Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja - L (Jogszabályok)

Átírás

1 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában (2007. március) 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 Oldalszám 1 A BIZOTTSÁG 2007/14/EK IRÁNYELVE (2007. március 8.) a szabályozott piacra bevezetett értékpapírok kibocsátóival kapcsolatos információkra vonatkozó átláthatósági követelmények harmonizációjáról szóló 2004/109/EK irányelv egyes rendelkezéseinek végrehajtására irányadó részletes szabályok megállapításáról 2 A BIZOTTSÁG 2007/16/EK IRÁNYELVE (2007. március 19.) az átruházható értékpapírokkal foglalkozó kollektív befektetési vállalkozásokra (ÁÉKBV) vonatkozó törvényi, rendeleti és közigazgatási rendelkezések összehangolásáról szóló 85/611/EGK tanácsi irányelv egyes fogalommeghatározások pontosítása tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról 3 A BIZOTTSÁG 2007/18/EK IRÁNYELVE (2007. március 27.) a 2006/48/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek bizonyos intézményeknek az irányelv hatálya alá sorolása, illetve az irányelv hatálya alóli kivonása, valamint a multilaterális fejlesztési bankoknak való kitettség kezelése tekintetében történő módosításáról Sajtóbejelentések Sorszám Cím Oldalszám 1. Progress Report on the Single Market in Financial Services 7 2. Charlie McCreevy European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services On the road towards convergence and equivalence State of play in international accounting SEC Roundtable Washington, 6 th March

2 3. Financial services: Commission adopts supplementary measures on company transparency 4. Banking: Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy welcomes a vote for a clear, fair and predictable supervisory approval process for mergers and acquisitions 5. Financial services: Commission acts to improve efficiency of EU investment fund market 6. Banking: Commission refers France to Court of Justice over law on current account interest 7. Internal Market: infringement proceedings against Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Portugal and Spain 8. Charlie McCreevy European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Private Equity: Getting it right House of Commons - All Party Parliamentary Group Breakfast Meeting London, 22 March Financial services: Commission consults on shape of possible changes to EU framework for retail investment funds (UCITS) 10. Charlie McCreevy European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Priorities in the Internal Market British-American Business Inc. and European-American Business Council London, 22 March Charlie McCreevy European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Asset Management: Delivering on Industry & Market Needs Annual Dinner Institutional Money Market Funds Association (IMMFA) London, 22 March Charlie McCreevy, Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services, welcomes progress made in ECOFIN Council on Payment Services Directive 13. Charlie McCreevy European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Increasing Financial Capability Increasing Financial Capability Conference Brussels, 28 March

3 Jogszabályok 1. A BIZOTTSÁG 2007/14/EK IRÁNYELVE (2007. március 8.) a szabályozott piacra bevezetett értékpapírok kibocsátóival kapcsolatos információkra vonatkozó átláthatósági követelmények harmonizációjáról szóló 2004/109/EK irányelv egyes rendelkezéseinek végrehajtására irányadó részletes szabályok megállapításáról Megjelent HL L 69 (III. 9.) Hatályos III. 29. Jogforrás tartalma: Az irányelv célja a 2004/109/EK irányelv rendelkezésinek végrehajtására vonatkozó részletes szabályok megállapítása, annak biztosítása érdekében, hogy a tagállamok az átláthatósági követelményekre irányadó szabályok végrehajtási szabályait úgy alakítsák ki, hogy azok magas szinten biztosítsák a befektetők védelmét, növeljék a piac hatékonyságát, és alkalmazásuk egységes legyen. Az irányelv a 2004/109/EK irányelv fogalom meghatározásainak pontosítása érdekében eljárási szabályokat határoz meg a székhely szerinti tagállam megválasztása kapcsán teljesítendő befektetői tájékoztatatásra. A féléves pénzügyi beszámolók kapcsán a nem konszolidált féléves pénzügyi kimutatások kivonatának minimális tartalmára ad meg részletes feltételeket, amennyiben a kimutatások nem a nemzetközi számviteli standardoknak megfelelően készültek. Definiálja az irányelv továbbá a részvénykibocsátók kapcsolt felekkel kötött főbb ügyletekről készítendő időközi vezetői nyilatkozatainak közzéteendő tartalami elemeit is. A nagy értékű értékpapír állományok megvásárlásáról vagy értékesítéséről szóló információk kapcsán meghatározásra kerül a szokásos rövid elszámolási ciklus maximális időtartama, valamint a 2004/109/EK irányelv által mentesített árjegyzők ellenőrzésére az illetékes hatóságok által követendő szabályok tartalma. Az irányelv szerint a kereskedési napok beosztására a székhely szerinti tagállam beosztását kell alakalmazni a befektetőket és a piaci szereplőket közzététel útján történő tájékoztatása mellett. A 2004/109/EK irányelv szerint meghatározott jelentős értékpapír-állomány bejelentésével és nyilvánosságra hozatalával kapcsolatos eljárások kapcsán az irányelv részletszabályokat állapít meg a jelentős értékpapír állománnyal rendelkező részvényesek, természetes- és jogi személyek bejelentési kötelezettségével kapcsolatban, valamint részletezi az egyedi portfóliókezelésben érintett alapkezelőtársaságok, és befektetési vállalkozások által betartandó, az egyes eljárások alóli mentesülés feltételeit. A 2004/109/EK irányelv meghatározza azon pénzügyi eszközök típusait, amelyek jogosultságot teremtenek a szavazati jogot biztosító részvények megszerzésére. Az irányelv részleteiben szabályozza az ilyen pénzügyi eszközzel rendelkező személy által követendő eljárást, az általa teljesítendő bejelentés tartalmát és módját. 3

