REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Type of document
|Date||Ref.||Title||Section||Type||Download||Info||Summary||Related Documents||Translated versions|
|12/10/2020||BoA D 2020 01||Board of Appeal of the ESAs- Decision on Howerton vs ESMA||Board of Appeal||Decision||PDF
|15/06/2020||ESMA20-95-1264||2019 Annual Report||Board of Supervisors, Corporate Information, Management Board, Planning reporting budget||Annual Report||PDF
|15/06/2020||ESMA20-95-1132||2020 Annual Work Programme- revised||Board of Supervisors, Corporate Information, Management Board, Planning reporting budget||Annual Report||PDF
|09/03/2020||ESMA80-199-332||ESMA Supervision- Annual Report 2019 and Work Programme 2020||Benchmarks, Credit Rating Agencies, Securities Financing Transactions, Securitisation, Trade Repositories||Annual Report||PDF
|08/10/2019||boa-2019-d-05_decision||BOA decision creditreform_rating_ag_vs_eba||Board of Appeal||Decision||PDF
|27/02/2019||BoA D 2019 01, 02, 03 and 04||Appeal by Svenska Handelsbanken AB, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB, Swedbank A and Nordea Bank Abp against the European Securities and Markets Authority||Board of Appeal||Decision||PDF
|30/11/2018||boa30.18||BoA Decision SEB appeal 30 November 2018||Board of Appeal||Decision||PDF
|26/09/2018||BoA D 2018 02||Decision in an Appeal by B. against a decision of the European Securities and Markets Authority||Board of Appeal||Decision||PDF
|19/06/2018||ESMA20-95-916||Annual Report 2017||Board of Supervisors, Corporate Information, Planning reporting budget||Annual Report||PDF
|30/04/2018||BoA 2018-01||Decision in an appeal by A v ESMA||Board of Appeal, Joint Committee||Decision||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
|14/06/2017||ESMA20-95-590||Annual Report 2016||Board of Supervisors, Corporate Information, Planning reporting budget||Annual Report||PDF
Corrigendum - date on the letter of assurance from the Executive Director on p81 had inadvertently been dated 14 June 2017, when the letter was signed on 2 June 2017. The date has been amended accordingly
|15/06/2016||2016/960||ESMA Annual Report 2015||Corporate Information, Planning reporting budget||Annual Report||PDF
BG - Преводът е предоставен от Центъра за преводи за органите на Европейския съюз.
CS - Tento překlad vypracovalo Překladatelské středisko pro instituce Evropské unie.
DA - Denne oversættelse er udarbejdet af Oversættelsescentret for Den Europæiske Unions Organer.
DE - Die Übersetzung erfolgte durch das Übersetzungszentrum für die Einrichtungen der Europäischen Union.
EL - Η παρούσα μετάφραση έγινε από το Μεταφραστικό Κέντρο των Οργάνων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
ES - Texto traducido por el Centro de Traducción de los Órganos de la Unión Europea.
ET - Selle tõlke tegi Euroopa Liidu Asutuste Tõlkekeskus.
FI - Euroopan unionin elinten käännöskeskus on tehnyt tämän käännöksen.
FR - La présente traduction a été fournie par le Centre de traduction des organes de l’Union européenne.
HR - Za prijevod se pobrinuo Prevoditeljski centar za tijela Europske unije.
HU - Ezt a fordítást az Európai Unió.
IT - La presente traduzione è stata fornita dal Centro di traduzione degli organismi dell’Unione europea.
LT - Šį tekstą išvertė Europos Sąjungos įstaigų vertimo centras.
LV - Šo tulkojumu ir nodrošinājis Eiropas Savienības iestāžu Tulkošanas centrs.
NL - Deze vertaling is verzorgd door het Vertaalbureau voor de organen van de Europese Unie.
PL - Tłumaczenie wykonane przez Centrum Tłumaczeń dla Organów Unii Europejskiej.
PT - Esta tradução foi fornecida pelo Centro de Tradução dos Organismos da União Europeia.
RO - Această traducere a fost asigurată de Centrul de Traduceri pentru Organismele Uniunii Europene.
SK - Preklad vyhotovilo Prekladateľské stredisko pre orgány Európskej únie.
SL - Prevod je zagotovil Prevajalski center za organe Evropske unije.
SV - Den här översättningen har utförts av Översättningscentrum för Europeiska unionens organ.
|26/01/2016||BOA 2016 001||BoA 2016- 001 (Decision Kluge v EBA)||Board of Appeal||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
|15/06/2015||2015/934||ESMA Annual Report 2014||Planning reporting budget||Annual Report||PDF
|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.|
|13/06/2014||ESMA 2013||ESMA Annual Report for 2013||Planning reporting budget||Annual Report||PDF
|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.|