory cooperation and activities with third countrieion of the delegation, outsourcing or risk transfer arrangements by financial institutions;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
The EU’s role in global standard-setting for financial regulation
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Calls to that end, moreover, for the EU-US Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue to be upgraded to include more regular meetings; stresses that the EU should push to have a financial services chapter as part of any potential future EU-US trade agreement;
2018/05/04
Committee: ECON