4 Az irányelv előírja a szabályozott információk terjesztésére vonatkozó minőségi minimum-előírásokat, annak biztosítására, hogy a befektetők az információkhoz azonos módon férjenek hozzá. Az irányelv a legszélesebb nyilvánosság tájékoztatását írja elő, ezen felül pedig az információk feldolgozásának megkönnyítése és meggyorsítása érdekében a médiával történő kommunikációra alkalmazandó szabályokat is meghatározza. Az irányelv megállapítja azon követelményeket, amelyek teljesülése esetén a 2004/109/EK irányelv rendelekezéseivel egyenértékűnek tekinthetőek a harmadik országok jogszabályi előírásai: - a vezetés éves beszámolójának tartalmára, - az éves és féléves pénzügyi információkért való felelősségre, - a negyedéves pénzügyi beszámoló közzétételére, - a konszolidált mérlegben szereplő információkra, - az egyedi mérleg készítésére vonatkozó szabályokra, - a jelentős értékpapír állomány bejelentésére és ezen belül annak nyilvánosságára vonatkozó szabályokra, - a kibocsátókkal szembeni követelményekre, - az összes szavazati jog számának és a tőkének a nyilvánosságra hozatalára, - a közgyűlések helyének, idejének és napirendjének megadására, - az alapkezelő társasággal vagy befektetési vállalkozással szemben támasztott követelményekre vonatkozón. A tagállamoknak legkésőbb az elfogadás dátumától (2007. március 8.) számított 12 hónapon belül kell elfogadni és kihirdetni azokat a törvényi, rendeleti és közigazgatási rendelkezéseket, amelyek biztosítják az irányelvnek való megfelelést. A rendelkezéseket július 23-tól kell alkalmazni. 2. A BIZOTTSÁG 2007/16/EK IRÁNYELVE (2007. március 19.) az átruházható értékpapírokkal foglalkozó kollektív befektetési vállalkozásokra (ÁÉKBV) vonatkozó törvényi, rendeleti és közigazgatási rendelkezések összehangolásáról szóló 85/611/EGK tanácsi irányelv egyes fogalommeghatározások pontosítása tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (EGT vonatkozású szöveg) Megjelent HL L 79 (III.20.) Hatályos III. 23. Jogforrás tartalma: Az irányelv célja a 85/611/EGK irányelv rendelkezéseinek az egyes fogalom meghatározások tekintetében történő egységesítése volt. Az 85/611/EGK irányelv hatályba lépése óta bővült a pénzügyi piacokon forgalmazott pénzügyi eszközök választéka, amely következtében bizonytalanság alakult az irányelv alkalmazásával kapcsolatban, ami egyúttal az irányelv többféle értelmezéséhez vezethet. 4

5 Az egységes alkalmazás és értelmezés biztosítása érdekében, valamint azért, hogy a fogalommeghatározásokat a 85/611/EGK irányelv alapelveinek megfelelően értelmezzék, vált szükségessé az irányelv módosítása. Az irányelv meghatározza azokat a szabályokat, amelyek egységes alkalmazása biztosítja a 85/611/EGK irányelv által használt fogalmak pontosítását, így tartalmazza azokat az alapvető kritériumokat is, amelyek segítenek a jogalkalmazónak megállapítani, hogy az egyes pénzügyi eszköz mely meghatározás körébe tartozik. Az irányelv tartalmazza az átruházható értékpapírként definiált pénzügyi eszközök kritériumait és pontosítja a pénzpiacon általában forgalomba hozott eszközök definícióját is. Rendelkezik a likvid vagy bármikor pontosan meghatározható értékkel bíró pénzpiaci eszközökről, valamint megadja a befektetők, valamint a befektetések védelme érdekében szabályozott kibocsátású vagy kibocsátójú pénzpiaci eszközök fogalmát is, továbbá azt, hogy mi minősül megfelelő információnak a kibocsátás és a kibocsátó vonatkozásában a befektetők, valamint befektetések védelmének megvalósulásához. A módosítás meghatározza, hogy a közösségi jogszabályokban megállapítottakkal egyenértékű prudenciális szabályok alá milyen székhellyel rendelekező jogi személyek tartoznak. A származékos pénzügyi eszközök tekintetében rendezi, hogy, amennyiben azok megfelelnek az irányelvben megatározott kritériumoknak, azokat likvid pénzügyi eszköznek kell tekinteni. Ehhez az irányelv tartalmazza az egyes kritériumok részletes felsorolását. A pénzügyi indexen alapuló származékos eszközökről szóló rendelkezések pontosítása érdekében definiálja azon pénzügyi indexek fogalmát, amelyek származékos eszköz alapjául szolgálhat és egyben felsorolja mely követelmények teljesülése esetén tekinthető származékos eszköz alapjául az adott pénzügyi index. Az 85/611/EGK irányelv által átruházható értékpapírok, és pénzpiaci eszközök alcsoportjaként elismert származékos elemet tartalmazó eszközökhöz kapcsolódóan pontosításra kerül, hogy mely pénzügyi származékos termék tekinthető más eszközbe ágyazott terméknek. Az átruházható értékpapírokkal vagy a pénzpiaci eszközökkel kapcsolatos, a portfólió hatékony kezelésére irányuló technikák és eszközök kapcsán meghatározza az irányelv az e technikák és eszközök körébe tartozó ügyletek kritériumait. A 85/611/EGK irányelv ugyan megadja a kötvény- vagy részvényindexeket leképező ÁÉKBV fogalmának kritériumait, de szükséges ezen kritériumok egységes tartalmának és alkalmazásának biztosítása, valamint annak pontos megadása, hogy mely ÁÉKBV tekinthető indexleképező ÁÉKBV-nek. A tagállamoknak március 23-ig kell elfogadni és kihirdetni azokat a törvényi, rendeleti és közigazgatási rendelkezéseket, amelyek biztosítják az irányelvnek való megfelelést. A rendelkezéseket július 23-tól kell alkalmazni. 5

