Skip to content
EU Parl Watch

amendment list, 27 July 2026

On the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2009/65/EC, 2011/61/EU and 2014/65/EU as regards the further development of capital market integration and supervision within the Union

Document ECON-AM-791083 · (COM(2025)0942 – C100327/2025 – 2025/0382(COD))

Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs

On Parliament’s site PDF Word

Full text

Jump to an amendment (217)
Text 1,676 paragraphs

Amendment 102

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(1) The Savings and Investments Union (SIU) strategy is part of the Commission strategy to provide a vision of the Union as an economic powerhouse. For that purpose, it is necessary to establish a single market for financial services by addressing market inefficiencies resulting from fragmentation and to create the truly integrated European capital markets which are accessible to all citizens and businesses across the Union. It is also important that financial markets potential of the Union is unlocked by providing access to more efficient capital-market based financing and by facilitating cross-border capital flows, which in turn should support the economy of the Union, stimulate job creation and enhance competitiveness.(1) The Savings and Investments Union (SIU) strategy is part of the Commission strategy to provide a vision of the Union as an economic powerhouse. For that purpose, it is necessary to establish a single market for financial services by addressing market inefficiencies resulting from fragmentation and to create the truly integrated European capital markets which are accessible to all citizens and businesses across the Union. It is also important that financial markets potential of the Union is unlocked by providing access to more efficient capital-market based financing and by facilitating cross-border capital flows, which in turn should support the economy of the Union, stimulate job creation, enhance competitiveness and contribute to the green transition.

Or. en

Amendment 103

Jaroslav Knot, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(2) It is necessary to foster a seamless capital market across the EU by strengthening the supervisory framework and addressing regulatory fragmentation, thereby ensuring better integration of capital markets throughout the Union. In particular, while the integration of capital markets in the Union should ultimately be a market-driven process, certain barriers stemming notably from the Union legislative framework can obstruct progress. The Union should therefore focus on removing barriers in the sectors of trading, post-trading and asset management, and barriers hindering the uptake of new technologies. As market integration deepened, it is also crucial for the Union supervisory framework to evolve in accordance with it.(2) It is necessary to foster a seamless capital market across the EU by addressing regulatory fragmentation, thereby ensuring better integration of capital markets throughout the Union. In particular, while the integration of capital markets in the Union should ultimately be a market-driven process, certain barriers stemming notably from the Union legislative framework can obstruct progress. The Union should therefore focus on removing barriers in the sectors of trading, post-trading and asset management, and barriers hindering the uptake of new technologies. As market integration deepens, the Union supervisory framework should preserve the primary responsibility of national competent authorities and their knowledge of local markets, national legal frameworks and market participants.
Read the rest (1,664 paragraphs)

Or. en

Amendment 104

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(2) It is necessary to foster a seamless capital market across the EU by strengthening the supervisory framework and addressing regulatory fragmentation, thereby ensuring better integration of capital markets throughout the Union. In particular, while the integration of capital markets in the Union should ultimately be a market-driven process, certain barriers stemming notably from the Union legislative framework can obstruct progress. The Union should therefore focus on removing barriers in the sectors of trading, post-trading and asset management, and barriers hindering the uptake of new technologies. As market integration deepened, it is also crucial for the Union supervisory framework to evolve in accordance with it.(2) It is necessary to foster a seamless capital market across the EU by strengthening the supervisory framework and addressing regulatory fragmentation, thereby ensuring better integration of capital markets throughout the Union. In particular, while the integration of capital markets in the Union should ultimately be a market-driven process, certain barriers stemming notably from the Union legislative framework can obstruct progress. The Union should therefore focus on removing barriers in the sectors of trading, post-trading and asset management, and barriers hindering the uptake of new technologies, while safeguarding financial stability. As market integration deepened, it is also crucial for the Union supervisory framework to evolve in accordance with it.

Or. en

Amendment 105

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(2a) This Directive contributes to a genuinely integrated Single Market for investment funds and to the competitiveness of the Union asset management sector by removing structural barriers to cross-border fund management, distribution and the exercise of passporting rights. Any measure adopted under this Directive should be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective and should not duplicate or extend the supervisory responsibilities that Directives 2009/65/EC and 2011/61/EU already assign to competent authorities.

Or. en

Justification

This recital anchors the Directive to its core purpose: an integrated Single Market for funds and a more competitive Union asset management sector, achieved by removing cross-border barriers rather than adding supervisory process. It safeguards the responsibilities already assigned to competent authorities under Directives 2009/65/EC and 2011/61/EU, ensuring new measures stay proportionate and avoid duplicating existing supervisory functions.

Amendment 106

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(2a) The purpose of this Directive is to contribute to a more effective Single Market. Any measures adopted under this Directive should be proportionate to that purpose, encourage supervisory convergence, and respect the responsibilities conferred on competent authorities under Directives 2009/65/EC and 2011/61/EU.

Or. en

Amendment 107

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(2b) In promoting greater supervisory convergence, it is essential to build on the existing European System of Financial Supervision and the respective functions of the European Supervisory Authorities and competent authorities. All measures intended to address cross-border supervisory matters should comply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality while avoiding unnecessary duplication of supervisory responsibilities.

Or. en

Amendment 108

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(2b) Supervisory convergence is best achieved through the existing European System of Financial Supervision, not through parallel structures. Any measure addressing cross-border supervisory questions should respect the competences already assigned to the European Supervisory Authorities and to competent authorities, and should be tested against the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality before it is adopted.

Or. en

Justification

This recital confirms that supervisory convergence should be pursued through the existing European System of Financial Supervision, not through parallel or newly created structures. It requires any measure addressing cross-border supervisory questions to respect the competences already assigned to the ESAs and competent authorities, and to be tested against subsidiarity and proportionality before adoption.

Amendment 109

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2 c (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(2c) Supervisory convergence is important for the effective functioning of the Single Market. The European Securities and Markets Authority should therefore play a strengthened role in facilitating cooperation between competent authorities, promoting the consistent application of Union law, identifying divergent supervisory practices, supporting data-sharing and peer comparison, and fostering supervisory convergence across the Union. That role should be exercised in a manner that preserves the primary supervisory responsibilities of national competent authorities, ensures clear supervisory accountability, respects the principle of proportionality, and avoids unnecessary duplication of supervisory activities in relation to management companies, alternative investment fund managers, UCITS, alternative investment funds, depositaries, and cross-border fund activities.

Or. en

Amendment 110

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2 d (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(2d) Directives 2009/65/EC and 2011/61/EU were recently revised through Directive (EU) 2024/927 after a comprehensive legislative review covering, among other matters, delegation arrangements, liquidity management tools, supervisory reporting, and cross-border activities. Adequate time should be allowed for the implementation of those amendments to achieve their intended outcomes before introducing any further significant changes to the supervisory and operational framework governing management companies and alternative investment fund managers.

Or. en

Amendment 111

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(3a) In accordance with the principle that essential elements of an area should be reserved for the legislative act, regulatory and implementing technical standards adopted pursuant to this Directive should be limited to specifying procedures, timelines, formats and templates. They should not introduce additional conditions affecting the substantive scope of the requirements laid down in this Directive, in order to preserve legal certainty for management companies, AIFMs and depositaries operating across more than one Member State.

Or. en

Justification

Confirms the boundary between essential and non-essential elements for the technical standards introduced by this Directive, ensuring consistent application across Member States and legal certainty for cross-border operators.

Amendment 112

Markus Ferber

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(3b) When exercising the powers conferred on it under this Directive, in particular where it identifies, reviews or takes supervisory action in respect of EU groups of management companies and AIFMs or other financial market participants, ESMA should have regard to the effect of its actions on the international competitiveness and attractiveness of the Union asset management and investment services sector, without prejudice to its primary objectives of investor protection, financial stability and market integrity.

Or. en

Justification

The directive lacks a provision requiring ESMA to weigh the effect of exercising these powers on the international standing of EU asset managers relative to non-EU competitors. A competitiveness principle closes that gap, without displacing investor protection, financial stability or market integrity as ESMA's primary objectives.

Amendment 113

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 4

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(4) Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council2 should be aligned with Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament of the Council3 with regard to the notification of material changes to the scope of authorisation. Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (‘UCITS’) and their management companies should therefore be required to notify the competent authorities of their home Member State before implementing any material changes to the conditions for initial authorisation and those authorities should be able, within a defined and extendable period, to oppose or restrict such changes.(4) Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council2 should be aligned with Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament of the Council3 with regard to the notification of material changes to the scope of authorisation. Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (‘UCITS’) and their management companies should therefore be required to notify the competent authorities of their home Member State before implementing any material changes to the conditions for initial authorisation and those authorities should be able, within a defined and extendable period, to oppose or restrict such changes. A material change may be considered to be a change sufficiently significant to potentially affect investors’ interests or alter the basis upon which they made their investment decision. The notification of material changes should not create unnecessary barriers in terms of time and costs to market a UCITS, noting the broader objective to improve and simplify access to the Single Market. Similarly, this would apply to AIFMs, EUVECA managers, EuSEF managers.
2 Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (recast) (OJ L 302, 17.11.2009, p. 32, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/65/oj).2 Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (recast) (OJ L 302, 17.11.2009, p. 32, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/65/oj).
3 Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010, OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/61/oj).3 Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010, OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/61/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 114

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Recital 4

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(4) Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council should be aligned with Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament of the Council with regard to the notification of material changes to the scope of authorisation. Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (‘UCITS’) and their management companies should therefore be required to notify the competent authorities of their home Member State before implementing any material changes to the conditions for initial authorisation and those authorities should be able, within a defined and extendable period, to oppose or restrict such changes.(4) Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council should be aligned with Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament of the Council with regard to the notification of material changes to the scope of authorisation. Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (‘UCITS’) and their management companies should therefore be required to notify the competent authorities of their home Member State before implementing any material changes to the conditions for initial authorisation and those authorities should be able, within a defined and extendable period, to oppose or restrict such changes. Member States shall not use those notification procedures to introduce, maintain or enforce additional information requirements, prior authorisations, localised forms, certifications, procedural formalities or supervisory expectations other than those expressly provided for in EU law.
2 Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (recast) (OJ L 302, 17.11.2009, p. 32, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/65/oj).2 Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (recast) (OJ L 302, 17.11.2009, p. 32, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/65/oj).
3 Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010, OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/61/oj).3 Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010, OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/61/oj).

Or. es

Amendment 115

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5) [...]deleted

Or. en

Amendment 116

Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5) [...]deleted

Or. en

Amendment 117

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5) [...]deleted

Or. en

Amendment 118

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5) Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU do not recognise the notion of an asset management group and the hereto related synergies and risks. Currently, asset management groups that operate across the Union are required to maintain standalone human and technical resources at each group entity level and the delegation of functions to other entities within the same group is subject to the full scope of delegation requirements. To facilitate the operations of asset management groups in the Single Market, Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU should recognise the notion of an EU group of management companies and Alternative Investment Fund Managers (‘AIFMs’), which should comprise all authorised management companies and AIFMs, as well as investment firms and credit institutions that are established in the Union and that are duly authorised under Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council4 and Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council5 , respectively. To facilitate the sharing of group-wide resources and to avoid unnecessary duplication of resources across different EU entities within the group, it should be further specified that management companies and AIFMs should be able to utilise the human and technical resources of other entities within their EU group to conduct their business. Moreover, to reduce the regulatory burden of management companies and AIFMs that rely on other entities within their EU group to carry out their functions or services, those arrangements should no longer qualify as a delegation and should not be subject to the requirements on the delegation of functions, other than the requirement to duly inform the competent authorities of the home Member State of the management company or AIFM that functions or services are performed by other entities within the EU group. To ensure that all entities within the same group operate under a common legal, regulatory, and supervisory framework, which is essential for maintaining a high level of investor protection and effective oversight, it should be further clarified that those rules will only benefit delegation arrangements and resource sharing between entities within the same group that are established in the Union and should apply regardless of whether the parent company of an EU group is located inside or outside the Union. The provisions of Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU as regards EU groups of management companies and AIFMs shall not affect the liability of management companies and AIFMs over the functions performed by other entities of the EU group or the prudential consolidation requirements for credit institutions and investment firms pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.(5) In order to facilitate the efficient organization of cross-border asset management groups operating within the Union, it is appropriate to introduce a common definition of an EU group of management companies and alternative investment fund managers. Such a definition should reflect the organizational reality of the European asset management sector, where management companies and AIFMs frequently operate within integrated group structures that allow for the sharing of resources, expertise, technology, data governance arrangements and operational infrastructures. The recognition of such group structures should contribute to regulatory simplification, reduce unnecessary administrative burdens and support the competitiveness of the Union asset management industry, while preserving the existing regulatory safeguards applicable to each authorized entity.
4 Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (recast) OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 349, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/65/oj).
5 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/34/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 119

Billy Kelleher, Gilles Boyer, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5) Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU do not recognise the notion of an asset management group and the hereto related synergies and risks. Currently, asset management groups that operate across the Union are required to maintain standalone human and technical resources at each group entity level and the delegation of functions to other entities within the same group is subject to the full scope of delegation requirements. To facilitate the operations of asset management groups in the Single Market, Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU should recognise the notion of an EU group of management companies and Alternative Investment Fund Managers (‘AIFMs’), which should comprise all authorised management companies and AIFMs, as well as investment firms and credit institutions that are established in the Union and that are duly authorised under Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council4 and Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council5 , respectively. To facilitate the sharing of group-wide resources and to avoid unnecessary duplication of resources across different EU entities within the group, it should be further specified that management companies and AIFMs should be able to utilise the human and technical resources of other entities within their EU group to conduct their business. Moreover, to reduce the regulatory burden of management companies and AIFMs that rely on other entities within their EU group to carry out their functions or services, those arrangements should no longer qualify as a delegation and should not be subject to the requirements on the delegation of functions, other than the requirement to duly inform the competent authorities of the home Member State of the management company or AIFM that functions or services are performed by other entities within the EU group. To ensure that all entities within the same group operate under a common legal, regulatory, and supervisory framework, which is essential for maintaining a high level of investor protection and effective oversight, it should be further clarified that those rules will only benefit delegation arrangements and resource sharing between entities within the same group that are established in the Union and should apply regardless of whether the parent company of an EU group is located inside or outside the Union. The provisions of Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU as regards EU groups of management companies and AIFMs shall not affect the liability of management companies and AIFMs over the functions performed by other entities of the EU group or the prudential consolidation requirements for credit institutions and investment firms pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.(5) To facilitate the efficient organisation of management companies and alternative investment fund managers within a group structure, while preserving effective supervision and a high level of investor protection, it is appropriate to clarify that the use of technical and human resources made available by another entity within the same group ("group resources") should not be considered a delegation of functions. Such arrangements should therefore not be subject to the requirements applicable to delegation under Directives 2009/65/EC and 2011/61/EU, other than the requirement to duly inform the competent authorities of the home Member State of the management company or AIFM that group resources are provided by other entities within the group structure. The management company or alternative investment fund manager should remain fully responsible for compliance with its obligations under those Directives and should retain effective oversight and control over the use of those resources. The provisions of those Directives as regards group resources of management companies and AIFMs shall not affect the liability of management companies and AIFMs over the functions performed by other entities within the group structure.
4 Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (recast) OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 349, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/65/oj).
5 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/34/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 120

Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5) Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU do not recognise the notion of an asset management group and the hereto related synergies and risks. Currently, asset management groups that operate across the Union are required to maintain standalone human and technical resources at each group entity level and the delegation of functions to other entities within the same group is subject to the full scope of delegation requirements. To facilitate the operations of asset management groups in the Single Market, Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU should recognise the notion of an EU group of management companies and Alternative Investment Fund Managers (‘AIFMs’), which should comprise all authorised management companies and AIFMs, as well as investment firms and credit institutions that are established in the Union and that are duly authorised under Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council4 and Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council5 , respectively. To facilitate the sharing of group-wide resources and to avoid unnecessary duplication of resources across different EU entities within the group, it should be further specified that management companies and AIFMs should be able to utilise the human and technical resources of other entities within their EU group to conduct their business. Moreover, to reduce the regulatory burden of management companies and AIFMs that rely on other entities within their EU group to carry out their functions or services, those arrangements should no longer qualify as a delegation and should not be subject to the requirements on the delegation of functions, other than the requirement to duly inform the competent authorities of the home Member State of the management company or AIFM that functions or services are performed by other entities within the EU group. To ensure that all entities within the same group operate under a common legal, regulatory, and supervisory framework, which is essential for maintaining a high level of investor protection and effective oversight, it should be further clarified that those rules will only benefit delegation arrangements and resource sharing between entities within the same group that are established in the Union and should apply regardless of whether the parent company of an EU group is located inside or outside the Union. The provisions of Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU as regards EU groups of management companies and AIFMs shall not affect the liability of management companies and AIFMs over the functions performed by other entities of the EU group or the prudential consolidation requirements for credit institutions and investment firms pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.(5) To improve operational efficiency for asset managers, delegation arrangements assessed by management companies or AIFMs as non-critical on the basis of a risk-based evaluation should benefit from a derogation from the notification requirements under Article 7(1), point (e) of Directive 2009/65/EC and Article 7(2), point (e) of Directive 2011/61/EU at authorisation, given their low risk and the need to reduce administrative burden. Management companies and AIFMs should assess the risk profile of each delegation arrangement relating to functions listed in Annex I of Directive 2011/61/EU and Annex II of Directive 2009/65/EC, or services referred to in Article 6(4) of Directive 2011/61/EU and Article 6(3) of Directive 2009/65/EC, using qualitative and quantitative factors reflecting operational and regulatory characteristics, including financial, reputational and compliance risks, continuity of service, degree of delegation, investor protection and intra-group delegation. A delegation arrangement should be considered critical where a defect would materially impair the management company’s or AIFM’s compliance, financial performance, soundness, continuity or ability to correctly oversee the funds under management. Where delegated functions or services are considered critical, Directives 2009/65/EC and 2011/61/EU should allow a proportionate oversight regime enabling management companies and AIFMs to calibrate their due diligence and ongoing monitoring to the specific characteristics and risk profile of the delegation. This may include differentiated monitoring intensity, including lighter approaches for intragroup delegations, while maintaining prudential objectives and investor-protection safeguards. The existing supervisory framework governing delegation arrangements can, in practice, impose monitoring obligations that are not always proportionate to the actual level of risk, particularly for intragroup or other lower-risk delegations, including intragroup delegations to entities located in third countries. Management companies and AIFMs remain legally responsible for delegated functions or services and must apply sound governance principles. Management companies and AIFMs should document both critical and non-critical delegation arrangements so that the competent authorities of their home Member State can obtain the relevant information upon request.
4 Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (recast) OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 349, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/65/oj).
5 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/34/oj).

Or. en

Justification

The aim of amending the delegation framework is to transition from the Commission’s blanket exemption for all EU group arrangements to a risk-based approach. Under this approach, non-critical, lower-risk delegation arrangements would be granted a derogation, regardless of group structure or geography. All other arrangements would be subject to proportionate, ongoing monitoring in accordance with the ESMA Principles on third-party risk supervision.

Amendment 121

Markus Ferber

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5a) Group membership and geographic establishment are not, on their own, reliable proxies for risk in a delegation arrangement. Some intra-group arrangements carry material inherent and residual risk, whilst some arrangements with entities outside the EU group, including in third countries, carry non-material risk. Management companies and AIFMs should therefore also be able to benefit from a lighter treatment of delegation arrangements which they have assessed, having regard to the risk factors identified in ESMA's Principles on third-party risks supervision, as presenting a non-material level of inherent and residual risk, irrespective of whether the delegate belongs to the same group or is established within the Union. Given the heightened sensitivity of portfolio management and risk management to loss of control, that lighter treatment should remain conditional, for those two functions, on the delegate being duly authorised or registered for asset management purposes and subject to supervision, or on the arrangement having received the prior approval of the competent authority of the home Member State of the management company or AIFM.

Or. en

Justification

A geographic or group-membership test is a poor proxy for delegation risk: some intra-group arrangements carry material risk, some third-country or extra-group arrangements do not. Anchoring the lighter treatment in a documented risk assessment, informed by ESMA's principles on third-party risks supervision, targets simplification at genuinely low-risk arrangements rather than at group structure alone, while the authorisation safeguard for portfolio and risk management keeps investor protection intact.

