EK rendelete (2008

Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában (2009.január) kihirdetett jogforrások listája, illetve a pénzügyi szolgáltatások szektorral kapcsolatban az Európai Bizottság honlapján közzétett hírek

Tartalomjegyzék:

Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja - L (Jogszabályok) Sorszám

Cím

1.

Az Európai Központi Bank 24/2009/EK rendelete (2008. december 19.) az értékpapírosítási tranzakciókban részt vevő pénzügyi közvetítő vállalatok eszközeiről és forrásairól szóló statisztikákról (EKB/2008/30) A Bizottság 53/2009/EK rendelete (2009. január 21.) az 1606/2002/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelettel összhangban egyes nemzetközi számviteli standardok elfogadásáról szóló 1126/2008/EK rendeletnek az IAS 32 és az IAS 1 nemzetközi számviteli standard módosításai tekintetében történő módosításáról (1) A Bizottság 69/2009/EK rendelete (2009. január 23.) az 1606/2002/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelettel összhangban egyes nemzetközi számviteli standardok elfogadásáról szóló 1126/2008/EK rendeletnek az IFRS 1 nemzetközi pénzügyi beszámolási standard és az IAS 27 nemzetközi számviteli standard módosításai tekintetében történő módosításáról (1) A Bizottság 70/2009/EK rendelete (2009. január 23.) az 1606/2002/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelettel összhangban egyes nemzetközi számviteli standardok elfogadásáról szóló 1126/2008/EK rendeletnek a nemzetközi pénzügyi beszámolási standardok (IFRS-ek) javításai tekintetében történő módosításáról (1) A Bizottság határozata (2009. január 23.) az európai értékpapírpiaci szabályozók bizottságának létrehozásáról A Bizottság határozata (2009. január 23.) az európai bankfelügyelők bizottságának létrehozásáról A Bizottság határozata (2009. január 23.) az európai biztosításés foglalkoztatóinyugdíj-felügyeletek bizottságának létrehozásáról EGT-vonatkozású szöveg

2.

3.

4.

5. 6. 7.

Oldalszám 2

3

4

4

5 6 7

Sajtóbejelentések Sorszám

Cím

1.

Charlie McCREEVY European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Financial Markets & Economic Recovery - Restoring Confidence and responding to public concerns 7th Annual Financial Services Conference Brussels, 27 January 2008 Commission sets out steps to clarify the responsibilities of UCITS depositaries Financial markets: Commission adopts measures to strengthen supervisory committees and standard-setting bodies for accounting and auditing Responsibilities of UCITS depositaries : Frequently Asked Questions Charlie McCREEVY European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Address by Commissioner McCreevy at the EP Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) EP IMCO Brussels, 22 January 2008 Commission launches European Database for Financial Education European Financial Integration Report 2008 Financial services: Commission launches consultation on review of Prospectus Directive Financial services: Commission encourages applications for the new Payment Systems Market Expert Group

2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9.

Oldalszám 8

11 13

15 17

21 21

23 24

Jogszabályok 1. Jogszabály:

Az Európai Központi Bank 24/2009/EK rendelete (2008. december 19.) az értékpapírosítási tranzakciókban részt vevő pénzügyi közvetítő vállalatok eszközeiről és forrásairól szóló statisztikákról (EKB/2008/30) Megjelent: L 15 (I.20.) Jogforrás tartalma: A statisztikai adatszolgáltatási kötelezettségeinek biztosítása érdekében az Európai Központi Banknak (EKB) – a nemzeti központi bankok (NKB-k) közreműködésével – joga van a Központi Bankok Európai Rendszere (KBER) feladatainak ellátásához szükséges mértékben statisztikai adatokat gyűjteni meghatározott adatszolgáltatói körtől, amelynek az értékpapírosítási tranzakciókban részt vevő pénzügyi közvetítő vállalatok (PKV-k) is részét képezik.

2

A statisztikai adatgyűjtéshez kapcsolódóan az EKB-nak részletesen meg kell határoznia a tényleges adatszolgáltatók csoportját, és jogosult arra is, hogy az adatszolgáltatók egyes csoportjait teljes mértékben vagy részlegesen mentesítse a statisztikai adatszolgáltatási kötelezettség alól. A PKV-kra vonatkozó adatok gyűjtésének fő célja, hogy az EKB megfelelő statisztikával rendelkezzen az egy gazdasági területnek tekintett, a részt vevő tagállamokban működő PKV-alszektor pénzügyi tevékenységeiről. A PKV-k és a monetáris pénzügyi intézmények („MPI-k”) értékpapírosítási tevékenységének szoros kapcsolata miatt szükség van az MPI-k és PKV-k részéről az egységes, egymást kiegészítő és integrált adatszolgáltatásra. Az adatszolgáltatási előírások valamint a rendletben biztosított mentességek azt a célt szolgálják, hogy az adatszolgáltatók adatszolgáltatási terheinek minimumra csökkenjenek, valamint a PKV-k és az MPI-k statisztikai adatszolgáltatása során az átfedések kiküszöbölhetőek legyenek. A rendelet tartalmazza az adatszolgáltatók körét - amelyeket a valamely állam területén rezidens PKV-k alkotnak, a negyedéves statisztikai adatszolgáltatási követelményeket és adatszolgáltatási szabályat, a mentességek körét, minimum előírásokat valamint az első adatszolgáltatásra vonatkozó szabályokat. A mellékletben pedig a statisztikai adatszolgáltatási követelményeken túl fogalommeghatározásokat és a tényleges adatszolgáltatók által alkalmazandó minimum előírásokat. A rendelet 2009. február 9-én lép hatályba. 2. Jogszabály:

A Bizottság 53/2009/EK rendelete (2009. január 21.) az 1606/2002/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelettel összhangban egyes nemzetközi számviteli standardok elfogadásáról szóló 1126/2008/EK rendeletnek az IAS 32 és az IAS 1 nemzetközi számviteli standard módosításai tekintetében történő módosításáról (1) Megjelent: L 17 (I.22.) Jogforrás tartalma: A Nemzetközi Számviteli Standard Testület (IASB) 2008. február 14-én „Visszaadható pénzügyi instrumentumok és felszámoláskor keletkező kötelmek” címmel közzétette az IAS 32 Pénzügyi instrumentumok: Bemutatás és az IAS 1 A pénzügyi kimutatások prezentálása standard módosításait (a továbbiakban: az IAS 32 és az IAS 1 módosítása). Az IAS 32 Pénzügyi instrumentumok: Bemutatás standardban a fogalommeghatározások módosulnak a pénzügyi eszköz és a pénzügyi kötelezettség fogalmai kapcsán, valamint a valós érték fogalommeghatározását követően a standard kiegészül a visszaadható eszköz fogalommeghatározásával. Az IAS 1 A pénzügyi kimutatások prezentálása standard módosítása értelmében bizonyos instrumentumokat, amelyeket törzsrészvényekhez hasonló jellegük ellenére jelenleg kötelezettségként sorolnak be, ezután saját tőkeként kell besorolni. Az IAS 32 és az IAS 1 módosításait az e rendelet mellékletében meghatározott formában minden társaságnak legkésőbb a 2008. december 31. után kezdődő első pénzügyi éve kezdőnapjától alkalmaznia kell. A rendelet 2009. január 25-én lép hatályba.