6 3. A BIZOTTSÁG 2007/18/EK IRÁNYELVE (2007. március 27.) a 2006/48/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek bizonyos intézményeknek az irányelv hatálya alá sorolása, illetve az irányelv hatálya alóli kivonása, valamint a multilaterális fejlesztési bankoknak való kitettség kezelése tekintetében történő módosításáról (EGT vonatkozású szöveg) Megjelent HL L 87 (III. 28.) Hatályos X. 1. Jogforrás tartalma: Az irányelv a 2006/48/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelv hatály alól kivett intézmények listájának módosítását valamint a multilaterális fejlesztési bankokkal szembeni kitettségekre vonatkozó rendelkezéseket tartalmaz. A Dán Gazdasági Minisztérium kérésére törlésre kerül az irányelv hatálya alá tartozó intézmények listájáról a Dansk Landbrugs Realkreditfond. A irányelv felsorolja azokat a multilaterális fejlesztési bankokat, amelyekkel szembeni kitettségekhez 0 %-os kockázati súly társul. A Világbank kérte a Nemzetközi Pénzügyi Eszköz a Védőoltásokért fejlesztésfinanszírozási intézmény felvételét a listára, valamint az Iszlám Fejlesztési Bank is kezdeményezte felvételét a listára. Ennek megfelelően a következőképpen módosul azon multilaterális fejlesztési bankok listája, amelyekkel szembeni kitettségekhez 0 %-os kockázati súly társul: a) Nemzetközi Újjáépítési és Fejlesztési Bank; b) Nemzetközi Pénzügyi Társaság; c) Amerika-közi Fejlesztési Bank; d) Ázsiai Fejlesztési Bank; e) Afrikai Fejlesztési Bank; f) az Európa Tanács Fejlesztési Bankja; g) Északi Beruházási Bank; h) Karibi Fejlesztési Bank; i) Európai Újjáépítési és Fejlesztési Bank; j) Európai Beruházási Bank; k) Európai Beruházási Alap; l) Nemzetközi Beruházásbiztosítási Ügynökség; m) Nemzetközi Pénzügyi Eszköz a Védőoltásokért; valamint n) Iszlám Fejlesztési Bank. A tagállamoknak legkésőbb szeptember 30-ig kell elfogadni és kihirdetni azokat a törvényi, rendeleti és közigazgatási rendelkezéseket, amelyek biztosítják az irányelvnek való megfelelést. A rendelkezéseket október 1-jétől kell alkalmazni. 6

7 Sajtóbejelentések 1. IP/07/270 Brussels, 1 st March 2007 Progress Report on the Single Market in Financial Services The European Commission has published its regular Progress Report on the Single Market in Financial Services, highlighting achievements made in the course of This year the promises set out in the White Paper on Financial Services ( ) were delivered. Considerable achievements were also made in fighting financial crime and in improving the EU framework in company law, accounting and auditing. Internal Market and Services Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said: The last year has seen a stepchange in our work in financial services, company law and financial reporting, and we have firmly embedded better regulation in our policy making. Alongside the delivery of key legislative initiatives, we have seen the adoption of an industry-led Code of Conduct, devoted considerable resources to evidence-gathering, consultation and evaluation, and worked to ensure a strong role for the European Union on the world stage". Some of the key achievements included in the Progress Report are the publication of the White Paper on Investment Funds, the adoption of the industry-led Code of Conduct on Clearing and Settlement, the completion of the inquiry into competition in the retail financial services sector, and the extension of the period for acceptance of third-country Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAPs) in the EU until The report also makes reference to other significant developments such as the achievement of an improved inter-institutional balance in EU policy making and the progress being made in enhancing cooperation between financial supervisory authorities in Europe. The full text of the Progress Report is available at: 2. SPEECH/07/124 Charlie McCreevy European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services On the road towards convergence and equivalence State of play in international accounting SEC Roundtable Washington, 6 th March 2007 Thank you Chris (Cox) for the invitation to take part in this roundtable and thank you Hal (Scott) for your kind words of introduction and for your pioneering work over the years. This is all further proof of the close and effective cooperation the SEC and the European Commission have established. I am very pleased about what we have already achieved together. It is of great practical importance to 7

