ESMA LIBRARY

The ESMA Library contains all ESMA documents. Please use the search and filter options to find specific documents.
60
DOCUMENTS

REFINE YOUR SEARCH

Sections

Type of document

Your filters
MiFID - Investor Protection X MiFID - Secondary Markets X Corporate Information X Board of Appeal X Trade Repositories X Speech X Technical Advice X Decision X
Reset all filters
Date Ref. Title Section Type Download Info Summary Related Documents Translated versions
11/03/2013 2013/279 "Regulation of systemically important financial institutions and of the shadow banking system"- speech by Steven Maijoor, Chair, at the CDU/CSU congress in Berlin , Speech PDF
102.94 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
19/11/2019 ESMA71-319-154 Banking and the MiFID II review , , Speech PDF
135.75 KB
26/01/2016 BOA 2016 001 BoA 2016- 001 (Decision Kluge v EBA) Decision PDF
196.32 KB
08/10/2019 boa-2019-d-05_decision BOA decision creditreform_rating_ag_vs_eba Decision PDF
922.78 KB
30/11/2018 boa30.18 BoA Decision SEB appeal 30 November 2018 Decision PDF
416.77 KB
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
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.
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.
13/02/2019 ESMA71-319-91 Brexit – the regulatory challenges , , , , , Speech PDF
175.3 KB

Steven Maijoor keynote at the European Financial Forum in Dublin

06/11/2014 2014/1339 Capital Markets Union: building competitive, efficient capital markets trusted by investors , Speech PDF
124.34 KB
Steven Maijoor, ESMA Chair, spoke at the joint EU Commission/Italian Presidency Growth for Finance Conference in Brussels - " Excerpts "Following its launch by President Juncker in July 2014, the Capital Markets Union (CMU) is now a concept under construction and I am very happy to have been invited to contribute today to its development. When doing so, we should remember the clear objective from President Juncker who stated that the CMU should maximise the benefits of capital markets and non-bank financial institutions for the real economy. "Despite the many efforts of the past four decades, and the good results achieved, the EU capital market is still fragmented which limits its potential. For example, an institutional investor wanting to invest in a mid-sized company will still have a strong bias towards companies in its own Member-State. There are transactions not happening that otherwise would be beneficial both for the investor and the company because of this home bias. The reason for this stems from a complex set of barriers relating to such issues as transparency of Small and Medium-sized Entities (SMEs), differences in their governance and cross-border differences in the ownership of shares. In sum, we are only halfway there. While the EU capital market has integrated steadily in the past four decades it is not yet comparable with, for example, the US capital market. With a five year time-horizon in mind, what is needed to achieve a strong and integrated capital market to increase capital availability and to support economic growth in all 28 Member States? In my view, there are four main building blocks: (1) greater diversity in funding; (2) increasing the efficiency of capital markets; (3) strengthening and harmonisation of supervision; and (4) increasing the attractiveness of capital markets both for EU investors and for investors from outside the Union. "The CMU should be based on an accelerated integration of the capital markets of the 28 Member States. The end goal should be a CMU that is competitive, efficient and that provides a wide range of funding channels. Above all, it should be trusted by investors."
31/01/2019 ESMA35-43-1562 CFD Renewal Decision (2) Notice Decision PDF
103.92 KB
encsdadeelesetfifrhrhuitltlvmtnlplplptroskslsv
31/10/2018 ESMA35-43-1397 CFD Renewal Decision Notice Decision PDF
101.55 KB
enenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenen
21/03/2018 ESMA71-99-964 CMU, Brexit and ESA review – What’s next? Steven Maijoor BVI Keynote , , Speech PDF
329.97 KB
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.
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
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
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.
31/05/2011 2011/MB/69 Decision of the Management Board- Access to documents , Decision PDF
201.73 KB