ESMA LIBRARY

The ESMA Library contains all ESMA documents. Please use the search and filter options to find specific documents.
290
DOCUMENTS

REFINE YOUR SEARCH

Sections

Type of document

Your filters
MiFID - Investor Protection X Innovation and Products X IAS Regulation X MiFID II: Transparency Calculations and DVC X Board of Supervisors X Joint Committee X Transparency X Brexit X Market Integrity X Prospectus X Market Abuse X Guidelines and Technical standards X Post Trading X Q&A X Final Report X Statement X
Reset all filters

Pages

Date Ref. Title Section Type Download Info Summary Related Documents Translated versions
04/12/2019 ESMA71-99-1254 Acting Chair CCP Supervisory Committee , , , Statement PDF
82.87 KB
18/12/2014 2014/1560 Advice- Investment-based crowdfunding Final Report PDF
482.2 KB
Crowdfunding is a means of raising finance for projects from ‘the crowd’ often by means of an internet-based platform through which project owners ‘pitch’ their idea to potential backers, who are typically not professional investors.  It takes many forms, not all of which involve the potential for a financial return.  ESMA’s focus is on crowdfunding which involves investment, as distinct from donation, non-monetary reward or loan agreement.Crowdfunding is relatively young and business models are evolving. EU financial services rules were not designed with the industry in mind.  Within investment-based crowdfunding a range of different operational structures are used so it is not straightforward to map crowdfunding platforms’ activities to those regulated under EU legislation. Member States and NCAs have been working out how to treat crowdfunding, with some dealing with issues case-by-case, some seeking to clarify how crowdfunding fits into existing rules and others introducing specific requirements.To assist NCAs and market participants, and to promote regulatory and supervisory convergence, ESMA has assessed typical investment-based crowdfunding business models and how they could evolve, risks typically involved for project owners, investors and the platforms themselves and the likely components of an appropriate regulatory regime. ESMA then prepared a detailed analysis of how the typical business models map across to the existing EU legislation, set out in sections 1 to 6 of this document.
12/09/2013 2013/08/ODRG Agreed Understandings to Resolving Cross-border Conflicts, Inconsistencies, Gaps and Duplicative Requirements Final Report PDF
442.48 KB
22/06/2018 ESMA 70-145-466 EC Annex to ESMA response to the EC consultation on supervisory reporting fitness check Statement PDF
386.78 KB
09/03/2016 ESAs/2016/22 Annexes to RTS on Risk Mitigation LegisWrite Final Report PDF
297.23 KB
21/12/2017 ESMA70-151-812 Annual peer review of EU CCP supervision on supervisory activities on CCPs’ Default Management Procedures Final Report PDF
471.59 KB
31/03/2021 ESMA35-43-2632 Application of the temporary suspension of the obligation to publish RTS 27 reports Statement PDF
78.5 KB
01/04/2020 ESMA71-99-1309 Appointment of ACP Chair , Statement PDF
120.27 KB
25/02/2015 2015/494 Best Execution under MiFID , Final Report PDF
761.62 KB
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.
01/10/2020 ESMA80-187-610 BMR Brexit Public Statement 2020 Q4 , Statement PDF
110.8 KB
24/03/2021 ESMA80 -187-881 BMR Brexit Statement updated , Statement PDF
82.91 KB
19/12/2018 ESMA35-43-1328 Brexit Statement- information to clients , Statement PDF
212.95 KB
28/03/2019 ESMA90-1-83 Brexit Update March 2019 , , , , , Statement PDF
121.13 KB
28/02/2008 08-099 CESR Executive summary to the report on administrative measures and sanctions as well as the criminal sanctions available in Member States under the Market Abuse Directive Final Report PDF
874.1 KB
31/03/2020 ESMA35-36-1919 Clarification of issues related to the publication of reports by execution venues and firms as required under RTS 27 and 28 , Statement PDF
89.84 KB
02/06/2022 JC 2022 23 Clarifications on the ESAs' draft RTS under SFDR , Statement PDF
306.38 KB
07/03/2017 ESMA50-1623096732-432x Closing remarks Financial Innovation Day Statement PDF
152.27 KB
03/07/2018 ESMA70-151-1462 Communication on clearing obligation for pension scheme arrangements Statement PDF
122.82 KB
10/06/2013 2013/619 Comparison of liability regimes in Member States in relation to the Prospectus Directive , Final Report PDF
596.91 KB
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published a report on the Comparison of liability regimes in Member States in relation to the Prospectus Directive.   This is the first report of its kind and provides a comparison of liability regimes covering the EEA – comprising the 27 EU Member States along with Iceland and Norway and is aimed at providing clarity for market participants about the different regimes in place. The report contains an overview of the different arrangements and frameworks in place in  EEA States to address administrative, criminal, civil and governmental liability, and provides clarity to market participants about the different regimes in place. The report was compiled in response to a European Commission request of January 2011 for assistance in identifying and monitoring the different regimes in EEA states.   The report does not cover how the regimes, or sanctions, are applied.    Report Comparison of liability regimes in Member States in relation to the Prospectus Directive Annex II Comparative table of responses from EEA States Annex III Individual responses from EEA States
28/09/2015 2015/1455 CBA Cost analysis for Final Report on MAR technical standards Final Report PDF
2.59 MB

Pages