REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|Date||Ref.||Title||Section||Type||Download||Info||Summary||Related Documents||Translated versions|
|15/06/2011||2011/141||Consultation paper- ESMA’s technical advice on possible delegated acts concerning the Prospectus Directive as amended by the Directive 2010/73/EU||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Consultation Paper||PDF
|26/01/2011||2011/35||Call for evidence- Request for technical advice on possible delegated acts concerning the Prospectus Directive (2003/71/EC) as amended by the Directive 2010/73/EU||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Consultation Paper||PDF
|13/12/2011||2011/444||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Consultation Paper||PDF
|The purpose of this consultation document from ESMA is to seek comments on the technical advice that ESMA proposes to give to the European Commission on a number of possible delegated acts.|
|20/06/2012||2012/380||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Consultation Paper||PDF
|Responses to this consultation paper should be submitted online by 20 August 2012.|
|01/10/2012||2012/607||Further amendments to ESMA’s Recommendations for the consistent implementation of the Prospectus Regulation regarding mineral companies||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Consultation Paper||PDF
|15/03/2013||2013/316||Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on specific situations that require the publication of a supplement to the prospectus||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Consultation Paper||PDF
|The Consultation Paper sets out a draft Regulatory Technical Standard concerning situations that require the systematic publication of a supplement to the prospectus which the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is obliged to develop in accordance with Article 16(3) of the Prospectus Directive. The listed situations are concrete examples of the general obligation in Article 16(1) to mention in a supplement every significant new factor, material mistake or inaccuracy relating to information included in the prospectus which is capable of affecting the assessment of the securities. ESMA believes that the test whether a new factor, mistake or inaccuracy qualifies as a triggering event for producing a supplement is the same test as whether information should be included in the prospectus. As a consequence, significance or materiality should be assessed according to the same qualitative and/or quantitative criteria used when drafting the prospectus. In light of this, ESMA has identified a short list comprising 10 situations, which will always require issuers, offerors or persons asking for admission to trading to draw up and publish a supplement to the prospectus.The CP includes a draft Regulatory Technical Standard setting out the situations that would require a systematic publication of a supplement as well as the minimum content of such a supplement. Responses to the consultation should be submitted online by 28 June 2013.|
|26/09/2014||2014/1186||Consultation paper on draft RTS on prospectus related issues under the Omnibus II Directive||Prospectus, Corporate Disclosure||Consultation Paper||PDF
|ESMA invites comments on all matters in this paper and in particular on the specific questions summarised in Annex I. Comments are most helpful if they:• respond to the question stated;• indicate the specific question to which they relate;• contain a clear rationale; and• describe any alternatives ESMA should consider.ESMA will consider all comments received by 19 December 2014. All contributions should be submitted online at www.esma.europa.eu under the heading ‘Your input - Consultations’. Publication of responses All contributions received will be published following the close of the consultation, unless you request otherwise. Please clearly and prominently indicate in your submission any part you do not wish to be publically disclosed. A standard confidentiality statement in an email message will not be treated as a request for non-disclosure. A confidential response may be requested from us in accordance with ESMA’s rules on access to documents. We may consult you if we receive such a request. Any decision we make not to disclose the response is reviewable by ESMA’s Board of Appeal and the European Ombudsman.Data protection Information on data protection can be found at www.esma.europa.eu under the heading ‘Legal Notice’.Who should read this paper This document will be of interest to all stakeholders. It would primarily be of interest to investors, issuers, offerors or persons asking for admission to trading on a regulated market, as well as to any market participant who is affected by Directive 2003/71/EC of 4 November 2003 (the Prospectus Directive) as amended by Directive 2010/73/EU and Directive 2010/78/EU and its Regulation (Commission Regulation (EC) No 809/2004) and Delegated Regulations (Commission Delegated Regulation (EC) No 486/2012, No 862/2012, No 759/2013 and No 1392/2014.|
|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.|
|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.|
|30/09/2016||2016/1409||Draft RTS and ITS under SFTR and amendments to related EMIR RTS||Post Trading, Securities Financing Transactions||Consultation Paper||PDF
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is publishing this Consultation Paper as part of its consultations on Level 2 measures under the Securities Financing Transactions Regulation (SFTR) as well as certain amendments to the Level 2 measures under EMIR in order to take into account legal developments as well as to ensure consistency, where relevant, between the frameworks of both regulations
Section 1 is the executive summary of the document. Section 2 explains the background to our proposals. Section 3 includes detailed information on the procedure and criteria for registration as TR under SFTR. Section 4 details the use of internationally agreed reporting standards, the reporting logic under SFTR and the main aspects of the structure of an SFT report. Section 5 covers the requirements regarding transparency of data and aggregation and comparison of data. Section 6 details the access levels of authorities. Section 7 contains the tables of fields, for the relevant types of SFTs, as well as a summary of all the questions.
ESMA will consider the feedback it received to this document in the fourth quarter of 2016. The final report and the draft technical standards will be submitted to the European Commission for endorsement by the end of Q1/beginning Q2 2017.
|28/10/2016||2016/1529||Joint ESMA and EBA Guidelines on the assessment of the suitability of members of the management body and key function holders||Guidelines and Technical standards, MiFID - Investor Protection||Consultation Paper||PDF
|31/05/2016||2016/732||Guidelines on participant default rules and procedures under CSDR||Guidelines and Technical standards, Post Trading||Consultation Paper||PDF
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) under Article 41(4) of Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving securities settlement in the European Union and on central securities depositories and amending Directives 98/26/EC and 2014/65/EU and Regulation No 236/2012 (CSDR) may issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 in order to ensure consistent application of Article 41 of CSDR relating to participant default rules and procedures.
Section 2 contains information on the background and mandate, Section 3 contains an analysis of the scope and content of the proposed guidelines, while Section 4 contains the proposed guidelines.
Annex I sets out a summary of the questions contained in this paper and Annex II includes a high level cost-benefit analysis for the guidelines.
ESMA will consider the feedback it will receive to this consultation with a view to finalising the guidelines by Q4 2016.
|19/12/2016||2016/JCESA QA||Questions and Answers on Big Data||Joint Committee||Q&A||PDF
|29/09/2017||70-145-105||Draft Guidelines on non-significant benchmarks||Benchmarks, Guidelines and Technical standards||Consultation Paper||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.|
|30/04/2018||BoA 2018-01||Decision in an appeal by A v ESMA||Board of Appeal, Joint Committee||Decision||PDF
|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
|24/07/2014||CP/2014/04||Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on risk concentration and intra-group transactions under Article 21a (1a) of the Financial Conglomerates Directive||Joint Committee||Consultation Paper||PDF
|Please send your comments to the EBA and EIOPA using the following links: Respond to the EBA. Respond to EIOPA. The consultation period closes on 24 October 2014.|
|12/07/2019||ESMA31-62-1239||Consultation Paper on Guidelines on prospectus disclosure||Prospectus||Consultation Paper||PDF