Amendment 122

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5a) The notion of an EU group should encompass not only management companies and AIFMs established and authorized in the Union, but also holding companies established in the Union that exercise control over, or a dominant influence on, such entities. In many asset management groups, strategic coordination, allocation of resources, technological investments, operational planning and organizational oversight are exercised at holding company level. The inclusion of such holding companies in the definition of an EU group reflects the economic and organizational reality of the sector and facilitates a coherent application of the provisions concerning supervisory coordination and regulatory simplification.

Or. en

Amendment 123

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5b) The identification of an EU group should not depend on whether the ultimate parent undertaking of the wider group is established within or outside the Union. Management companies and AIFMs authorized within the Union are subject to the same regulatory requirements, supervisory oversight and investor protection obligations irrespective of the location of their ultimate parent undertaking. Accordingly, where Union-authorized entities form part of a wider group whose ultimate parent undertaking is established outside the Union, the EU group should comprise exclusively those undertakings established and authorized within the Union. This approach ensures equal treatment of Union-authorized entities while preserving the territorial scope of Union law.

Or. en

Amendment 124

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5 c (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5c) The provisions relating to EU groups are intended exclusively to facilitate regulatory simplification and supervisory coordination and should not be interpreted as introducing a framework of prudential consolidation for management companies and AIFMs. Asset managers operate under an agency model and manage assets on behalf of investors without assuming proprietary risks comparable to those arising in banking groups. Consequently, the recognition of EU groups should neither affect the individual authorization and responsibility of management companies and AIFMs nor alter the allocation of supervisory responsibilities established under Directives 2009/65/EC and 2011/61/EU.

Or. en

Amendment 125

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5 d (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5d) Where management companies and AIFMs belong to broader banking, financial or mixed-activity groups, organizational integration at group level should not impair their fiduciary duties towards investors. Management companies and AIFMs should at all times retain ultimate responsibility and effective oversight over portfolio management activities, risk management arrangements, product governance decisions, voting policies and the selection and oversight of depositaries. The existence of integrated group structures, shared resources or intragroup delegation arrangements should not affect their obligation to act in the best interests of investors and fund unit-holders. The inclusion of credit institutions and investment firms within the scope of EU asset management groups is strictly meant to simplify the infra-groups outsourcing, facilitating management companies and AIFMs to rely on human and technical resources of other entities within their EU group. Therefore, this inclusion should not be intended to affect the autonomy of asset management companies.

Or. en

Amendment 126

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5 e (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5e) In order to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness of the Union asset management sector, while maintaining a high level of investor protection, management companies and alternative investment fund managers belonging to the same EU group should be able to organize their activities in a manner that reflects the operational reality of integrated cross-border groups. Such groups frequently rely on common infrastructures, technological platforms, personnel, expertise and support functions that are shared among several entities. Union law should therefore facilitate the use of resources available within the EU group while preserving the individual authorization, responsibility and accountability of each management company and AIFM.

Or. en

Amendment 127

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5 f (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5f) The authorization of a management company should not be made conditional on the duplication of resources that are already available within the EU group. Where a management company relies on human or technical resources provided by one or more entities belonging to the same EU group, competent authorities should assess the adequacy of the resources available to the management company on a functional basis, taking into account the resources accessible within the group. Such arrangements should contribute to regulatory simplification and operational efficiency without affecting the ability of the management company to comply with the requirements of this Directive.

Or. en

Amendment 128

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5 g (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5g) Management companies belonging to an EU group should be able to rely on other entities within that same EU group for the performance of management functions, ancillary services and critical or important functions. Given the existence of common ownership, integrated governance arrangements, aligned interests and ongoing supervisory oversight within the Union, certain intragroup arrangements should benefit from a simplified regulatory treatment. Such simplified treatment should apply where the delegated entity belongs to the same EU group, is duly authorized to perform the relevant functions or services and the arrangement does not impair the ability of the management company or AIFM to retain ultimate responsibility and effective oversight over the delegated functions and to act in the best interests of investors.

Or. en

Amendment 129

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5 h (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5h) The simplified treatment of intragroup arrangements should contribute to reducing unnecessary administrative burdens associated with duplicative authorization and notification requirements while allowing competent authorities to retain full visibility over the organizational arrangements adopted by management companies. Competent authorities should remain entitled to request information, assess governance arrangements and intervene whenever necessary to ensure compliance with Union law and the protection of investors.

Or. en

Amendment 130

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5 i (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5i) The simplified regime applicable to intragroup arrangements should not affect the continued application of the organizational requirements laid down in this Directive, including the obligation for management companies and AIFMs to retain sufficient substance and not to become letter-box entities. The derogations applicable to intragroup arrangements should therefore not be interpreted as reducing the responsibility of management companies and AIFMs for the activities carried out on their behalf or as limiting the supervisory powers of competent authorities.

Or. en

Amendment 131

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5 j (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5j) When assessing compliance with the organizational substance requirements and the prohibition on becoming a letter-box entity, competent authorities should take into account the specific characteristics of integrated EU asset management groups. In particular, the existence of shared personnel, common technological infrastructures, centralized support functions, group-wide governance arrangements or intragroup delegation structures should not, in itself, constitute evidence that a management company or AIFM lacks sufficient substance. The assessment should instead focus on whether the management company or AIFM retains effective decision-making powers, oversight responsibilities and control functions and remains fully responsible for compliance with Union law and for the protection of investors.

Or. en

Amendment 132

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5 k (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5k) For EU groups composed exclusively of management companies and AIFMs authorized within the Union, competent authorities should be able to assess organizational substance having regard to the resources, expertise, infrastructures and governance arrangements available within the EU group as a whole. Such an assessment should recognize that integrated group structures may enhance operational resilience, risk management capabilities and supervisory transparency. The existence of common resources or intragroup delegation arrangements should therefore not, in itself, imply that a management company or AIFM has become a letter-box entity.

Or. en

Amendment 133

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5 l (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(5l) Nothing in this Directive should be understood as permitting direct or indirect interference with the fiduciary duties of management companies and AIFMs towards investors. Management companies and AIFMs should at all times retain ultimate responsibility and effective oversight over portfolio management activities, risk management arrangements, product governance decisions, voting policies and delegated functions. The benefits of organizational integration within an EU group should therefore be accompanied by safeguards ensuring that the best interests of investors remain paramount.

Or. en

Amendment 134

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Recital 6

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(6) To reduce national disparities in the legal and operational conditions applicable to asset managers and investment funds across the Union, national discretions in the transposition and implementation of certain provisions that allow Member States to interpret, supplement, or derogate from core rules and which impose barriers to the development of the Single Market as currently laid down in Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU should be removed.(6) To reduce national disparities in the legal and operational conditions applicable to asset managers and investment funds across the Union, national discretions in the transposition and implementation of certain provisions that allow Member States to interpret, supplement, or derogate from core rules and which impose barriers to the development of the Single Market as currently laid down in Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU should be removed. Member States must not therefore introduce, maintain or enforce additional national requirements, administrative obligations or measures with equivalent effect which go beyond, duplicate or supplement the harmonised requirements laid down in Directives 2009/65/EC and 2011/61/EU or in Regulation (EU) 2019/1156, unless EU law expressly so provides.

Or. es

Amendment 135

Jaroslav Knot, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Recital 6

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(6) To reduce national disparities in the legal and operational conditions applicable to asset managers and investment funds across the Union, national discretions in the transposition and implementation of certain provisions that allow Member States to interpret, supplement, or derogate from core rules and which impose barriers to the development of the Single Market as currently laid down in Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU should be removed.(6) To reduce national disparities in the legal and operational conditions applicable to asset managers and investment funds across the Union, national discretions in the transposition and implementation of certain provisions that allow Member States to interpret, supplement, or derogate from core rules and which impose unjustified barriers to the development of the Single Market as currently laid down in Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU should be removed where such barriers are clearly demonstrated. Such removal should be targeted and evidence-based and should not prevent Member States or competent authorities from applying justified and proportionate measures necessary for investor protection, market integrity or the proper functioning of national legal frameworks.

Or. en

Amendment 136

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(7) Each Member State currently draws up national rules of conduct and prudential rules with which management companies and AIFMs are required to comply, leading to diverging national rulebooks that hinder the development of a true Single Market for fund managers. To ensure a uniform application and a consistent implementation of the prudential rules and rules conduct for management companies and AIFMs across the Union, ESMA may develop guidelines to specify the content of those rules.deleted

Or. en

Amendment 137

Jaroslav Knot, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(7) Each Member State currently draws up national rules of conduct and prudential rules with which management companies and AIFMs are required to comply, leading to diverging national rulebooks that hinder the development of a true Single Market for fund managers. To ensure a uniform application and a consistent implementation of the prudential rules and rules conduct for management companies and AIFMs across the Union, ESMA may develop guidelines to specify the content of those rules.(7) Each Member State currently draws up national rules of conduct and prudential rules with which management companies and AIFMs are required to comply, leading to diverging national rulebooks that may hinder the development of a true Single Market for fund managers. To support a more consistent implementation of the prudential rules and rules of conduct for management companies and AIFMs across the Union, ESMA may develop guidelines to specify the content of those rules. Those guidelines should be proportionate, should not create additional reporting obligations for smaller entities and should not prevent competent authorities from applying supervisory judgment reflecting the structure, size and risk profile of their national markets.

Or. en

Amendment 138

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(7) Each Member State currently draws up national rules of conduct and prudential rules with which management companies and AIFMs are required to comply, leading to diverging national rulebooks that hinder the development of a true Single Market for fund managers. To ensure a uniform application and a consistent implementation of the prudential rules and rules conduct for management companies and AIFMs across the Union, ESMA may develop guidelines to specify the content of those rules.(7) Each Member State currently draws up national rules of conduct and prudential rules with which management companies and AIFMs are required to comply, leading to diverging national rulebooks that hinder the development of a true Single Market for fund managers.

Or. en

Amendment 139

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(9) To avoid unjustified procedural burdens for cross-border activities, it is necessary to ensure a more efficient application of the management passport under Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU. For that reason, the periods within which the competent authorities of the home Member State of the management company and AIFM are to forward to the authorities of the host Member State the information on the management company’s or AIFM’s intention to operate in that territory, with or without a branch, should be reduced to one month and 15 days respectively. In parallel, the time available to the host authorities of the management company to make the necessary supervisory arrangements should also be curtailed to one month. To align Directive 2009/65/EC with Directive 2011/61/EU, ensure uniform rules for the cross-border activities of management companies and eliminate national divergences that create unnecessary administrative obstacles, it should be laid down that host Member States may not impose additional requirements on management companies operating in their territory.(9) To avoid unjustified procedural burdens for cross-border activities, it is necessary to ensure a more efficient application of the management passport under Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU. For that reason, the periods within which the competent authorities of the home Member State of the management company and AIFM are to forward to the authorities of the host Member State the information on the management company’s or AIFM’s intention to operate in that territory, with or without a branch, should be reduced to one month and 15 days respectively. In parallel, the time available to the host authorities of the management company to make the necessary supervisory arrangements should also be curtailed to one month. To align Directive 2009/65/EC with Directive 2011/61/EU, ensure uniform rules for the cross-border activities of management companies and eliminate national divergences that create unnecessary administrative obstacles, it should be laid down that host Member States may not impose additional requirements on management companies operating in their territory. This prohibition shall encompass not only legislative requirements, but also regulatory, administrative or supervisory practices, including localised forms, the requirement for a local representative or presence, additional translations, additional information to be provided to the competent authorities or to investors, and any other measure with equivalent effect, unless EU law expressly so provides.

Or. es

Amendment 140

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(9) To avoid unjustified procedural burdens for cross-border activities, it is necessary to ensure a more efficient application of the management passport under Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU. For that reason, the periods within which the competent authorities of the home Member State of the management company and AIFM are to forward to the authorities of the host Member State the information on the management company’s or AIFM’s intention to operate in that territory, with or without a branch, should be reduced to one month and 15 days respectively. In parallel, the time available to the host authorities of the management company to make the necessary supervisory arrangements should also be curtailed to one month. To align Directive 2009/65/EC with Directive 2011/61/EU, ensure uniform rules for the cross-border activities of management companies and eliminate national divergences that create unnecessary administrative obstacles, it should be laid down that host Member States may not impose additional requirements on management companies operating in their territory.(9) To avoid unjustified procedural burdens for cross-border activities, it is necessary to ensure a more efficient application of the management passport under Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU. For that reason, the periods within which the competent authorities of the home Member State of the management company and AIFM are to forward to the authorities of the host Member State the information on the management company’s or AIFM’s intention to operate in that territory, with or without a branch, should be reduced to one month and 15 working days respectively. In parallel, the time available to the host authorities of the management company to make the necessary supervisory arrangements should also be curtailed to one month. To align Directive 2009/65/EC with Directive 2011/61/EU, ensure uniform rules for the cross-border activities of management companies and eliminate national divergences that create unnecessary administrative obstacles, it should be laid down that host Member States may not impose additional requirements on management companies operating in their territory.

Or. en

Amendment 141

Giovanni Crosetto, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(10) To facilitate integration in view of achieving the full potential of the Single Market, complement the existing management and marketing passports for UCITS, management companies and AIFMs and remove regulatory barriers that hinder the cross-border provision of depositary services, it is appropriate to introduce an EU depositary passport. Such depositary passport should remove the current restriction requiring the depositary to be established in the same Member State as the fund and will allow AIFMs and UCITS to appoint a depositary established anywhere in the Union. To better protect investors and mitigate financial stability risks, the depositary passport should be applicable only to depositaries that are authorised as credit institutions under Directive 2013/36/EU or as investment firms under Directive 2014/65/EU and which are subject to prudential requirements and supervision that already ensure consistent safeguards across Member States.deleted

Or. en

Amendment 142

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(10) To facilitate integration in view of achieving the full potential of the Single Market, complement the existing management and marketing passports for UCITS, management companies and AIFMs and remove regulatory barriers that hinder the cross-border provision of depositary services, it is appropriate to introduce an EU depositary passport. Such depositary passport should remove the current restriction requiring the depositary to be established in the same Member State as the fund and will allow AIFMs and UCITS to appoint a depositary established anywhere in the Union. To better protect investors and mitigate financial stability risks, the depositary passport should be applicable only to depositaries that are authorised as credit institutions under Directive 2013/36/EU or as investment firms under Directive 2014/65/EU and which are subject to prudential requirements and supervision that already ensure consistent safeguards across Member States.deleted

Or. en

Justification

The requirement that a depositary be established in the same Member State as the fund it serves remains an important safeguard for the proximity of supervision, the alignment of insolvency law between fund and depositary, and the practical exercise of investor redress. The Commission has not demonstrated that the costs this restriction imposes outweigh those protections.

Amendment 143

Pierre Pimpie

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(10) To facilitate integration in view of achieving the full potential of the Single Market, complement the existing management and marketing passports for UCITS, management companies and AIFMs and remove regulatory barriers that hinder the cross-border provision of depositary services, it is appropriate to introduce an EU depositary passport. Such depositary passport should remove the current restriction requiring the depositary to be established in the same Member State as the fund and will allow AIFMs and UCITS to appoint a depositary established anywhere in the Union. To better protect investors and mitigate financial stability risks, the depositary passport should be applicable only to depositaries that are authorised as credit institutions under Directive 2013/36/EU or as investment firms under Directive 2014/65/EU and which are subject to prudential requirements and supervision that already ensure consistent safeguards across Member States.deleted

Or. en

Amendment 144

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(10) To facilitate integration in view of achieving the full potential of the Single Market, complement the existing management and marketing passports for UCITS, management companies and AIFMs and remove regulatory barriers that hinder the cross-border provision of depositary services, it is appropriate to introduce an EU depositary passport. Such depositary passport should remove the current restriction requiring the depositary to be established in the same Member State as the fund and will allow AIFMs and UCITS to appoint a depositary established anywhere in the Union. To better protect investors and mitigate financial stability risks, the depositary passport should be applicable only to depositaries that are authorised as credit institutions under Directive 2013/36/EU or as investment firms under Directive 2014/65/EU and which are subject to prudential requirements and supervision that already ensure consistent safeguards across Member States.deleted

Or. en

Amendment 145

Thomas Bajada

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(10) To facilitate integration in view of achieving the full potential of the Single Market, complement the existing management and marketing passports for UCITS, management companies and AIFMs and remove regulatory barriers that hinder the cross-border provision of depositary services, it is appropriate to introduce an EU depositary passport. Such depositary passport should remove the current restriction requiring the depositary to be established in the same Member State as the fund and will allow AIFMs and UCITS to appoint a depositary established anywhere in the Union. To better protect investors and mitigate financial stability risks, the depositary passport should be applicable only to depositaries that are authorised as credit institutions under Directive 2013/36/EU or as investment firms under Directive 2014/65/EU and which are subject to prudential requirements and supervision that already ensure consistent safeguards across Member States.(10) To facilitate integration in view of achieving the full potential of the Single Market, complement the existing management and marketing passports for UCITS, management companies and AIFMs and remove regulatory barriers that hinder the cross-border provision of depositary services, it is appropriate to introduce an EU depositary passport. Such depositary passport should remove the current restriction requiring the depositary to be established in the same Member State as the fund and will allow AIFMs and UCITS to appoint a depositary established anywhere in the Union. To better protect investors and mitigate financial stability risks, the depositary passport should be applicable only to depositaries that are authorised as credit institutions under Directive 2013/36/EU or as investment firms under Directive 2014/65/EU and which are subject to prudential requirements and supervision that already ensure consistent safeguards across Member States. Depending on the size and resultant systemic risks of the depositaries operating on cross-border, and in order to increase supervisory consistency and ensure cross-border legal certainty, ESMA should facilitate effective collaboration between involved Member States to ensure depositaries’ effective ongoing compliance with organisational requirements, safekeeping duties, cash flow monitoring and oversight and other obligations.

Or. en

Amendment 146

David Casa

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(10) To facilitate integration in view of achieving the full potential of the Single Market, complement the existing management and marketing passports for UCITS, management companies and AIFMs and remove regulatory barriers that hinder the cross-border provision of depositary services, it is appropriate to introduce an EU depositary passport. Such depositary passport should remove the current restriction requiring the depositary to be established in the same Member State as the fund and will allow AIFMs and UCITS to appoint a depositary established anywhere in the Union. To better protect investors and mitigate financial stability risks, the depositary passport should be applicable only to depositaries that are authorised as credit institutions under Directive 2013/36/EU or as investment firms under Directive 2014/65/EU and which are subject to prudential requirements and supervision that already ensure consistent safeguards across Member States.(10) To facilitate integration in view of achieving the full potential of the Single Market, complement the existing management and marketing passports for UCITS, management companies and AIFMs and remove regulatory barriers that hinder the cross-border provision of depositary services, it is appropriate to introduce an EU depositary passport. Such depositary passport should remove the current restriction requiring the depositary to be established in the same Member State as the fund and will allow AIFMs and UCITS to appoint a depositary established anywhere in the Union. To better protect investors and mitigate financial stability risks, the depositary passport should be applicable only to depositaries that are authorised as credit institutions under Directive 2013/36/EU or as investment firms under Directive 2014/65/EU and which are subject to prudential requirements and supervision that already ensure consistent safeguards across Member States. Depending on the size and resultant systemic risks of the depositaries operating on cross-border, and in order to increase supervisory consistency and ensure cross-border legal certainty, ESMA shall facilitate effective collaboration between involved Member States to ensure depositaries effective ongoing compliance with organisational requirements, safekeeping duties, cash flow monitoring and oversight and other obligations

Or. en

Amendment 147

Giovanni Crosetto, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(10a) In order to facilitate small national markets of UCITS which do not have many national depositaries to further develop and become more competitive, Member States should be able to permit their competent authorities to allow the appointment of a depositary established in another Member State. That possibility should only be used when the conditions laid down in this Directive are fulfilled and with the prior approval of the competent authorities of the UCITS. Since the decision to allow the appointment of a depositary established in another Member State should not be automatic, even when those conditions are fulfilled, the competent authorities should take that decision only after carrying out a case-by-case assessment of the lack of relevant depositary services in the home Member State of the UCITS, having regard to the investment strategy of that UCITS. By 30 June 2031, the Commission shall draft a report assessing the functioning of the derogation allowing the appointment of a depositary established in another Member State and of the potential benefits and risks, including the impact on investor protection, on financial stability, on supervisory efficiency and on the availability of market choices, of amending the scope of that derogation.