8 our citizens and business. And I would like to commend you on your leadership. Capital markets are global. Our financial markets are becoming ever more closely integrated and can no longer be viewed in isolation. Global markets need global standards and global regulatory cooperation. This is the only way to ensure proper investor protection and promote transparency and efficiency. We are destined to work together more. On securities regulation, banking, insurance and so forth. I note that G7 finance ministers in Essen last month urged that we should now "...explore free trade in securities based on mutual recognition of regulatory regimes." That is a step up. Some years ago the EU was faced with a situation where our financial reporting practices no longer met the new requirements for building an integrated European capital market. We had to rethink our approach and we decided to move to International Accounting Standards. That move was bold and visionary. The changeover to IFRS has not come easy. It has taken a lot of time and money for 8000 or so listed companies to adapt to the new accounting environment. Analysts and stakeholders have had to learn how to react to new financial information. I am very pleased to be able to say today that the move towards IFRS has been going well. The feed-back we get is, in general, positive. The first studies of IFRS accounts have shown that the overall quality of the accounts and the disclosures have improved. Of course, the introduction of 40 new standards plus interpretations has given rise to some application and interpretative issues. Most of these have been dealt with at company level, by auditors or regulators. This is how it should be in a principles based system. Robust and understandable principles should be handled and used by skilled professionals. To sift out any more complex problems, we have set up a Round Table on consistent interpretation. Cooperation between regulators on both sides of the Atlantic is also crucial for the smooth introduction and enforcement of IFRS. In the global market, only regulators working together can ensure adequate investor protection. I am very pleased to see the increased level of contacts and joint work between CESR - the Committee of the European Securities Regulators and the SEC. The Work Plan between CESR and SEC agreed in August is an important step within the roadmap facilitating cooperation between regulators. This cooperation is crucial in order to ensure consistent application and enforcement of IFRS and US GAAP and to avoid any conflicting regulatory decisions on the application of IFRS. We need to be open towards each other and exchange information at an early stage and frequently. There is still work to be done, but I am confident that we are on the right track. Since we took the decision to use IFRS in the EU, more than 100 jurisdictions around the world have decided to require or allow IFRS. The US has taken significant steps in this direction. I am convinced accepting IFRS without reconciliation in the US capital markets will have very positive effects. It will bring more openness to capital markets, it will benefit US investors and it will facilitate access for third country issuers to US financial markets. And contribute to a more coherent global regulatory structure. Let me underline this: this is in the US' interest, just as much as in ours and can and will be done in a way that will benefit and safeguard US investors. I can fully subscribe to the conclusions of the Capital Markets Competitiveness group that Hal chaired, the Bloomberg-Schumer-McKinsey report and the speech of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, all calling for convergence of accounting standards and a more principles-based approach to regulation. In the long term it is crucial that there is substantial convergence between IFRS and US GAAP, the world's most important accounting frameworks. I welcome the efforts made by the standard-setters FASB and IASB to develop accounting standards for worldwide use. This does not mean that IFRS and US GAAP should be identical, but differences should be narrowed down so that investors can understand the financial statements prepared under the different accounting frameworks. The convergence process should improve the information available to investors, and be the opportunity to replace weaker standards with stronger ones. However, any new standards must be 8

9 introduced in such a way that there will be a stable framework of rules that users and preparers can learn to apply in an orderly fashion. We need a period of accounting stability and predictability not the palace revolution every day. While the standard-setters are continuing the convergence process, we should also harvest short term benefits. Therefore we need to work on mutual recognition and equivalence of accounting rules between the US and the EU. Last year, Chris Cox and I confirmed our mutual commitment to removing the reconciliation requirements for IFRS and US GAAP. I am happy that good progress has been made since then. In the EU, we took a decision to continue to permit listings on the basis of statements prepared according to the US and a number of other GAAPs until This aligns the EU timetable with the SEC roadmap. Next year both the SEC and the Commission will have to take crucial decisions. I am convinced that we will achieve a positive result. This is a win-win situation for both the US and the EU. And I think the principle of equivalence can also be applied in fields beyond accounting. This morning PCAOB chairman Mark Olson and I have agreed to deepen EU-US cooperation on audit regulation. The starting point for cooperation between oversight bodies should be the home country principle. This is why we have agreed today to launch roadmap discussions on equivalence of our respective auditing systems. We want to move towards full reliance on our respective auditor public oversight systems, in the same spirit as in accounting. This does not require systems and standards to be identical but robust enough to ensure investor confidence. Robust enough for each of us to have confidence in each other. I believe we should also work to find a way to narrow down differences in auditing standards. The aim is to have, by 2009, inspections of audit firms carried out by their home country public oversight body - and not by host country inspections, which are legally and organisationally cumbersome. This agenda is ambitious and we will need to work hard to achieve it. But I am confident and I think we can build on the experience we have gained in the area of accounting. Let me also say that these 2 areas accounting and auditing are the outriders, the precursors to much deeper EU-US cooperation as Chancellor Merkel is hoping to build with her transatlantic initiative. Conclusion To conclude, global capital markets are a reality. Regulators have to adapt their structures and thinking to this reality. The convergence of accounting standards removes differences so that investors can understand different financial statements and make similar investment decisions regardless whether accounts are prepared under IFRS or US GAAP. While this process is going on, regulators in the US and the EU must already take two important steps: First, deepen their cooperation to ensure consistent application and enforcement of the accounting standards. Build confidence in each other. And trust each other. Secondly, eliminate costly reconciliation requirements. This will create a real win-win situation, where the removal of barriers and unnecessary costs will give better access for funding, lead to lower cost of capital and boost our economies on both sides of the Atlantic. Towards a friction-free transatlantic capital market which is no less than 70% of the global total. The prize is within our grasp. We must reach out and take it. 9

