ESMA LIBRARY

The ESMA Library contains all ESMA documents. Please use the search and filter options to find specific documents.
22
DOCUMENTS

REFINE YOUR SEARCH

Sections

Type of document

Your filters
International cooperation X Corporate Finance X Innovation and Products X Brexit X ITMG X Sustainable finance X Securities Financing Transactions X Supervisory convergence X CESR Archive X Board of Appeal X Corporate Information X Decision X Guidelines & Recommendations X
Reset all filters
Date Ref. Title Section Type Download Info Summary Related Documents Translated versions
10/03/2011 2011/MB/3 Decision of the Management Board- Internal language arrangements , Decision PDF
18.51 KB
10/03/2011 2011/MB/4 Decision of the Management Board- Professional secrecy , Decision PDF
34.68 KB
10/03/2011 2011/MB/6 Decision of the Management Board- Code of good administrative behaviour , Decision PDF
41.25 KB
31/05/2011 2011/MB/69 Decision of the Management Board- Access to documents , Decision PDF
201.73 KB
19/12/2011 2011/BS/229 Decision of the European Securities and Markets Authority establishing its Review Panel , , Decision PDF
35.86 KB
This decision establishes the Review Panel of ESMA and sets out its mandate.
24/06/2013 BoA 2013-008 Board of Appeal Decision , 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
18/07/2013 2013/998 Guidelines on the model MoU concerning consultation, cooperation and the exchange of information related to the supervision of AIFMD entities , Guidelines & Recommendations PDF
245.15 KB

ESMA finalises supervisory co-operation agreements for alternative investment funds The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has approved seven co-operation arrangements between EU securities regulators and their global counterparts with responsibility for the supervision of alternative investment funds, including hedge funds, private equity and real estate funds. ESMA’s Board of Supervisors, at its July meeting, approved Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with authorities from the Bahamas, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico and the United States, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). ESMA has now negotiated 38 agreements on behalf of the 31 EU/EEA national competent authorities for securities markets supervision. The co-operation agreements allow for the exchange of information, cross-border on-site visits and mutual assistance in the enforcement of respective supervisory laws. ESMA had approved 31 MoUs with other non-EU regulators in May. The agreements cover third-country alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs) that market alternative investment funds (AIFs) in the EU and EU AIFMs that manage or market AIFs outside the EU. The agreements also cover co-operation in the cross-border supervision of depositaries and AIFMs’ delegates. National securities regulators in the EU, as the supervisors of AIFMs, are in the process of signing MoUs with those jurisdictions relevant to their market. The existence of co-operation arrangements between the EU and non-EU authorities is a precondition of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) for allowing managers from third countries access to EU markets or to perform fund management by delegation from EU managers by 22 July 2013. The co-operation arrangements are applicable from 22 July, and will enable cross-border marketing of AIFs to professional investors between jurisdictions. This is subject to the non-EU jurisdiction not being listed as a non-cooperative jurisdiction by the Financial Action Task Force and, as from the entry into force of the passport for non-EU managers, having co-operation agreements in place with EU Member States regarding the exchange of information on tax matters. The content of the ESMA MoUs follow the IOSCO Principles on Cross-Border Supervisory Co-operation of 2010, and complements the terms and conditions of the IOSCO Multilateral MoU Concerning Consultation and Co-operation and the Exchange of Information of 2002 (MMoU). ESMA had originally contacted all the authorities that have signed the IOSCO MMoU of 2002. ESMA has now approved MoUs with those 42 authorities that responded to ESMA’s call. ESMA continues to negotiate the MoU with the Chinese authority.   Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) MoU with AFSA (Albania) MoU with ASIC (Australia) MoU with BMA (Bermuda) MoU with Canadian authorities  Accompanying letter MoU with CDVM (Morocco) MoU with CFTC (US) Accompanying letter MoU with CIMA (Cayman Islands) MoU with CMA (Kenya) MoU with CMSA (Tanzania) MoU with CNBV (Mexico) MoU with CVM (Brazil) MoU with DFSA (Dubai) MoU with FCSM (Mauritius) MoU with FINMA (Switzerland) MoU with FSA (Labuan) MoU with FSC (BVI) MoU with FSC (Guernsey) MoU with FSC (Isle of Man) MoU with FSC (Jersey) MoU with HKMA (Hong Kong) MoU with ISA (Israel) MoU with JFSA (Japan) MoU with MAFF (Japan) MoU with MAS (Singapore) MoU with METI (Japan) MoU with OCC and FED (US) MoU with OSFI (Canada) MoU with SC (Malaysia) MoU with SC (Republic of Srpska) MoU with SC (The Bahamas) MoU with SCA (UAE) MoU with SEBI (India) MoU with SEC (Montenegro) MoU with SEC (Pakistan) MoU with SEC (Thailand) MoU with SEC Macedonia (FYROM) MoU with SFC (Hong Kong) MoU with US SEC Accompanying letter   MoU with EFSA (Egypt)   MoU with FMA (New Zealand)   MoU with FSB (South Africa)   MoU with SSC (Vietnam)   MoU with FSC and FSS (South Korea)

13/01/2014 BoA 2013-014 Board of Appeal Decision Global Private Rating Company v. ESMA , 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.
17/07/2014 2014/C1/02 Board of Appeal Decision , 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 , 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.
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) , Decision PDF
147.78 KB
26/01/2016 BOA 2016 001 BoA 2016- 001 (Decision Kluge v EBA) Decision PDF
196.32 KB
20/07/2017 BoA 2017 01 FinancialCraft Analytics Sp. z o.o. vs ESMA BoA Decision , Decision PDF
693 KB
30/04/2018 BoA 2018-01 Decision in an appeal by A v ESMA , Decision PDF
392.62 KB
26/09/2018 BoA D 2018 02 Decision in an Appeal by B. against a decision of the European Securities and Markets Authority Decision PDF
382.53 KB
30/11/2018 boa30.18 BoA Decision SEB appeal 30 November 2018 Decision PDF
416.77 KB
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 Decision PDF
829.04 KB
08/10/2019 boa-2019-d-05_decision BOA decision creditreform_rating_ag_vs_eba Decision PDF
922.78 KB
23/03/2020 ESMA22-328-275 Decision of the Management Board- Rules of Procedure , Decision PDF
144.92 KB
12/10/2020 BoA D 2020 01 Board of Appeal of the ESAs- Decision on Howerton vs ESMA Decision PDF
616.54 KB