# CE2004065EN.01013702.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/137 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/137

---

(2004/C 65 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2378/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject:   Transparency requirements

Subject:

Further to the Commission's answer to question E-1885/03 (1) on 3 July, will the Commission now list as requested all those individuals and organisations which submitted written documents concerning transparency obligations, and will it note in each case whether that submission was supportive of or antagonistic towards or indifferent to quarterly reporting of one form or another? Will the Commission forward and publish the summary document prepared for the Commissioner on the results of the consultation?

1

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

(4 September 2003)

In addition to the answer already given to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1885/03, the Commission is in a position to provide the following information:

| — | Prior to its proposal for a Directive (2) on the transparency obligations for security issuers, the Commission services carried out two written consultation rounds. |
| --- | --- |

—

Prior to its proposal for a Directive (2) on the transparency obligations for security issuers, the Commission services carried out two written consultation rounds.

2

| — | In the first consultation round, the Commission presented the idea of making quarterly reports mandatory for both share issuers and bond issuers for each quarter of the financial year. A summary of the replies received has been published on the Commission website in December 2001 (3). |
| --- | --- |

—

In the first consultation round, the Commission presented the idea of making quarterly reports mandatory for both share issuers and bond issuers for each quarter of the financial year. A summary of the replies received has been published on the Commission website in December 2001 (3).

3

| — | In the second consultation round which lasted from May until July 2002, the Commission presented the idea of making quarterly reports mandatory for shares issuers for the first three quarter of a company's financial year; smaller share issuers should only be subject to lighter financial reporting requirements whereas the other issuers should be subject to compliance with the international accounting standards for interim financial reporting (IAS 34). In total, the Commission received 93 responses. The pros and cons on the issue of quarterly financial information were already explained in detail in the explanatory memorandum of the Commission proposal.
  In purely statistical terms based on the number of responses received, the outcome has been as follows:






  — | 65 respondents reacted on the question of quarterly reporting. 35 respondents thereof (= 53,9 %) supported the principle of quarterly reporting based on IAS 34 whereas 30 (= 46,1 % ) opposed the principle as such; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

In the second consultation round which lasted from May until July 2002, the Commission presented the idea of making quarterly reports mandatory for shares issuers for the first three quarter of a company's financial year; smaller share issuers should only be subject to lighter financial reporting requirements whereas the other issuers should be subject to compliance with the international accounting standards for interim financial reporting (IAS 34). In total, the Commission received 93 responses. The pros and cons on the issue of quarterly financial information were already explained in detail in the explanatory memorandum of the Commission proposal.

In purely statistical terms based on the number of responses received, the outcome has been as follows:

—

65 respondents reacted on the question of quarterly reporting. 35 respondents thereof (= 53,9 %) supported the principle of quarterly reporting based on IAS 34 whereas 30 (= 46,1 % ) opposed the principle as such;

)

| — | 14 out of the favourable respondents rejected the idea of having a lighter regime for smaller issuers whereas 14 others supported this; seven respondents did not touch on the issue of smaller share issuers. |
| --- | --- |

—

14 out of the favourable respondents rejected the idea of having a lighter regime for smaller issuers whereas 14 others supported this; seven respondents did not touch on the issue of smaller share issuers.

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 152.

1

(2)  COM(2003) 138 final.

2

(3)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/finances/mobil/transparancy.htm

3

---