3

3. Jogszabály:

A Bizottság 69/2009/EK rendelete (2009. január 23.) az 1606/2002/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelettel összhangban egyes nemzetközi számviteli standardok elfogadásáról szóló 1126/2008/EK rendeletnek az IFRS 1 nemzetközi pénzügyi beszámolási standard és az IAS 27 nemzetközi számviteli standard módosításai tekintetében történő módosításáról (1) Megjelent: L 21 (I.24.) Jogforrás tartalma: A Nemzetközi Számviteli Standard Testület (IASB) 2008 májusában „A leányvállalatokban, közös vezetésű gazdálkodó egységekben és társult vállalkozásokban fennálló befektetés bekerülési értéke” címmel közzétette az IFRS 1 A Nemzetközi Pénzügyi Beszámolási Standardok első alkalmazása és az IAS 27 Konszolidált és egyedi pénzügyi kimutatások standard módosításait. Az IFRS 1 módosításai az első alkalmazók számára lehetővé teszik, hogy a leányvállalatokban, közös vezetésű gazdálkodó egységekben vagy társult vállalkozásokban fennálló befektetés vélelmezett bekerülési értékeként az egyedi pénzügyi kimutatásokban az IFRS-ekre való áttérés időpontjára vonatkozó valós értéket vagy a befektetésnek az említett időpontra vonatkozó, a korábbi számviteli szabályozásnak megfelelő könyv szerinti értékét használják. A „bekerülési érték módszer” fogalommeghatározása kikerül az IAS 27ből, ennek megfelelően a befektetőnek az egyedi pénzügyi kimutatásokban jövedelemként kell megjelenítenie a leányvállalattól, közös vezetésű gazdálkodó egységtől vagy társult vállalkozástól kapott osztalékot, még akkor is, ha az osztalékot az akvizíció előtti tartalékokból fizetik ki. Az IAS 27 módosításai azt is tisztázzák, hogy miként kell meghatározni a befektetés IAS 27 szerinti bekerülési értékét akkor, ha az anyavállalat oly módon szervezi át a csoport működési struktúráját, hogy saját anyavállalataként új gazdálkodó egységet alapít, amely az eredeti anyavállalat meglévő tőkeinstrumentumainakfejében saját tőkeinstrumentumok kibocsátásával ellenőrzést szerez az eredeti anyavállalat felett. A rendelet 2009. január 27-én lép hatályba 4. Jogszabály:

A Bizottság 70/2009/EK rendelete (2009. január 23.) az 1606/2002/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelettel összhangban egyes nemzetközi számviteli standardok elfogadásáról szóló 1126/2008/EK rendeletnek a nemzetközi pénzügyi beszámolási standardok (IFRS-ek) javításai tekintetében történő módosításáról (1) Megjelent: L 21 (I.24.) Jogforrás tartalma: A Nemzetközi Számviteli Standard Testület (IASB) 2008 májusában a nemzetközi számviteli standardok karcsúsítását és pontosítását célzó éves felülvizsgálat keretében közzétette a nemzetközi pénzügyi beszámolási standardok javításait (a továbbiakban:

4

Javítás). A két részből álló Javítás a hatályos nemzetközi számviteli standardok 35 módosítását tartalmazza; az I. rész azokat, amelyek a bemutatás, megjelenítés, vagy értékelés céljából hoznak számviteli változásokat, a II. rész pedig azokat, amelyek terminológiai vagy szerkesztési okokból váltak szükségessé. A Javításnak megfelelően módosul az IFRS 1, IFRS 5, IFRS 7 nemzetközi pénzügyi beszámolási standard, valamint az IAS 1, IAS 2, IAS 7, IAS 8, IAS 10, IAS 16, IAS 19, IAS 20, IAS 23, IAS 27, IAS 28, IAS 29, IAS 31, IAS 32, IAS 34, IAS 36, IAS 38, IAS 39, IAS 40 és IAS 41 nemzetközi számviteli standard. Az IFRS 1 és IFRS 5 standardok módosításait minden társaságnak legkésőbb a 2009. június 30. után kezdődő első pénzügyi éve kezdőnapjától alkalmaznia kell. Az többi standard módosításait minden társaságnak legkésőbb a 2008. december 31. után kezdődő első pénzügyi éve kezdőnapjától alkalmaznia kell. A rendelet 2009. február -én lép hatályba 5. Jogszabály:

A Bizottság határozata (2009. január 23.) az európai értékpapír-piaci szabályozók bizottságának létrehozásáról (1) 2009/78/EK Megjelent: L 25 (I.29.) Jogforrás tartalma: A Tanács felkérésére (2008. május 14.) a Bizottság, felülvizsgálta a felügyeleti bizottságok létrehozásáról szóló bizottsági határozatokat annak érdekében, hogy a bizottságok megbízatása és feladatköre egységes és következetes legyen, továbbá hogy azok erőteljesebben hozzá tudjanak járulni a felügyeletek közötti együttműködéshez és tevékenységük közelítéséhez. Az „európai értékpapír-piaci szabályozók bizottsága” független tanácsadó csoportként segíti a Bizottság munkáját az értékpapírok területén, valamint hozzájárul a közösségi jogszabályok közös és egységes napi végrehajtásához és a felügyeleti hatóságok általi következetes alkalmazásához is. A bizottság nem rendelkezik közösségi szintű szabályozó hatáskörrel. Feladata, hogy szakértői értékeléseket végezzen, elősegítse a bevált gyakorlatok terjesztését és jogilag nem kötelező erejű iránymutatásokat, ajánlásokat és szabványokat adjon ki a konvergencia közösségi szintű növelése céljából. Ugyanakkor célja a két- és többoldalú felügyeleti együttműködés javítása. A felügyeletek közötti együttműködésnek és tevékenységük közelítésének az elősegítése, valamint a bizottságoknak a pénzügyi stabilitást érintő kockázatok értékelésében betöltött szerepének az erősítése érdekében a bizottság konkrét feladatai meghatározásra kerültek. Ennek megfelelően a bizottság a Bizottság kérésére vagy saját kezdeményezésére tanácsot ad a Bizottságnak, különös tekintettel végrehajtási intézkedések tervezeteinek kidolgozására az értékpapírok – többek között az átruházható értékpapírokkal foglalkozó kollektív befektetési vállalkozások (ÁÉKBV) terén, elősegíti a tagállami felügyeleti hatóságok közötti együttsműködést, ellenőrzi és értékeli az értékpapír ágazatban

5

zajló fejleményeket. A határozatt a bizottság munkaszervezésére és munkafolyamataira, valamint döntéshozatalára vonatkozó szabályokat is tartalmaz. A rendelet 2009. január 29-én lép hatályba 6. Jogszabály:

A Bizottság határozata (2009. január 23.) az európai bankfelügyelők bizottságának létrehozásáról (1) 2009/79/EK Megjelent: L 25 (I.29.) Jogforrás tartalma: A Tanács felkérésére (2008. május 14.) a Bizottság, felülvizsgálta a felügyeleti bizottságok létrehozásáról szóló bizottsági határozatokat annak érdekében, hogy a bizottságok megbízatása és feladatköre egységes és következetes legyen, továbbá hogy azok erőteljesebben hozzá tudjanak járulni a felügyeletek közötti együttműködéshez és tevékenységük közelítéséhez. Az „európai bankfelügyelők bizottsága” független tanácsadó csoportként segíti a Bizottság munkáját a bankfelügyelet területén, valamint hozzájárul a közösségi jogszabályok közös és egységes napi végrehajtásához és a felügyeleti hatóságok általi következetes alkalmazásához is. A bizottság megbízatásába bele tartozik a pénzügyi konglomerátumok felügyelete. A bizottság a felesleges párhuzamos munkavégzés és a következetlenség elkerülése, valamint az információcsere biztosítása érdekében, továbbá hogy lépést tarthasson a fejlődéssel, a pénzügyi konglomerátumok felügyelete tekintetében a pénzügyi konglomerátumokkal foglalkozó vegyes bizottságban együttműködik az európai biztosításés foglalkoztatóinyugdíj-felügyeletek bizottságával. A bizottság nem rendelkezik közösségi szintű szabályozó hatáskörrel. Feladata, hogy szakértői értékeléseket végezzen, elősegítse a bevált gyakorlatok terjesztését és jogilag nem kötelező erejű iránymutatásokat, ajánlásokat és szabványokat adjon ki a konvergencia közösségi szintű növelése céljából. Ugyanakkor célja a két- és többoldalú felügyeleti együttműködés javítása. A felügyeletek közötti együttműködésnek és tevékenységük közelítésének az elősegítése, valamint a bizottságoknak a pénzügyi stabilitást érintő kockázatok értékelésében betöltött szerepének az erősítése érdekében a bizottság konkrét feladatai meghatározásra kerültek. Ennek megfelelően a bizottság a Bizottság kérésére vagy saját kezdeményezésére tanácsot ad a Bizottságnak, különös tekintettel végrehajtási intézkedések tervezeteinek kidolgozására a banki tevékenységek és a pénzügyi konglomerátumok terén, elősegíti a tagállami felügyeleti hatóságok közötti együttsműködést, ellenőrzi és értékeli a banki ágazatban zajló fejleményeket. A határozatt a bizottság munkaszervezésére és munkafolyamataira, valamint döntéshozatalára vonatkozó szabályokat is tartalmaz. A bizottság összetételének tükröznie kell a bankfelügyelet szervezetét, és figyelembe kell vennie a központi bankok szerepét a banki ágazat általános stabilitásának biztosításábannemzeti és közösségi szinten egyaránt. A tagok különféle kategóriáinak jogait egyértelműen meg kell határozni. Mindenekelőtt az elnöki tisztséget és a szavazati jogokat fenn kell tartani az egyes tagállamok illetékes felügyeleti hatóságainak. Az egyes felügyelt intézményekről folytatott bizalmas megbeszéléseken való részvételt – adott esetben – az

6

illetékes felügyeleti hatóságokra és az egyes érintett hitelintézetek felügyelete tekintetében konkrét operatív feladatokkal megbízott központi bankokra kell korlátozni. A rendelet 2009. január 29-én lép hatályba 7. Jogszabály:

A Bizottság határozata (2009. január 23.) az európai biztosítás- és foglalkoztatóinyugdíj-felügyeletek bizottságának létrehozásáról EGT-vonatkozású szöveg (1) Megjelent: L 25 (I.29.) Jogforrás tartalma: A Tanács felkérésére (2008. május 14.) a Bizottság, felülvizsgálta a felügyeleti bizottságok létrehozásáról szóló bizottsági határozatokat annak érdekében, hogy a bizottságok megbízatása és feladatköre egységes és következetes legyen, továbbá hogy azok erőteljesebben hozzá tudjanak járulni a felügyeletek közötti együttműködéshez és tevékenységük közelítéséhez. Az „európai biztosítás- és foglalkoztatóinyugdíj felügyeletek bizottsága” független tanácsadó csoportként segíti a Bizottság munkáját a biztosítás, a viszontbiztosítás és a foglalkoztatói nyugdíjak területén, valamint hozzájárul a közösségi jogszabályok közös és egységes napi végrehajtásához és a felügyeleti hatóságok általi következetes alkalmazásához is. A foglalkoztatói nyugdíjrendszereket illetően azonban a bizottság csak a szabályozási és felügyeleti kérdésekkel foglalkozik, és tevékenysége nem érinti az olyan munkajogi és szociális jogi szempontokat, mint például a foglalkoztatási rendszerek megszervezése, különös tekintettel a kötelező tagsággal (belépéssel) vagy a kollektív szerződésekkel kapcsolatos kérdésekre. A bizottság nem rendelkezik közösségi szintű szabályozó hatáskörrel. Feladata, hogy szakértői értékeléseket végezzen, elősegítse a bevált gyakorlatok terjesztését és jogilag nem kötelező erejű iránymutatásokat, ajánlásokat és szabványokat adjon ki a konvergencia közösségi szintű növelése céljából. Ugyanakkor célja a két- és többoldalú felügyeleti együttműködés javítása. A felügyeletek közötti együttműködésnek és tevékenységük közelítésének az elősegítése, valamint a bizottságoknak a pénzügyi stabilitást érintő kockázatok értékelésében betöltött szerepének az erősítése érdekében a bizottság konkrét feladatai meghatározásra kerültek. Ennek megfelelően a bizottság a Bizottság kérésére vagy saját kezdeményezésére tanácsot ad a Bizottságnak, különös tekintettel végrehajtási intézkedések tervezeteinek kidolgozására a biztosítás, a viszontbiztosítás és a foglalkoztatói nyugdíjak területén, elősegíti a tagállami felügyeleti hatóságok közötti együttsműködést, ellenőrzi és értékeli a biztosítási, viszontbiztosítási és foglalkoztatói nyugdíj ágazatban zajló fejleményeket. A határozatt a bizottság munkaszervezésére és munkafolyamataira, valamint döntéshozatalára vonatkozó szabályokat is tartalmaz. A rendelet 2009. január 29-én lép hatályba

7

Sajtóbejelentések 1. SPEECH/09/23 Charlie McCREEVY European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Financial Markets & Economic Recovery - Restoring Confidence and responding to public concerns 7th Annual Financial Services Conference Brussels, 27 January 2008 Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen and thank you for inviting me to speak at this important conference focusing on whether or not we have drawn the right conclusions from the financial turmoil that has engulfed the global economy. It would indeed be a foolish person who, at this stage, would answer "yes" to that question because we are almost certainly only half way through the storm and any firm conclusions on long term solutions must be tentative at this time. I suspect we will never get anything near unanimity on what went wrong and how to put it right because people's perceptions and conclusions are invariably coloured by the role they played or didn't play in contributing to the current sorry mess. There are some issues on which there has been broad consensus: The scale of irresponsible origination and underwriting, lack of due diligence, toxic securitization, and wreckless credit ratings was far greater in the United States than anywhere else in the world. There is no doubt but that it was primarily this that triggered the global crisis on the scale that we are now seeing. That said European banks bought into these toxic securities and in Europe there is now a broad consensus that our supervisory systems are not and have not been up to the mark or fit for purpose. Not fit for purpose at an EU institutional level. Not fit for purpose at a Member State level. With cross-border banking groups now accounting for 80 per cent of Europe's banking assets the absence of formal mechanisms for dealing with a situation where one of those banks gets into serious difficulties, for adequate exchange of information, or for burden sharing was and is an unacceptable gap in our regulatory and supervisory framework. It must now be clear to everyone that there is a growing gap between the EU supervisory structure, which is primarily organised on a national basis, and market developments, where integration and internationalisation lead to complex interdependencies and growing spillover effects. The crisis has brought into sharp relief the weaknesses of the present arrangements, in particular, significant coordination problems and conflicts of interest between Member States. This is why the de Larosière Group has been asked to make recommendations to the Commission on how to strengthen European supervisory arrangements. The status quo is not an option. The existing Committees of Supervisors are clearly lacking teeth. Bold steps