Or. en

Amendment 148

Giovanni Crosetto, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(10b) In order to speed up the process to harmonise national legislations and regulations applicable to UCITS and AIFs depositaries as well as the national approaches of the supervision of depositary obligations, which represents the necessary condition for the introduction of the depositary passport, it is necessary to engage ESMA and EU national competent authorities to draw up a report on the current national frameworks for UCITS and AIFs depositaries and for approaches of the supervision of depositary obligations by 31 December 2029. By 31 December 2033, the Commission, after having consulted with national competent authorities and ESMA, based on the ESMA report, taking into account the Commission assessment of the functioning of the derogation allowing the appointment of an AIFs and UCITS depositary established in another Member State, should draft a legislative proposal on a EU Rulebook for AIFs and UCITS depositaries and for the approach of the supervision of depositary obligations.

Or. en

Amendment 149

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 11

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(11) To recognise the inherently diversified nature and regulatory requirements of securitisations and to allow greater flexibility for UCITS to invest in those products, it is necessary to increase the current 10% limit on debt securities issued by a single entity to 15% for UCITS investing in securitisations issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/2402.deleted

Or. en

Amendment 150

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 11

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(11) To recognise the inherently diversified nature and regulatory requirements of securitisations and to allow greater flexibility for UCITS to invest in those products, it is necessary to increase the current 10% limit on debt securities issued by a single entity to 15% for UCITS investing in securitisations issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/2402.(11) To recognise the inherently diversified nature and regulatory requirements of securitisations and to allow greater flexibility for UCITS to invest in those products, it is necessary to increase the current 10% limit on debt securities issued by a single entity to 25% for UCITS investing in securitisations issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/2402.

Or. en

Justification

The existing 10% limit constrains UCITS participation given the small average size of securitisation issuances and disproportionate due diligence costs relative to other assets.

Amendment 151

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 11 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(11a) Fund managers should be given greater flexibility to construct diversified and liquid portfolios. To that end, it is appropriate to raise the limit on cumulative investment in transferable securities and money market instruments within the same group to 25%.

Or. en

Justification

A 20% ceiling on cumulative group exposure constrains fund managers from taking meaningful positions in large, well-diversified corporate groups, even where credit quality and liquidity are strong. Raising the limit to 25% gives managers more flexibility to construct efficient portfolios without weakening investor protection, since existing prudential and risk-management safeguards at group level remain unchanged.

Amendment 152

David Casa

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(12) To create a level playing field between actively managed and passively managed UCITS that replicate the composition of an index and to ensure that management companies of actively managed UCITS are not forced to underweight or sell outperforming companies, it is appropriate to extend the 20% issuer limit currently applicable to index-tracking UCITS to UCITS that are managed by reference to an index that is recognised by ESMA.(12) To create a level playing field between actively managed and passively managed UCITS that replicate the composition of an index and to ensure that management companies of actively managed UCITS are not forced to underweight or sell outperforming companies, it is appropriate to extend the 20% issuer limit currently applicable to index-tracking UCITS to UCITS that are managed by reference to an index, recognised by ESMA. This derogation should only be exercised when the components of the index form part of the portfolio of the UCITS, for example, in the explicit or implicit definition of the portfolio’s composition and/or the UCITS’ performance objectives and measures as outlined in the fund rules or instruments of incorporation. This could be for example understood as situations where the construction of the portfolio and the allocation of risk are linked to the composition, characteristics or constraints of the reference benchmark, rather than where a benchmark is used solely for performance comparison, investor disclosure or ex-post assessment purposes. This means also that UCITS utilising the benchmark solely as a performance indicator should be excluded from the scope of this derogation.

Or. en

Amendment 153

Thomas Bajada

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(12) To create a level playing field between actively managed and passively managed UCITS that replicate the composition of an index and to ensure that management companies of actively managed UCITS are not forced to underweight or sell outperforming companies, it is appropriate to extend the 20% issuer limit currently applicable to index-tracking UCITS to UCITS that are managed by reference to an index that is recognised by ESMA.(12) To create a level playing field between actively managed and passively managed UCITS that replicate the composition of an index and to ensure that management companies of actively managed UCITS are not forced to underweight or sell outperforming companies, it is appropriate to extend the 20% issuer limit currently applicable to index-tracking UCITS to UCITS that are managed by reference to an index recognised by ESMA. This derogation should only be exercised when the components of the index form part of the portfolio of the UCITS, for example, in the explicit or implicit definition of the portfolio’s composition and/or the UCITS’ performance objectives and measures as outlined in the fund rules or instruments of incorporation. This could be for example understood as situations where the construction of the portfolio and the allocation of risk are linked to the composition, characteristics or constraints of the reference benchmark, rather than where a benchmark is used solely for performance comparison, investor disclosure or ex-post assessment purposes. This means also that UCITS utilising the benchmark solely as a performance indicator should be excluded from the scope of this derogation.

Or. en

Amendment 154

Billy Kelleher, Gilles Boyer, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Ľudovít Ódor

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(12a) Several Member States permit the marketing of alternative investment funds pursuing long-term and illiquid investment strategies to sophisticated investors who do not qualify as professional clients within the meaning of Directive 2014/65/EU. Those national frameworks generally rely on similar principles, including limited or private offers, significant minimum investment commitments and specific safeguards reflecting the characteristics of those investors and the nature of such investments. However, the absence of a harmonised Union framework prevents managers from reaching such investors on a cross-border basis, thereby contributing to market fragmentation and limiting the ability of fund managers to raise capital across the Union. Establishing a common framework for the private placement of eligible alternative investment funds to sophisticated investors should facilitate the mobilisation of private capital towards long-term investments, contribute to the objectives of the Savings and Investments Union, and provide a regulatory framework that more appropriately reflects the characteristics and investment capacity of those investors.

Or. en

Amendment 155

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(13a) Asset management groups within the Union are currently authorised and supervised by the competent authorities of the Member States in which they are established. Despite progress achieved so far in harmonising supervisory activity for asset managers in the Union, diverging supervisory practices amongst those national authorities across the Union persist, creating an unlevel playing field. With the development of deeper, more liquid Union capital markets under the Savings and Investments Union, that unlevel playing field could increase the risk of, and incentives for, supervisory arbitrage which could in turn lead to financial stability issues. Therefore, to ensure that the prudential, organisational and business conduct requirements for significant asset managements groups within the Union are applied in a uniform manner, they should be supervised by ESMA. ESMA should identify these groups based on the significant size of their market presence and impact within the Union, as measured by their net asset values and the extent of their cross-border operations and activities.

Or. en

Amendment 156

Billy Kelleher, Gilles Boyer, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Ľudovít Ódor

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(13a) In order to strengthen supervisory convergence, reduce unnecessary administrative burden and improve the efficiency of cooperation between competent authorities, a supervisory data platform should be established and maintained by ESMA in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1156. The data platform should support the "report once" principle by ensuring that alternative investment fund managers and UCITS management companies need only report to their home competent authority, which should remain responsible for verifying the completeness, quality and accuracy of that information before transmitting the validated data to the data platform. The information contained in the data platform should remain confidential and be accessible only to ESMA and competent authorities to the extent necessary for the exercise of their respective powers under Union law. Data may also be shared with the EBA and ESRB in accordance with this Directive.

Or. en

Amendment 157

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(14) To enhance the efficiency of large asset management groups in structuring their operations and remove barriers to their cross-border activity, it is essential to establish a permanent supervisory framework whereby ESMA, in cooperation with the relevant competent authorities, carries out reviews of the largest asset management groups at least on an annual basis to effectively identify and address divergent, duplicative, redundant, or deficient supervisory practices in specific cases. Such annual reviews should be confined to the analysis of data, information and documentation already available to ESMA and national competent authorities through existing reporting channels. This review should aim to remove any obstacle to the functioning of the Single Market for large asset management groups and facilitate their cross-border operations. This framework should therefore not be understood as a mandate for ESMA to develop new group level risk models or new supervisory approaches that do not already derive from Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU but instead as an arrangement to enhance supervisory efficiencies for groups of management companies and AIFMs. The scope of this review should be confined to the requirements applicable to management companies and AIFMs within EU groups and is therefore not intended to include any requirements on authorisation or supervision of the investment funds that are managed by those management companies and AIFMs. It is also appropriate and proportional to concentrate these efforts on the largest asset management groups in the EU, where operational and supervisory synergies can be achieved most effectively. ESMA should identify these groups based on the significant size of their market presence and impact within the Union, as measured by their net asset values and the extent of their cross-border operations and activities.deleted

Or. en

Amendment 158

Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Regina Doherty

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(14) To enhance the efficiency of large asset management groups in structuring their operations and remove barriers to their cross-border activity, it is essential to establish a permanent supervisory framework whereby ESMA, in cooperation with the relevant competent authorities, carries out reviews of the largest asset management groups at least on an annual basis to effectively identify and address divergent, duplicative, redundant, or deficient supervisory practices in specific cases. Such annual reviews should be confined to the analysis of data, information and documentation already available to ESMA and national competent authorities through existing reporting channels. This review should aim to remove any obstacle to the functioning of the Single Market for large asset management groups and facilitate their cross-border operations. This framework should therefore not be understood as a mandate for ESMA to develop new group level risk models or new supervisory approaches that do not already derive from Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU but instead as an arrangement to enhance supervisory efficiencies for groups of management companies and AIFMs. The scope of this review should be confined to the requirements applicable to management companies and AIFMs within EU groups and is therefore not intended to include any requirements on authorisation or supervision of the investment funds that are managed by those management companies and AIFMs. It is also appropriate and proportional to concentrate these efforts on the largest asset management groups in the EU, where operational and supervisory synergies can be achieved most effectively. ESMA should identify these groups based on the significant size of their market presence and impact within the Union, as measured by their net asset values and the extent of their cross-border operations and activities.deleted

Or. en

Amendment 159

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(14) To enhance the efficiency of large asset management groups in structuring their operations and remove barriers to their cross-border activity, it is essential to establish a permanent supervisory framework whereby ESMA, in cooperation with the relevant competent authorities, carries out reviews of the largest asset management groups at least on an annual basis to effectively identify and address divergent, duplicative, redundant, or deficient supervisory practices in specific cases. Such annual reviews should be confined to the analysis of data, information and documentation already available to ESMA and national competent authorities through existing reporting channels. This review should aim to remove any obstacle to the functioning of the Single Market for large asset management groups and facilitate their cross-border operations. This framework should therefore not be understood as a mandate for ESMA to develop new group level risk models or new supervisory approaches that do not already derive from Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU but instead as an arrangement to enhance supervisory efficiencies for groups of management companies and AIFMs. The scope of this review should be confined to the requirements applicable to management companies and AIFMs within EU groups and is therefore not intended to include any requirements on authorisation or supervision of the investment funds that are managed by those management companies and AIFMs. It is also appropriate and proportional to concentrate these efforts on the largest asset management groups in the EU, where operational and supervisory synergies can be achieved most effectively. ESMA should identify these groups based on the significant size of their market presence and impact within the Union, as measured by their net asset values and the extent of their cross-border operations and activities.deleted

Or. en

Justification

The annual review duplicates ESMA's existing convergence tools and relies on data already available to ESMA and competent authorities. It thereby introduces a comprehensive new review cycle, new supervisory layers and new complexity without any added benefit.

Amendment 160

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(14) To enhance the efficiency of large asset management groups in structuring their operations and remove barriers to their cross-border activity, it is essential to establish a permanent supervisory framework whereby ESMA, in cooperation with the relevant competent authorities, carries out reviews of the largest asset management groups at least on an annual basis to effectively identify and address divergent, duplicative, redundant, or deficient supervisory practices in specific cases. Such annual reviews should be confined to the analysis of data, information and documentation already available to ESMA and national competent authorities through existing reporting channels. This review should aim to remove any obstacle to the functioning of the Single Market for large asset management groups and facilitate their cross-border operations. This framework should therefore not be understood as a mandate for ESMA to develop new group level risk models or new supervisory approaches that do not already derive from Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU but instead as an arrangement to enhance supervisory efficiencies for groups of management companies and AIFMs. The scope of this review should be confined to the requirements applicable to management companies and AIFMs within EU groups and is therefore not intended to include any requirements on authorisation or supervision of the investment funds that are managed by those management companies and AIFMs. It is also appropriate and proportional to concentrate these efforts on the largest asset management groups in the EU, where operational and supervisory synergies can be achieved most effectively. ESMA should identify these groups based on the significant size of their market presence and impact within the Union, as measured by their net asset values and the extent of their cross-border operations and activities.(14) The increasing integration of the Union asset management market and the growing importance of large cross-border groups of management companies and AIFMs call for enhanced supervisory coordination among competent authorities. Such coordination should contribute to the consistent application of Union law, improve information sharing, facilitate supervisory convergence and reduce unnecessary duplication of supervisory activities. Given the increasing scale, complexity and cross-border nature of certain asset management groups operating within the Union, competent authorities may benefit from structured arrangements enabling the exchange of information, the discussion of supervisory priorities and the coordination of matters of common interest relating to cross-border activities. Such arrangements should contribute to a more consistent supervisory approach across Member States while avoiding unnecessary overlaps in supervisory activities.

Or. en

Amendment 161

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(14) To enhance the efficiency of large asset management groups in structuring their operations and remove barriers to their cross-border activity, it is essential to establish a permanent supervisory framework whereby ESMA, in cooperation with the relevant competent authorities, carries out reviews of the largest asset management groups at least on an annual basis to effectively identify and address divergent, duplicative, redundant, or deficient supervisory practices in specific cases. Such annual reviews should be confined to the analysis of data, information and documentation already available to ESMA and national competent authorities through existing reporting channels. This review should aim to remove any obstacle to the functioning of the Single Market for large asset management groups and facilitate their cross-border operations. This framework should therefore not be understood as a mandate for ESMA to develop new group level risk models or new supervisory approaches that do not already derive from Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU but instead as an arrangement to enhance supervisory efficiencies for groups of management companies and AIFMs. The scope of this review should be confined to the requirements applicable to management companies and AIFMs within EU groups and is therefore not intended to include any requirements on authorisation or supervision of the investment funds that are managed by those management companies and AIFMs. It is also appropriate and proportional to concentrate these efforts on the largest asset management groups in the EU, where operational and supervisory synergies can be achieved most effectively. ESMA should identify these groups based on the significant size of their market presence and impact within the Union, as measured by their net asset values and the extent of their cross-border operations and activities.(14) To enhance the efficiency of large cross-border asset management groups which do not qualify as significant, in structuring their operations and remove barriers to their cross-border activity, it is essential to establish a permanent supervisory framework whereby ESMA chairs a college of supervisors, composed of the relevant competent authorities, in order to effectively identify and address divergent, duplicative, redundant, or deficient supervisory practices in specific cases. College of supervisors should aim to remove any obstacle to the functioning of the Single Market for large asset management groups and facilitate their cross-border operations while safeguarding financial stability. The scope of the College of supervisors should be confined to the requirements applicable to management companies and AIFMs within EU groups. It is also appropriate and proportional to concentrate these efforts on the largest asset management groups in the EU, where operational and supervisory synergies can be achieved most effectively.

Or. en

Amendment 162

Billy Kelleher, Gilles Boyer, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Ľudovít Ódor

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(14) To enhance the efficiency of large asset management groups in structuring their operations and remove barriers to their cross-border activity, it is essential to establish a permanent supervisory framework whereby ESMA, in cooperation with the relevant competent authorities, carries out reviews of the largest asset management groups at least on an annual basis to effectively identify and address divergent, duplicative, redundant, or deficient supervisory practices in specific cases. Such annual reviews should be confined to the analysis of data, information and documentation already available to ESMA and national competent authorities through existing reporting channels. This review should aim to remove any obstacle to the functioning of the Single Market for large asset management groups and facilitate their cross-border operations. This framework should therefore not be understood as a mandate for ESMA to develop new group level risk models or new supervisory approaches that do not already derive from Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU but instead as an arrangement to enhance supervisory efficiencies for groups of management companies and AIFMs. The scope of this review should be confined to the requirements applicable to management companies and AIFMs within EU groups and is therefore not intended to include any requirements on authorisation or supervision of the investment funds that are managed by those management companies and AIFMs. It is also appropriate and proportional to concentrate these efforts on the largest asset management groups in the EU, where operational and supervisory synergies can be achieved most effectively. ESMA should identify these groups based on the significant size of their market presence and impact within the Union, as measured by their net asset values and the extent of their cross-border operations and activities.(14) In order to ensure that supervisory information collected through the data platform contributes effectively to supervisory convergence and financial stability, ESMA should monitor and analyse that information on an ongoing basis. Such monitoring should enable ESMA to identify sector-wide vulnerabilities, emerging market developments, supervisory inconsistencies and entity-specific risks. Particular attention should be given to the largest alternative investment fund managers and UCITS management companies, reflecting the scale, complexity and cross-border nature of their activities. This continuous, risk-based monitoring should support the use of ESMA's supervisory convergence tools under Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.

Or. en

Amendment 163

Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Regina Doherty

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(15) In order to ensure that the costs incurred by ESMA in carrying out the reviews of large EU groups of management companies and AIFMs are borne by those entities that benefit from an enhanced supervisory coordination, ESMA should charge those groups proportionate fees. Such fees should cover the reasonable costs related to the preparation, conduct and follow-up of the reviews. These reviews will involve significant analytical and coordination work, including the collection and consolidation of group-level data, the assessment of supervisory approaches across several Member States and sectors, and the formulation of recommendations to ensure consistent and effective supervision within the Union. Charging fees for those reviews is justified as this ensures that entities benefiting from a harmonised, predictable and streamlined supervisory environment contribute fairly to the costs of its delivery.deleted

Or. en

Amendment 164

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(15) In order to ensure that the costs incurred by ESMA in carrying out the reviews of large EU groups of management companies and AIFMs are borne by those entities that benefit from an enhanced supervisory coordination, ESMA should charge those groups proportionate fees. Such fees should cover the reasonable costs related to the preparation, conduct and follow-up of the reviews. These reviews will involve significant analytical and coordination work, including the collection and consolidation of group-level data, the assessment of supervisory approaches across several Member States and sectors, and the formulation of recommendations to ensure consistent and effective supervision within the Union. Charging fees for those reviews is justified as this ensures that entities benefiting from a harmonised, predictable and streamlined supervisory environment contribute fairly to the costs of its delivery.deleted

Or. en

Justification

The annual review duplicates ESMA's existing convergence tools and relies on data already available to ESMA and competent authorities. It thereby introduces a comprehensive new review cycle, new supervisory layers and new complexity without any added benefit.

