Opinion of the European Central Bank of 17 March 2005 at the request of the Council of the European Union on a proposal for a Council decision concerning the signing of the Hague Convention on the Law applicable to certain rights in respect of securities held with an intermediary (COM(2003) 783 final) (CON/2005/7)
Date: 2005-03-17
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: drafting of EU law, financial occupation, free movement of capital, international agreement, market capitalisation, securities

C 81/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2005

EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 17 March 2005

at the request of the Council of the European Union on a proposal for a Council decision
concerning the signing of the Hague Convention on the Law applicable to certain rights in respect
of securities held with an intermediary (COM(2003) 783 final)

(CON/2005/7)

(2005/C 81/08)

Introduction

1. On 31 January 2005 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the Council of the Euro-
pean Union for an opinion on a proposal for a Council decision concerning the signing of the Hague
Convention on the Law applicable to certain rights in respect of securities held with an intermediary
(hereinafter the ‘proposed decision’) (1).

2. The ECB's competence to deliver an opinion is based on the first indent of Article 105(4) of the Treaty
establishing the European Community. The proposed decision's sole objective is to authorise the signa-
ture of the Convention on behalf of the Community. The proposed decision is a ‘proposed Community
act’ within the meaning of Article 105(4) of the Treaty for the following reasons:

— an international agreement is binding on the Community and an integral part of Community law (2);

and

— a Community institution's decision authorising, on behalf of the Community, the signature of an
international agreement that is intended to have legal effects in the Community is itself a Com-
munity act (3).

The Convention directly concerns the fields of competence of the Eurosystem and the ECB, since it:

(i) might have consequences for the smooth, efficient and sound operation of clearing and payment
systems in the euro area (Article 105(2) of the Treaty and Article 3.1 and Article 22 of the Statute
of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank); and

(ii) might have consequences for the definition and implementation of monetary policy in the euro area
(Article 105(2) of the Treaty and Article 3.1 of the Statute), in particular in view of the Eurosystem's
obligation to conduct its credit operations on the basis of adequate collateral (Article 18.1 of the
Statute).

(1) COM(2003) 783 final.
(2) See e.g. judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 30 April 1974 (Case C-181/73 R. & V.

Haegeman v Belgian State [1974] ECR I-449), paragraph 5.

(3) See e.g. judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 9 August 1994 (Case C-327/91 French

Republic v Commission of the European Communities [1994] ECR I-3641), paragraphs 15 to 17.

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/11

The ECB also notes that the Convention, if signed and ratified by the Community, would, upon its entry
into force, directly affect key provisions in Community legislation on which the ECB and the European
Monetary Institute (EMI) have been consulted in the past (1).

In accordance with the first sentence of Article 17.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Central
Bank, the Governing Council has adopted this opinion.

3. The Convention intends to establish a universally applicable conflict-of-law regime that determines the
law applicable to certain issues in respect of the holding, transfer and collateralisation of securities cred-
ited to a securities account (hereinafter ‘book-entry securities’) held with an intermediary in an interna-
tional context. As noted in the preamble to the Convention, the Convention is motivated by the ‘prac-
tical need in a large and growing global financial market to provide legal certainty and predictability as
to the law applicable to securities that are now commonly held through clearing and settlement systems
or other intermediaries’, with the aim of ‘reducing legal risk, systemic risk and associated costs … so as
to facilitate the international flow of capital and access to capital markets’. The heart of the Convention's
regime is laid down in Article 4(1). According to this provision, the law applicable to the issues covered
by the Convention is the law in force in the State that the relevant intermediary and the account holder
have expressly agreed as governing their account agreement, or the law of the State that this agreement
expressly provides as applicable to these issues. This primary rule is tempered by a so-called ‘reality test’
as the Convention also requires the relevant intermediary to have, at the time of the agreement, an
office in that State which is engaged in a business or other regular activity of maintaining securities
accounts (hereinafter the ‘relevant office requirement’). Thus, the Convention establishes a conflict-of-
law regime that is primarily based on the freedom of contract of the relevant intermediary and the
account holder, which is only subject to a relevant office requirement intended to avoid entirely arbi-
trary choices. The Convention sets out three fall-back rules to determine the applicable law where the
parties to the account agreement have not expressly chosen the applicable law.