10 3. IP/07/315 Brussels, 12 March 2007 Financial services: Commission adopts supplementary measures on company transparency The European Commission has adopted measures supplementing the EU legal framework established by the Directive on transparency obligations of listed companies (2004/109/EC). This follows a positive vote of the European Securities Committee and a strong endorsement from the European Parliament on 24 October The Transparency Directive and its implementing measures will improve the quality of information available to investors on companies performance and financial position as well as on changes in major shareholdings. Internal Market and Services Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said These measures say how EU rules on the transparency of company information should work in practice. They will make a big difference to investor protection, investor confidence and the functioning of European capital markets." The Commission's implementing measures supplement the Transparency Directive with regard to: issuers' disclosure of financial information in half-yearly reports; investors' disclosure of major holdings; minimum standards for the pan-european dissemination of regulated information to the public; and minimum requirements for accepting equivalence of third-country regulations in respect of some elements of the Directive. These implementing measures do not go beyond the requirements already contained in the Transparency Directive. Member States are due to write the Transparency Directive into their national laws by 20 January 2007, and the implementing measures a year later. In addition, the Commission has launched an open consultation on the design of a possible network of national mechanisms to store regulated financial information, as envisaged by the Transparency Directive. More information is available at: 4. IP/07/321 Brussels, 13 March 2007 Banking: Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy welcomes a vote for a clear, fair and predictable supervisory approval process for mergers and acquisitions Today the European parliament reached agreement in first reading on the Commission's proposal to tighten the procedures that member States' supervisory authorities have to follow when assessing proposed mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the banking sector (see IP/06/1174). Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said "The European Parliament today voted in favour of making the 10

11 whole acquisition process in financial sectors more efficient. The purpose of this Directive is neither to encourage nor to discourage acquisitions in the financial sector. We want to ensure that business decisions to make acquisitions in the financial sector are examined in a clear and transparent manner by the appropriate supervisor. It is imperative that legitimate business decisions are not frustrated by over-zealous authorities or by political interference. For the Internal Market to function correctly it is critical to have clear, fair and predictable procedures and processes. We believe that with this Directive we will remove the ambiguity that has existed so far. " Current EU rules allow supervisory authorities to block proposed M&A if they consider that the 'sound and prudent management' of the target company could be put at risk. The proposed new Directive, which amends various existing Directives in these sectors, would in particular clarify the criteria against which supervisors should assess possible M&A operations. This would improve clarity and transparency in supervisory assessment and help to ensure a consistent handling of M&A requests across the EU. The proposed Directive would amend the following existing Directives: the Banking Directive (2006/48/EC), the Third Non-life Insurance Directive (92/49/EEC), the Recast Life Assurance Directive (2002/83/EC), the Reinsurance Directive (2005/68/EC), and Directive 2006/48/EC on markets in financial instruments. More information is available at: 5. IP/07/345 Brussels, 19 March 2007 Financial services: Commission acts to improve efficiency of EU investment fund market The European Commission has taken action in two specific areas to improve the efficiency of the EU single market for retail investment funds. These funds, known as 'UCITS' [1], provide consumers with access to professionally managed investments on affordable terms and now account for over 5500 billion of assets. First, the Commission has adopted legally binding guidance on whether new financial instruments can be included in investment funds. Second, it has issued guidance on how host country authorities should exercise limited scrutiny powers when UCITS are notified for sale in their country. These clarifications will ensure consistency in the authorisation and marketing of investment funds across the EU. The Commission will propose a more fundamental redesign of the EU 'passport' for investment funds later in Internal Market and Services Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said: "This is another important step towards delivering an efficient single market for investment funds. We want investors to be able to benefit from new and innovative financial products. And we want to put a stop to the administrative barriers that prevent investors from taking advantage of funds in other Member States. We have worked closely with regulators and market participants to develop a common-sense approach to these issues, and we will work with Member States to ensure that these principles are upheld." Financial instruments eligible for inclusion in EU investment funds The Commission has specified, in the form of an implementing Directive, criteria for assessing whether different types of financial instrument are eligible for inclusion in UCITS funds. This measure will help to remove uncertainty as to whether UCITS can properly invest in the following financial instruments: asset backed securities; listed closed end funds; Euro Commercial Paper; index based derivatives; and credit derivatives. The Commission proposed the implementing Directive taking into account advice from the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR). The proposal has received the approval of the European Parliament and of Member States. Member States now have 12 months to implement the Directive in 11