Amendment 165

Billy Kelleher, Gilles Boyer, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(15) In order to ensure that the costs incurred by ESMA in carrying out the reviews of large EU groups of management companies and AIFMs are borne by those entities that benefit from an enhanced supervisory coordination, ESMA should charge those groups proportionate fees. Such fees should cover the reasonable costs related to the preparation, conduct and follow-up of the reviews. These reviews will involve significant analytical and coordination work, including the collection and consolidation of group-level data, the assessment of supervisory approaches across several Member States and sectors, and the formulation of recommendations to ensure consistent and effective supervision within the Union. Charging fees for those reviews is justified as this ensures that entities benefiting from a harmonised, predictable and streamlined supervisory environment contribute fairly to the costs of its delivery.deleted

Or. en

Amendment 166

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(15) In order to ensure that the costs incurred by ESMA in carrying out the reviews of large EU groups of management companies and AIFMs are borne by those entities that benefit from an enhanced supervisory coordination, ESMA should charge those groups proportionate fees. Such fees should cover the reasonable costs related to the preparation, conduct and follow-up of the reviews. These reviews will involve significant analytical and coordination work, including the collection and consolidation of group-level data, the assessment of supervisory approaches across several Member States and sectors, and the formulation of recommendations to ensure consistent and effective supervision within the Union. Charging fees for those reviews is justified as this ensures that entities benefiting from a harmonised, predictable and streamlined supervisory environment contribute fairly to the costs of its delivery.deleted

Or. en

Amendment 167

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(15) In order to ensure that the costs incurred by ESMA in carrying out the reviews of large EU groups of management companies and AIFMs are borne by those entities that benefit from an enhanced supervisory coordination, ESMA should charge those groups proportionate fees. Such fees should cover the reasonable costs related to the preparation, conduct and follow-up of the reviews. These reviews will involve significant analytical and coordination work, including the collection and consolidation of group-level data, the assessment of supervisory approaches across several Member States and sectors, and the formulation of recommendations to ensure consistent and effective supervision within the Union. Charging fees for those reviews is justified as this ensures that entities benefiting from a harmonised, predictable and streamlined supervisory environment contribute fairly to the costs of its delivery.deleted

Or. en

Amendment 168

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(15) In order to ensure that the costs incurred by ESMA in carrying out the reviews of large EU groups of management companies and AIFMs are borne by those entities that benefit from an enhanced supervisory coordination, ESMA should charge those groups proportionate fees. Such fees should cover the reasonable costs related to the preparation, conduct and follow-up of the reviews. These reviews will involve significant analytical and coordination work, including the collection and consolidation of group-level data, the assessment of supervisory approaches across several Member States and sectors, and the formulation of recommendations to ensure consistent and effective supervision within the Union. Charging fees for those reviews is justified as this ensures that entities benefiting from a harmonised, predictable and streamlined supervisory environment contribute fairly to the costs of its delivery.(15) In order to ensure that the costs incurred by ESMA in carrying out the supervision of significant EU groups of management companies and AIFMs are borne by those entities that benefit from an enhanced supervisory coordination, ESMA should charge those groups proportionate fees. Such fees should cover the reasonable costs related to the supervision of these entities. Charging fees is justified as this ensures that entities benefiting from a harmonised, predictable and streamlined supervisory environment contribute fairly to the costs of its delivery.

Or. en

Amendment 169

Jaroslav Knot, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(15) In order to ensure that the costs incurred by ESMA in carrying out the reviews of large EU groups of management companies and AIFMs are borne by those entities that benefit from an enhanced supervisory coordination, ESMA should charge those groups proportionate fees. Such fees should cover the reasonable costs related to the preparation, conduct and follow-up of the reviews. These reviews will involve significant analytical and coordination work, including the collection and consolidation of group-level data, the assessment of supervisory approaches across several Member States and sectors, and the formulation of recommendations to ensure consistent and effective supervision within the Union. Charging fees for those reviews is justified as this ensures that entities benefiting from a harmonised, predictable and streamlined supervisory environment contribute fairly to the costs of its delivery.(15) In order to ensure that the costs incurred by ESMA in carrying out the reviews of large EU groups of management companies and AIFMs are borne by those entities that benefit from an enhanced supervisory coordination, ESMA should charge those groups proportionate fees. Such fees should cover only the reasonable costs related to the preparation, conduct and follow-up of the reviews. These reviews will involve analytical and coordination work, including the collection and consolidation of group-level data already available to ESMA or national competent authorities, the assessment of supervisory approaches across several Member States and sectors, and the formulation of recommendations to ensure consistent and effective supervision within the Union. Charging fees for those reviews is justified as this ensures that entities benefiting from a harmonised, predictable and streamlined supervisory environment contribute fairly to the costs of its delivery. Any fee framework should be transparent, predictable and proportionate, and should take into account its potential impact on market participants and end investors.

Or. en

Amendment 170

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(15a) The development of greater supervisory convergence should build upon the existing allocation of responsibilities established under Directives 2009/65/EC and 2011/61/EU and should not affect the responsibility of the competent authority for supervisory decisions concerning the entities under its supervision. The coordination mechanism established by this Directive should serve as a tool to facilitate supervisory convergence, cooperation and information sharing among competent authorities. It should support the supervisory convergence objectives entrusted to ESMA under Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 while preserving the allocation of supervisory responsibilities established under Directives 2009/65/EC and 2011/61/EU.

Or. en

Amendment 171

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(15b) The coordination mechanism should not create additional layers of supervision, alter the allocation of supervisory responsibilities established under Union law, affect the application of the home Member State principle or confer supervisory, investigatory, enforcement or decision-making powers upon ESMA or upon competent authorities other than those provided for under Union law.

Or. en

Amendment 172

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15 c (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(15c) Management companies and AIFMs authorized and supervised within the Union are subject to the same regulatory requirements and supervisory framework irrespective of the location of their ultimate parent undertaking. The application of the coordination mechanism should therefore be based on the activities and characteristics of the entities established within the Union and should not depend on the location of the ultimate parent undertaking.

Or. en

Amendment 173

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15 d (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(15d) The Asset Management Supervisory Coordination Framework may adopt a range of non-binding instruments designed to promote supervisory convergence without overriding national supervisory responsibilities. Such outputs may include common supervisory observations, exchanges of supervisory experience, coordinated requests for information, common risk assessments, best practices and other practical coordination tools. Those instruments should facilitate supervisory convergence, reduce supervisory fragmentation and contribute to a more consistent application of Union law while avoiding unnecessary compliance burdens for asset managers operating across borders. Such outputs should not be legally binding and should not affect the supervisory powers and responsibilities of the competent authorities participating in the Asset Management Supervisory Coordination Framework.

Or. en

Amendment 174

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15 e (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(15e) The effective functioning of the Asset Management Supervisory Coordination Framework should rely on a clear allocation of responsibilities among the participating authorities. The home competent authority of the controlling or the principal asset manager should ensure the organization and coordination of the Framework, reflecting its primary supervisory responsibility under Directives 2009/65/EC and 2011/61/EU. Home competent authorities of all management companies and AIFMs belonging to the EU group participate in the Framework. The participation of host competent authorities should be based on the materiality of the activities concerned and on the supervisory relevance of the matters under discussion. Meetings of the Framework should constitute a predictable and proportionate framework for supervisory cooperation. Annual ordinary meetings ensure regular exchanges of supervisory information and discussions of common supervisory priorities, while preserving flexibility through additional or ad hoc meetings whenever justified by the supervisory relevance of specific cross-border issues. Management companies and AIFMs should have the opportunity to participate in the meetings in order to facilitate an ex ante dialogue with the competent authorities on significant business or regulatory developments.

Or. en

Amendment 175

Pierre Pimpie

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(16) To ensure the effective functioning of the Single Market for investment funds, asset managers and depositaries and remove supervisory obstacles that impede the cross-border exercise of passporting rights, ESMA should be empowered to detect and address instances of divergent, duplicative, redundant or deficient supervisory practices that hinder the operations of asset managers and depositaries in the Single Market or instances where those undertakings operate on a cross-border basis without complying with EU law. In those cases, ESMA should implement an escalation process, starting with engaging with national authorities and stakeholders, fostering greater convergence between them, and, where necessary, making use of its coordination and intervention powers, so that unjustified restrictions on cross-border activities or cases of non-compliance with EU law are remedied in a timely and efficient manner. For the same reasons, it is necessary to ensure that, if those problems persist despite this escalation process, ESMA should then exercise its powers to launch breach of Union law procedures in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to suspend the right of undertakings to provide services on a cross-border basis in accordance with Article 17aaa of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to arrange binding mediation in accordance with article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 or to organise collaboration platforms in accordance with Article 19a of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, where appropriate, in order to effectively remedy those problems.deleted

Or. en

Amendment 176

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(16) To ensure the effective functioning of the Single Market for investment funds, asset managers and depositaries and remove supervisory obstacles that impede the cross-border exercise of passporting rights, ESMA should be empowered to detect and address instances of divergent, duplicative, redundant or deficient supervisory practices that hinder the operations of asset managers and depositaries in the Single Market or instances where those undertakings operate on a cross-border basis without complying with EU law. In those cases, ESMA should implement an escalation process, starting with engaging with national authorities and stakeholders, fostering greater convergence between them, and, where necessary, making use of its coordination and intervention powers, so that unjustified restrictions on cross-border activities or cases of non-compliance with EU law are remedied in a timely and efficient manner. For the same reasons, it is necessary to ensure that, if those problems persist despite this escalation process, ESMA should then exercise its powers to launch breach of Union law procedures in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to suspend the right of undertakings to provide services on a cross-border basis in accordance with Article 17aaa of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to arrange binding mediation in accordance with article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 or to organise collaboration platforms in accordance with Article 19a of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, where appropriate, in order to effectively remedy those problems.deleted

Or. en

Amendment 177

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(16) To ensure the effective functioning of the Single Market for investment funds, asset managers and depositaries and remove supervisory obstacles that impede the cross-border exercise of passporting rights, ESMA should be empowered to detect and address instances of divergent, duplicative, redundant or deficient supervisory practices that hinder the operations of asset managers and depositaries in the Single Market or instances where those undertakings operate on a cross-border basis without complying with EU law. In those cases, ESMA should implement an escalation process, starting with engaging with national authorities and stakeholders, fostering greater convergence between them, and, where necessary, making use of its coordination and intervention powers, so that unjustified restrictions on cross-border activities or cases of non-compliance with EU law are remedied in a timely and efficient manner. For the same reasons, it is necessary to ensure that, if those problems persist despite this escalation process, ESMA should then exercise its powers to launch breach of Union law procedures in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to suspend the right of undertakings to provide services on a cross-border basis in accordance with Article 17aaa of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to arrange binding mediation in accordance with article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 or to organise collaboration platforms in accordance with Article 19a of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, where appropriate, in order to effectively remedy those problems.(16) To ensure the effective functioning of the Single Market for investment funds, asset managers and depositaries and remove supervisory obstacles that impede the cross-border exercise of passporting rights, ESMA should be empowered to detect and address instances of divergent, duplicative, redundant or deficient supervisory practices that hinder the operations of asset managers and depositaries in the Single Market or instances where those undertakings operate on a cross-border basis without complying with EU law. In those cases, ESMA should implement an escalation process, starting with engaging with national authorities and stakeholders, fostering greater convergence between them, and, where necessary, making use of its coordination and intervention powers, so that unjustified restrictions on cross-border activities or cases of non-compliance with EU law are remedied in a timely and efficient manner.

Or. en

Amendment 178

Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Regina Doherty

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(16) To ensure the effective functioning of the Single Market for investment funds, asset managers and depositaries and remove supervisory obstacles that impede the cross-border exercise of passporting rights, ESMA should be empowered to detect and address instances of divergent, duplicative, redundant or deficient supervisory practices that hinder the operations of asset managers and depositaries in the Single Market or instances where those undertakings operate on a cross-border basis without complying with EU law. In those cases, ESMA should implement an escalation process, starting with engaging with national authorities and stakeholders, fostering greater convergence between them, and, where necessary, making use of its coordination and intervention powers, so that unjustified restrictions on cross-border activities or cases of non-compliance with EU law are remedied in a timely and efficient manner. For the same reasons, it is necessary to ensure that, if those problems persist despite this escalation process, ESMA should then exercise its powers to launch breach of Union law procedures in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to suspend the right of undertakings to provide services on a cross-border basis in accordance with Article 17aaa of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to arrange binding mediation in accordance with article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 or to organise collaboration platforms in accordance with Article 19a of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, where appropriate, in order to effectively remedy those problems.(16) To ensure the effective functioning of the Single Market for investment funds, asset managers and depositaries and remove supervisory obstacles that impede the cross-border exercise of passporting rights, ESMA should be empowered to detect and address instances of divergent, duplicative, redundant or deficient supervisory practices that hinder the operations of asset managers and depositaries in the Single Market or instances where those undertakings operate on a cross-border basis without complying with EU law. In those cases, ESMA should implement an escalation process, starting with engaging with national authorities and stakeholders, fostering greater convergence between them, and, where necessary, making use of its coordination and intervention powers, so that unjustified restrictions on cross-border activities or cases of non-compliance with EU law are remedied in a timely and efficient manner.

Or. en

Amendment 179

Thomas Bajada

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(16) To ensure the effective functioning of the Single Market for investment funds, asset managers and depositaries and remove supervisory obstacles that impede the cross-border exercise of passporting rights, ESMA should be empowered to detect and address instances of divergent, duplicative, redundant or deficient supervisory practices that hinder the operations of asset managers and depositaries in the Single Market or instances where those undertakings operate on a cross-border basis without complying with EU law. In those cases, ESMA should implement an escalation process, starting with engaging with national authorities and stakeholders, fostering greater convergence between them, and, where necessary, making use of its coordination and intervention powers, so that unjustified restrictions on cross-border activities or cases of non-compliance with EU law are remedied in a timely and efficient manner. For the same reasons, it is necessary to ensure that, if those problems persist despite this escalation process, ESMA should then exercise its powers to launch breach of Union law procedures in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to suspend the right of undertakings to provide services on a cross-border basis in accordance with Article 17aaa of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to arrange binding mediation in accordance with article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 or to organise collaboration platforms in accordance with Article 19a of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, where appropriate, in order to effectively remedy those problems.(16) To ensure the effective functioning of the Single Market for investment funds, asset managers and depositaries and enhance supervisory convergence that facilitates the cross-border exercise of passporting rights, ESMA should be empowered to identify and in collaboration with Member States address instances of divergent, duplicative, redundant or deficient supervisory practices that hinder the operations of asset managers and depositaries in the Single Market. In those cases, ESMA should implement an escalation process, starting with engaging with national authorities and stakeholders, fostering greater convergence between them, and, where necessary, making use of its coordination and intervention powers, so that unjustified restrictions on cross-border activities or cases of non-compliance with EU law are remedied in a timely and efficient manner. If those problems persist despite this escalation process and after exhausting the above arrangements, ESMA should then be able to exercise its powers to launch breach of Union law procedures in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to request the relevant Member States to suspend the right of undertakings to provide services on a cross-border basis in accordance with Article 17aaa of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to arrange binding mediation in accordance with article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 or to organise collaboration platforms in accordance with Article 19a of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, where appropriate, in order to effectively remedy those problems.

Or. en

Amendment 180

David Casa

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(16) To ensure the effective functioning of the Single Market for investment funds, asset managers and depositaries and remove supervisory obstacles that impede the cross-border exercise of passporting rights, ESMA should be empowered to detect and address instances of divergent, duplicative, redundant or deficient supervisory practices that hinder the operations of asset managers and depositaries in the Single Market or instances where those undertakings operate on a cross-border basis without complying with EU law. In those cases, ESMA should implement an escalation process, starting with engaging with national authorities and stakeholders, fostering greater convergence between them, and, where necessary, making use of its coordination and intervention powers, so that unjustified restrictions on cross-border activities or cases of non-compliance with EU law are remedied in a timely and efficient manner. For the same reasons, it is necessary to ensure that, if those problems persist despite this escalation process, ESMA should then exercise its powers to launch breach of Union law procedures in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to suspend the right of undertakings to provide services on a cross-border basis in accordance with Article 17aaa of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to arrange binding mediation in accordance with article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 or to organise collaboration platforms in accordance with Article 19a of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, where appropriate, in order to effectively remedy those problems.(16) To ensure the effective functioning of the Single Market for investment funds, asset managers and depositaries and enhance supervisory convergence that facilitates the cross-border exercise of passporting rights, ESMA should be empowered to identify and in collaboration with Member States address instances of divergent, duplicative, redundant or deficient supervisory practices that hinder the operations of asset managers and depositaries in the Single Market. In those cases, ESMA should implement an escalation process, starting with engaging with national authorities and stakeholders, fostering greater convergence between them, and, where necessary, making use of its coordination and intervention powers, so that unjustified restrictions on cross-border activities or cases of non-compliance with EU law are remedied in a timely and efficient manner. If those problems persist despite this escalation process and after exhausting the above arrangements, ESMA should then be able to exercise its powers to launch breach of Union law procedures in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to request the relevant Member States to suspend the right of undertakings to provide services on a cross-border basis in accordance with Article 17aaa of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, to arrange binding mediation in accordance with article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 or to organise collaboration platforms in accordance with Article 19a of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, where appropriate, in order to effectively remedy those problems.

Or. en

Amendment 181

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(17a) The Savings and Investments Union (SIU) would lead to deeper capital markets and an accelerated growth of non-banking financial institutions, including large asset managers groups. To ensure a stable and resilient financial system, it is crucial to ensure that competent authorities are equipped with the adequate tools to address pockets of vulnerabilities and risks. These tools should include adequate measures to address macroprudential risks, including liquidity risks emerging in the asset management sectors. Competent authorities should also be able to set leverage limits to avoid excessive risks building in capital markets. Macroprudential tools should also be able to measure, monitor and address ESG risks.

Or. en

Amendment 182

Regina Doherty

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(21) Articles 57 and 58 of Directive 2014/65/EU set out rules as regards the trading of commodity derivatives, emission allowances, and derivatives of emission allowances. Some of those rules are applicable to trading venues. As rules regarding the operation of trading venues are transferred from Directive 2014/65/EU to Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, it is appropriate to amend Articles 57 and 58 of Directive 2014/65/EU to ensure that those rules when applicable to trading venues are also transferred to Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.(21) Articles 57 and 58 of Directive 2014/65/EU set out rules as regards the trading of commodity derivatives, emission allowances, and derivatives of emission allowances. Some of those rules are applicable to trading venues. As rules regarding the operation of trading venues are transferred from Directive 2014/65/EU to Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, it is appropriate to amend Articles 57 and 58 of Directive 2014/65/EU to ensure that those rules when applicable to trading venues are also transferred to Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. The current ancillary activity exemption should be retained.

Or. en

Amendment 183

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Recital 23

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(23) Although Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU have introduced harmonised rules for the authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs, as well as for the information to be submitted to national competent authorities, divergent national practices in the authorisation process continue to persist. These inconsistencies complicate cross-border operations and hinder the functioning of the management passport. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation in the authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs, power should be delegated to the Commission to adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Those regulatory technical standards should specify the details of the information to be provided to the competent authorities as part of the application for authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs and the methods and arrangements for their delivery. To standardise the authorisation process, those regulatory technical standards should also establish templates, data standards, formats and instructions for the provision of that information. Furthermore, to ensure a consistent application of the provisions related to the information to be notified by investment firms providing investment services or performing investment activities through the freedom to provide services, the Commission should be empowered to adopt, in accordance with Article 290 TFEU and Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA.(23) Although Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU have introduced harmonised rules for the authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs, as well as for the information to be submitted to national competent authorities, divergent national practices in the authorisation process continue to persist. These inconsistencies complicate cross-border operations and hinder the functioning of the management passport. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation in the authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs, power should be delegated to the Commission to adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Those regulatory technical standards should specify the details of the information to be provided to the competent authorities as part of the application for authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs and the methods and arrangements for their delivery. To standardise the authorisation process, those regulatory technical standards should also establish templates, data standards, formats and instructions for the provision of that information. Furthermore, to ensure a consistent application of the provisions related to the information to be notified by investment firms providing investment services or performing investment activities through the freedom to provide services, the Commission should be empowered to adopt, in accordance with Article 290 TFEU and Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA. Such practices must not result in demands from the competent authorities for information, documents, explanations, statements, forms, templates, translations or additional procedures beyond those expressly provided for in EU law. Once the reporting obligations harmonised under EU law have been fulfilled, the competent authorities must not impose additional requirements regarding the content, format, channel of transmission, timetable, frequency or presentation of such information, unless EU law expressly so provides.
6 OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 84.6 OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 84.

