Antonio Tajani, Vice-President of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, the Commission welcomes the political agreement reached on the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), but hopes that the minutes mention its legal objections concerning one of the provisions of the text. The Commission considers that Article 67(3) should be deleted. According to the Commission, Article 290 should be interpreted as meaning that it is independent in the preparation and adoption of delegated acts. The standard recitals on experts’ opinions in the memoranda of understanding agreed between the three institutions reflect this interpretation. It is therefore unacceptable, and contrary to Article 290, to go beyond the recital provided for by the memorandum of understanding and to introduce an obligation to consult experts on a material provision.
Werner Langen, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, the committee chair will make a statement on this legal question in a few minutes. The Council and Parliament have rejected the Commission’s motion. Thus, there is agreement between both legislative institutions that the motion is not justified.
However, allow me to make a few comments on the project. This regulation on derivatives is one of the centrepieces of financial market control. Three-and-a-half years after Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, we are now making sure that future over-the-counter derivatives agreements are managed centrally, also requiring that they should be backed with equity capital and reported to the relevant authorities. The volume in 2011 was USD 708 billion, 12 times the gross world product of the entire world population of 7 billion people. The new regulations finally give supervisory authorities an insight into this huge, confusing market. The risk to financial instruments is reduced. By deploying central counterparties, who must be consulted on every transaction in the future, we have established stringent requirements, including regulations for institutions in third countries.
At this point, I would like to thank all my colleagues, as well as the Commission, and Commissioner Barnier. I find it regrettable that the Rules of Procedure do not allow a thorough debate for such an important vote. In view of the fact that the number of informal trialogues is mounting, I would call for a swift change to these provisions. After all, the result of the debate held here in Parliament in July 2011 has been the subject of trialogue negotiations ever since and we have not had an opportunity to discuss it. The Rules of Procedure need to be changed in this regard.
Sharon Bowles (ALDE), Chair of the ECON Committee. – Madam President, I note what the Commissioner said with regard to Article 67(3), but we do not intend to delete it. The article says ‘before adopting a delegated act, the Commission shall endeavour to consult ESMA’. ESMA is not made up of Member State experts; it is an independent regulatory authority and this House forcefully upholds the independence of that body. They are not Member State experts, and the article does not impose an obligation. Therefore, for this and other reasons, we do not share the opinion of the Commission that it infringes Article 290 TFEU, nor indeed the interinstitutional agreement to which the Commission has also referred. I wish this to be placed on the record.