12 national law. The Commission will carefully monitor this process to ensure even application throughout the EU. The implementing Directive is complemented by additional work within CESR to codify the day-to-day application of these criteria by national enforcement authorities. This will further ensure their consistent implementation. This CESR guidance is available at: Marketing of investment funds in another Member State Under the EU UCITS Directive, a fund authorised in one Member State can be marketed in any other provided that it is notified to the authorities of that Member State (the 'host' authority). Under this procedure, the host authority has up to two months to review the notification and can specify how the fund should be advertised and promoted on its territory. However, national authorities are sometimes uncertain of how to apply the procedure correctly and of the borderline between the responsibilities of the Member States concerned. This has led to escalating administrative and compliance costs and significant delays in bringing authorised funds to market in other Member States. The Commission has now clarified the relevant rules, in the form of an Interpretative Communication. In particular, the Commission has reaffirmed that an investment fund's home supervisory authority has sole responsibility for monitoring compliance with EU rules, and that the notification procedure cannot be used by Member States to challenge authorisation of UCITS granted in another Member State. More information on both measures is available at: 6. IP/07/352 Brussels, 21 March 2007 Banking: Commission refers France to Court of Justice over law on current account interest The European Commission has decided to refer France to the European Court of Justice as it has not yet completely amended its legislation ('Code Monétaire') that formally prohibits banks from offering interest on current accounts to their customers. The referral to the Court marks the third stage of the infringement procedure laid down in Article 226 of the EC Treaty. The Commission's original decision to pursue infringement proceedings in this case follows on from the ruling of 25 October 2004 ('CAIXA Bank', C-02/442) by the European Court of Justice, which held that legislation such as that in force in France impeded access by EU banks to the French market. The deposit of funds by the public represents one of the basic activities in the banking sector and the prohibition on paying interest on current accounts deprived EU banks of an instrument that could otherwise help them acquire new customers without the need for a well-established commercial network. Following the Commission's reasoned opinion (IP/06/434), the situation has improved significantly. France has abolished two legal provisions that had further specified the restriction on paying interest on current accounts, and banks operating in France can now offer interest payments to their customers. However, the formal restriction on such payments remains, even if it cannot be enforced without secondary legislation. 12

13 Although the French authorities have already submitted draft legislation to the Commission, this draft legislation has not been dealt with by its Parliament. The Commission has therefore decided to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice. The latest information on infringement proceedings concerning all Member States can be found at: 7. IP/07/359 Brussels, 21 March 2007 Internal Market: infringement proceedings against Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Portugal and Spain The European Commission has decided, under Article 228 of the EC Treaty, to send a reasoned opinion to Portugal and letters of formal notice to Italy and Spain asking those Member States for full information on their execution of Court judgements relating to implementation of a Directive on rental and lending rights. The Commission has also decided to formally request the Czech Republic and Hungary to implement fully in national law a Directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. This formal request takes the form of a "reasoned opinion", the second stage of the infringement procedure laid down in Article 226 of the EC Treaty. If there is no satisfactory reply within two months, the Commission may refer the matter to the European Court of Justice. Italy, Portugal and Spain Directive on rental and lending rights The Commission has decided, under Article 228 of the EC Treaty, to send a reasoned opinion to Portugal and letters of formal notice to Italy and Spain concerning those Member States' execution of European Court of Justice judgements relating to their implementation of Articles 1 and 5 of Directive 92/100/EEC (today codified in Directive 2006/115/EC). This Directive stipulates that authors must obtain remuneration when their works are used for public lending in a library and that certain categories of establishments may be exempted from the payment of this remuneration. Activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision Czech Republic and Hungary The Commission has decided to send reasoned opinions to the Czech Republic and Hungary for incomplete transposition of Directive 2003/41/EC on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. Both countries had taken the view that, given the fact that there are currently no pension institutions in their countries falling under the scope of the Directive, they were only obliged to transpose the Directive to the extent that pension institutions established in other Member States should be allowed to provide their services in their countries. The Commission took the opposite view. Given that the Directive contains no derogations or relevant transitional periods as far as the transposition is concerned, all Member States have to transpose the Directive in its entirety and establish a legal framework which would enable pension institutions to be set up, even if they do not currently exist. In the absence of implementing legislation to date, both countries concerned are given two months to take the necessary measures to comply with the Directive in full. The latest information on infringement proceedings concerning all Member States can be found at: 13