Or. es

Amendment 184

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Recital 23

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(23) Although Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU have introduced harmonised rules for the authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs, as well as for the information to be submitted to national competent authorities, divergent national practices in the authorisation process continue to persist. These inconsistencies complicate cross-border operations and hinder the functioning of the management passport. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation in the authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs, power should be delegated to the Commission to adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council6 . Those regulatory technical standards should specify the details of the information to be provided to the competent authorities as part of the application for authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs and the methods and arrangements for their delivery. To standardise the authorisation process, those regulatory technical standards should also establish templates, data standards, formats and instructions for the provision of that information. Furthermore, to ensure a consistent application of the provisions related to the information to be notified by investment firms providing investment services or performing investment activities through the freedom to provide services, the Commission should be empowered to adopt, in accordance with Article 290 TFEU and Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA.(23) Although Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU have introduced harmonised rules for the authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs, as well as for the information to be submitted to national competent authorities, divergent national practices in the authorisation process continue to persist. These inconsistencies complicate cross-border operations and hinder the functioning of the management passport. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation in the authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs, power should be delegated to the Commission to adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council6 . Those regulatory technical standards should specify the details of the information to be provided to the competent authorities as part of the application for authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs and the methods and arrangements for their delivery. To standardise the authorisation process, those regulatory technical standards should also establish templates, data standards, formats and instructions for the provision of that information. Furthermore, to ensure a consistent application of the provisions related to the information to be notified by investment firms providing investment services or performing investment activities through the freedom to provide services, the Commission should be empowered to adopt, in accordance with Article 290 TFEU and Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA. When developing the draft regulatory technical standards, ESMA should take due account of existing national laws, regulations and administrative provisions in order to achieve efficient, effective and harmonized authorization procedures, and have due regard to the principle of proportionality and being mindful about the possible costs the obligations they contain would create for market participants.
6 OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, pp. 84–119.6 OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, pp. 84–119.

Or. en

Amendment 185

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 23

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(23) Although Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU have introduced harmonised rules for the authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs, as well as for the information to be submitted to national competent authorities, divergent national practices in the authorisation process continue to persist. These inconsistencies complicate cross-border operations and hinder the functioning of the management passport. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation in the authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs, power should be delegated to the Commission to adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council6 . Those regulatory technical standards should specify the details of the information to be provided to the competent authorities as part of the application for authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs and the methods and arrangements for their delivery. To standardise the authorisation process, those regulatory technical standards should also establish templates, data standards, formats and instructions for the provision of that information. Furthermore, to ensure a consistent application of the provisions related to the information to be notified by investment firms providing investment services or performing investment activities through the freedom to provide services, the Commission should be empowered to adopt, in accordance with Article 290 TFEU and Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA.(23) Although Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU have introduced harmonised rules for the authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs, as well as for the information to be submitted to national competent authorities, divergent national practices in the authorisation process continue to persist. These inconsistencies complicate cross-border operations and hinder the functioning of the management passport. In order to ensure consistent harmonisation in the authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs, power should be delegated to the Commission to adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council6 . Those regulatory technical standards should specify the details of the information to be provided to the competent authorities as part of the application for authorisation of UCITS, management companies and AIFMs and the methods and arrangements for their delivery. To standardise the authorisation process, those regulatory technical standards should also establish templates, data standards, formats and instructions for the provision of that information. Furthermore, to ensure a consistent application of the provisions related to the information to be notified by investment firms providing investment services or performing investment activities through the freedom to provide services, the Commission should be empowered to adopt, in accordance with Article 290 TFEU and Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA. When developing those regulatory technical standards, ESMA should take due account of existing national administrative provisions, apply the principle of proportionality and give due consideration to the costs those standards would create for market participants.
6 OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, pp. 84–119.6 OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, pp. 84–119.

Or. en

Justification

Proportionality anchors ESMA's RTS mandate against unnecessary cost and complexity for market participants, consistent with the package's own simplification objective, while leaving the delegation to develop harmonised standards fully intact.

Amendment 186

Markus Ferber

Proposal for a directive

Recital 26 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(26a) Pursuant to Article 90(5) of Directive 2014/65/EU, the Commission carried out a comprehensive assessment of the markets for commodity derivatives, emission allowances and derivatives of emission allowances, including the ancillary activity exemption, the position limits and position management controls regime, and the relevant data and reporting framework. That assessment, set out in the Commission's report of 26 May 2026 (COM(2026) 251 final), drew on a targeted stakeholder consultation, advice from the European Securities and Markets Authority and the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, and an analysis of market trends, including position data in commodity derivatives markets. The assessment found that the current framework continues to function adequately, supports market liquidity and the ability of non-financial entities to hedge commercial risk, and does not require substantive amendment at this stage. Given the absence of evidence that the ancillary activity exemption is failing to meet its objectives, and given the significant adverse effects that changes to this provision could have on the depth, liquidity and competitiveness of Union commodity derivatives markets, this Directive should not amend the respective provisions.

Or. en

Justification

Commission report COM(2026) 251 of 26 May 2026 confirms the AAE and position limits framework function adequately; no substantive amendment is warranted.

Amendment 187

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 26 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(26b) Regulatory frameworks governing remuneration in asset management should preserve the flexibility that management companies and alternative investment fund managers need to design remuneration policies suited to their risk profile, business model and workforce. Unlike credit institutions, UCITS management companies and alternative investment fund managers manage assets on behalf of investors and do not carry the leverage or deposit-guarantee exposure that could justify prescriptive remuneration caps. A rigid ratio between variable and fixed remuneration risks weakening the link between manager performance and investor outcomes, and would place Union asset managers at a competitive disadvantage in retaining portfolio management talent relative to third-country peers. Equally, mandating a fixed weighting between financial and non-financial criteria in variable remuneration would constrain the exercise of fiduciary duty owed to investors and should remain a matter for the internal governance of the management company, including its remuneration committee and supervisory body, rather than for prescriptive Union-level ratios. Existing governance requirements under Directive 2009/65/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU already ensure that remuneration policies are aligned with sound and effective risk management and do not encourage risk-taking inconsistent with the risk profile of the funds managed. A coherent approach to remuneration regulation across the Union's financial sector requires that any new constraints on asset managers be assessed against the broader direction of prudential reform, rather than introducing requirements more restrictive than those applicable to credit institutions.

Or. en

Justification

No changes to the remuneration regime are necessary.

Amendment 188

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Recital 26 c (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(26c) The existing regulatory framework governing undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities and managers of alternative investment funds already provides for effective safeguards against liquidity and leverage risk. Management companies are required to select liquidity management tools appropriate to their investment strategy and to activate them where pre-defined triggers are met, and national competent authorities retain the power to require such activation in periods of market stress. Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities are subject to a statutory leverage limit, and national competent authorities are empowered to set leverage limits for alternative investment funds where necessary to address risks to financial stability. In light of the adequacy of this framework, this Directive does not introduce additional macroprudential instruments. Doing so would add regulatory complexity without a demonstrated gap in the existing toolkit and would run counter to the objective of a proportionate and internationally competitive Union asset management sector.

Or. en

Justification

The existing collective investment fund frameworks already address liquidity and leverage risk through various robust mechanisms. This recital confirms the Commission's decision not to add further instruments, anchoring that restraint in the text and avoiding complexity that would undermine competitiveness.

Amendment 189

Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(v) ‘EU group of a management company and AIFM means in relation to a given management company or AIFM, a group as defined in Article 2, point (11) of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and the Council9 that consists of any of the following:deleted
(a) management companies, as defined in Article 2(1), point (b) of this Directive, that are established in the Union, and which are authorised in accordance with this Directive;
(b) managers of alternative investment funds, as defined in Article 4(1), point (b) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council10 that are established in the Union, and which are authorised in accordance with that Directive;
(c) investment firms, as defined in Article 4(1), point (1) of Directive 2014/65/EU that are established in the Union, and which are authorised in accordance with that Directive;
(d) credit institutions as defined in Article 2(1), point (b) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council11 that are established in the Union, and which are authorised in accordance with that Directive.;
9 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/34/oj).
10 Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010 (OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/61/oj).
11 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/34/oj).

Or. en

Justification

The aim of amending the delegation framework is to transition from the Commission’s blanket exemption for all EU group arrangements to a risk-based approach. Under this approach, non-critical, lower-risk delegation arrangements would be granted a derogation, regardless of group structure or geography. All other arrangements would be subject to proportionate, ongoing monitoring in accordance with the ESMA Principles on third-party risk supervision.

Amendment 190

Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Regina Doherty

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(v) ‘EU group of a management company and AIFM means in relation to a given management company or AIFM, a group as defined in Article 2, point (11) of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and the Council9 that consists of any of the following:deleted
(a) management companies, as defined in Article 2(1), point (b) of this Directive, that are established in the Union, and which are authorised in accordance with this Directive;
(b) managers of alternative investment funds, as defined in Article 4(1), point (b) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council10 that are established in the Union, and which are authorised in accordance with that Directive;
(c) investment firms, as defined in Article 4(1), point (1) of Directive 2014/65/EU that are established in the Union, and which are authorised in accordance with that Directive;
(d) credit institutions as defined in Article 2(1), point (b) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council11 that are established in the Union, and which are authorised in accordance with that Directive.;
9 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/34/oj).
10 Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010 (OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/61/oj).
11 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/34/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 191

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(v) ‘EU group of a management company and AIFM means in relation to a given management company or AIFM, a group as defined in Article 2, point (11) of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and the Council9 that consists of any of the following:(v) ‘delegation arrangement subject to a non-material risk classification’ means a delegation arrangement concerning the performance of the functions listed in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3), where a management company has carried out a risk-based assessment in accordance with ESMA’s Principles on third-party risks supervision (ESMA42-1710566791-6103) and has determined that the delegation arrangement involves a non-material level of inherent and residual risk;
9 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/34/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 192

Billy Kelleher, Gilles Boyer, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(v) ‘EU group of a management company and AIFM means in relation to a given management company or AIFM, a group as defined in Article 2, point (11) of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and the Council9 that consists of any of the following:(v) 'group resources’ means the human and technical resources of an entity linked to a management company by common management or control and which are available for deployment by that management company;
9 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/34/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 193

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2011/61/EU

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v – point a

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(a) management companies, as defined in Article 2(1), point (b) of this Directive, that are established in the Union, and which are authorised in accordance with this Directive;deleted

Or. en

Amendment 194

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v – point b

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(b) managers of alternative investment funds, as defined in Article 4(1), point (b) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council10 that are established in the Union, and which are authorised in accordance with that Directive;deleted
10 Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010 (OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/61/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 195

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v – point c

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(c) investment firms, as defined in Article 4(1), point (1) of Directive 2014/65/EU that are established in the Union, and which are authorised in accordance with that Directive;deleted

Or. en

Amendment 196

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v – point d

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(d) credit institutions as defined in Article 2(1), point (b) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council11 that are established in the Union, and which are authorised in accordance with that Directive.;deleted
11 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/34/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 197

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(da) holding companies that are established in the Union, whose main activity consists of holding control over, or exercising a dominant influence over the management of, any of the undertakings referred to in points (a) and (b);

Or. en

Amendment 198

Markus Ferber

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(da) holding companies that are established in the Union, whose main activity consists of holding control over, or exercising a dominant influence over the management of, any of the undertakings referred to in points (a) to (d);

Or. en

Justification

The 'EU group' definition currently captures only management companies, AIFMs, investment firms and credit institutions, excluding the holding companies through which many asset management groups are actually structured. Adding holding companies established in the Union closes a structural gap that would otherwise exclude legitimate group structures from the delegation facilitation.

Amendment 199

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
Where the undertakings referred to in points (a) to (da) form part of a wider group whose ultimate parent undertaking is established outside the Union, the EU group comprises only those undertakings established and authorized within the Union.

Or. en

Amendment 200

Christophe Gomart

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
Notwithstanding point (v), an EU group of a management company and an AIFM may encompass other types of entities, provided that the following safeguards are met:
(a) policies in place ensuring compliance by the firm, its directors and employees, and the necessary rules governing their personal transactions;
(b) in the event that essential operational functions are outsourced, the necessary measures to ensure the quality of internal oversight and the authorities’ ability to oversee compliance with its obligations;
(c) robust administrative and accounting procedures, effective internal-oversight mechanisms and suitable risk-assessment procedures in place.

Or. fr

Amendment 201

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v – subparagraph 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
The provisions relating to the EU group shall apply exclusively for the purposes of regulatory simplification and supervisory coordination under this Directive and shall not:
(a) affect the individual authorization and responsibility of each management company or AIFM belonging to the EU group;
(b) affect the obligation of management companies and AIFMs to act in the best interests of investors and fund unit-holders;
(c) affect the liability of management companies and AIFMs for the functions performed on their behalf;
(d) entail prudential consolidation requirements beyond those expressly provided under Union law.

Or. en

Amendment 202

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v – subparagraphs 1 c and 1 d (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
Where a management company or AIFM belongs to an EU group including also credit institutions or investment firms, the organizational integration within the group shall not impair:
(a) the autonomous exercise of portfolio management and risk management decisions, including the related regulatory safeguards;
(b) the independent exercise of voting rights;
(c) the product governance decisions of the management company or AIFM;
(d) the autonomous selection and oversight by the management company or AIFM of the entity appointed as depositary;
(e) the ability of the management company or AIFM to act in the best interest of investors.
The parent undertaking may define strategic and organizational objectives at group level, provided that such coordination does not result in direct or indirect interference with the fiduciary duties of the management company or AIFM.

Or. en

Amendment 203

Christophe Gomart

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point v – subparagraph 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
The EU group status of a management company and an AIFM shall apply only where a management company or an AIFM opts for this regime via its parent undertaking established in an EU Member State. In such cases, all the provisions of the Directive shall apply.

Or. fr

Amendment 204

Markus Ferber

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point x a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(xa) 'delegation arrangement subject to a non-material risk categorisation' means a delegation arrangement for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3), in respect of which the management company has performed a documented risk assessment, consistent with ESMA's principles on third-party risks supervision, and has categorised the arrangement as presenting a non-material level of inherent and residual risk.

Or. en

Justification

Article 2(1)(v) currently limits the delegation carve-out to entities established in the Union, denying it to arrangements that may carry lower risk than some intra-EU delegations while granting it automatically to others that carry more. A risk-categorisation test, anchored in ESMA's own principles on third-party risks supervision, targets relief at arrangements genuinely presenting non-material inherent and residual risk, regardless of the delegate's location, while leaving portfolio and risk management subject to a specific authorisation safeguard.

Amendment 205

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point x a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(xa) ‘group resources’ means the personnel and technical capabilities of an entity that is connected to a management company through common management or control and that are available for use by that management company.

Or. en

Amendment 206

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 5 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
If the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State decide to impose restrictions or reject those changes, they shall, within 1 month of receipt of the notification referred to in the first subparagraph, inform the UCITS thereof. The competent authorities may prolong that period for up to 1 month where they consider that to be necessary because of the specific circumstances of the case and after having notified the UCITS thereof. The changes shall be implemented if the relevant competent authorities do not oppose the changes within the relevant assessment period.;If the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State decide to impose restrictions or reject those changes, they shall, within 1 month of receipt of the complete notification referred to in the first subparagraph, inform the UCITS thereof. The competent authorities may prolong that period for up to 1 month where they consider that to be necessary because of the specific circumstances of the case and after having notified the UCITS thereof. The changes shall be implemented if the relevant competent authorities do not oppose the changes within the relevant assessment period.;

Or. en

Amendment 207

Jaroslav Knot, Auke Zijlstra, Pierre Pimpie, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 5 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
If the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State decide to impose restrictions or reject those changes, they shall, within 1 month of receipt of the notification referred to in the first subparagraph, inform the UCITS thereof. The competent authorities may prolong that period for up to 1 month where they consider that to be necessary because of the specific circumstances of the case and after having notified the UCITS thereof. The changes shall be implemented if the relevant competent authorities do not oppose the changes within the relevant assessment period.;If the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State decide to impose restrictions or reject those changes, they shall, within 1 month of receipt of the complete notification referred to in the first subparagraph, inform the UCITS thereof. The competent authorities may prolong that period for up to 1 month where they consider that to be necessary because of the specific circumstances of the case and after having notified the UCITS thereof. The changes shall be implemented if the relevant competent authorities do not oppose the changes within the relevant assessment period.;

Or. en

Amendment 208

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 5 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(c) the methods and arrangements for delivery of the information to be provided(c) the methods and arrangements for delivery of the information to be provided, limited to matters of form, procedure, format and timeline and not affecting the substantive scope of the requirements set out in this Article.

Or. en

Justification

Clarifies that this empowerment concerns procedural detail only, consistent with the essential/non-essential elements distinction under Article 290 TFEU and with the harmonisation objective pursued by this Article

Amendment 209

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 5 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(ca) the definition of “material changes” referred to in paragraph 6.

Or. en

Amendment 210

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 5 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
ESMA shall develop IT solutions, including templates, data standards, formats and instructions for providing the information referred to in point (a).ESMA shall develop standard forms and instructions for providing the information referred to in point (a).

Or. en

Amendment 211

Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 1 – point c a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(ca) the following subparagraph is inserted after the first subparagraph:
'For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (e)(v), monitoring pursuant to Article 13(1), point (f) shall be conducted in a manner proportionate to the delegation risks as assessed by the management company.'

Or. en

Justification

The aim of amending the delegation framework is to transition from the Commission’s blanket exemption for all EU group arrangements to a risk-based approach. Under this approach, non-critical, lower-risk delegation arrangements would be granted a derogation, regardless of group structure or geography. All other arrangements would be subject to proportionate, ongoing monitoring in accordance with the ESMA Principles on third-party risk supervision.

Amendment 212

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 2

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1a

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
1a. ‘By way of derogation from paragraph 1, point (e), Member States shall not require a management company to provide to the competent authorities of its home Member State the information referred to in paragraph 1, point (e), where that management company relies on one or more entities that belong to its EU group for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3).deleted
The application for authorisation of a management company that relies on the human and technical resources of one or more entities that belong to its EU to conduct its business, shall in addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1, point (c), specify those human and technical resources. The authorisation of a management company shall not be made conditional on the requirement that the management company refrains from utilising resources of one or more entities within that same EU group.;

Or. en

Amendment 213

Billy Kelleher, Gilles Boyer, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 2

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1a – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
‘By way of derogation from paragraph 1, point (e), Member States shall not require a management company to provide to the competent authorities of its home Member State the information referred to in paragraph 1, point (e), where that management company relies on one or more entities that belong to its EU group for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3).deleted

Or. en

Amendment 214

Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 2

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1a – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
‘By way of derogation from paragraph 1, point (e), Member States shall not require a management company to provide to the competent authorities of its home Member State the information referred to in paragraph 1, point (e), where that management company relies on one or more entities that belong to its EU group for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3).‘By way of derogation from paragraph 1, point (e), Member States shall not require a management company to provide to the competent authorities of its home Member State the information referred to in paragraph 1, point (e), where that management company enters into a delegation arrangement relating to the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3), where that delegation arrangement is considered non-critical, following a risk-based assessment performed by the management company.

Or. en

Justification

The aim of amending the delegation framework is to transition from the Commission’s blanket exemption for all EU group arrangements to a risk-based approach. Under this approach, non-critical, lower-risk delegation arrangements would be granted a derogation, regardless of group structure or geography. All other arrangements would be subject to proportionate, ongoing monitoring in accordance with the ESMA Principles on third-party risk supervision.

Amendment 215

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 2

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1a – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
‘By way of derogation from paragraph 1, point (e), Member States shall not require a management company to provide to the competent authorities of its home Member State the information referred to in paragraph 1, point (e), where that management company relies on one or more entities that belong to its EU group for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3).‘By way of derogation from paragraph 1, point (e), Member States shall not require a management company to provide to the competent authorities of its home Member State the information referred to in paragraph 1, point (e), where that management company enters into a delegation arrangement subject to a non-material risk categorisation.

Or. en

Amendment 216

Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Regina Doherty

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 2

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1a – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
‘By way of derogation from paragraph 1, point (e), Member States shall not require a management company to provide to the competent authorities of its home Member State the information referred to in paragraph 1, point (e), where that management company relies on one or more entities that belong to its EU group for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3).‘By way of derogation from paragraph 1, point (e), Member States shall not require a management company to provide to the competent authorities of its home Member State the information referred to in paragraph 1, point (e), where that management company relies on one or more entities that belong to its group for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3).

Or. en

Amendment 217

Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 2

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1 a – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
The process of application for authorisation of a management company that relies on the human and technical resources of one or more entities that belong to its group to conduct its business shall be exclusively initiated by the relevant management company.

Or. en

Amendment 218

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 2

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1a – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
The application for authorisation of a management company that relies on the human and technical resources of one or more entities that belong to its EU to conduct its business, shall in addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1, point (c), specify those human and technical resources. The authorisation of a management company shall not be made conditional on the requirement that the management company refrains from utilising resources of one or more entities within that same EU group.;deleted

Or. en

Amendment 219

Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 2

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1a – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
The application for authorisation of a management company that relies on the human and technical resources of one or more entities that belong to its EU to conduct its business, shall in addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1, point (c), specify those human and technical resources. The authorisation of a management company shall not be made conditional on the requirement that the management company refrains from utilising resources of one or more entities within that same EU group.;The application for authorisation of a management company shall in any case specify the name of the delegate and the delegated functions referred to in Annex II or services referred to in Article 6(3).

