21 Amendments of Markus FERBER related to 2017/2253(INI)
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas equivalence is a tool to promote international regulatory convergence, which may lead to more competition in the EU on a level playing field, while preventing regulatory arbitrageforth and foremost a sovereign tool to promote equality of treatment between third country entities and EU firms, which may lead to international regulatory convergence, while preventing regulatory arbitrage and preserving the integrity of the single market and its competitiveness;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the forthcoming withdrawal of the UK from the EU will potentially have a significant impact on the regulation and supervision of financial services, given the close relationship that currently exists between the Member States in this area; whereas the positions taken by the UK government have made it very difficult to find pragmatic solutions;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the EU should promote global financial regulatory reforms aimed at reducing systemic risk and should work towards an open, integrated, efficient and resilient financial system that supports sustainable economic growth, job creation and investment;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that several EU legislative acts contain specific provisions for regulatory cooperation with third countries, including the possibility to conclude intcoopernational agreements for supervisory and enforcement purposes and to grant ‘equivalence’;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that, in many cases, the granting of equivalence is a unilateral decision taken by the EU and is not applied in a reciprocal manner by third countries; considers that international cooperation could be better advanced by dint of international agreements negotiated between the EU and third countries; notes that, unlike equivalence, international agreements can provide mutual access between the EU and third countries for financial institutions and for the mutual recognition of rules; points out that such international agreements would need to be designed in a way that protects the integrity of the Single Market, leaves no room for regulatory or supervisory arbitrage and would need to include provisions to ensure that high levels of harmonisation are maintained over time without curtailing the prerogatives of the Union legislator;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recognises that the EU’s equivalence regime is an integral part of a number of the legislative acts forming its regulatory framework for financial services and can offer several benefits, such as: the removal of unnecessary regulatory barriers, increased competition, increased capital flows into the EU, and more instruments and investment choices for EU firms and investors;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates that, in some cases, equivalence decisions do not grant financial institutions comparable rights to passport financial services throughout the EU, but recognises that they may give third-country institutions limited access to the single market for certain products or services;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasiszes that one of the key objectives for equivalence isare to promote regulatory convergence on the basis of international standardsensure an equal treatment between third country entities and EU firms, and to preserve the interests of the single market and of consumers; this may lead to further regulatory convergence;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises that one of the key objectives for equivalence is to promote regulatory convergence on the basis of international standards while maintaining the integrity of the Single Market and maintaining the high standards agreed across the EU;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that, as it stands, the EU’s process for granting equivalence lacks certainty and sufficient transparency, and requires a due to the variety of provisions across various legislative texts; points out that a more structured and practical horizontal framework outlining clear procedures would be worthwhile to consider;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that equivalence decisions and international agreements should be objective, proportionate, risk-sensitive and be taken in the best interests of the Union and its citizens; points out that this is not merely a technical process, but a political one; stresses the need for the Union legislator to be involved properly in such decisions.
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Questions the rationale behind equivalence decisions typically taking the form of implementing acts; insists that the process for granting equivalence to a third country in the area of financial services should always be scrutinised by Parliamentthe Union legislator and that, owing to their political nature, and for the purposes of greater transparency, these decisions should be taken by means of delegated acts;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that the Commission’s decision of 21 December 2017 to grant equivalence to Swiss share trading venues as part of the MiFID II/MiFIR equivalence procedure – limited to a 12- month period with the possibility of an extension provided sufficient progress is made on a common institutional framework – was primarily political, and used to gain leverage in a separate policy matter; deplores the fact that the European Parliament had no input into this decision; notes that this incident proves that equivalence procedures are not merely technical;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Commission to adopt a legislative act establishing a clear framework for a transparent, coherent and consistent application of equivalence procedures which introduces a standardised process for the determination of equivalence that is based on similarity of outcomes and not on similarity of procedures;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for equivalence decisions to be reviewed at least once every threewo years by the relevant ESA and for such reviews to be made public; points out that in cases of major legislative shifts in the third country in question ad-hoc reviews might be necessary;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls for equivalence decisions to be reviewed at least once every three years, or in any case of changes in the third country’s regulatory framework which would call the equivalence decision into question, by the relevant ESA and for such reviews to be made public;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission to conduct an in-depth review of all equivalence decisions taken, in order to determine the successes and failures of the current equivalence regime and derive implications for improvement;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that close consideration should be given to the equivalence regime between the EU and high-impact third countries in order to develop stable and resilient regulatory relationships with those countries which have close financial links with the Union; points out that this should not lead to a two-tier equivalence regime and that the Union's standards must be upheld at all time;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls the importance of National Competent Authorities (NCAs) in the authorisation process for financial institutions that wish to delegate part of their portfolio management or risk management to service providers in third countries where the regulatory regime is comparable to that of the EU; considers that NCAs have sufficient technical knowledge and expertise to properly assess delegation approval requests; encourages the ESAs to develop further cooperation between NCAs in order to share best practice concerning regulatory cooperation and activities with third countries; stresses the need for the ESAs to ensure a consistent application of such practices;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for active involvement from the Commission, the Member States and ESAs in global standard-setting bodies in financial services; stresses the need for all EU participants to coordinate positions effectively in order to achieve the optimum outcome; stresses the need for the consistent implementation of international standards in order to achieve better regulatory cooperation with other jurisdictions and to improve global financial stability;
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23 a. Points out that improving financial services relations with third countries and strengthening EU capital markets must not be regarded as mutually exclusive; therefore stresses the need for progress on the Capital Markets Union project;