14 8. SPEECH/07/171 Charlie McCreevy European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Private Equity: Getting it right House of Commons - All Party Parliamentary Group Breakfast Meeting London, 22 March 2007 Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen: I am very honoured to have been invited back again this year to share with you my thoughts on some developments within the European financial markets and the controversies surrounding them. Since we last met, the debate about both hedge funds and private equity funds has intensified. It is an inescapable fact of political and business life that with success and scale comes profile. And with profile comes scrutiny. Nobody should complain about that: As alternative investments become an increasingly important part of the financial market landscape it is right that we examine the implications from a regulatory and supervisory perspective. But we should not let our proper consideration of the appropriateness or adequacy of the regulatory framework cloud the substantial economic benefits that the success that alternative investment funds including private equity and hedge funds - have brought: The hedge fund industry now provides more than a third of the liquidity to Europe's equity markets. And the private equity industry is the most critical source of capital for start-up and developing businesses that stimulate innovation, competitiveness and growth. It has also been among the main drivers of the major restructuring that some of Europe's most significant businesses have needed in order to remain competitive in increasingly globalized markets. Some of the questions being asked about private equity are sensible and legitimate. But I am a little perplexed by some of the comments that I have heard in recent times. Let me give you some examples: First, we have heard complaints that private equity funds have taken advantage of low interest rates to raise large amounts of debt: Clearly when the price of something falls demand for it rises. Surely nobody would expect private equity firms, acting in the interests of their shareholders, to wait for the cost of debt to rise before going out to raise capital! If professional investors want their equity leveraged, it is in private equity firms that they invest. Close to the top of every economic cycle there is of course a tendency for excessive exuberance. And banks are not immune to this tendency. That s why supervisors have a responsibility to monitor risk concentrations closely. But we have to assume that both lenders and investors in private equity deals are at least aware that leverage is not a one way bet. We have to assume too that they know how to manage and measure risk. And that they apply premium pricing over their cost of funds to reflect that risk. It is reasonable to assume too that they look at the source of repayment and then come to an informed view on the business plans and cashflows that support the forecast repayment capacity. It is obviously the successful driving forward of those business plans that delivers the growth that generates the returns to risk takers. In turn this drives forward the private equity financed businesses, their ability to provide sustainable employment, and more sustainable growth throughout the economy. Of course, asset disposals form part of many private equity firms' transformation plans for the businesses in which they invest. This gives rise to charges of "asset stripping". But one investor's asset sale is another investor's asset purchase: The potential of the asset doesn't disappear with its sale. Rather the purchaser sees opportunities to generate better returns from the asset than the 14

15 vendor. That's what creates a market. That s what risk taking is about and it is risk taking that drives innovation, employment and growth. Another complaint I have heard about private equity managers relates to the bonuses that they get paid. Certainly super-bonuses get paid to portfolio managers who substantially out-perform mainly to those who deliver upper quartile returns. It is the responsibility - and in the interests of private equity fund managers - acting with their clients' money, to ensure that in the companies in which they invest the scale of reward for managers is appropriately tailored to outperformance in respect of net shareholder returns. If those rewards are properly performance driven I ask myself why they should be less acceptable than performance fees paid to professional golfers or transfer fees paid to professional footballers? Why are successful job and wealth creators - and people who manage businesses for success - demonised? Of course some funds charge excessive fees relative to performance. But it is for the market and particularly those who choose whether or not to invest in these funds to pass judgement and impose controls on that or stop investing. The payment by private equity firms of supposedly excessive dividends to their shareholders is another source of complaint. The argument here is that this practice robs companies of the resources to expand and therefore destroys job prospects. Does anyone doubt that if profitable opportunities for expansion exist that they won't be grasped in preference to the return of equity to shareholders? Do people really believe that a big dividend payment to the institutional shareholders who invest in private equity firms does not get reinvested to create employment elsewhere or that it is not used to fund bigger pensions for the policy holders? And do they not see that the boost to the spending power of pensioners and savers creates further job opportunities and more growth in other businesses? Let me deal with one final complaint: That private equity firms strip down companies in which they invest to their core and contract out the rest. But they do that because they identify their core as being the areas where they are efficient and have competitive advantage and they identify their noncore as areas where others can be more efficient and do the job better. Surely such contracting out leaves both the outsourcer and the outsourcee better off, more competitive, and hence capable of providing more sustainable employment? I know that there may be grounds for challenging the statistics that have been bandied around in terms of the relative contribution to employment growth of private equity firms versus publicly quoted companies. But what cannot be in dispute is the substantial employment creation that there has been over the medium term in countries where the private equity culture has taken hold. The track record shows that private equity firms are proactive in destroying inefficiency and waste, in identifying and leveraging upon sources of competitive advantage, in exiting areas where such advantage can no longer be sustained, in ridding companies of vanity assets and vanity management teams, and in changing management teams that under-perform. That is not the route to the destruction of employment. It is the route towards underpinning competitiveness and to delivering sustainable growth in employment. I turn now to some of the things that need to be addressed in relation to the private equity industry. In our White Paper on enhancing the single market framework for investment funds we committed to "undertake a systematic analysis of national barriers to private placement". Proper arrangements for private placement could make an important contribution to the deepening of European markets for institutional products such as private equity investments. The lack of a European private placement regime is often perceived as creating legal uncertainty and hindering cross-border business. In its report the Expert Group on Private Equity considered these shortcomings as a factor that increases the costs of raising money, particularly by inflating legal and advisory fees. These higher organisational costs, in turn, impact negatively on the returns available to investors. We have now begun to gather information and views as regards the necessity and feasibility of a European private placement regime. First we need to establish if there is a single market failure and to put the issue in an economic context. Second we need to establish what might be the requirements of an 'ideal' private placement regime, and third we need to look at how existing EU rules might be appropriately amended. I welcome the establishment of the working group under Sir David Walker to consider issues of transparency and disclosure in private equity and to draw up an appropriate code on a "comply or explain" basis to address those issues. I hope that this will help deal with legitimate concerns that have been expressed. I welcome the intention to conduct extensive consultation with all of the interest 15