4. The Convention determines not only the law applicable to the legal nature and effects against an inter-
mediary of the rights resulting from a credit of securities to a securities account or of a disposition of
securities held with an intermediary. In addition, it determines the law applicable to the legal nature and
effects against third parties of the rights resulting from such credit or of such disposition, including
whether a person's interest in securities held with an intermediary extinguishes or has priority over
another person's interest. Also, in view of the broad definition of the internationality requirement in
Article 3 of the Convention as 'all cases involving a choice between the laws of different States', the
Convention would apply beyond the traditional conflict-of-laws cases to any case involving book-entry
securities containing a foreign element (see paragraphs 3-1 to 3-5 of the Explanatory Report on the
Hague Convention on the Law applicable to certain rights in respect of securities held with an inter-
mediary (hereinafter the ‘Hague Convention Report’), and paragraphs 3-8 and 3-9 illustrating the scope
of the internationality requirement).

(1) See ECB Opinion CON/2001/13 of 13 June 2001 at the request of the Council of the European Union concerning a
proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on financial collateral agreements (OJ C 196,
12.7.2001, p. 10), EMI Opinion CON/96/09 relating to a proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive
on settlement finality and collateral security (OJ C 156, 21.5.1998, p. 17) and EMI Opinion CON/96/02 on a consul-
tation from the Council of the European Union under Article 109f(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity (the Treaty) and Article 5.3 of the Statute of the EMI on an amended Commission proposal for a European
Parliament and Council Directive on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ C 332, 30.10.1998,
p. 13).

C 81/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2005

General considerations

5. The ECB acknowledges the critical importance of ex ante legal certainty as to the law applicable to
certain issues relating to the holding, transfer and collateralisation of book-entry securities held with
intermediaries in an international context, and of reducing systemic risks that might result from any
uncertainties in this respect. The ECB also recognises the benefits of establishing a universally applicable
and uniform conflict-of-law regime, such as that of the Convention, in enhancing the efficiency and
flexibility of both European and global financial markets. The ECB therefore generally welcomes the
purpose of the Convention.

6. The ECB noted when consulted by the Council on the Collateral Directive (1):

‘the ECB supports the
creation of legal certainty with regard to cross-border use of book-entry assets, by the introduction of a
clear and unique rule for determining where such assets are located, building on and further specifying
the principles contained in the Settlement Finality Directive. This will not only support the efficiency of
operations necessary for the conduct of the single monetary policy where the Eurosystem provides
liquidity to its counterparties against collateral both in a domestic and in a cross-border context, but
also enhance the legal certainty and efficiency of those operations where money market participants
balance this liquidity across the market with transactions among themselves that match individual
surpluses and shortages of liquidity … In this context, the ECB urges the entities concerned, in particu-
lar the Member States, to try to achieve, in the context of the on-going discussions on a draft conven-
tion on “the law applicable to dispositions of securities held through indirect holding systems” at the
level of the Hague Conference on private international law, a solution which is consistent with the prin-
ciples contained both in Article 10 of the proposed Directive and in Article 9(2) of the Settlement
Finality Directive’ (2).

7. The ECB also notes that the Community has rightly endeavoured to address the problems in applying
traditional lex rei sitae principles to book-entry securities by developing conflict-of-law rules rejecting a
look-through approach and determining the applicable law on the basis of the place where the relevant
account is located, recorded, held and/or maintained.

The ECB draws attention in this context to the Community legislation on payment and settlement
systems (3), insolvency proceedings generally (4), the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance under-
takings (5) and credit institutions (6) specifically, and financial collateral arrangements (7).