8

are needed but there are very different ideas on how to go about it. Indeed there is a good deal of hypocrisy and double-speak too: While Member State governments are pretty well unanimous that the issue needs to be addressed the fact is that any time over the past decade when proposals - however modest - have been put forward to address them the consensus breaks down. Member State governments must come to recognise and address the need to stand up to the vested interests of their home supervisors who resist ceding anything with an eye to protecting their own empires. However never again will the political climate be so favourable for making a meaningful step forward and never before has so much momentum been built up towards a search for meaningful progress in this area. I look forward to the de Larosière Group bringing forward concrete proposals which will contribute to greater financial stability in Europe and help maximise protection for depositors, policy-holders and investors. Our reaction to the de Larosière recommendations will be incorporated in a Communication which is foreseen for early March, in time for the Spring European Council. On financial services, it is premature to fix a list of precise issues to be covered. We need to factor into our work as much as possible the work of the G-20 where many of the issues we are working on will be considered also. But as you know, well before the de Larosière Group was established the Commission was busy on a number of fronts where we were convinced that action at a European level was essential: In some of these areas we will work to achieve global consistency but nobody should think that that means waiting for the slowest or least ambitious train driver to depart from the station. The crisis has required substantial state intervention in financial institutions in many Member States and in this regard I don't think anyone could argue that the Commission was anything other than vigorous and efficient in applying EU law, notably on competition and state aids, but doing so in a way that was flexible and rapid - which was essential to maintain confidence in the banking system and prevent the crystallization of systemic risks. We have also been active in co-ordinating Member States and working with the Presidency as well as proposing adjustments to EU law where necessary. On this, the Commission has come forward with and is still working on a number of measures: Revisions to the Capital Requirements Directive, the Regulation of Credit Rating Agencies, revised deposit guarantee schemes, amendments to accounting rules, as well as initiatives on executive pay, credit derivatives, and accounting. We are also reviewing the existing regulatory framework surrounding hedge funds and private equity. The proposal for amendments to the CRD was adopted on the 1st October by the Commission. The French Presidency has managed to reach a political agreement in the Council and the Czech Presidency is now working with the European Parliament which will ensure - I hope - that the final format is robust, and not amended to a point where it is riddled with loopholes and get out clauses, or rendered so complicated or multi-faceted via amendments such that the key measures and disciplines contained in the original proposal can be too easily gamed or circumvented. I must also point out, however, that the current proposed CRD amendments must and will be only the beginning of a far more comprehensive review of the entire Basel 2 Accord which clearly requires some

9

fundamental overhaul. The Commission services have been looking at the areas of weakness in the existing framework: It is now patently obvious that the shortcomings of that framework include the absence of any overall gearing cap on bank balance sheets, wholly inadequate and inappropriate risk weightings for AAA rated structured products, the stupidities of intellectually refined value at risk models, over-reliance on External Credit Rating assessments undertaken by agencies who are paid by the issuer, and the absurdities of some mark to market requirements when markets are totally illiquid. Lets be clear: The fundamental flaw in the financial theory underlying value at risk models that justified unsustainable levels of leverage needs to be widely exposed. As I said before these models may well be right for 3651 days out of the 3652 days in a decade. But on the day they are wrong we have no idea how wrong they will be or with what devastating consequences. In fact value at risk models are a bit like turkeys: After 100 days of being nurtured by the farmer the turkey believes that the farmer has nothing but his best interests at heart. The next day the farmer wrings his neck. It is, of course, the case that diversification among less than perfectly correlated assets should reduce the overall risk of a portfolio below the risk of the sum of its parts. But as is now clear for all to see that theory is only of relevance to individual portfolio positions. Extrapolating the benefits of diversification to highly integrated global capital markets and then embedding the supposed benefits in prudential regulation is, it seems to me, a composition based on a fallacy. While an individual might be able to lower the risk of a personal investment portfolio via diversification, it should be obvious that the global financial system as a whole cannot diversify out of itself. Nor can the dozen or so global banks which dominate that system. Yet they have been permitted by misguided regulation to aggressively exploit the extra leverage on the back of the supposed diversification benefits that their internal models justify: While the models they use may be academically and mathematically brilliant the empirical evidence now available demonstrates beyond doubt that in the real world we inhabit they are fundamentally flawed. I mentioned leverage ratios as one of the issues that need to be looked at in a more comprehensive review of Basel 2: While a maximum overall leverage ratio is desirable, sub-set forms of leverage will also be required to prevent excessive embedded leverage within on or off balance sheet assets or derivatives so as to limit the scope to game the overall headline, transparent balance sheet cap. Linked in to bank capital requirements also is the issue of accounting policies: If these are not soundly based there will clearly be consequences for the soundness of the assumed level of bank capital itself. That’s why Member States voted unanimously on 15 October on changes proposed by the Commission to accounting regulation - including more guidance on fair value and more flexibility to reclassify financial instruments from the trading book to the banking book. Aside from this issue I am concerned about other pro-cyclical elements that impact on the bank capital requirement regime, and in particular the issue of dynamic provisioning which enabled banks under the old accounting rules to build bigger buffers in good times in anticipation of portfolio impairment which invariably rises materially in less benign economic circumstances. The notion that the creation of these buffers is a denial of shareholder rights is, in my view, utter nonsense. Another matter linked in to the CRD regime is the operating framework that is in place for credit rating agencies. The regulation I have proposed for them - including the registration and governance requirements - should go some way towards taming the significant