16 groups concerned including portfolio companies, trade unions, employer representatives and investors. There is also a need for independent directors on public company boards to be attentive to potential conflicts of interest on the part of members of their management teams when those teams are proposing private-equity backed buyout bids. I should also mention that the concerns of pension fund trustees in companies where there are substantial pension fund deficits are also legitimate in the context of a leveraged buyout of a business be it by private equity firms or other entities. As to the many positives I have already mentioned let me say this: There is a big selling job to be done. The industry must go out and tell the many stories of success: Spread the message about the returns the best private equity firms deliver to their shareholders who directly or indirectly are the nations' present and future pensioners some rich, many not rich at all. Spread the message about the new jobs created by portfolio companies, the new products, services, and innovations. And about the new markets that they find and win. There is a good story to tell about private equity. It needs to be told and re-told. Ladies and gentlemen: I always welcome the opportunity to meet with legislators in all Member States to have an exchange of views and to hear their concerns and aspirations. The UK and in particular the City of London is at the forefront of financial innovation and growth in Europe and so I particularly appreciate being here today to meet with you. Regulating in a way that creates the right environment for industry to thrive and for investors to invest in a competitive market is important. Getting the balance right is not always easy. Member States have a bigger role in that than the EU Commission. But the Commission has a role to play too. We have competitiveness and growth at the top of our agenda. And let me assure you that throughout the life of this Commission I am determined to play my part in keeping it there. It is only through increased competitiveness and faster growth that Europe in the future will be able to finance the increasing costs to Member State Exchequers of demographic ageing. That aside, with the forces of globalization becoming ever stronger and major trading partners rapidly catching up, standing still is not an option. Outstanding entrepreneurs, world class managers, experienced company doctors, and talented innovators - we can't get enough of them in Europe: We must keep those we have and encourage more to come. The private equity industry is better placed than most to do just that. Thank you very much indeed. 9. IP/07/396 Brussels, 22 March 2007 Financial services: Commission consults on shape of possible changes to EU framework for retail investment funds (UCITS) The European Commission has published initial orientations outlining the form of possible adjustments to the EU Single Market framework for investment funds the UCITS [1] Directive. The envisaged changes are needed in order to facilitate market-driven restructuring and boost efficiency in the dynamic but fragmented European fund market. The material published sets out initial suggestions on how to facilitate cross-border marketing of funds; build scale and liquidity by supporting fund mergers and asset pooling; allow fund managers to manage funds domiciled in another Member State; simplify and improve product disclosures; and strengthen supervisory cooperation mechanisms. These changes to the Directive were announced in the Commission White Paper of November 2006 (IP/06/1569). The consultation launched today seeks to mobilise regulatory, commercial and user expertise to ensure the technical soundness of the Commission's subsequent formal proposal. Deadline for comments is 15 June The Commission will finalise its formal proposal end Internal Market and Services Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said: "The UCITS Directive has served 16

17 the European fund industry well. It has been the springboard for global leadership. But the industry is faced with massive structural challenges fragmentation, complex distribution channels, competition from new investment products. The current Directive provides no answer to these challenges. That is why I have pushed hard to strengthen the Single Market framework for funds. The November White Paper agreed the steps that were most urgently needed. This consultation marks the beginning of the delivery phase. I invite stakeholders to comment critically on the usefulness, coherence and cost-effectiveness of our preliminary ideas. This will ensure that the Commission's subsequent proposal will really deliver better outcomes for European investors and market participants." The White Paper identified a series of changes to the UCITS Directive which are urgently needed: to remove costly administrative interference when harmonised funds are sold cross-border; to support consolidation of the fragmented fund industry through mergers and asset pooling; to allow fund managers to manage funds established in another Member State; to provide investors with meaningful and concise information about costs, risks and potential rewards when deciding whether to invest in a fund. The Commission is now making public its initial views on how best to realise these objectives. This material is published as a basis for consultation and feedback from all interested parties. The Commission hopes to receive extensive feedback and input from regulatory bodies, market participants and other stakeholders on: their effectiveness in achieving the desired result; their coherence with the overall UCITS framework and related legislation; the likelihood of unintended consequences for stakeholders particularly investors; and cost-effectiveness. The consultation is further expression of the Commission's commitment to better regulation and transparent law-making. These are informal and preliminary orientations: the Commission retains full discretion as regards the final form of the proposal that it will subsequently table. The following consultation documents are now available: Overview of initial orientations for possible adjustments to UCITS Directive: this presents the main objectives and guiding principles of the envisaged solutions. Detailed consultation material relating to the each set of envisaged adjustments (notification procedure, fund mergers, asset pooling, management company passport, simplified prospectus, supervisory cooperation): this includes a more developed presentation of the shape of possible methods for realising the desired improvements. As part of the consultation process, the Commission will host an open hearing in Brussels on 26 April This will give stakeholders an opportunity to exchange views on the relevance and effectiveness of the envisaged solutions. The consultation documents plus online registration for the open hearing are available at: SPEECH/07/179 Charlie McCreevy European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Priorities in the Internal Market British-American Business Inc. and European-American Business Council 17