8. The ECB further notes that the regime finally adopted by the Convention's drafters significantly departs
from the conflict-of-law regime currently applicable in the Member States to multi-tiered holdings of
book-entry securities, which is based on the abovementioned Community legislation. The ECB takes
note of the reasons given in the Hague Convention Report for this departure (see paragraphs Int-41 to
46, 4-4 and 4-24 to 4-25). The ECB is also aware that in an increasingly integrated global financial
system it may sometimes be difficult to locate a securities account in a particular jurisdiction for
conflict-of-law purposes. The ECB notes the challenges faced in this respect by financial market partici-
pants operating across borders and wishes to constructively contribute to the adoption of a universally
applicable and uniform regime.

(1) Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral agree-

ments, (OJ L 168, 27.6.2002, p. 43).

(2) See ECB Opinion CON/2001/13, paragraphs 6 and 19.
(3) See Article 9(2) of Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement
finality in payment and securities settlement systems (OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 45; hereinafter the ‘Settlement Finality
Directive’). See also EMI Opinion CON/96/09.

(4) See the third indent of Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceed-

ings (OJ L 160, 30.6.2000, p. 1).

(5) See Article 25(c) of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the

reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings (OJ L 110, 20.4.2001, p. 28).

(6) See Article 24 and the third indent of Article 31 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ L 125, 5.5.2001, p. 15). See
also EMI Opinion CON/96/02.

(7) See Article 9(1), in conjunction with Article 2(1)(h), of Directive 2002/47/EC. See also ECB Opinion CON/2001/13.

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/13

9. The ECB nonetheless considers that existing Community legislation has significantly contributed to legal
certainty and to reducing systemic risk within the Community. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully
assess whether the Convention's approach would provide, in certain key respects, a greater degree of
legal certainty and protection against systemic risk compared to the existing Community legislation.
The ECB considers that the Convention raises a number of potentially significant issues in this respect
which would merit further exploration by the Community before deciding whether to replace its
current regime with the Convention. The ECB proposes addressing these issues as part of a broad
impact assessment of the Convention from a Community perspective (see paragraph 20).

Specific considerations

Diversity of applicable laws within one system or depository

10. As noted in previous opinions on draft national legislation implementing the Collateral Directive, ‘the
ECB wishes to stress that all parties involved in the legislative process should investigate closely the
Convention's potential impact on systemic stability and on the treatment of collateral transactions to
avoid undermining the current level of protection. This might include, inter alia, limiting the choice of
law applying to proprietary rights in respect of securities held on accounts with a systemically impor-
tant system (in particular securities settlement systems evaluated and used by the Eurosystem) to the
law governing that system, as well as other measures designed to safeguard systemic finality, certainty
and transparency’ (1). In this context, the ECB also draws attention to the ‘Standards for Securities
Clearing and Settlement in the European Union’ published by the ECB and the Committee of European
Securities Regulators (CESR) (hereinafter the ‘ESCB-CESR Standards’) (2). These standards contain princi-
ples for safety, soundness and efficiency in securities clearing and settlement. Standard 1 states that
‘securities clearing and settlement systems and links between them should have a well-founded, clear
and transparent legal basis in the relevant jurisdictions.’ As noted on page 15 of the September 2004
ESCB/CESR report, this standard, which is addressed to, inter alia, central securities depositories (CSDs)
and significant custodians, entails that ‘for systemic risk purposes, the harmonisation of rules should
be promoted so as to minimise any discrepancies stemming from different national rules and legal
frameworks.’ In particular, ‘the application of a multitude of jurisdictions within a system increases the
legal complexity and could possibly affect systemic stability. The Settlement Finality Directive has
reduced these risks by providing clear rules on the law used to govern the system and the law used to
govern the rights and obligations of a participant in an insolvency situation. In the same vein, the
range of jurisdictions chosen in connection with a system should be kept to a minimum. Subject to a
legal risk analysis, it may prove advisable that only one legal system is chosen to govern the proprie-
tary aspects of all securities held on the participants' accounts with the system, and similarly only one
to govern the contractual aspects of the relationship between the system and each of its participants.
Ideally, the law chosen should be identical to the law governing the system, in order to safeguard
systemic finality, certainty and transparency.’ (see September 2004 ESCB/CESR report, no. 37).