10

shortcomings of the issuer pays credit rating model. So should the due diligence requirements in the revised CRD proposal. But, to be frank, I believe it is very doubtful whether ratings by issuer-pay rating agencies should, in the longer term, be used at all for the purposes of determining risk weightings on rated securities or loans. This I hope will be an issue that will reviewed within the context of the G20 work. But there is no doubt that there were many roots to the irresponsibility we saw in securities and banking markets over the past decade : Aside from excessively loose monetary policy, inadequate supervisory resources, fundamental weaknesses in the capital requirements regime, and malpractices at some top rating agencies, executive remuneration structures were misaligned with long term shareholder and prudential interests. My services are currently examining not only the issue of executives' remuneration but also remuneration structure. The 2004 Recommendation on directors´ remuneration will be reviewed. With regard to remuneration structures and incentives in the financial services industry, measures that focus on addressing perverse incentives (e.g. those that induce excessive risk taking) are being considered. These initiatives will be part of any future reform package for EU Financial Markets. Aside from all of this we have asked the industry to come forward with a clear roadmap as to how the risks from credit derivatives can be mitigated (specifically by ensuring that credit default swaps are cleared through a central clearing counterparty). Given the inadequate industry response so far I am keeping open the option of legislating. So you can see there is much ongoing work: You are aware of what we have already done on deposit guarantee schemes and aside from the other work that I have mentioned this morning there is the review of hedge funds and private equity. On hedge funds we have launched a public consultation on certain key issues such as the impact of hedge fund activity on the stability of the financial system and the degree of transparency towards regulators, investors and counterparties. The results – along with the results of a separate assessment of the effectiveness of self-regulatory codes in the private equity industry - will be discussed at a high-level conference in Brussels in February. On the basis of the responses to this consultation, the Commission will prepare appropriate regulatory initiatives. So it should be clear from this that our work is extensive and comprehensive both at a European and international level. In conclusion, Ladies and Gentlemen, let me say this: I fear that a system that never fails may be beyond reach but I hope that a system where the consequences of failure are far more limited are and will remain within reach. And it is that for which we must strive in the months and years ahead. 2. IP/09/126 Brussels, 26 January 2008 Commission sets out steps to clarify the responsibilities of UCITS depositaries (see MEMO/09/27)

11

The UCITS regulatory framework has proved very resilient during the current crisis. However, the depositaries of 4 UCITS funds (from a population of 30'000 funds) entrusted fund assets, worth 1.6bn€ to Madoff entities and those assets have not yet been recovered. On the 12th January, Mme Lagarde, the Minister for finance and economy in France addressed a letter to Commissioner McCreevv highlighting the diverging approaches that Member states have taken on the role and liability of UCITS funds' depositaries. This situation could imply intolerable differences in investor protection depending on the domicile of fund depositaries. This matter was also discussed by EU Finance Ministers at ECOFIN Council on 20th January. On the occasion of the ECOFIN Council, Commissioner McCreevy explained the steps that the Commission will take to respond to these concerns. Commissioner McCreevy stated: Responsibility of an independent depositary for safekeeping of fund assets is a cornerstone of the UCITS regulatory framework. The Directive clearly assigns responsibility for asset safe-keeping to the depositary and liability in the event of wrongdoing or negligent performance of its duties. IThe Commission will take the lead in ensuring that the principles enshrined in the Directive are upheld – starting with a review of how Member States give concrete expression to these provision to identify any practices or provisions that might blur the basic responsibilities foreseen in the Directive. On the basis of that review, the Commission will take the lead in bringing forward any actions needed to codify depositary responsibilities. Background The UCITS regulatory framework has proved very resilient during the current crisis. Despite very difficult market conditions, asset illiquidity and investor redemptions, no more than a handful of funds have been forced to suspend trading or close. The regulatory safeguards embedded in the regulatory model have been instrumental in helping UCITS funds to weather this crisis. However, some UCITS funds have been caught in the turbulence following the Madoff scandal. The depositaries of 4 UCITS funds (from a population of 30'000 funds) entrusted fund assets, worth 1.6bn€ to Madoff entities and those assets have not yet been recovered. Losses have been incurred by investors and other funds across the EU that invested in these funds. The Member States supervising these depositaries have stated that the responsibility and liability of the depositaries set out in the UCITS Directive are faithfully implemented in their law. Procedures are underway in those countries to determine the liability of the fund depositaries for loss of assets. The incident has nevertheless revealed differences in the way that the requirements of the Directive are given expression in national law. It has revealed different expectations as to whether the depositary is required to keep assets under its control so as to be able to return them to investors, or whether its responsibilities are confined to monitoring the security of the assets. It also suggests differences as to where the burden of proof lies in establishing responsibility and liability. Position of the European Commission The Commission considers that the Directive clearly establishes the basic responsibilities and liabilities of the depositary. It clearly assigns responsibility for safe-keeping fund assets to the depositary and imposes liability on the depositary in the event of wrongdoing or

12

negligent performance of its duties. Determination of liability and its extent must be established in accordance with the relevant national civil law. The Commission notes that it is premature to conclude that investors in the UCITS funds concerned will not be indemnified for losses incurred under the law of the Member States where the depositaries concerned were domiciled. However, given that the depositary is a critical component of the UCITS regulatory system, the Commission is determined to ensure that national laws and practices transcribing depositary responsibilities and liabilities do not blur the responsibilities and liabilities enshrined in the Directive. To this end, the Commission shall, along with CESR, review the manner in which Member States have implemented the relevant provisions of the Directive, and evaluate how responsibilities and liabilities of depositaries are defined having regard to national civil law. This review will be driven by the objective of identifying any practices or provisions which dilute the basic responsibilities and liabilities of the Directive. It will seek to clarify the responsibilities of UCITS depositaries for safe-keeping, and the modalities by which depositaries can exercise those responsibilities (including use of sub-custodians). To the extent that this review identifies practices or outcomes that are not consistent with the over-arching principles of the Directive, it will take the necessary steps to correct shortcomings. At this stage, a number of options could be envisaged – ranging from legally binding clarification of the responsibilities implied by asset safe-keeping supported by convergence of national practice, to more far-reaching legislative harmonisation. 3. IP/09/125 Brussels, 26 January 2009 Financial markets: Commission adopts measures to strengthen supervisory committees and standard-setting bodies for accounting and auditing The European Commission has adopted a set of decisions to strengthen the supervisory framework for EU financial markets, in order to improve supervisory cooperation and convergence between Member States and to reinforce financial stability. Under the new rules, the three committees that supervise, respectively, the securities[1], banking[2] and insurance[3] sectors will benefit from a clearer operational framework and more efficient decision-making processes. In addition, the Commission proposes that these committees, as well as key bodies involved in the standard-setting process for financial reporting and auditing at both EU and international level[4], should be provided with financial support from the EU budget so that they can achieve their objectives as rapidly and efficiently as possible. The proposal for financial support now passes to the Council and the European Parliament for consideration. Internal Market and Services Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said: "The financial crisis has demonstrated the need to further strengthen EU supervisory arrangements and has reminded us of the importance of transparency and independence, especially when setting financial reporting and auditing standards. An essential move in this direction is to reinforce the role of key bodies in these fields, at both European and international level, and to provide them with financial support.

