WRITTEN QUESTION E-1874/03 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Prospectus approval.
Date: 2003-06-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, administrative formalities, documentation, financial legislation, issue of securities, securities

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/97

(2004/C 65 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1874/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Prospectus approval

Will the Commission estimate the current time period from submission to approval of a prospectus
typically necessary both for debt and for equity prospectuses in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

The Commission has not sought to estimate the current time period from submission to approval of a
prospectus typically necessary for debt and for equity prospectuses in each Member State. The Commission
position does not consider that such average figure, even at Member State level, would lead to any useful
conclusions.

Such figures would not be comparable, because the approval process is different in each Member State
(In practice, scrutiny practices will range from a simple verification that a document has been sent to the
competent authority, without reading the document,
the clearness,
objectivity, accuracy and consistency of the prospectus on all items of information, including the financial
statements). These differences arise most notably from differences in the level of civil and regulatory
liability between Member States.

to an extensive verification of

At national level, the time period necessary for scrutiny in order to obtain an approval will also differ on a
case by case basis depending notably on the quality of the submitted draft document, on its size, on its
content, on the ability of the issuer to draft such a document, on its knowledge of the necessary procedure,
on the existence of a previously approved prospectus, on the type of offers (for example Initial Primary
Offer or frequent issue), on the resources of the competent authority, etc.

Therefore, the Commission did not propose legislation with a one-size-fits-all approach. The Commission
has favoured different maximum time limits for this scrutiny and approval process. It intends to prevent
competent authorities from imposing excessive delays on issuers but it should also allow competent
authorities enough time in all possible circumstances to correctly perform their tasks.

The Commission has checked the different maximum time limits for a prospectus approval before the
adoption of its amended proposal and has taken into consideration the various maximum time limits
existing in several Member States. The Commission has also taken into account the fact that the envisaged
maximum time limits were shorter compared to the existing ones in the United States which is the world
biggest capital market. The proposed time limits are also shorter compared to the existing ones in Belgium,
Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria and the United Kingdom. However, the maximum time
limits are more currently stringent in Germany, the Netherlands and Finland. In some Member States
(notably Denmark, Ireland, Portugal and Sweden), the law does not provide for a defined maximum time
limit.

(2004/C 65 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1876/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Prospectus- denomination of issues

Will
the Commission estimate the number of bond issues, and the total volume of
denominations of EUR 5 000 or less, EUR 1 000 or less, EUR 500 or less and EUR 100 or less?

issuance,

in