11. Under the current Community regime, the jurisdiction whose law governs a securities settlement
system (SSS) or a CSD coincides with the jurisdiction whose law governs the proprietary aspects of the
rights resulting from book-entry securities held with that SSS or CSD, thereby ensuring legal certainty
and transparency, and avoiding systemic risk. Compared with the present regime, it is unclear whether
the Convention, which may arguably enhance legal certainty surrounding the practical difficulties of
locating a securities account for conflict-of-law purposes, would not, at the same time, create legal

(1) See paragraph 13 of ECB Opinion CON/2003/11 of 26 June 2003 at the request of the Austrian Federal Ministry of
Justice on a draft Federal law implementing Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements. See also paragraph 13 of ECB Opinion CON/2004/27 of 4 August
2004 at the request of the Belgian Ministry of Finance on a draft law on financial collateral and various tax provi-
sions in relation to in rem collateral arrangements and loans for financial instruments.

(2) Available on www.ecb.int and www.cesr-eu.org.

C 81/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2005

uncertainty by possibly allowing various conflicts between divergent applicable laws to occur within
the same SSS or CSD. Indeed, determining the law applicable to the rights resulting from book-entry
securities on the basis of the law chosen in the agreement between the SSS or CSD and its account
holder could theoretically lead to various laws governing these proprietary aspects within one SSS or
CSD, including one or more laws from outside the jurisdiction where the SSS or CSD is located or
even from outside the Community. If these laws are not harmonised, the effects of such diversity on
settlement finality, in particular where the law(s) chosen in the account agreement does not offer
protection comparable to the protection under the Settlement Finality Directive, might potentially
endanger the soundness of the entire system and entail systemic risks. Furthermore, this diversity and/
or application of a third country law might complicate the exercise of oversight and regulatory func-
tions over the SSS or CSD by the competent authorities of the jurisdiction where the SSS or CSD is
located.

12. The ECB acknowledges that it may not be the intention in practice of any SSS or CSD located in the
Community to allow the proprietary aspects of book-entry securities within its system to be governed
by different laws since this would jeopardise the fungibility of the securities held, transferred or
pledged within the system, as well as the finality protection granted to a system's participants under
the Settlement Finality Directive, or to allow these aspects to be governed by one single law that is not
the law governing the system in accordance with the Settlement Finality Directive. Nonetheless, there
can be no guarantee that this would in fact be the case if the Convention is signed and ratified. Consid-
ering this possibility, the ECB is of the opinion that the Convention's implications within the Com-
munity on settlement finality and related settlement and custody aspects are sufficiently serious and
have the potential to raise systemic risk issues. This is another aspect that merits further consideration
as part of a Community-wide impact assessment of the Convention (see paragraph 20).

Third party rights

13. In terms of the Convention's impact on the rights of third parties, the ECB notes, first of all, that
where an account holder's creditor attaches the securities, the law determined under the Convention
will determine the priority of the attaching creditor's interest in the securities and the intermediary's
duties towards this creditor (Article 2(1)(d) and (e) of the Convention). The same law determined
under the Convention will not necessarily also apply to the jurisdictional and procedural requirements
for the attachment, and subsequent enforcement, in view of the current rules in various Member
States which provide that an attachment and enforcement of book-entry securities is governed by the
law, and subject to the jurisdiction of the courts, of the place where the securities are located. Even if
the Convention leaves unchanged the existing jurisdictional and procedural requirements for attach-
ment and enforcement, which is not yet examined, the Convention might entail significant changes in
judicial practice. In particular,
it might substantially increase the number of cases where a court
having jurisdiction over attachment or enforcement proceedings with respect to book-entry securities
would be required to apply foreign law — i.e. the law applicable under the Convention — to deter-
mine the nature and priority of the entitlement of the attachment creditor to the attached securities.
The Convention's drafters expressed an awareness of this difficulty, noting that ‘the law applicable to
proprietary matters should be the law of the place where the record of title is maintained and where,

