ESMA LIBRARY
REFINE YOUR SEARCH
Sections
- (-) Remove Joint Committee filter Joint Committee
- (-) Remove Procurement filter Procurement
- (-) Remove Market Abuse filter Market Abuse
- Warnings and publications for investors (92) Apply Warnings and publications for investors filter
- MiFID - Investor Protection (34) Apply MiFID - Investor Protection filter
- Credit Rating Agencies (33) Apply Credit Rating Agencies filter
- Board of Appeal (18) Apply Board of Appeal filter
- Board of Supervisors (16) Apply Board of Supervisors filter
- Post Trading (16) Apply Post Trading filter
- Management Board (12) Apply Management Board filter
- Short Selling (9) Apply Short Selling filter
- Corporate Information (7) Apply Corporate Information filter
- Market Integrity (7) Apply Market Integrity filter
- Fund Management (6) Apply Fund Management filter
- COVID-19 (5) Apply COVID-19 filter
- MiFID - Secondary Markets (5) Apply MiFID - Secondary Markets filter
- Trade Repositories (4) Apply Trade Repositories filter
- Corporate Disclosure (3) Apply Corporate Disclosure filter
- Innovation and Products (3) Apply Innovation and Products filter
- Prospectus (3) Apply Prospectus filter
- Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group (3) Apply Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group filter
- Careers (2) Apply Careers filter
- Supervisory convergence (2) Apply Supervisory convergence filter
- CESR Archive (1) Apply CESR Archive filter
- Press Releases (1) Apply Press Releases filter
- Securitisation (1) Apply Securitisation filter
- Trading (1) Apply Trading filter
Type of document
- (-) Remove Decision filter Decision
- (-) Remove Technical Advice filter Technical Advice
- (-) Remove Investor Warning filter Investor Warning
- (-) Remove ONGOING Procedure filter ONGOING Procedure
- Reference (123) Apply Reference filter
- Guidelines & Recommendations (84) Apply Guidelines & Recommendations filter
- CLOSED Procedure (73) Apply CLOSED Procedure filter
- Press Release (50) Apply Press Release filter
- Final Report (49) Apply Final Report filter
- Statement (45) Apply Statement filter
- Consultation Paper (40) Apply Consultation Paper filter
- Letter (32) Apply Letter filter
- Report (23) Apply Report filter
- Speech (16) Apply Speech filter
- Opinion (14) Apply Opinion filter
- Summary of Conclusions (11) Apply Summary of Conclusions filter
- Q&A (10) Apply Q&A filter
- Compliance table (7) Apply Compliance table filter
- Annual Report (5) Apply Annual Report filter
- Technical Standards (5) Apply Technical Standards filter
- CESR Document (4) Apply CESR Document filter
- SMSG Advice (3) Apply SMSG Advice filter
Date | Ref. | Title | Section | Type | Download | Info | Summary | Related Documents | Translated versions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
13/04/2022 | PROC/2021/14 | Open procurement procedure – ADMS – DEADLINE 26/06/2022 – 23:59 | Procurement | ONGOING Procedure | PDF 104.91 KB |
This public procurement procedure is for “Application Development, Maintenance and Support”: Please note that registration in the eTendering website will give you access to the following functionalities:
ESMA strongly advises registering and subscribing to ensure that no information related to the tender procedure is missed. |
|||
29/03/2022 | PROC/2021/03 | Open procurement procedure – Delivery of Professional Technical Skills Development Trainings – DEADLINE 03/05/2022 – 15:00 | Procurement | ONGOING Procedure | PDF 127.53 KB |
This public procurement procedure is for “ Delivery of Professional Technical Skills Development Trainings”:
ESMA strongly advises registering and subscribing to ensure that no information related to the tender procedure is missed. |
|||
10/04/2019 | JC 2019 26 | Joint ESA advice on the need for legislative improvements relating to ICT risk management requirements | Innovation and Products, Joint Committee | Technical Advice | PDF 1.34 MB |
||||
10/04/2019 | JC 2019 25 | Joint ESA advice on the costs and benefits of developing a coherent cyber resilience testing framework for significant market participants and infrastructures | Innovation and Products, Joint Committee | Technical Advice | PDF 785.49 KB |
||||
01/10/2019 | ESMA63-313-528 | Financial Regulation of the European Securities and Markets Authority | Management Board, Procurement | Decision | PDF 445.94 KB |
||||
12/02/2018 | ESMA50-164-1284 | ESA warning on virtual currencies | Joint Committee, MiFID - Investor Protection | Investor Warning | PDF 563.64 KB |
bgcsdadeelesetfifrhrhuitltlvmtnlplptroskslsv | |||
17/03/2022 | ESA 2022 15 | EU financial regulators warn consumers on the risks of crypto-assets | Innovation and Products, Joint Committee, MiFID - Investor Protection, Warnings and publications for investors | Investor Warning | PDF 118.67 KB |
bgcsdadeelesetfifrgahrhuitltlvmtnlplptroskslsv | |||
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 147.78 KB |
||||
30/04/2018 | BoA 2018-01 | Decision in an appeal by A v ESMA | Board of Appeal, Joint Committee | Decision | PDF 392.62 KB |
||||
13/01/2014 | BoA 2013-014 | Board of Appeal Decision Global Private Rating Company v. ESMA | Joint Committee, Board of Appeal | 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. | |||
24/06/2013 | BoA 2013-008 | Board of Appeal Decision | Joint Committee, Board of Appeal | 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 | |||
03/02/2015 | 2015/224 | ESMA’s technical advice on possible delegated acts concerning the Market Abuse Regulation | Market Abuse | Technical Advice | PDF 1021.03 KB |
This advice:• specifies the MAR market manipulation indicators, by providing examples of practices that may constitute market manipulation as well as proposing “additional” indicators of market manipulation; • recommends to set the minimum thresholds that exempt certain market participants in the emission allowance market from publicly disclosing inside information at six million tonnes of CO2eq per year and at 2,430 MW rated thermal input;• suggests the way to determine to which regulator delays in disclosure of inside information needs to be notified. • provides clarifications on the enhanced disclosure of managers’ transactions. - ESMA recommends disclosing any acquisition, disposal, subscription or exchange of financial instruments of the relevant issuer or related financial instruments carried out by managers,, further illustrated through a non-exhaustive list of types of transactions subject to this obligation. . ESMA also clarifies the transactions that can be allowed by the issuer during a closed period when normally managers are prohibited to trade; and• proposes procedures and arrangements to ensure sound whistleblowing infrastructures – i.e. EU national regulators should allow the receipt of reports of infringements, including appropriate communication channels and guarantee the protection of reporting and reported persons, with respect to their identity and their personal data. Next steps ESMA has sent its technical advice to the European Commission for its consideration in drafting its implementing standards regarding MAR. ESMA’s regulatory technical standards regarding MAR will be delivered in July 2015. | |||
17/07/2014 | 2014/C1/02 | Board of Appeal Decision | Joint Committee, Board of Appeal | 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. | |||
02/12/2014 | 2014/BOA/05 | Decision by the ESA BoA concerning Investor Protection Europe sprl | Joint Committee, Board of Appeal | Decision | PDF 229.85 KB |
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. |