Or. en

Justification

The aim of amending the delegation framework is to transition from the Commission’s blanket exemption for all EU group arrangements to a risk-based approach. Under this approach, non-critical, lower-risk delegation arrangements would be granted a derogation, regardless of group structure or geography. All other arrangements would be subject to proportionate, ongoing monitoring in accordance with the ESMA Principles on third-party risk supervision.

Amendment 220

Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 2

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1a – subparagraph 2a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
The management company should document its critical and non-critical delegation arrangements, including the name of the delegate, the delegated function or service and the criticality assessment. This information shall be made available on request to the competent authorities of its home Member State.

Or. en

Justification

The aim of amending the delegation framework is to transition from the Commission’s blanket exemption for all EU group arrangements to a risk-based approach. Under this approach, non-critical, lower-risk delegation arrangements would be granted a derogation, regardless of group structure or geography. All other arrangements would be subject to proportionate, ongoing monitoring in accordance with the ESMA Principles on third-party risk supervision.

Amendment 221

Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 2

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1a – subparagraphs 2 b, 2c and 2d (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying:
(a) the criteria to be applied for the performance of the risk-based assessment;
(b) the different risk categories from lower to high risk;
(c) the safeguards to ensure that risk assessments are performed in a robust manner and reflect the adequate level of risk.
ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by … [12 months from the date of entry into force of this amending Directive].
Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the fourth subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.

Or. en

Justification

The aim of amending the delegation framework is to transition from the Commission’s blanket exemption for all EU group arrangements to a risk-based approach. Under this approach, non-critical, lower-risk delegation arrangements would be granted a derogation, regardless of group structure or geography. All other arrangements would be subject to proportionate, ongoing monitoring in accordance with the ESMA Principles on third-party risk supervision.

Amendment 222

Billy Kelleher, Gilles Boyer, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 2

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1a – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
The application for authorisation of a management company that relies on the human and technical resources of one or more entities that belong to its EU to conduct its business, shall in addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1, point (c), specify those human and technical resources. The authorisation of a management company shall not be made conditional on the requirement that the management company refrains from utilising resources of one or more entities within that same EU group.;The application for authorisation of a management company that relies on group resources of one or more entities to conduct its business, shall in addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1, point (c), specify those group resources. The authorisation of a management company shall not be made conditional on the requirement that the management company refrains from utilising group resources;

Or. en

Amendment 223

Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Regina Doherty

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 2

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1a – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
The application for authorisation of a management company that relies on the human and technical resources of one or more entities that belong to its EU to conduct its business, shall in addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1, point (c), specify those human and technical resources. The authorisation of a management company shall not be made conditional on the requirement that the management company refrains from utilising resources of one or more entities within that same EU group.;The application for authorisation of a management company that relies on the human and technical resources of one or more entities that belong to its EU to conduct its business, shall in addition to the information referred to in paragraph 1, point (c), specify those human and technical resources. The authorisation of a management company shall not be made conditional on the requirement that the management company refrains from utilising resources of one or more entities within that same group;

Or. en

Amendment 224

Christophe Gomart

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 2

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1 a – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
An application for authorisation by a management company that relies on the human and technical resources of entities within its EU group may only be submitted by the management company via its parent undertaking established in an EU Member State. Following such an application, this Directive shall apply.

Or. fr

Amendment 225

Gaetano Pedulla'

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 2 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(2a) the following paragraph is inserted:
‘1b. Where a management company relies on intra-group resources in accordance with paragraph 1a, it shall retain effective decision-making capacity, adequate own substance and responsibility for compliance. Such intra-group arrangements shall be notified to the competent authority prior to their implementation, which may require measures to preserve supervisory visibility. This lighter treatment shall not apply where the ultimate parent is established outside the Union, unless supervisory equivalence is demonstrated.’;

Or. en

Justification

It introduces essential safeguards to the "EU group" model to prevent supervisory arbitrage and the proliferation of "letter-box" entities. By mandating that licensed entities retain adequate own substance and effective decision-making capacity, the proposal ensures that the core management remains within the Union.

The amendment requires ex-ante notification of intra-group arrangements (prior to implementation) to ensure supervisory visibility for National Competent Authorities. Furthermore, by restricting the "lighter treatment" to groups with Union-based ultimate parents, the amendment prevents non-EU firms from using thin subsidiaries to bypass robust delegation standards, thereby preserving the supervisory integrity and legal accountability of the Union’s financial ecosystem.

Amendment 226

Jaroslav Knot, Auke Zijlstra, Tomáš Kubín, Pierre Pimpie

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 5

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
If the competent authorities of the management company’s home Member State decide to impose restrictions or reject the changes referred to in the first subparagraph, they shall, within 1 month of receipt of the notification referred to in the first subparagraph, inform the management company thereof. The competent authorities may prolong that period for up to 1 month where they consider that to be necessary because of the specific circumstances of the case and after having notified the management company thereof. The changes shall be implemented if the relevant competent authorities do not oppose the changes within the relevant assessment period.;If the competent authorities of the management company’s home Member State decide to impose restrictions or reject the changes referred to in the first subparagraph, they shall, within 1 month of receipt of the complete notification referred to in the first subparagraph, inform the management company thereof. The competent authorities may prolong that period for up to 1 month where they consider that to be necessary because of the specific circumstances of the case and after having notified the management company thereof. The changes shall be implemented if the relevant competent authorities do not oppose the changes within the relevant assessment period.;

Or. en

Amendment 227

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a – point 5

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 7 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
If the competent authorities of the management company’s home Member State decide to impose restrictions or reject the changes referred to in the first subparagraph, they shall, within 1 month of receipt of the notification referred to in the first subparagraph, inform the management company thereof. The competent authorities may prolong that period for up to 1 month where they consider that to be necessary because of the specific circumstances of the case and after having notified the management company thereof. The changes shall be implemented if the relevant competent authorities do not oppose the changes within the relevant assessment period.;If the competent authorities of the management company’s home Member State decide to impose restrictions or reject the changes referred to in the first subparagraph, they shall, within 1 month of receipt of the complete notification referred to in the first subparagraph, inform the management company thereof. The competent authorities may prolong that period for up to 1 month where they consider that to be necessary because of the specific circumstances of the case and after having notified the management company thereof. The changes shall be implemented if the relevant competent authorities do not oppose the changes within the relevant assessment period.;

Or. en

Amendment 228

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
In order to ensure a uniform application of the prudential rules for management companies and to ensure a consistent implementation across Member States, ESMA may adopt guidelines to specify the content of those rules.;deleted

Or. en

Amendment 229

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
In order to ensure a uniform application of the prudential rules for management companies and to ensure a consistent implementation across Member States, ESMA may adopt guidelines to specify the content of those rules.;deleted

Or. en

Justification

The previous subparagraph of paragraph 3 already empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts under Article 112a specifying the same prudential rules the ESMA guideline power purports to cover. Two Level 2/3 instruments tasked with specifying identical content within a single paragraph is unnecessary duplication. Removing the ESMA guideline sentence leaves the Commission's binding delegated act as the sole mechanism, consistent with this package's own simplification objective.

Amendment 230

Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point -a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point f

Present textAmendment
(-a) in paragraph 1, point (f) is replaced by the following:
(f) measures must exist which enable the persons who conduct the business of the management company to monitor effectively at any time the activity of the undertaking to which the mandate is given;'(f) measures must exist which enable those who conduct the business of the management company to monitor effectively at any time the activity of the undertaking to which the mandate is given. Monitoring over the delegates shall be performed in a manner proportionate to the delegation risks as assessed by the management company, having regard, inter alia, to the criticality of the delegated functions or services and to the fact whether the management company delegates within the same group;'

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02009L0065-20260416)

Justification

The aim of amending the delegation framework is to transition from the Commission’s blanket exemption for all EU group arrangements to a risk-based approach. Under this approach, non-critical, lower-risk delegation arrangements would be granted a derogation, regardless of group structure or geography. All other arrangements would be subject to proportionate, ongoing monitoring in accordance with the ESMA Principles on third-party risk supervision.

Amendment 231

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraphs 2 and 3

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(8) Article 13 is amended as follows:deleted
(a) paragraph 2 is amended as follows:
‘2. The liability of the management company or the depositary shall not be affected by the fact that the management company has delegated functions or services to a third party or has relied on one or more entities within its EU group to carry out its functions pursuant to paragraph 3, second subparagraph. The management company shall not delegate the functions or services or rely on the functions or services of one or more entities within its EU group to the extent that, in essence, it can no longer be considered to be the manager of the UCITS or the provider of the services referred to in Article 6(3) and to the extent that it becomes a letter-box entity.;’
(b) in paragraph 3, the following subparagraph is added:
‘By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where a management company relies on an entity within its EU group for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3), such arrangement shall not be considered as a delegation subject to the requirements set out in paragraph 1, where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) the entity belongs to the EU group of the management company;
(b) the management company has notified the competent authorities of its home Member State of the fact that it relies on another entity within its EU group to perform its functions or services;
(c) the entity has been duly authorised to perform those functions or services on behalf of the management company.;’

Or. en

Amendment 232

Billy Kelleher, Gilles Boyer, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraphs 2 and 3

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(8) Article 13 is amended as follows:deleted
(a) paragraph 2 is amended as follows:
‘2. The liability of the management company or the depositary shall not be affected by the fact that the management company has delegated functions or services to a third party or has relied on one or more entities within its EU group to carry out its functions pursuant to paragraph 3, second subparagraph. The management company shall not delegate the functions or services or rely on the functions or services of one or more entities within its EU group to the extent that, in essence, it can no longer be considered to be the manager of the UCITS or the provider of the services referred to in Article 6(3) and to the extent that it becomes a letter-box entity.;’
(b) in paragraph 3, the following subparagraph is added:
‘By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where a management company relies on an entity within its EU group for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3), such arrangement shall not be considered as a delegation subject to the requirements set out in paragraph 1, where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) the entity belongs to the EU group of the management company;
(b) the management company has notified the competent authorities of its home Member State of the fact that it relies on another entity within its EU group to perform its functions or services;
(c) the entity has been duly authorised to perform those functions or services on behalf of the management company.;’

Or. en

Amendment 233

Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(a) paragraph 2 is amended as follows:deleted
‘2. The liability of the management company or the depositary shall not be affected by the fact that the management company has delegated functions or services to a third party or has relied on one or more entities within its EU group to carry out its functions pursuant to paragraph 3, second subparagraph. The management company shall not delegate the functions or services or rely on the functions or services of one or more entities within its EU group to the extent that, in essence, it can no longer be considered to be the manager of the UCITS or the provider of the services referred to in Article 6(3) and to the extent that it becomes a letter-box entity.;’

Or. en

Justification

The aim of amending the delegation framework is to transition from the Commission’s blanket exemption for all EU group arrangements to a risk-based approach. Under this approach, non-critical, lower-risk delegation arrangements would be granted a derogation, regardless of group structure or geography. All other arrangements would be subject to proportionate, ongoing monitoring in accordance with the ESMA Principles on third-party risk supervision.

Amendment 234

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(a) paragraph 2 is amended as follows:deleted
‘2. The liability of the management company or the depositary shall not be affected by the fact that the management company has delegated functions or services to a third party or has relied on one or more entities within its EU group to carry out its functions pursuant to paragraph 3, second subparagraph. The management company shall not delegate the functions or services or rely on the functions or services of one or more entities within its EU group to the extent that, in essence, it can no longer be considered to be the manager of the UCITS or the provider of the services referred to in Article 6(3) and to the extent that it becomes a letter-box entity.;’

Or. en

Amendment 235

Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Regina Doherty

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
2. The liability of the management company or the depositary shall not be affected by the fact that the management company has delegated functions or services to a third party or has relied on one or more entities within its EU group to carry out its functions pursuant to paragraph 3, second subparagraph. The management company shall not delegate the functions or services or rely on the functions or services of one or more entities within its EU group to the extent that, in essence, it can no longer be considered to be the manager of the UCITS or the provider of the services referred to in Article 6(3) and to the extent that it becomes a letter-box entity.;2. The liability of the management company or the depositary shall not be affected by the fact that the management company has delegated functions or services to a third party or has relied on one or more entities within its group to carry out its functions pursuant to paragraph 3, second subparagraph. The management company shall not delegate the functions or services or rely on the functions or services of one or more entities within its group to the extent that, in essence, it can no longer be considered to be the manager of the UCITS or the provider of the services referred to in Article 6(3) and to the extent that it becomes a letter-box entity.;

Or. en

Amendment 236

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraphs 1 a, 1 b and 1 c (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(aa) in paragraph 2, the following subparagraphs are added:
'In order to ensure a harmonised application of the first subparagraph, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory standards specifying the notion of ‘letter-box’ entity, including by developing metrics to identify real economic activity.
ESMA shall submit the draft regulatory technical standards referred to in the second subparagraph to the Commission by … [12 months from the date of entry into force of this amending Directive].
Power is conferred to the Commission to supplement this Directive by adopting the regulatory technical standards referred to in the second subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.’ ;

Or. en

Amendment 237

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a b (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(ab) the following paragraph is inserted:
'2a. Where the delegation relates to portfolio management or risk management functions, the management company shall, on a yearly basis, inform the competent authority of the following:
(a) information on the entities to which such functions have been delegated, including the name and legal entity identifier of each delegate, its jurisdiction of establishment and, where relevant, its supervisory authority;
(b) information on the function delegated, type of delegation and the date of the delegation agreement or contract;
(c) where sub-delegation arrangements are in place, the same information in respect of the sub-delegates and the functions sub-delegated;
(d) the date of conclusion of the delegation and sub-delegation arrangements;
(e) description of periodic due diligence measures carried out by the AIFM to oversee, monitor and control the delegate, including the date of performance of these measures, the issues identified and, where relevant, the measures and timeline adopted to address these issues.'

Or. en

Amendment 238

Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where a management company relies on an entity within its EU group for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3), such arrangement shall not be considered as a delegation subject to the requirements set out in paragraph 1, where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where the delegation arrangement is considered non-critical, such arrangement shall not be considered as a delegation subject to the requirements set out in paragraph 1.

Or. en

Justification

The aim of amending the delegation framework is to transition from the Commission’s blanket exemption for all EU group arrangements to a risk-based approach. Under this approach, non-critical, lower-risk delegation arrangements would be granted a derogation, regardless of group structure or geography. All other arrangements would be subject to proportionate, ongoing monitoring in accordance with the ESMA Principles on third-party risk supervision.

Amendment 239

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where a management company relies on an entity within its EU group for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3), such arrangement shall not be considered as a delegation subject to the requirements set out in paragraph 1, where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where a management company enters into a delegation arrangement that is subject to a non-material risk categorisation, such an arrangement shall not be considered as a delegation subject to the requirements set out in paragraph 1, where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:

Or. en

Amendment 240

Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where a management company relies on an entity within its EU group for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3), such arrangement shall not be considered as a delegation subject to the requirements set out in paragraph 1, where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where a management company relies on an entity within its group for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3), such arrangement shall not be subject to the requirements set out in paragraph 1, where the following conditions are fulfilled:

Or. en

Amendment 241

Thomas Bajada

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where a management company relies on an entity within its EU group for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3), such arrangement shall not be considered as a delegation subject to the requirements set out in paragraph 1, where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:‘By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where a management company relies on an entity within its Group for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3), such arrangement shall not be considered as a delegation subject to the requirements set out in paragraph 1, where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:

Or. en

Amendment 242

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(a) the entity belongs to the EU group of the management company;deleted

Or. en

Amendment 243

Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Regina Doherty

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2– point a

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(a) the entity belongs to the EU group of the management company;deleted

Or. en

Amendment 244

Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(a) the entity belongs to the EU group of the management company;deleted

Or. en

Justification

The aim of amending the delegation framework is to transition from the Commission’s blanket exemption for all EU group arrangements to a risk-based approach. Under this approach, non-critical, lower-risk delegation arrangements would be granted a derogation, regardless of group structure or geography. All other arrangements would be subject to proportionate, ongoing monitoring in accordance with the ESMA Principles on third-party risk supervision.

Amendment 245

David Casa

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2– point a

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(a) the entity belongs to the EU group of the management company;(a) the entity belongs to the group of the management companies, which are either authorised in the EU or in a non-EU country, the regulatory and supervisory framework of which is deemed comparable to the corresponding EU rules;

Or. en

Amendment 246

Thomas Bajada

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(a) the entity belongs to the EU group of the management company;(a) the entity belongs to the group of the management companies, which are either authorised in the EU or in a non-EU country, the regulatory and supervisory framework of which is deemed comparable to the corresponding EU rules;

Or. en

Amendment 247

Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(b) the management company has notified the competent authorities of its home Member State of the fact that it relies on another entity within its EU group to perform its functions or services;deleted

Or. en

Justification

The aim of amending the delegation framework is to transition from the Commission’s blanket exemption for all EU group arrangements to a risk-based approach. Under this approach, non-critical, lower-risk delegation arrangements would be granted a derogation, regardless of group structure or geography. All other arrangements would be subject to proportionate, ongoing monitoring in accordance with the ESMA Principles on third-party risk supervision.

Amendment 248

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(b) the management company has notified the competent authorities of its home Member State of the fact that it relies on another entity within its EU group to perform its functions or services;(b) the management company has notified the competent authorities of its home Member State of the fact that it has entered into a delegation arrangement that has been subject to a non-material risk categorisation and has supplied any information necessary to enable the competent authorities of its home Member State to evaluate the management company’s compliance with Article 13;

Or. en

Amendment 249

Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Regina Doherty

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(b) the management company has notified the competent authorities of its home Member State of the fact that it relies on another entity within its EU group to perform its functions or services;(b) the management company has notified the competent authorities of its home Member State of the fact that it relies on another entity within its group to perform its functions or services;

Or. en

Amendment 250

Thomas Bajada

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(b) the management company has notified the competent authorities of its home Member State of the fact that it relies on another entity within its EU group to perform its functions or services;(b) the management company has notified the competent authorities of its home Member State of the fact that it relies on another entity within its group to perform its functions or services;

Or. en

Amendment 251

Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point c

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(c) the entity has been duly authorised to perform those functions or services on behalf of the management company.;deleted

Or. en

Justification

The aim of amending the delegation framework is to transition from the Commission’s blanket exemption for all EU group arrangements to a risk-based approach. Under this approach, non-critical, lower-risk delegation arrangements would be granted a derogation, regardless of group structure or geography. All other arrangements would be subject to proportionate, ongoing monitoring in accordance with the ESMA Principles on third-party risk supervision.

Amendment 252

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point c

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(c) the entity has been duly authorised to perform those functions or services on behalf of the management company.;(c) where the delegation concerns portfolio management or risk management, the entity has been duly authorised to perform those functions or services on behalf of the management company.;

Or. en

Amendment 253

David Casa

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(ca) the scope and performance of the delegated functions are governed by the group’s internal policy or written agreement between the management company and the delegate.

Or. en

Amendment 254

Thomas Bajada

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(ca) she scope and performance of the delegated functions are governed by the group’s internal policy or written agreement between the management company and the delegate.

Or. en

Amendment 255

Markus Ferber

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(ba) the following paragraph is inserted:
'3a. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where a management company enters into a delegation arrangement subject to a non-material risk categorisation, such arrangement shall not be considered as a delegation subject to the requirements set out in paragraph 1, where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) the management company has notified the competent authorities of its home Member State of the fact that it has entered into a delegation arrangement subject to a non-material risk categorisation, and has provided such information as the competent authorities require to assess the management company's compliance with this Article;
(b) where the delegation concerns portfolio management or risk management, the entity is duly authorised or registered for the purpose of asset management and subject to supervision, or the delegation has received the prior approval of the competent authorities of the home Member State of the management company.'

Or. en

Justification

A risk-based derogation from the delegation rules, keyed to a documented assessment under ESMA's principles on third-party risks supervision, targets the delegation requirements at arrangements that actually carry material risk, while retaining a specific authorisation safeguard for portfolio and risk management, where the investor protection concern is sharpest.