13

"Additional reforms may be needed in relation to the EU supervisory framework, in particular in the light of the forthcoming recommendations of the High Level Expert Group chaired by Jacques de Larosière and other work under way." New framework for EU supervisory committees in securities, banking and insurance sectors The Commission has revised the Decisions establishing the EU Committees of Supervisors (CESR, CEBS and CEIOPS), setting up a clearer framework for the activities of the Committees and reinforcing current financial stability arrangements. The new Decisions contain a non-exhaustive list of tasks that the Committees are expected to perform and enhance the role of the Committees as regards the safeguarding of financial stability. In order to improve the decision-making process of the Committees, the Decisions introduce qualified majority voting when consensus cannot be reached. Members who do not follow measures adopted by the Committees shall be prepared to present the reasons for this choice. The measures adopted by the Committees remain non-binding. The revision of the Decisions establishing the Committees of Supervisors is, in the main, a follow-up to the Commission Communication on the review of the Lamfalussy process of November 2007 (IP/07/1731) and in response to the invitation of the May 2008 ECOFIN Council. Financing of EU supervisory committees in securities, banking and insurance sectors and of key bodies involved in the standard setting process for financial reporting and auditing The Commission is proposing the establishment of a Community programme, providing direct funding from the Community budget to the three EU Committees of Supervisors (CESR, CEBS and CEIOPS) and to key international and European bodies involved in the standard-setting process for financial reporting and auditing. These bodies are the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation (IASCF)[5], the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG)[6] and the Public Interest Oversight Body (PIOB)[7]. Stable, diversified, sound and adequate funding of these bodies will enable them to accomplish their mission in an independent and efficient manner. Enhanced supervisory convergence and cooperation will contribute to the stability of financial markets. At the same time, the high quality of internationally harmonised financial reporting and auditing rules and a level playing field for European businesses on the global markets are of key importance to the creation of a favourable business environment. The European contribution to the international accounting debate should also be enhanced by strengthening the resources and role of EFRAG. The contributions would amount to EUR 36.2 million and would cover the period 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2013. The proposal will now enter the co-decision procedure with a view to adoption by the European Parliament and the Council. The proposals are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finances/committees/index_en.htm

14

[1]

Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR): http://www.cesr-eu.org/ Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS): http://www.c-ebs.org/ [3] Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors (CEIOPS): http://www.ceiops.org/ [4] International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation (IASCF), the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) and the Public Interest Oversight Body (PIOB) [5] http://www.iasb.org/About+Us/About+the+IASC+Foundation/About+the+IASC+Founda tion.htm [6] http://www.efrag.org [7] http://www.ipiob.org [2]

4. MEMO/09/27 Brussels, 26 January 2008 Responsibilities of UCITS depositaries: Frequently Asked Questions (see IP/09/126) Do you think that the existing Directive has been improperly implemented? The Commission will examine the situation carefully to establish if relevant national provisions are not in conformity with the Directive. However, at this point in time, the problem seems to be less one of improper implementation than on how to ensure sufficient convergence in the application of principles which are clear in their intent – but less clear in their application. What are the options for completing any gaps in framework? The Commission will consider any appropriate and efficient solution to address evidenced gaps or failures. At this stage, a wide range of options can be envisaged. They vary from a clarification of the responsibilities implied by asset safe-keeping, supported by further convergence in national practices, to a legally binding harmonisation. The starting point will be a review that the Commission intends to initiate, in association with CESR. This will aim to clarify appropriate safe-keeping duties at member state level and the modalities by which depositaries can exercise those duties in particular when asset are kept in sub-custody with a third party. The conclusions of this review will help the Commission in assessing whether additional measures need to be taken. If legislative changes are required, should they be integrated into UCITS IV? The Commission does not believe that this would be appropriate or, productive. The review of depositary responsibilities is just getting underway while the legislative process for UCITS IV has already reached its final stage. The UCITS IV review has been a long

15

running process: Member States and the European Parliament have just completed the codecision process. It is necessary now to put those provisions to work as quickly as possible in order to help the industry respond to current market tensions and future challenges. Any issues relating to depositaries should be addressed through a separate process. Why were these problems not identified and addressed before? The safe keeping duties of the UCITS asset depositary have existed since the first UCITS directive was implemented in 1985. No significant difficulties have previously arisen. Today's issues have materialised due to exceptional circumstances which are hard to be foreseen and the Commission is confident in the UCITS regulatory model which has been standing steady, even in time where severe financial tension exists. Has the Madoff scandal highlighted other problems in UCITS framework beyond depositary responsibilities? The principal issues relate to the way in which depositaries have out-sourced functions and delegated responsibilities to other entities. The review to be undertaken will have to examine whether the conditions under which such our-sourcing and delegation tke place are sufficiently circumscribed and commonly understood. To whom can depositaries delegate functions or activities, and under what conditions? While the main focus of this work will be on depositaries, some of these lessons may be relevant for delegation and outsourcing when undertaken by other actors in the fund chain – notably the fund manager. Why did the EU not deal with these issues in UCITS IV when it had the chance? The Commission was very transparent in its preparation of the UCITS IV legislation that it did not regard harmonisation of depositary missions and responsibilities as a priority. It was considered that depositary role was sufficiently robust and well-understood so as not to require further harmonisation. The fundamental responsibilities and ultimate liability of the depositary were thought to have been sufficiently clear on the basis of the current Directive. There was no intention to a fund to appoint a depositary in another Member State – given the need to preserve direct control on operation of the fund in the fund domicile. On these grounds, the level of harmonisation of depositaries delivered by the Directive appeared to be adequate. With some exceptions, this approach was broadly supported. I take this opportunity to insist on the fact that the Madoff scandal has indeed raises true questions about funds' asset custody. But it does not question the entire UCITS model. Up until now, UCITS funds have weathered the financial crisis well. The regulatory model has stood up well to pressure and apart from few temporary suspensions, UCITS funds have not defaulted.

5. SPEECH/09/16 Charlie McCREEVY European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services

16

Address by Commissioner McCreevy at the EP Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) EP IMCO Brussels, 22 January 2008 Madame Chair, Honourable Members, On this, our first meeting of the New Year, I would like to wish you all a very happy and successful 2009. I believe we have achieved a lot for the internal market. But, our work is not yet finished, there are extraordinary challenges ahead. Tackling the crisis by making the best of the single market These are very hard times for both consumers and businesses. Economic predictions are bleak and are still worsening. There is a slump in consumer spending. These are testing times indeed. Extraordinary challenges. We are in unchartered waters and having to use our ingenuity and inventiveness to try navigate our way out of this crisis. This is going to dominate our policies and approaches for 2009 and beyond. As bad as this financial and economic crisis is there is no doubt it would be worse without the Single Market. I am certain that through the internal market we can find the ingredients that will help relaunch economic recovery in Europe. A comprehensive Commission-wide effort is now underway to address the financial crisis on a number of joined-up strands. Applying EU law on competition and state aids flexibly and fast. Co-ordinating action by Member States in close cooperation with the Presidency to bail out ailing banks. And we have been quick in proposing the most urgent adjustments to EU law. Proposals have been tabled on deposit guarantees, credit rating agencies and capital requirements for banks. We count on them being adopted as soon as possible. And there is more to be done. This work must continue because the risks to the financial system are far from over; and Parliament has a crucial role in this work. At the same time we have taken decisive first steps to stem the recession in the real economy. In December the European Council endorsed the Commission's proposal for an economic Recovery Plan for Europe. Governments have shown unity in facing up to risks that we can only tackle together. Now every effort must be made to act upon what we have agreed. My message to you today is that the single market must be part of that effort The single market is one of Europe's "most valuable assets" that should be maintained and further developed. Both today, and in the future. Today, because our market of 500 million people and our single currency are cushioning the effects of the financial crisis and recession. And in the future, because the single market will allow us to grasp, shape and lead the process of globalisation, and will contribute to the process of recovery. Let's face it. The more effective that the single market is, the easier firms and entrepreneurs will find it to invest again and create jobs once the credit crunch eases and banks lend again. I believe that the Single Market Review has a specific contribution to make to this crisis. As you know, just a few weeks ago, I presented the first annual report on the implementation of the 2007 Single Market Review.

