249

result(s)

Word(s)
Publication type
Policy area
Author
Date

Single market information tool (SMIT)

30-09-2020

Competition and consumer protection in the single market are often undermined by price discrimination based on residency. While many market players do not cooperate with the Commission, for instance not disclosing their pricing structure, Member States often do not have the means or the tools to collect and deliver the required information to the Commission. The SMIT proposal would provide the Commission with powers such as to request business-related information (e.g. cost structure or product volumes ...

Competition and consumer protection in the single market are often undermined by price discrimination based on residency. While many market players do not cooperate with the Commission, for instance not disclosing their pricing structure, Member States often do not have the means or the tools to collect and deliver the required information to the Commission. The SMIT proposal would provide the Commission with powers such as to request business-related information (e.g. cost structure or product volumes sold), and to address market failures in a more efficient way. The SMIT, however, has raised some criticism in the Council and EP, inter alia, because of the Commission’s choice of the legal basis for the proposal. Parliament’s Legal Service stated in an opinion that the correct legal basis for the Commission proposal is Article 337 TFEU: a legal basis which gives no legislative role for the EP. On 12 July 2018, the IMCO committee adopted a report which would amend the proposal’s legal basis. The JURI committee subsequently adopted an opinion stating that the Commission proposal goes beyond the powers available under the proposed revised legal basis. The report was initially due to be voted in plenary in October 2018, but was taken off the agenda. As the parliamentary term has concluded, the report has now lapsed. The European Commission withdrew this legislative proposal on 29 September 2020. The procedure has thus ended.

Anti-money laundering - reinforcing the supervisory and regulatory framework

02-09-2019

On the back of a number of high profile cases and alleged cases of money laundering, this briefing presents current initiatives and actions aiming at reinforcing the anti-money laundering supervisory and regulatory framework in the EU. This briefing first outlines (1) the EU supervisory architecture and the respective roles of European and national authorities in applying anti-money laundering legislation that have been further specified in the 5th AML Directive and (2) ways that have been proposed ...

On the back of a number of high profile cases and alleged cases of money laundering, this briefing presents current initiatives and actions aiming at reinforcing the anti-money laundering supervisory and regulatory framework in the EU. This briefing first outlines (1) the EU supervisory architecture and the respective roles of European and national authorities in applying anti-money laundering legislation that have been further specified in the 5th AML Directive and (2) ways that have been proposed to further improve the anti-money laundering supervisory and regulatory frameworks, including the 12 September 2018 Commission’s communication, the changes to the European Supervisory Authority (ESA) Regulation adopted by the co-legislators on the basis of a Commission proposal and the most recent Commission’s state of play of supervisory and regulatory landscapes on anti-money laundering. Some previous AML cases are presented in Annex. This briefing updates an EGOV briefing originally drafted in April 2018. On a more prospective note, this briefing also presents (3) some possible additional reforms to bring about a more integrated AML supervisory architecture in the EU. In that respect, President-elect U. von der Leyen’s political declaration stresses the need for further action without specifying at this stage possible additional supervisory and regulatory developments: “The complexity and sophistication of our financial system has opened the door to new risks of money laundering and terrorist financing. We need better supervision and a comprehensive policy to prevent loopholes.”

Commission work programme 2019

19-11-2018

This briefing is intended as a background overview for parliamentary committees planning their activities in relation to the European Commission's work programme 2019. It gives a brief description of the content of the work programme concentrating on the Commission's communication COM(2018)800 and its annexes.

This briefing is intended as a background overview for parliamentary committees planning their activities in relation to the European Commission's work programme 2019. It gives a brief description of the content of the work programme concentrating on the Commission's communication COM(2018)800 and its annexes.

Flight Compensation Regulation (EC) 261/2004

16-11-2018

The Flight Compensation Regulation (EC) 261/2004 sets a minimum level of quality standards for passenger protection in air transport. It sets minimum rights for passengers in the event of denied boarding, flight cancellation and long delay on flights. This note provides a brief overview of its implementation.

The Flight Compensation Regulation (EC) 261/2004 sets a minimum level of quality standards for passenger protection in air transport. It sets minimum rights for passengers in the event of denied boarding, flight cancellation and long delay on flights. This note provides a brief overview of its implementation.

The further development of the Common Position 944/2008/CFSP on arms exports control

16-07-2018

In view of the upcoming review of the EU Common Position 944/2008/CFSP on arms exports, the aim of the workshop was to provide an overview of the context in which this process will take place together with a set of possible outcomes the review could produce. The speakers from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), first defined the context by describing how, since the EU Common Position was adopted in 2008, EU member states performed in terms of military expenditure, arms production ...

In view of the upcoming review of the EU Common Position 944/2008/CFSP on arms exports, the aim of the workshop was to provide an overview of the context in which this process will take place together with a set of possible outcomes the review could produce. The speakers from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), first defined the context by describing how, since the EU Common Position was adopted in 2008, EU member states performed in terms of military expenditure, arms production and arms transfers. Recent measures adopted at the EU level to boost defence industrial cooperation were also indicated as part of this framework. The speakers also highlighted the divergences in member states’ export policies which emerged in the last decade, most recently during the conflict in Yemen. They then provided a number of options that could be taken into consideration during the 2018 review, covering both adjustments to the language of the criteria and the user’s guide and measures to improve the implementation of the EU Common Position, the quality of reporting and to increase coherence and coordination of the EU export control regime.