Amendment 256

Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 13 – paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(ba) the following paragraph is added:
'6a. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the characteristics of the proportionate approach related to the ongoing monitoring regime as set out in paragraph 1, point (f).
ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by … [12 months from the date of entry into force of this amending Directive].
Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.’

Or. en

Justification

The aim of amending the delegation framework is to transition from the Commission’s blanket exemption for all EU group arrangements to a risk-based approach. Under this approach, non-critical, lower-risk delegation arrangements would be granted a derogation, regardless of group structure or geography. All other arrangements would be subject to proportionate, ongoing monitoring in accordance with the ESMA Principles on third-party risk supervision.

Amendment 257

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Section 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(8a) the following section is inserted:
‘Section 3a
Simplified regime for management companies belonging to an EU group of management companies and AIFMS’

Or. en

Amendment 258

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 15 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
Article 15a
General principle
Management companies belonging to an EU group shall benefit from the simplified regime set out in this section.

Or. en

Amendment 259

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 15 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
Article 15b
Use of intra-group human and technical resources
1. A management company belonging to an EU group may rely on the human and technical resources of one or more entities that belong to its EU group to conduct its business.
2. At the time of authorization, a management company that shares resources pursuant to paragraph 1, shall in addition to the information referred to in Article 7(1), point (c), specify those human and technical resources.
3. The authorization of a management company shall not be made conditional on the requirement that the management company refrains from utilizing resources of one or more entities within that same EU group.

Or. en

Amendment 260

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 15 c (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
Article 15c
Intra-group delegation
1. A management company belonging to an EU group may rely on one or more entities that belong to its EU group to carry out on its behalf the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3) or critical or important functions. For the purposes of this Article, “critical or important functions” means functions the interruption of which would materially impair the financial performance of the management company or the soundness or continuity of its services and activities, or the deficient, interrupted or insufficient performance of which would materially impair the continued compliance of the management company with the conditions and obligations attached to its authorization or with applicable Union law.
2. Where a management company relies on an entity within its EU group for the performance of the functions referred to in Annex II or the services referred to in Article 6(3) or critical or important functions, such arrangement shall not be considered as a delegation subject to the delegation regime, where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) the entity belongs to the EU group of the management company;
(b) the management company has notified the competent authorities of its home Member State of the fact that it relies on another entity within its EU group to perform its functions or services;
(c) the entity has been duly authorized to perform those functions or services;
(d) the arrangement does not impair the autonomous exercise of the fiduciary duties.
3. At the time of authorization, management company pursuant to paragraph 1 shall not provide to the competent authorities of its home Member State the information referred to in Article 7(1), point (e).

Or. en

Amendment 261

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 15d (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
Article 15d
Application of the Anti-Letter-Box Principle
1. The application of the intra-group arrangements referred to in this Section shall not affect the obligation of management companies to comply with the prohibition on becoming a letter-box entity.
2. Competent authorities shall assess compliance with the organizational substance requirements and with the anti-letter-box principle when authorizing and supervising both the management company and the entity performing functions on its behalf, including where intra-group arrangements benefit from the derogations provided for in this Chapter.
3. For EU groups composed exclusively of management companies authorized under this Directive and AIFMs authorized under Directive 2011/61/EU, the assessment of organizational substance and of compliance with the anti-letter-box principle shall take into account the resources, expertise, governance arrangements and infrastructures available within the EU group as a whole, including in particular:
(a) the organizational integration of the EU group;
(b) the distribution of functions, resources and expertise within the EU group;
(c) the existence of shared infrastructures, systems, technological platforms and personnel within the EU group;
(d) the effective decision-making powers, oversight functions and control responsibilities retained by the management company or AIFM;
(e) the full responsibility and liability of the management company or AIFM towards investors and competent authorities.
4. The existence of shared personnel, centralized support functions, common technological infrastructures, integrated governance arrangements or intra-group delegation arrangements within an EU group shall not, in itself, constitute evidence that a management company or AIFM lacks sufficient organizational substance, nor give rise to a presumption that the management company or AIFM has become a letter-box entity.

Or. en

Amendment 262

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 14 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(b) in paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is added:deleted
‘In order to ensure a uniform application of the rules of conduct referred to in paragraph 1 and to ensure a consistent implementation across Member States, ESMA may adopt guidelines, to specify the content of those rules.;’

Or. en

Justification

The rules of conduct for management companies are already comprehensively specified at Level 2 by Commission Directive 2010/43/EU. No gap in the existing framework has been identified that would justify a further ESMA guideline mandate. Deletion avoids adding to an already extensive acquis, consistent with the package's own simplification objective.

Amendment 263

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 14 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
In order to ensure a uniform application of the rules of conduct referred to in paragraph 1 and to ensure a consistent implementation across Member States, ESMA may adopt guidelines, to specify the content of those rules.;deleted

Or. en

Amendment 264

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 18 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
2. The competent authorities of the management company's home Member State shall, within 15 days of receiving the information referred to in paragraph 1, forward that information to the competent authorities of the management company's host Member State;;2. The competent authorities of the management company's home Member State shall, within 15 working days of receiving the complete information referred to in paragraph 1, forward that information to the competent authorities of the management company's host Member State;';

Or. en

Amendment 265

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 18 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(13a) The following Article 18b is inserted:
‘Article 18b
Harmonisation of reporting requirements for the purposes of cross-border activities
1. Member States shall not impose additional or duplicated reporting requirements on UCITS or management companies pertaining to cross-border activities, including the management or marketing of UCITS, the establishment of branches or the freedom to provide services, including information for investors and supervisory information, unless such requirements are expressly provided for in this Directive, in Regulation (EU) 2019/1156 or in another applicable act of EU law.
Where EU law provides for harmonised forms, templates, procedures, transmission channels, deadlines, update cycles or reporting frequencies, Member States shall not require the same information to be resubmitted, nor shall they require it to be submitted in a different format, template or channel, or following a different timetable, update cycle or frequency.
2. In areas not yet harmonised by EU law, national reporting requirements, whether for investors or competent authorities, shall be necessary, proportionate, non-discriminatory and transparent, and shall not undermine, delay, restrict or condition the effective exercise of the right of management companies to carry out cross-border activities.’

Or. es

Amendment 266

Eero Heinäluoma, Jonás Fernández, Francisco Assis, César Luena, Evelyn Regner, Aurore Lalucq

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 18 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(13a) the following Article 18b is inserted:
'Article 18b
1. Competent authorities shall have the power to require managers of UCITS to maintain redemption arrangements consistent with the time required to liquidate portfolio assets under stressed market conditions.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, competent authorities may impose one or more of the following measures:
(a) minimum notice periods for redemptions;
(b) minimum holding periods;
(c) limits on redemption frequency.
3. ESMA shall develop regulatory technical standards specifying methodologies for assessing the consistency between asset liquidity and redemption terms for UCITS, consistent with the methodology developed under AIFMD.
ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by … [six months from the date of entry into force of this amending Directive].
Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
4. Where competent authorities identify systemic risks arising from a category of funds, they may apply the measures referred to in paragraph 2 to a class of funds on a sector-wide basis.
5. Measures adopted under this Article shall pursue the objective of safeguarding financial stability and mitigating systemic liquidity risks.'

Or. en

Amendment 267

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 20a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
The competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State shall ensure that all information gathered under this Article in respect of all UCITS that they supervise is made available to other relevant competent authorities, ESMA, EBA, EIOPA and the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), whenever necessary for the purpose of carrying out their duties, by means of the procedures set out in Article 101.;The competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State shall ensure that all information gathered under this Article in respect of all UCITS that they supervise is made available to other relevant competent authorities, ESMA, EBA, EIOPA, the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) and the members of the European System of Central Banks, whenever necessary for the purpose of carrying out their duties, by means of the procedures set out in Article 101.

Or. en

Amendment 268

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 – point a a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 20a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(aa) the second subparagraph is deleted;

Or. en

Amendment 269

Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Regina Doherty

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 20 a – paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(15a) in Article 20a, the following paragraph is added:
‘6a. Regulatory reporting submitted pursuant to this Article shall be submitted in a single, standardised format exclusively to ESMA, which shall centralise that reporting at fund level. ESMA shall transmit the reported data, without delay, to the competent authorities of the home Member State of the management company concerned, and, upon request, to the competent authorities of the Member States where the relevant UCITS are domiciled.
The centralisation and analysis of data by ESMA under this Article shall be organised on a fund-by-fund basis and shall not result in the aggregation, identification or classification of management companies, or of groups thereof, for supervisory or regulatory purposes other than the exercise of the powers set out in this Directive, Directive 2011/61/EU or Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the IT solutions, including templates, data standards, formats and instructions, for the submission of the information referred to in this Article.
ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by … [24 months from the date of entry into force of this amending Directive].
Power is delegated to the Commission to supplement this Directive by adopting the regulatory technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
On an annual basis, ESMA shall prepare a report analysing, at fund and product level, the data referred to in the preceding paragraph, and shall likewise prepare, on an annual basis, a report analysing the market data collected pursuant to the European Single Access Point established under Regulation (EU) 2023/2859.’;

Or. en

Amendment 270

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 15 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 20b – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(15a) in Article 20b, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:
'1. By 16 April 2027, ESMA shall submit to the Commission a report regarding the development of the integrated collection of supervisory data, which shall focus on how:
(a) to reduce areas of duplication and inconsistencies between the reporting frameworks in the asset-management sector and other sectors of the financial industry; and
(b) to improve data standardisation and efficient sharing and use of data already reported within any Union reporting framework by any relevant competent authority, at Union or national level.
In that report, ESMA shall also make a comparison of best practices for data collection in the Union and in other markets for retail investment funds.'

Or. en

Amendment 271

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(16) in Article 23(1), the following subparagraph is added:deleted
‘By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, the depositary may have its registered office or be established in a Member State other than the UCITS home Member State, to the extent that it falls into the category referred to in paragraph 2, point (b) and has been duly authorised to provide services in other Member States pursuant to Directive 2013/36/EU.;’

Or. en

Amendment 272

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(16) in Article 23(1), the following subparagraph is added:deleted
‘By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, the depositary may have its registered office or be established in a Member State other than the UCITS home Member State, to the extent that it falls into the category referred to in paragraph 2, point (b) and has been duly authorised to provide services in other Member States pursuant to Directive 2013/36/EU.;’

Or. en

Justification

Retains the existing requirement that a UCITS depositary be established in the UCITS home Member State. This safeguard ensures supervisory proximity between the fund and its depositary and should not be removed absent a stronger evidence base on costs and benefits.

Amendment 273

Giovanni Crosetto, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, the depositary may have its registered office or be established in a Member State other than the UCITS home Member State, to the extent that it falls into the category referred to in paragraph 2, point (b) and has been duly authorised to provide services in other Member States pursuant to Directive 2013/36/EU.;deleted

Or. en

Amendment 274

Jaroslav Knot, Auke Zijlstra, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, the depositary may have its registered office or be established in a Member State other than the UCITS home Member State, to the extent that it falls into the category referred to in paragraph 2, point (b) and has been duly authorised to provide services in other Member States pursuant to Directive 2013/36/EU.;By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, the depositary may have its registered office or be established in a Member State other than the UCITS home Member State, to the extent that it falls into the category referred to in paragraph 2, point (b) and has been duly authorised to provide services in other Member States pursuant to Directive 2013/36/EU. Where a UCITS appoints a depositary established in a Member State other than the UCITS home Member State, the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State shall retain the powers necessary to supervise the UCITS and to protect investors. For that purpose, the competent authorities of the depositary’s home Member State shall, upon request and without undue delay, provide the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State with all information necessary for the supervision of the depositary’s performance of its duties in relation to that UCITS. The competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State may participate in joint supervisory activities concerning the depositary’s performance of its fund-specific duties. Where the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State have reasonable grounds to suspect that the depositary has failed to fulfil its obligations under this Directive, and where the competent authorities of the depositary’s home Member State do not take appropriate action within a reasonable timeframe, the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State may take proportionate protective measures necessary to safeguard the interests of investors in that UCITS.;

Or. en

Amendment 275

Gaetano Pedulla'

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 23 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(16a) in Article 23, the following paragraph is inserted:
‘1a. The cross-border provision of depositary services under paragraph 1 shall apply only after the Commission, in cooperation with Member States, has adopted legislative or regulatory measures ensuring the full harmonisation of authorisation processes, the definition of depositary activities and duties, and national supervisory standards for the provision of such services. Such measures shall include rules based on regulatory technical standards developed by ESMA specifying supervisory cooperation, allocation of responsibilities, and crisis management between competent authorities. Until such measures are in force, depositary services shall remain subject to establishment in the same Member State as the UCITS.’;

Or. en

Justification

This amendment establishes a structural 'safety net' by making the UCITS depositary passport conditional upon the full harmonisation of national authorisation processes, duties, and supervisory standards, because a simple RTS is insufficient to regulate the substantive national rules required to prevent supervisory arbitrage and a "race to the bottom". By maintaining mandatory national establishment until these structural gaps are closed, the amendment ensures that market integration does not compromise investor protection or financial stability. In particular, the proposed amendment specifically requires that implementing rules for crisis management be adopted before the passport applies. This addresses the concern that cross-border depositary services could create regulatory gaps or fragmented national supervisory approaches that might be exploited or lead to confusion during a financial shock. Without pre-defined crisis management protocols, a failure in a cross-border depositary could threaten the stability of the fund's home Member State.

Amendment 276

Janusz Lewandowski

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Present textAmendment
(16a) in Article 23(2), first subparagraph, the introductory part is replaced by the following:
2. The depositary shall be:‘2. The depositary acting on the basis of the authorisation of and under the supervision of the competent authority according to Article 2(1), point (h), shall be:’

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02009L0065-20260416)

Justification

The Rapporteur’s proposal to transfer the supervision of depositaries breaches the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and should therefore be deleted. It fails to demonstrate why effective supervision of cross-border activities cannot be ensured at national level. Moreover, no equivalent supervisory approach is proposed for investment funds themselves, despite their close link to depositary services

Amendment 277

Billy Kelleher, Gilles Boyer, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Ľudovít Ódor

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 23 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(16a) in Article 23, the following paragraph is added:
'4a. Where the depositary is authorised as a credit institution under Directive 2013/36/EU or as an investment firm under Directive 2014/65/EU and has exercised its right to provide services in another Member State, the competent authorities of the UCITS shall not impose any additional requirements relating to the establishment, authorisation or provision of depositary services, except where expressly provided for under Union law.'

Or. en

Amendment 278

Giovanni Crosetto, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 b (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 23 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(16b) in Article 23, the following paragraph is added:
‘4a. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the home Member State of a UCITS may permit its competent authorities to allow an institution referred to in paragraph 2, first subparagraph, point (b), and established in another Member State to be appointed as a depositary, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) the competent authorities have received a reasoned request from the management company to allow the appointment of a depositary established in another Member State, and that request demonstrates the lack of depositary services in the home Member State of the UCITS that are able to meet effectively the needs of the UCITS having regard to its investment strategy; and
(b) the aggregate amount in the national depositary market of the home Member State of the UCIS of assets entrusted for safe-keeping, on behalf of UCITS authorised or registered under the applicable national law, does not exceed specific limits to be fixed by regulatory technical standards to be adopted by the Commission.’

Or. en

Amendment 279

Giovanni Crosetto, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 b (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 23 – paragraph 4 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(16b) in Article 23, the following paragraph is added:
‘4b. By 30 June 2030, ESMA shall provide the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission with a report on the application of paragraph 4a. By 30 June 2031 and following the report produced by ESMA in accordance with this paragraph, the Commission shall assess the functioning of the derogation allowing the appointment of a depositary established in another Member State and the potential benefits and risks, including the impact on investor protection, on financial stability, on supervisory efficiency and on the availability of market choices, of amending the scope of that derogation.’

Or. en

Amendment 280

Billy Kelleher, Gilles Boyer, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Ľudovít Ódor

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 24 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(16a) in Article 24, the following paragraph is inserted:
'3a. The liability of the depositary referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be excluded or limited by its establishment in a different Member State than that of the UCITS.'

Or. en

Amendment 281

Thomas Bajada

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 26a – subparagraph 1

Present textAmendment
(16a) in Article 26a, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:
The depositary shall make available to its competent authorities, on request, all information which it has obtained while performing its duties and that may be necessary for its competent authorities or for the competent authorities of the UCITS or of the management company.‘The depositary shall make available to its competent authorities, to the competent authorities of the UCITS and to the competent authorities of the UCITS management company, on request, all information which it has obtained while performing its duties and that may be necessary for its competent authorities or for the competent authorities of the UCITS or of the management company in a timely manner.’

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02009L0065-20260416)

Amendment 282

David Casa

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 26a – subparagraph 1

Present textAmendment
(16a) in Article 26a, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:
The depositary shall make available to its competent authorities, on request, all information which it has obtained while performing its duties and that may be necessary for its competent authorities or for the competent authorities of the UCITS or of the management company.‘The depositary shall make available to its competent authorities, to the competent authorities of the UCITS and to the competent authorities of the UCITS management company, on request, all information which it has obtained while performing its duties and that may be necessary for its competent authorities or for the competent authorities of the UCITS or of the management company in a timely manner.’

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02009L0065-20260416)

Amendment 283

David Casa

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 b (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 26a – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(16b) in Article 26a, the second subparagraph is deleted.

Or. en

Amendment 284

Giovanni Crosetto, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 b (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 26 c (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(16b) the following Article 26c is inserted:
'Article 26c
1. By 31 December 2029, ESMA, in cooperation with EU national competent authorities, shall draw up a report on the current national frameworks for UCITS depositaries and on the national approaches to the supervision of depositary obligations.
2. By 31 December 2033, the Commission, after having consulted with national competent authorities and ESMA, based on the ESMA report under paragraph 1, taking into account the Commission assessment of the functioning of the derogation allowing the appointment of a UCITS depositary established in another Member State, shall draft a legislative proposal on a EU rulebook for UCITS depositaries and for the approach of the supervision of depositary obligations.'

Or. en

Amendment 285

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 17 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 29 – paragraphs 5 and 6

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(b) paragraphs 5 and 6 are deleted;deleted

Or. en

Amendment 286

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 43 – paragraph 3 – point e

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(a) in paragraph 3, point (e) is deleted;deleted

Or. en

Amendment 287

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 21 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 45 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(21a) The following Article 45b is inserted:
‘Article 45b
Harmonisation of reporting requirements for the purposes of cross-border activities
1. Member States shall not impose additional or duplicated reporting requirements on AIFs or AIFMs pertaining to cross-border activities, including the management or marketing of AIFs, the establishment of branches or the freedom to provide services, including information for investors, marketing-related information, supervisory information and regulatory reporting, except where such requirements are expressly provided for in this Directive, in Regulation (EU) 2019/1156 or in another applicable act of EU law.
Where EU law establishes harmonised forms, templates, procedures, transmission channels, deadlines, update cycles or reporting frequencies, Member States shall not require the same information to be resubmitted, nor shall they require it to be submitted in a different format, template or channel, or in accordance with a different timetable, update cycle or frequency.
2. In areas not yet harmonised by EU law, national reporting requirements, whether for investors or competent authorities, shall be necessary, proportionate, non-discriminatory and transparent, and shall not undermine, delay, restrict or condition the effective exercise of the right of AIFMs to carry out cross-border activities.’

Or. es

Amendment 288

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22 – point -a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 51 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(-a) in paragraph 1, the following subparagraph is inserted after the first subparagraph:
‘The risk-management process referred to in the previous subparagraph shall identify, assess, monitor and manage sustainability risks. It shall take into account both the exposure of the portfolios under management to sustainability risks and the principal adverse impacts of investment decisions on sustainability factors.'

Or. en

Amendment 289

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 51 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
UCITS may invest in SFTs relating to transferable securities and money market instruments under the conditions and within the limits laid down in this Directive.UCITS may employ techniques and instruments relating to transferable securities and money market instruments, including SFTs, under the conditions and within the limits laid down in this Directive, provided that such techniques and instruments are used for the purpose of efficient portfolio management.
When those operations concern the use of derivative instruments, the conditions and limits shall conform to the provisions laid down in this Directive.