17

The messages of this report presented on 16 December last year are both clear and straightforward. I firmly believe that the orientations of that Review are proving to be the right choices to face the current recession. So let me briefly reiterate them to you now: Consumer confidence and consumer opportunities First of all, what helps boost consumer demand will help cushion the impact of the crisis. A number of initiatives have been launched since 2007 to enhance the protection of consumers and increase consumer choice in retail markets. More will be done in the medium term. The Commission has tabled a proposal to create a harmonized set of consumer rights in the single market, so that consumers know they can get the same level of protection everywhere in Europe. This proposal is now before your committee. In the area of financial services, safer financial products - bank accounts, savings, investment products and payments – were all prioritised in 2008. For instance, a code of conduct has been agreed with the banking industry to make it easier for consumers to switch from one bank to another. And we will publish a White Paper on retail investment products shortly to give consumers reliable information and protection for the various competing investment products they can choose from. Only well-informed citizens and consumers can make well-informed choices. We have launched a project to create a "Single Market Assistance Service" by early 2010. The aim is to give users a single and simple gateway to replace the maze of information, advice and problem-solving services they have to find their way through at the moment. We are working hard on this project and we'll keep this committee closely informed during the course of this year. Easing burdens and creating opportunities for SMEs Secondly, the single market must also take care of the needs of small business. They play a crucial part in innovation and job creation. More than ever, our priority in 2009 must be to improve and ease the environment to help firms – and in particular SMEs – to cope with the deepening recession. Several reform proposals are on the table of the Council right now and can yield large costsavings for companies quickly. Let me just mention our proposal of last June for a simple, single European private company statute. The Community patent and the proposal for a unified patent jurisdiction. We will table a proposal to give Member State an option to exempt micro-entities from the accounting rules. All these proposals can save SMEs large amounts of money. But time is of the essence. Member States must now cast aside vested interests and national vanities and reach agreement. They need to show a strong political will to overcome these hurdles now. Any support you could lend to this effort would be highly welcome. Upholding the principles of the single market and modernising the way it is managed

18

I know very well that it will be a challenge to stick to the principles of the single market as we slide deeper into the recession. The temptation may be all too great for some Member States. But the Commission is firmly committed to ensuring that these principles are applied. II also will do everything to uphold firmly our level playing field and the principle of non-discrimination. That level playing field is the very foundation of the prosperity we have reached in Europe. We should not throw over board now what has served us so well during decades. If we had not already created our single market then I am certain, as a response to this crisis, we would be busy setting one up. Each EU policy field will play a constructive role in translating the recovery effort into meaningful actions of course. The Commission will assist and help Member States where it can. In my own field for example, an accelerated public procurement procedure will be applied throughout 2009 and 2010 for all major public projects. We are also ready to assist Member States in fine-tuning national recovery programmes to find the right procurement solutions. And in line with the philosophy of our Single Market review, we want to expand this "partnership" with Member States into every policy area. In June, I intend to present a Commission Recommendation on the joint management of the single market. This Recommendation will set out a number of actions that Member States can take to improve transposition, application and enforcement of single market rules. It will look at ways to better inform citizens about their single market rights. And it will present ideas on how to improve internal and cross-border cooperation between authorities in the 27 Member State. Furthermore, to underpin this process we will publish a new Single Market Scoreboard shortly. We will look more closely at the quality of transposition, at Member States' performance on infringements, and at economic indicators for the success of the Single Market. I look forward to your comments once the document is released. Progress on implementing the Services Directive Finally, let me up-date you on the implementation of the Services Directive, a subject that I am sure you are very interested in. In line with the "partnership" philosophy, we have created a cooperative, network-based implementation process. We now have less than one year to go and I'm happy to be able to tell you that all the Member States are working hard and have made considerable progress on implementation. Yet in this final phase now it is essential that efforts are stepped up once more. To deliver on time, Member States must now assign adequate resources in priority areas. Let me go through five of them: Efforts to set up the "Points of Single Contact" need to be increased. Member States should by now be finalising concrete solutions for the organisation and practical functioning of the "Points of Single Contact", and they should be testing them. Closely related to that is the introduction of electronic procedures. Member States need to enhance efforts to ensure that service providers can use electronic procedures across borders.

19

Member States should complete their review of national legislation as quickly as possible. We realise that assessing of a broad range of legislation is not an easy task. But timely completion of this process is essential for Member States to adopt the necessary changes in legislation. Member States should start preparing the reports to be submitted by the implementation deadline and get the mutual evaluation process underway in 2010. These evaluations will launch a peer review process covering many national rules that affect the functioning of the internal market. It will give all of us a detailed picture of where we stand in the internal market for Services. The Commission will – as is foreseen in the Directive – keep the European Parliament closely informed of this process and its findings. Finally, practical arrangements for administrative cooperation between local authorities need to be rolled out on the ground. This year we will test the Internal Market Information system (IMI) in a pilot project on the Services Directive. Member States are now in the process of identifying the competent authorities that will participate. After registration of these authorities the testing phase will start as such. For all this, it is essential that Member States dedicate sufficient resources to awareness raising and to training the future users of IMI. The Commission will continue to provide technical assistance, monitor progress, facilitate and coordinate work. We have assigned a lot of our own resources to making this process work. But with less than a year to go, our targets can only be met if all Member States too deploy sufficient resources and show the necessary commitment. I am here with you today to keep you informed about the implementation process and to share our assessment with you. We will continue to keep you informed. And I call on your political support to keep the pressure on Member States in this work. Let me conclude: The single market can be an effective launch-pad for recovery and the more effective the single market is, the safer everyone's jobs will be in the European Union. A proper implementation of the Services Directive is a key measure to make investment and the creation of jobs more attractive, all the more so in the face of the economic slowdown. We should use this asset to the full. Thank you for your attention.

6. IP/09/69 Brussels, 19 January 2009 Commission launches European Database for Financial Education

20

The European Commission has published a European Database for Financial Education (EDFE) on the "Europa" website. It has been designed to reference numerous financial education programmes offered by public or private institutions in the European Union. The EDFE includes standardised information about educational schemes and research projects. It is open to all providers and potential users. By improving access to information about the existing initiatives the Commission wants to contribute to improving financial capability of consumers and users of financial services. The EFDE will serve as an "electronic library" of financial education projects, which can be searched by a number of criteria such as name of the provider, country, subject matter covered, target audience or method of delivery used. Each entry contains a brief description of the initiative, some basic standard characteristics as well as links to the website and contact details of the provider. The EDFE will be a living database, open for updates and submission of information about new schemes on a continuous basis. It is available on the "Europa" website at the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/fesis/index.cfm The creation of a database of financial education schemes in the EU is one of the four Commission initiatives announced in the Communication on Financial Education published in December 2007 (IP/07/1954). The Commission's main aim is to promote the provision of financial education to EU citizens in each Member State. More detailed information about the Commission's work in this area is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finservices-retail/capability/index_en.htm

7. IP/09/68 Brussels, 19 January 2009 European Financial Integration Report 2008 The European Commission has released its European Financial Integration Report (EFIR) - an annual analysis of the integration in the EU financial sector and its effects on competition, efficiency, financial stability and competitiveness. EFIR also includes a progress report on EU financial services policy achievements in 2008. Internal Market and Services Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said: "2008 was an immensely challenging year for the EU financial sector. It is still difficult to fully assess the structural effects of the financial crisis, but it already conveys an important message: financial integration needs to go hand in hand with reinforcing financial stability, at both EU and global level." Integration EU markets are in different stages of the financial integration process; while integration is advanced in the money and bond markets, particularly within the Euro area, retail services still remain local, with major price differences and low levels of cross-border transactions.

