REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|Date||Ref.||Title||Section||Type||Download||Info||Summary||Related Documents||Translated versions|
|22/06/2012||2012/382||MiFID Q&A in the area of investor protection and intermediaries||MiFID - Investor Protection||Q&A||PDF
|06/07/2012||2012/387||Final report Guidelines on certain aspects of the MiFID suitability requirements||Guidelines and Technical standards, MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
|24/06/2013||BoA 2013-008||Board of Appeal Decision||Joint Committee, Board of Appeal||Decision||PDF
|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|
|13/01/2014||BoA 2013-014||Board of Appeal Decision Global Private Rating Company v. ESMA||Joint Committee, Board of Appeal||Decision||PDF
|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.|
|17/07/2014||2014/C1/02||Board of Appeal Decision||Joint Committee, Board of Appeal||Decision||PDF
|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.|
|02/12/2014||2014/BOA/05||Decision by the ESA BoA concerning Investor Protection Europe sprl||Joint Committee, Board of Appeal||Decision||PDF
|The Joint Board of Appeal of the ESAs decides on the inadmissibility of an appeal brought by IPE sprl, a company based in Brussels, against a decision by ESMAThe Joint Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities published today its decision in an appeal brought by Investor Protection Europe (IPE) sprl, a company based in Brussels, against a decision of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) of 10 June 2014 not to initiate an investigation under Article 17 of the ESMA Regulation regarding an alleged breach of Union law by the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier of Luxembourg. The Board of Appeal unanimously decided that the appeal was inadmissible, and in the light of that decision, did not consider the substance of IPE’s complaint.|
|25/02/2015||2015/494||Best Execution under MiFID||MiFID - Investor Protection, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has conducted a peer review on how national regulators (national competent authorities or NCAs) supervise and enforce the MiFID provisions relating to investment firms’ obligation to provide best execution, or obtain the best possible result, for their clients when executing their orders. ESMA found that the level of implementation of best execution provisions, as well as the level of convergence of supervisory practices by NCAs, is relatively low. In order to address this situation a number of improvements were identified, including: • prioritisation of best execution as a key conduct of business supervisory issue; • the allocation of sufficient resources to best execution supervision; and • a more proactive supervisory approach to monitoring compliance with best execution requirements, both desk-based and onsite inspections. The review was conducted on the basis of information provided by 29 NCAs and complemented by on-site visits to the NCAs of France, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland and Spain.|
|14/08/2015||BOA/2015/001||Decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities given under Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and the Board of Appeal’s Rules of Procedure (BOA 2012 002)||Joint Committee, Board of Appeal||Decision||PDF
|30/11/2015||2015/1783||Final Report on complex debt instruments and structured deposits||MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
|17/12/2015||2015/1886||Final report on guidelines for the assessment of knowledge and competence||MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
Reasons for publication
1. Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II) states that Member States shall require investment firms to ensure and demonstrate to competent authorities on request that natural persons giving investment advice or providing information about financial instruments, investment services or ancillary services to clients on behalf of the investment firm possess the necessary knowledge and competence to fulfil their obligations under Article 24 and Article 25 .
2. The European Securities and Markets Authority is required by Article 25(9) of MiFID II to develop – by 3 January 2016 - guidelines specifying criteria for the assessment of knowledge and competence of investment firms’ personnel. The guidelines will come into effect on 3 January 2017.
3. In accordance with Article 16(2) of the ESMA Regulation, a consultation was launched on 23 April 2015. The Consultation Paper (CP) set out draft ESMA guidelines for the assessment of knowledge and competence of individuals in investment firms providing investment advice or information about financial instruments, investment services or ancillary services to clients on behalf of the investment firm. The consultation period closed on 10 July 2015.
4. ESMA received 80 responses. The answers received on the CP are available on ESMA’s website unless respondents requested otherwise.
5. As provided by Article 16 of the ESMA Regulation, ESMA also sought the advice of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group’s (SMSG).
6. This paper contains summaries of responses received and feedback statements provided by ESMA. ESMA recommends that this report should be read together with the CP published on 23 April 2015 to have a complete understanding of the rationale for the guidelines. The final guidelines presented in Annex VI take into account the comments and suggestions raised by respondents.
7. Section II briefly summarises the feedback to the CP and the main responses from ESMA.
8. Section III contains the Annexes: Annex I provides the Summary of questions, Annex II contains the legislative mandate, Annex III reports the cost-benefit analysis, Annex IV reports the Opinion of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group, Annex V details the feedback on the CP, Annex VI sets out the final text of the guidelines and Annex VII describes some illustrative examples of the application of certain aspects of the guidelines.
9. The final guidelines in Annex VI will be translated into the official EU languages and published on the ESMA website. The publication of the translations will trigger a two-month period during which National Competent Authorities (NCAs) must notify ESMA whether they comply or intend to comply with the guidelines.
|22/12/2015||2015/1861||Final report- Guidelines on cross-selling practices||MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
|26/01/2016||BOA 2016 001||BoA 2016- 001 (Decision Kluge v EBA)||Board of Appeal||Decision||PDF
|07/04/2016||2016/584||Suitability Peer Review- Final Report||MiFID - Investor Protection, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|07/04/2016||2016/585||Suitability Peer Review- Annex||MiFID - Investor Protection, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF
|10/11/2016||2016-1560||Final Report on Technical Advice under the Benchmarks Regulation||Benchmarks||Final Report||PDF
|31/03/2017||ESMA35-36-794||Q&A Relating to the provision of CFDs and other speculative products to retail investors under MiFID||MiFID - Investor Protection||Q&A||PDF
|02/06/2017||ESMA35-43-620||Final report on guidelines on MiFID II product governance requirements||MiFID - Investor Protection||Final Report||PDF
|02/06/2017||ESMA70-145-81||Final report on draft RTS on cooperation with third countries under BMR||Benchmarks||Final Report||PDF
|20/07/2017||BoA 2017 01||FinancialCraft Analytics Sp. z o.o. vs ESMA BoA Decision||Board of Appeal, Credit Rating Agencies||Decision||PDF
|29/11/2017||ESMA42-111-4285||Peer review on certain aspects of the compliance function under Mi-FID I||MiFID - Investor Protection, Supervisory convergence||Final Report||PDF