Or. en

Amendment 290

Jaroslav Knot, Auke Zijlstra, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 51 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
UCITS may invest in SFTs relating to transferable securities and money market instruments under the conditions and within the limits laid down in this Directive.UCITS may employ techniques and instruments relating to transferable securities and money market instruments, including SFTs, under the conditions and within the limits laid down in this Directive, provided that such techniques and instruments are used for the purpose of efficient portfolio management.
When those operations concern the use of derivative instruments, the conditions and limits shall conform to the provisions laid down in this Directive.

Or. en

Amendment 291

Jaroslav Knot, Auke Zijlstra, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 51 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
Under no circumstances shall those SFTs cause the UCITS to diverge from its investment objectives as laid down in the UCITS’ fund rules, instruments of incorporation or prospectus.;Under no circumstances shall those techniques and instruments cause the UCITS to diverge from its investment objectives as laid down in the UCITS’ fund rules, instruments of incorporation or prospectus.;

Or. en

Amendment 292

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 51 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
Under no circumstances shall those SFTs cause the UCITS to diverge from its investment objectives as laid down in the UCITS’ fund rules, instruments of incorporation or prospectus.;Under no circumstances shall those techniques and instruments cause the UCITS to diverge from its investment objectives as laid down in the UCITS’ fund rules, instruments of incorporation or prospectus.

Or. en

Amendment 293

Jaroslav Knot, Auke Zijlstra, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 51 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
A UCITS may invest, as a part of its investment policy and within the limit laid down in Article 52(5), in financial derivative instruments provided that the exposure to the underlying assets does not exceed in aggregate the investment limits laid down in Article 52. When a UCITS invests in index-based financial derivative instruments, those investments shall not be combined for the purposes of the limits laid down in Article 52.;A UCITS may invest, as a part of its investment policy and within the limit laid down in Article 52(5), in financial derivative instruments provided that the exposure to the underlying assets does not exceed in aggregate the investment limits laid down in Article 52. When a UCITS invests in index-based financial derivative instruments, those investments are not required to be combined for the purposes of the limits laid down in Article 52.;

Or. en

Amendment 294

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 51 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
A UCITS may invest, as a part of its investment policy and within the limit laid down in Article 52(5), in financial derivative instruments provided that the exposure to the underlying assets does not exceed in aggregate the investment limits laid down in Article 52. When a UCITS invests in index-based financial derivative instruments, those investments shall not be combined for the purposes of the limits laid down in Article 52.;A UCITS may invest, as a part of its investment policy and within the limit laid down in Article 52(5), in financial derivative instruments provided that the exposure to the underlying assets does not exceed in aggregate the investment limits laid down in Article 52. When a UCITS invests in index-based financial derivative instruments, those investments are not required to be combined for the purposes of the limits laid down in Article 52.

Or. en

Amendment 295

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22 – point b a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 51 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(ba) in paragraph 4, first subparagraph, the following point (aa) is inserted:
‘(aa) the methodology and criteria for the identification and quantification of the exposure to and impact on ESG risks in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 1;’

Or. en

Amendment 296

Eero Heinäluoma, Jonás Fernández, Francisco Assis, César Luena, Evelyn Regner, Aurore Lalucq

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 51 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(22a) the following Article 51a is inserted:
'Article 51a
Use of information by competent authorities and limits to leverage for UCITS using the Value-at-Risk approach
1. The competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State shall assess, on the basis of the information at their disposal, including information on leverage and global exposure calculated by the management company or investment company, the extent to which the use of leverage by UCITS which calculate their global exposure by means of the Value-at-Risk approach in accordance with Article 51 contributes to the build-up of systemic risk in the financial system, to risks of disorderly markets or to risks to the long-term growth of the economy. Competent authorities may require the management company or investment company to provide any further information necessary for that purpose.
2. Where necessary to ensure the stability and integrity of the financial system, the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State may impose limits on the level of leverage that a UCITS is entitled to employ, including limits expressed by reference to gross notional exposure or to the commitment approach, or impose other restrictions on the management of the UCITS. Such measures may be applied to an individual UCITS or to a category of UCITS pursuing similar investment strategies or exposed to similar sources of risk.
3. Before a measure under paragraph 2 takes effect or is renewed, the competent authority shall notify ESMA, the ESRB and the competent authorities of any other Member State concerned, indicating the measure proposed, the reasons for it and the date from which it is intended to apply. The notification shall be made at least 10 working days before that date, save where exceptional circumstances require the measure to take effect within a shorter period.
4. ESMA shall facilitate and coordinate the measures taken under this Article and may issue advice to the competent authority concerned specifying the measures it considers appropriate. Where a competent authority proposes to act contrary to that advice, it shall inform ESMA, stating its reasons. Where ESMA determines that the leverage employed by a UCITS or a category of UCITS poses a substantial risk to the stability and integrity of the financial system, it may issue advice to the competent authorities specifying the remedial measures to be taken.
5. Measures adopted under this Article shall be proportionate to the systemic risk they seek to address and shall be designed to reduce procyclicality and to mitigate risks to financial stability. ESMA may, in cooperation with the ESRB, develop guidelines on the application of this Article, including on the assessment referred to in paragraph 1 and the calibration of the measures referred to in paragraph 2.'

Or. en

Amendment 297

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 51 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(22a) the following Article 51a is inserted:
'Article 51a
Use of information by competent authorities and limits to leverage for UCITS using the Value-at-Risk approach
1. The competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State shall assess, on the basis of the information at their disposal, including information on leverage and global exposure calculated by the management company or investment company, the extent to which the use of leverage by UCITS which calculate their global exposure by means of the Value-at-Risk approach in accordance with Article 51 contributes to the build-up of systemic risk in the financial system, to risks of disorderly markets or to risks to the sustainable growth of the economy. Competent authorities may require the management company or investment company to provide any further information necessary for that purpose.
2. Where necessary to ensure the stability and integrity of the financial system, the competent authorities of the UCITS home Member State, after having consulted ESMA and the ESRB, may impose limits on the level of leverage that a UCITS is entitled to employ, including limits expressed by reference to gross notional exposure or to the commitment approach, or impose other restrictions on the management of the UCITS. Such measures may be applied to an individual UCITS or to a category of UCITS pursuing similar investment strategies or exposed to similar sources of risk.
3.ESMA shall facilitate and coordinate the measures taken under this Article and may issue advice to the competent authority concerned specifying the measures it considers appropriate. Where a competent authority proposes to act contrary to that advice, it shall inform ESMA, stating its reasons. Where ESMA determines that the leverage employed by a UCITS or a category of UCITS poses a substantial risk to the stability and integrity of the financial system, it may issue advice to the competent authorities specifying the remedial measures to be taken.
4. Measures adopted under this Article shall be proportionate to the systemic risk they seek to address and shall be designed to reduce procyclicality and to mitigate risks to financial stability. ESMA may, in cooperation with the ESRB, develop guidelines on the application of this Article, including on the assessment referred to in paragraph 1 and the calibration of the measures referred to in paragraph 2.'

Or. en

Amendment 298

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22 b (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 51 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(22b) the following Article 51b is inserted:
'Article 51b
Macroprudential liquidity requirements for UCITS
1. Competent authorities shall have the power to require managers of UCITS to maintain redemption arrangements consistent with the time required to liquidate portfolio assets under stressed market conditions.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, competent authorities may impose one or more of the following measures:
(a) minimum notice periods for redemptions;
(b) minimum holding periods;
(c) limits on redemption frequency.
3. ESMA shall develop regulatory technical standards specifying methodologies for assessing the consistency between asset liquidity and redemption terms for UCITS.
ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by … [six months from the date of entry into force of this amending Directive].
Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
4.Where competent authorities identify systemic risks arising from a category of funds, they may apply the measures referred to in paragraph 2 to a class of funds on a sector-wide basis.
5. Measures adopted under this Article shall pursue the objective of safeguarding financial stability and mitigating systemic liquidity risks.'

Or. en

Amendment 299

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 23 – point d

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 52 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 4

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
Member States shall allow UCITS to invest cumulatively in transferable securities and money market instruments within the same group up to a limit of 20%.;Member States shall allow UCITS to invest cumulatively in transferable securities and money market instruments within the same group up to a limit of 25%.;

Or. en

Justification

Raising the limit to 25% gives portfolio managers more flexibility to construct efficient, liquid portfolios. This supports deeper, more competitive EU capital markets consistent with the SIU objective.

Amendment 300

Christophe Gomart

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 24 – point a a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(aa) the following subparagraph is added:
‘The increase in the upper limit to 20 per cent provided for in the first paragraph may apply only to shares or debt securities included in the composition of the relevant benchmark index.’

Or. fr

Amendment 301

Jaroslav Knot, Auke Zijlstra, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 24 – point b

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
From [Please insert date = 18 months after the entry into force of this Directive] ESMA shall publish and keep up-to-date on its website a list of recognised indices referred to in the first subparagraph.;From [Please insert date = 24 months after the entry into force of this Directive] ESMA shall publish and keep up-to-date on its website a list of recognised indices referred to in the first subparagraph.;

Or. en

Amendment 302

Jaroslav Knot, Auke Zijlstra, Tomáš Kubín, Pierre Pimpie

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 25

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 54 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
By way of derogation from Article 52, competent authorities shall allow a UCITS to invest in accordance with the principle of risk-spreading up to 100 % of their assets in different transferable securities and money market instruments issued or guaranteed by a Member State, one or more of its local authorities, a third country, or a public international body to which one or more Member States belong, provided that the UCITS can demonstrate to the competent authorities of its home Member State that its unit-holders have protection equivalent to that of unit-holders in UCITS complying with the limits laid down in Article 52.By way of derogation from Article 52, competent authorities shall allow a UCITS to invest in accordance with the principle of risk-spreading up to 100 % of their assets in different transferable securities and money market instruments issued or guaranteed by a Member State, one or more of its local authorities, a third country, or a public international body to which one or more Member States belong, provided that the UCITS can demonstrate to the competent authorities of its home Member State that its unit-holders have protection equivalent to that of unit-holders in UCITS complying with the limits laid down in Article 52. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities make publicly available the criteria applied for the purposes of assessing equivalent protection under this paragraph. Those criteria shall be clear, proportionate and consistent with the principle of risk-spreading.

Or. en

Amendment 303

Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 26 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 55 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
1. Competent authorities shall allow a UCITS to acquire the units of UCITS or other collective investment undertakings referred to in Article 50(1), point (e), provided that no more than 20 % of its assets are invested in units of a single UCITS or other collective investment undertaking.’;1. A UCITS may acquire the units of UCITS or other collective investment undertakings referred to in Article 50(1)(e), provided that no more than 20 % of its assets are invested in units of a single UCITS or other collective investment undertaking.

Or. es

Amendment 304

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 27 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(a) in paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is added:deleted
‘By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, point (b), a UCITS may acquire no more than 15% of the securitisations issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 by a single issuing body.;’

Or. en

Amendment 305

Billy Kelleher

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 27 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, point (b), a UCITS may acquire no more than 15% of the securitisations issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 by a single issuing body.;By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, point (b), a UCITS may acquire no more than 50% of the securitisations, measured at the time of the relevant acquisition, issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 by a single issuing body.;

Or. en

Amendment 306

Markus Ferber, Martine Kemp

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 27 – point a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, point (b), a UCITS may acquire no more than 15% of the securitisations issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 by a single issuing body.;By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, point (b), a UCITS may acquire no more than 25% of the securitisations issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 by a single issuing body.;

Or. en

Justification

The existing 10% limit constrains UCITS participation given the small average size of securitisation issuances and disproportionate due diligence costs relative to other assets.

Amendment 307

Jaroslav Knot, Auke Zijlstra, Tomáš Kubín

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 28

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 57 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
While ensuring observance of the principle of risk spreading, competent authorities shall allow recently authorised UCITS to derogate from Articles 52 to 55 for six months following the date for their authorisation.;While ensuring observance of the principle of risk spreading, competent authorities shall allow recently authorised UCITS to derogate from Articles 52 to 55 for six months following the date of their launch.;

Or. en

Amendment 308

Janusz Lewandowski

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 40 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 97 – paragraph 1

Present textAmendment
(40a) in Article 97, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:
1. Member States shall designate the competent authorities which are to carry out the duties provided for in this Directive. They shall inform ESMA and the Commission thereof, indicating any division of duties."1. Member States shall designate, without delay, the competent authorities which are to carry out the duties provided for in this Directive. They shall inform ESMA and the Commission thereof, indicating any division of duties."

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02009L0065-20260416)

Justification

The rapporteur’s proposal for direct ESMA supervision of large asset management groups should be deleted. It lacks a demonstrated cost-benefit case, may weaken responsiveness to local investor and market risks, and could deter cross-border fund distribution. Supervisory convergence can be achieved more proportionately through stronger ESMA coordination and supervisory colleges, while NCAs retain direct oversight.

Amendment 309

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 41 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 97 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(41a) the following Article 97a is inserted:
'Article 97a
1. By … [12 months from the date of entry into force of this amending Directive] ESMA shall identify significant EU group of management companies and AIFMs. To be considered significant, EU group of management companies and AIFMs shall meet all of the following conditions:
(a) the aggregate EU-wide net asset values of management companies and AIFMs within the group are above EUR 300 billion;
(b) the management companies and AIFMs within the group are established in more than one Member States, or those management companies and AIFMs manage or market UCITS and AIFs in more than one Member State.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, first subparagraph, point (a), aggregate EU wide assets under management shall include EU assets under management within the scope of this Directive or of Directive 2011/61/EU.
3. ESMA shall publish a list of the EU groups of management companies and AIFMs identified as significant in accordance with the first paragraph and shall update that list every year. Where ESMA designates an EU group of management companies and AIFMs as significant, it shall assume the supervisory tasks and duties assigned under this Directive to the competent authority of the home Member State, including for their authorisation and supervision.’

Or. en

Amendment 310

Billy Kelleher, Gilles Boyer, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Ľudovít Ódor

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 41 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 98 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(41a) in Article 98, the following paragraph is inserted:
'2a. Where supervisory information is collected pursuant to this Directive, the competent authority of the home Member State shall, following verification of the completeness, quality and accuracy of that information, transmit the supervisory data to the data platform established pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1156.'

Or. en

Amendment 311

Billy Kelleher, Gilles Boyer, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Ľudovít Ódor

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 42 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 98 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(42a) the following Article 98a is inserted:
'Article 98a
Risk monitoring and supervisory convergence
1. ESMA shall monitor and analyse, on an ongoing basis, the supervisory information made available through the data platform, established pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1156, for the purposes of:
(a) identifying sector-wide vulnerabilities and emerging risks affecting UCITS management companies and the UCITS sector;
(b) identifying significant cross-border market developments;
(c) identifying inconsistencies in supervisory practices among competent authorities; and
(d) identifying entity-specific risks where these may have implications for investor protection, financial stability or the consistent application of Union law.
2. In carrying out the monitoring referred to in paragraph 1, ESMA shall pay particular regard to the largest UCITS management companies, taking into account the scale, complexity and cross-border nature of their activities.
3. Where the monitoring carried out pursuant to paragraph 1 identifies material risks or significant supervisory inconsistencies, ESMA shall, where appropriate, make use of the powers conferred upon it by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 in order to promote supervisory convergence and the consistent application of Union law.'

Or. en

Amendment 312

Billy Kelleher, Gilles Boyer, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Ľudovít Ódor

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 43 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 101 – paragraph 2

Present textAmendment
(43a) in Article 101, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:
2. The competent authorities of the Member States shall immediately provide each other with the information required for the purposes of carrying out their duties under this Directive."2. The competent authorities of the Member States shall make use of the data platform established pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1156 for the purposes of exchanging supervisory information under this Directive.
In the case that the information required by a competent authority is not accessible in the data platform, the competent authority may make a request to the relevant competent authority with a clear justification for requiring this additional information."
(This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02009L0065-20260416)

Justification

References throughout the text to the sending and receiving of information between competent authorities should be understood as submitting and accessing this information through the data platform, unless the information is additional to that required under this Directive.

Amendment 313

Regina Doherty, Fernando Navarrete Rojas

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 44 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 101 – paragraph 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(44a) in Article 101, the following paragraph is added:
'9a. ESMA, in consultation with National Competent Authorities, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the parameters for supervisory coordination amongst competent authorities. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the European Commission. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.’

Or. en

Amendment 314

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 44 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 101 b (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(44a) the following Article 101b is inserted:
'Article 101b
1. ESMA shall charge fees to each significant EU group of management companies and AIFMs.
2. The fees referred to in paragraph 1 shall fully cover ESMA’s necessary expenditure relating to the direct management, ongoing oversight, onsite inspections, and enforcement in relation to significant EU groups of management companies and AIFMs and shall cover all costs incurred by ESMA for the performance of its supervisory tasks under this Directive.
3. The amount of an individual supervisory fee charged to a significant EU group of management companies and AIFMs shall be fully proportionate to its size, calculated on the basis of its total assets under management, and shall reflect the complexity and risk profile of the investment strategies pursued.
4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 112a to supplement this Directive by specifying:
(a) the method of calculation of the fees; and
(b) the manner in which fees are to be paid.'

Or. en

Amendment 315

Billy Kelleher, Gilles Boyer, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, Ľudovít Ódor

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 46 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 109 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Present textAmendment
(46a) in Article 109(1), subparagraph 2 is replaced by the following:
They shall supply one another on request with all the information concerning the management and ownership of such management companies that is likely to facilitate their supervision and all information likely to facilitate the monitoring of such companies. In particular, the authorities of the management company’s home Member State shall cooperate to ensure that the authorities of the management company’s host Member State collect the particulars referred to in Article 21(2)."They shall supply one another on request, should this information not be available in the data platform, with all the information concerning the management and ownership of such management companies that is likely to facilitate their supervision and all information likely to facilitate the monitoring of such companies. In particular, the authorities of the management company’s home Member State shall cooperate to ensure that the authorities of the management company’s host Member State collect the particulars referred to in Article 21(2)."

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02009L0065-20260416)

Amendment 316

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 46 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 110a – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(46a) in Article 110a, the following point (ca) is added:
'(ca) the impact of market concentration, operational consolidation and cross-border investment structures on competition and retail investor choices within the Union, financial stability and capital outflows to third-country markets.'

Or. en

Amendment 317

Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Regina Doherty

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 46 a

Directive 2009/65/EC

Article 110a a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(46a) the following Article 110aa is inserted:
'Article 110aa
ESMA-NCA supervisory convergence mechanism
1. ESMA may, in cooperation with competent authorities, conduct thematic reviews of supervisory practices in the application of this Directive and Directive 2011/61/EU, insofar as those practices affect cross-border investment fund management, including the management and distribution of UCITS and AIFs within the Union, and the effective exercise of passporting rights.
In selecting topics for review, ESMA shall take into account the potential impact of divergent supervisory practices on the functioning of the Single Market for investment funds and on management companies, AIFMs, UCITS and AIFs operating on a cross-border basis, including input received from competent authorities.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, ESMA shall rely, to the greatest extent possible, on the information already available to it pursuant to Article 20a and on information otherwise available to competent authorities, and shall avoid imposing duplicative reporting obligations. ESMA may request targeted additional information only where necessary and proportionate for the purposes of the review.
3. ESMA shall share the outcome of each review referred to in paragraph 1 with the competent authorities concerned, and may make the general findings publicly available, in aggregate and non-attributed form, with a view to supporting supervisory convergence. ESMA shall reflect the main findings of the reviews referred to in paragraph 1 in the periodic report referred to in Article 20a.'

Or. en

Amendment 318

Giovanni Crosetto, Johan Van Overtveldt, Denis Nesci, Francesco Ventola, Mariateresa Vivaldini, Marco Squarta

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 46 a (new)

Directive 2009/65/EC

Chapter XII a (new)

Text proposed by the CommissionAmendment
(46a) the following Chapter is inserted:
'CHAPTER XIIa
ASSET MANAGEMENT SUPERVISORY COORDINATION FRAMEWORK FOR LARGE CROSS-BORDER EU GROUPS OF MANAGEMENT COMPANIES AND AIFMs'

Or. en