External author

Dr. Sibylle BAUER, Mark BROMLEY, Giovanna MALETTA – Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)

Subsidiarity: Mechanisms for monitoring compliance

12-07-2018

The principle of subsidiarity requires decisions to be taken at the lowest practical level of government without, however, jeopardising mutually beneficial cooperation at the supranational level. Recent decades have seen efforts to strengthen the subsidiarity principle in EU law, including the introduction of the well-known early warning mechanism (EWM) for national parliaments. At the same time, the principle of subsidiarity remains a contested notion. This has important implications for the regulatory ...

The principle of subsidiarity requires decisions to be taken at the lowest practical level of government without, however, jeopardising mutually beneficial cooperation at the supranational level. Recent decades have seen efforts to strengthen the subsidiarity principle in EU law, including the introduction of the well-known early warning mechanism (EWM) for national parliaments. At the same time, the principle of subsidiarity remains a contested notion. This has important implications for the regulatory, political and judicial bodies monitoring compliance with the principle. In this context, commentators have called for a better (and shared) understanding of the principle and have formulated a number of suggestions as to how to monitor compliance with the principle more effectively.

Protection and support for victims of crime

23-05-2018

In 2012, the European Union (EU) adopted legislation intended to ensure that victims of crime can rely on the same level of protection and support across the EU. With infringement proceedings against some Member States, and pending assessment by the European Commission, an own-initiative report reviewing the implementation of this directive is to be debated during the May II plenary session.

In 2012, the European Union (EU) adopted legislation intended to ensure that victims of crime can rely on the same level of protection and support across the EU. With infringement proceedings against some Member States, and pending assessment by the European Commission, an own-initiative report reviewing the implementation of this directive is to be debated during the May II plenary session.

Media pluralism and media freedom in the EU

25-04-2018

Media freedom and pluralism are among the rights and principles enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as part of the Copenhagen criteria for membership of the EU, related to democracy and human rights. Despite that, there are currently concerns regarding threats to media freedom and pluralism in the EU. The own-initiative report on Media Pluralism and Media Freedom in the EU, due to be voted in plenary in May, aims at contributing ...

Media freedom and pluralism are among the rights and principles enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as part of the Copenhagen criteria for membership of the EU, related to democracy and human rights. Despite that, there are currently concerns regarding threats to media freedom and pluralism in the EU. The own-initiative report on Media Pluralism and Media Freedom in the EU, due to be voted in plenary in May, aims at contributing towards free and pluralistic media systems across the EU that play a key role in any democratic society.

Review of the 2017 SREP results

21-03-2018

This paper reviews the 2017 SREP results with a view to assessing their capital market implications and seeing whether the information provision about the SREP results could be improved. Aggregated SREP information as published by the ECB can be useful in detecting trends in banks’ conditions, but it cannot be meaningfully applied to assess capital market reactions to the SREP results. Bank-level SREP disclosures are voluntary, and therefore are expected to be biased towards news that is favourable ...

This paper reviews the 2017 SREP results with a view to assessing their capital market implications and seeing whether the information provision about the SREP results could be improved. Aggregated SREP information as published by the ECB can be useful in detecting trends in banks’ conditions, but it cannot be meaningfully applied to assess capital market reactions to the SREP results. Bank-level SREP disclosures are voluntary, and therefore are expected to be biased towards news that is favourable to investors in securities. Consistent with this, we find that bank stock returns on average are positive on SREP disclosure days. Overall, the 2017 SREP information that is in the public domain is insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of the SREP as conducted by the ECB in terms of improving the regulatory and market discipline of banks. The publication of full bank-level SREP information (by either the ECB or the individual banks) would facilitate such an evaluation, but full disclosure is undesirable as it exposes the banks with the weakest supervisory reviews to potentially very severe market discipline. However, the ECB could improve the information provision about the SREP by requiring banks that choose to reveal any capital regulatory information to disclose a complete breakdown of their CET1 demand to improve data comparability across banks and hence potentially market discipline.

External author

Harry Huizinga

Review of the 2017 SREP results

14-03-2018

This report looks at the methodology used by the ECB to carry out its supervisory evaluation of banks (“SREP”), as well as at the aggregate results disclosed by the supervisors and the figures released over time by individual banks. Our review suggests that greater disclosure may improve uniformity in how the SREP is implemented across institutions, as well as consistency between SREP analyses and supervisory priorities. Disclosure towards banks could be enhanced by using a standard, detailed template ...

This report looks at the methodology used by the ECB to carry out its supervisory evaluation of banks (“SREP”), as well as at the aggregate results disclosed by the supervisors and the figures released over time by individual banks. Our review suggests that greater disclosure may improve uniformity in how the SREP is implemented across institutions, as well as consistency between SREP analyses and supervisory priorities. Disclosure towards banks could be enhanced by using a standard, detailed template in the communication of the SREP findings (including “horizontal” benchmarking analyses and differences between supervisory computations and the banks’ own estimates). The release of SREP results to the public, while strengthening market discipline, may trigger undesirable reactions by customers and market counterparties; for banks with listed financial instruments, however, the additional capital requirements following from the SREP meet the definition of inside information provided in the Market Abuse Regulation, and should therefore be publicly disclosed. Finally, higher transparency standards are called for when it comes to the methodologies and metrics used by supervisors to assess specific areas within the SREP.

External author

A.Resti

Upcoming events

01-12-2020
FISC Public Hearing on 1st December 2020
Hearing -
FISC
01-12-2020
Inter-parliamentary Committee meeting on the Evaluation of Eurojust Activities
Other event -
LIBE
02-12-2020
Public Hearing on AI and Health
Hearing -
AIDA

Partners