ESMA LIBRARY

The ESMA Library contains all ESMA documents. Please use the search and filter options to find specific documents.
174
DOCUMENTS

REFINE YOUR SEARCH

Sections

Type of document

Your filters
MiFID - Investor Protection X MiFID - Secondary Markets X Short Selling X Joint Committee X Decision X Opinion X Letter X
Reset all filters

Pages

Date Ref. Title Section Type Download Info Summary Related Documents Translated versions
04/01/2011 10-1541 3L3 Committees Joint Letter on the European Commission’s Green Paper on Audit: Lessons learnt from the Crisis , Letter PDF
144.8 KB
04/01/2011 10-1541 Annex 1 3L3 Committees Joint Letter on the European Commission’s Green Paper on Audit: Lessons learnt from the Crisis- CESR annex , Letter PDF
159.33 KB
04/01/2011 10-1541 Annex 2 3L3 Committees Joint Letter on the European Commission’s Green Paper on Audit: Lessons learnt from the Crisis- CEBS annex , Letter PDF
120.57 KB
04/01/2011 10-1541 Annex 3 3L3 Committees Joint Letter on the European Commission’s Green Paper on Audit: Lessons learnt from the Crisis- CEIOPS annex , Letter PDF
87.69 KB
20/01/2011 2011/16 Letter to the SEC- Rulemakings on Registration of non-resident Swap Data Repositories Letter PDF
30.66 KB
20/01/2011 2011/4 Letter to the CFTC- Rulemakings on Registration of foreign Swap Data Repositories and Foreign Boards of Trade Letter PDF
34.38 KB
27/07/2012 2012/476 Reply of ESMA to the European Commission’s Green Paper on Shadow Banking Letter PDF
175.94 KB
01/11/2012 2012/715 ESMA Opinion on emergency measure by Spanish CNMV under Section 1 of Chapter V of Regulation No. 236/2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps Opinion PDF
79.2 KB
ESMA Opinion ESMA is adopting the following opinion on the notified measure, on the basis of Article 27(2) of Regulation 236/2012 on Short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps: On the adverse events or developmentsESMA considers that there are adverse developments which constitute a serious threat to financial stability and to market confidence in Spain. On the appropriateness and proportionality of the measure ESMA considers that the measure is appropriate and proportionate to address the above-mentioned threats that persist in Spain. On the duration of the measureESMA considers that the duration of the measure is justified and appreciates the CNMV’s statement in its notification of intent whereby the measure may be lifted during the period of enforcement of the measure, if considered necessary.
01/11/2012 2012/717 ESMA Opinion on emergency measure by the Greek HCMC under Section 1 of Chapter V of Regulation No. 236/2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps Opinion PDF
95.45 KB
ESMA Opinion ESMA is adopting the following opinion on the notified measure, on the basis of Article 27(2) of Regulation 236/2012 on Short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps: On the adverse events or developmentsESMA considers that there are adverse developments which constitute a serious threat to financial stability and to market confidence in Greece. On the appropriateness and proportionality of the measure ESMA considers that the measure is appropriate and proportionate to address the above-mentioned threats that persist in Greece. On the duration of the measureESMA considers that the duration of the measure is justified and appreciates the HCMC’s statement in its notification of intent whereby the measure may be lifted during the period of enforcement of the measure, if considered necessary.
29/01/2013 2013/149 Emergency measure by the Greek HCMC under Section 1 of Chapter V of Regulation No 236/2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps Opinion PDF
96.52 KB
14/03/2013 ESA/2013/007 Possible Framework for the Regulation of the Production and Use of Indices Serving as Benchmarks in Financial and other Contracts , Letter PDF
91.91 KB
30/04/2013 2013/542 Emergency measure by the Greek HCMC under Section 1 of Chapter V of Regulation No 236/2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps , Opinion PDF
96.41 KB
24/06/2013 BoA 2013-008 Board of Appeal Decision , Decision PDF
242.72 KB
The joint Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, ESMA and EIOPA) has published today its decision in an appeal brought by an Estonian company against a decision of the EBA. It concerned the question whether the suitability of the managers of a significant branch of a bank may be a matter within EU law, and not just national law. Allowing the appeal, the Board of Appeal interpreted Directive No. 2006/48/EC consistently with the EBA Guidelines on the assessment of the suitability of members of the management body and key function holders. It came to the conclusion that the “fit and proper” requirement is not restricted to the persons who direct the business of the credit institution. The matter therefore was within the EBA’s powers of investigation. Although the appellant criticised the way in which the EBA dealt with its complaint, the Board of Appeal made it clear that it did not accept that criticism. It considered that the EBA dealt with the complaint in an appropriate manner. The ground on which the appeal was allowed was one of interpretation of the applicable legal provisions. The case was remitted to the EBA to adopt the appropriate decision in accordance with the Board of Appeal’s findings. This is for information only. The decision consists of the signed Decision only. For any enquiries, please contact EIOPA’s Press Office: Anzhelika Mayer Tel.: +49 69 9511 1968
13/11/2013 2013/1561 Review of the European System on Financial Supervision (ESFS) Letter PDF
141.48 KB
18/12/2013 ESA/2013/035 Joint Opinion-Review on the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) Opinion PDF
142.63 KB
Joint Opinion-Review on the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB)
13/01/2014 BoA 2013-014 Board of Appeal Decision Global Private Rating Company v. ESMA , Decision PDF
361.96 KB
Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities dismisses appeal made by a refused CRA-applicant against ESMA On 10 January 2014, the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities handed down its decision on an appeal by the appellant, Global Private Rating Company “Standard Rating” Ltd, against the refusal by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to register it as a credit rating agency. This is the first appeal against a decision by ESMA refusing an applicant registration as a credit rating agency. The Board of Appeal unanimously decided that the appeal should be dismissed, and that ESMA’s refusal decision should be confirmed. It stated that it accepted the appellant’s point that the registration of a credit rating agency by ESMA is a new process, and recognised that the procedures will to an extent take time fully to work out. Nevertheless, because of the responsibilities placed on credit rating agencies and their importance in the financial system generally, it considered that the onus must be on an applicant to satisfy ESMA that the relevant requirements are met. The application and its contents must be very clear, and it is not ESMA’s responsibility as regulator to remedy deficiencies.
28/01/2014 2013/1941 Letter to Jonathan Faull (EC) regarding draft technical standards , Letter PDF
44.25 KB
07/02/2014 2014/146 MiFID practices for firms selling complex products , Opinion PDF
122.37 KB
27/03/2014 2014/332 Structured Retail Products- Good practices for product governance arrangements , Opinion PDF
203.1 KB
Legal basis 1.    Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 (ESMA Regulation)  sets out the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) scope of action, tasks and powers which include “enhancing customer protection”, and “foster[ing] investor protection”.  2.    In order to continue delivering on this investor protection statutory objective, ESMA is issuing this opinion on certain aspects linked to the manufacturing and distribution of structured retail products (SRP). This opinion takes into account relevant work done in this field both at European and interna-tional level.  3.    This opinion is without prejudice to the requirements for the provision of investment services and activities established in the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID)  and its implementing measures (notably, Directive 2006/73/EC), the regulatory developments arising from the MiFID review or existing product rules that may apply to SRPs.  4.    ESMA’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on Article 29(1) (a) of the ESMA Regulation. In accordance with Article 44(1) of the ESMA Regulation, the Board of Supervisors has adopted this opinion. Background 5.    In its July 2013 report on ‘Retailisation in the EU’ , ESMA highlighted that, from a consumer protec-tion perspective, retail investors may face difficulties in understanding the drivers of risks and returns of structured products. If retail investors do not properly understand the risk and reward profile of structured products, and if the products are not properly assessed against the risk appetite of retail investors, retail investors might be exposed to unexpected losses and this might lead to complaints, reputational risks for manufacturers and distributors, and a loss of confidence in the regulatory framework and, more broadly, in financial markets. 6.    In 2013, ESMA mapped the measures adopted in the EU Member States in relation to complex products in order to identify issues and to better understand the rationale behind national initiatives (by looking at similarities and differences in the various approaches, and reviewing how complexity has been treated in the different EU Members States). 7.    As a result, ESMA has developed a broad set of non-exhaustive examples of good practices, attached as Annex 1 hereto, illustrating arrangements that firms - taking into account the nature, scale and complexity of their business - could put in place to improve their ability to deliver on investor protection regarding, in particular, (i) the complexity of the SRPs they manufacture or distribute, (ii) the nature and range of the investment services and activities undertaken in the course of that business, and (iii) the type of investors they target. These good practices should also be a helpful tool for competent authorities in carrying out their supervisory action. Opinion 8.    ESMA considers that sound product governance arrangements are fundamental for investor protec-tion purposes, and can reduce the need for product intervention actions by competent authorities. 9.    ESMA considers that, when supervising firms manufacturing or distributing an SRP, competent authorities should promote, in their supervisory approaches, the examples of good practices for firms set out in Annex 1 hereto. 10.    Although the good practices set out in Annex 1 hereto focus on structured products sold to retail investors, ESMA considers that they may also be a relevant reference for other types of financial in-struments (such as asset-backed securities, or contingent convertible bonds), as well as when financial instruments are being sold to professional clients. 11.    The exposure to risk is an intrinsic feature of investment products. The good practices set out in Annex 1 refer to product governance arrangements and do not (and cannot) aim at removing investment risk from products.
17/07/2014 2014/C1/02 Board of Appeal Decision , Decision PDF
368.94 KB
The Joint Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities (the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority) published its decision in an appeal brought by SV Capital OÜ, an Estonian company, against a decision of the EBA. This was the second appeal to be considered by the Board of Appeal in this matter between the same parties concerning the question whether the suitability of the managers of a significant branch of a bank raised a question of Union law. Following the Board of Appeal’s affirmative decision of 24 June 2013, the appellant requested the EBA to initiate an investigation against the Estonian and Finnish Financial Supervision Authorities because their alleged failure to take action in respect of individuals in the Estonian branch of Nordea Bank Finland PLC whom it was alleged were not fit and proper persons to be key function holders in the bank. The EBA decided that it would not initiate an investigation.  The Board of Appeal decided that the EBA had been right to raise the matter with the national supervisors, but that having done so, it was entitled to take no further action in the light of their responses. The Board accordingly dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the EBA’s decision.

Pages