21

Especially in the New Member States there seems to be room for consumers and businesses to benefit from further integration. Yet, the financial integration process continued to advance in 2008 and further impetus is likely to come from the implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) and the adoption of the single currency in an increasing number of EU-12 Member States. Market structures and competition Recent initiatives have contributed to enhanced competition in certain segments of the EU financial system. The post-trading Code of conduct for securities has injected momentum in the market by improving price transparency and lowering post-trading fees. This has been further strengthened by implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID). The latter has brought about considerable structural changes, especially in relation to the number of trading venues and the division of market shares. However, in some New Member States, the combination of higher margins, costs and profitability for financial services in general, seem to reflect that customers could benefit from a more competitive environment. Efficiency Over the last few years, the largest euro area banks were more profitable but less efficient than the largest US banks. It is expected that these higher levels of efficiency could be linked with the ability of US banks to better exploit economies of scale given the size, scope and level of integration of their domestic market. As a result of the financial crisis, both efficiency and profitability have deteriorated for the large euro area banks. Financial stability 2008 has been an exceptional year for the EU financial sector, dominated by the financial crisis that originated in the US sub-prime market. Apart from the housing and credit boom, fuelled by lax monetary policy, a combination of different factors amplified the crisis, i.e., flaws in risk management, regulatory loopholes, weak supervision, misalignments of incentives, and psychological factors. The crisis has underlined the important task that market participants and regulators have in ensuring that appropriate rules and incentives are in place to increase the resilience of the financial system. What is particularly pressing is the need to better locate and mitigate risks arising from cross-border institutions. The external dimension In recent years, the EU and US financial sectors have become comparable in terms of global financial market shares. New structural changes are on the way; China, India and the Middle East are increasingly developing as global financial centres and their demand for global financial services are also increasing. These changes stress the importance of developing the international dimension in EU financial services policy – to reap the new business opportunities while promoting the resilience of financial markets. International cooperation must clearly be reinforced in order to safeguard global financial stability and avoid any regulatory loopholes. The report is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finances/fim/index_en.htm

22

8. IP/09/27 Brussels, 9 January 2009 Financial services: Commission launches consultation on review of Prospectus Directive The European Commission has launched a consultation on its review of the application of the Prospectus Directive, including some proposals to improve and simplify this Directive. The Prospectus Directive aims to ensure that investors are provided with clear and comprehensive information when making investment decisions. The Commission now wishes to assess the potential impact of its proposals and the merit of any alternative approaches. All interested stakeholders, in particular businesses, investors and consumers, are invited to participate. The proposal is a key element of the Commission's action plan to reduce administrative burdens on EU companies. The closing date for replies is 10 March 2009. Internal Market and Services Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said: "We want to improve and simplify the Prospectus Directive so that it meets the needs of issuers and investors and removes any unnecessary burdens on businesses. I encourage all interested parties to give us their views." Issues addressed by the consultation As a result of extensive and continuous dialogue with stakeholders, including the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) and the European Securities Markets Expert Group (ESME), the Commission has concluded that some particular elements of the Prospectus Directive merit a review and has put forward proposals to improve and simplify the Directive. The consultation on these proposals starts with a general assessment of the overall functioning of the Prospectus Directive in terms of its effectiveness and efficiency in achieving its aims. The Commission concludes that the application of the Prospectus Directive is to be considered as broadly positive. In general, most market participants appear satisfied with the disclosure regime established by the Directive, and they consider it an important step towards the establishment of a single European securities market. Notwithstanding this overall positive assessment, the Commission has identified some elements in the Directive that may create in practice unnecessary burdens and unjustified costs for companies and intermediaries. The consultation then explains these issues and suggests measures to address the problems identified. The issues include: definition of qualified investors revision of exempt offers ('retail cascade' issue and employee shares schemes) revision of annual disclosure obligation time limit for exercise of right of withdrawal certain thresholds of the Directive

23

Finally the consultation considers issues that have been brought to the Commission's attention but that are not included at this stage in the draft proposals. The Commission is particularly keen to receive contributions and suggestions from stakeholders on these issues, including: effectiveness of the prospectus summary disclosure requirements for offers with Government guarantee schemes disclosure requirements for small quoted companies and for rights issues The Commission is very keen to fully understand and assess the financial and other impacts of the proposal as well as any alternative approaches. Therefore, contributors are invited to comment on compliance costs, impacts on competition and other impacts, costs and benefits. About the Prospectus Directive The Directive introduced a "single passport for issuers", making securities available to investors either through a public offer procedure or by admitting their shares to trading. This means that once approved by the regulatory authority in one Member State, a prospectus then has to be accepted everywhere else in the EU. In order to ensure investor protection, that approval is granted only if the prospectus meets common EU standards for what information must be disclosed and how. A prospectus is a disclosure document, containing key financial and non-financial information, that a company makes available to potential investors when it is issuing securities (shares, bonds, derivative securities, etc.) to raise capital and/or when it wants its securities admitted to trading on exchanges. The consultation is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/securities/prospectus/index_en.htm Comments should be sent to the following e-mail address: [email protected]

9. IP/09/17 Brussels, 8 January 2009 Financial services: Commission encourages applications for the new Payment Systems Market Expert Group The European Commission is to create a Payment Systems Market Expert Group (PSMEG). The group will be composed of experts competent in the area of payments. It will aim to gain inputs on payment issues, including fraud prevention, from a range of stakeholders, in particular the payment industry and users. Interested candidates are invited to send an application to the Commission by 6 February 2009. Internal Market and Services Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said: "It is important to have sound, efficient and secure payment systems in order to ensure a proper functioning of

24

the internal market. With the development of our policies in the area of payments, in particular in the context of the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA), we have a growing need for regular and high-level stakeholder input at the earliest stage of our policy-making. New and complex areas of activity, such as the prevention of payment fraud or the development of innovative payments, will also mean new needs for specialist expertise." The call for applications will be open until 6 February 2009. It is addressed to experts in payments, including fraud prevention, coming in particular from the payment industry and the payment users. A maximum of 50 experts will be selected. The PSMEG's tasks will be: to assist the Commission in the preparation of legislative acts or policy initiatives regarding payment systems, including fraud prevention issues related to payment industry and users; to provide insight concerning the practical implementation of that policy; and to exchange views on up-to-date best practices and ensure monitoring of potential issues of concern for the market. The group will meet in Brussels and will be chaired by the Internal Market and Services DG of the European Commission. More detailed information about the mandate of the group and the selection criteria for the members can be found in the documentation available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/payments/legislation_en.htm

A sajtóbejentések elérhetőek: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/searchResultAction.do?search=OK&query=markt&use rname=PROF&advanced=0&guiLanguage=en

25