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/15

therefore, orders in respect of the property can be effectively enforced’ (1). Another example of the
Convention's impact on third party rights concerns statutory liens. While the Convention's scope of
application is restricted to certain liens in favour of the account holder's intermediary (Article 1(2)(c)
of the Convention), it might nonetheless considerably affect other statutory liens over book-entry secu-
rities (e.g. tax liens), since the Convention law will, for instance, determine the priority of such liens
(see paragraph 1-31 of the Hague Convention Report).

14. Moreover, while a party to a book-entry securities transaction could at least contractually oblige its
counterparty to provide information regarding the law chosen in the relevant account agreement, the
Convention lacks transparency vis-à-vis third parties. Third parties, such as an account holder's cred-
itors seeking to attach securities to protect or satisfy a claim, might have competing rights in securities
or, at least, a legitimate interest in ascertaining where securities are located. Besides possible statutory
disclosure prohibitions applying to the relevant intermediary and/or provisions to that effect in the
account agreement, it will be very difficult for third parties to request information from the account
holder regarding the law chosen in the agreement between the account holder and its intermediary.
While also under a conflict-of-law regime based on the account's location, it is not always easy for
third parties to ascertain where their debtors maintain book-entry securities accounts, the Convention's
freedom of choice regime means that the law applicable to book-entry securities for the purposes of
enforcing competing third parties' rights, e.g. through an attachment, will depend on, and vary
according, to the subjective criterion of the law chosen in the often confidential account agreement,
which can even be amended so as to change this law (Article 7(1) of the Convention). The possible
effects of the Convention on third parties' rights and legitimate expectations, as illustrated in the
present and the preceding paragraphs, is another reason to conduct a prior impact assessment of the
Convention (see paragraph 20).

Harmonisation of substantive securities law

15. The possible legal certainty implications of the conflict-of-law rule laid down by the Convention
would not arise where the substantive law regarding the holding, transfer and collateralisation of
book-entry securities held with an intermediary is identical throughout the Community or, where the
law of a third country applies, at a global level. The ECB is therefore of the opinion that, while a clear
and effective harmonised conflict-of-law rule undoubtedly contributes to the removal of uncertainty in
the context of cross-border, multi-tiered book-entry securities holdings, a conflict-of-law reform
should ideally be treated as an integral part of a broader reform that also encompasses substantive law
aspects. Such substantive law reform and harmonisation would indeed reduce the impact of a contrac-
tual choice of applicable law. In this respect, the ECB strongly welcomes the establishment and work
of the European Commission's EU Clearing and Settlement: Legal Certainty Group (hereinafter the
‘Legal Certainty Project’), which provides a unique opportunity to combine both reforms and achieve a
single, consistent solution, as advocated by the Commission. Furthermore, in view of increasingly inte-
grated global financial markets, the ECB is also closely monitoring Unidroit's progress in globally
harmonising substantive book-entry securities law by means of its ‘Preliminary draft convention on
harmonised substantive rules regarding securities held with an intermediary’ (hereinafter the ‘Unidroit
draft Convention’). In this regard, it is noted that Unidroit also recognises the inconvenience of a

(1) See the Report on the meeting of the Working Group of Experts (15 to 19 January 2001) and related informal work
conducted by the Permanent Bureau on the law applicable to dispositions of securities held with an intermediary, p.
17.

C 81/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2005

stand-alone conflict-of-law reform, noting that ‘even in the presence of a clear and reliable conflict-of-
laws rule, it is possible that the laws of two or more jurisdictions may govern the entirety of [a] given
situation … because the conflict-of-laws analysis will not necessarily provide for the same answer with
respect to every singly aspect of an overall context’ (see draft Explanatory Notes on the Unidroit draft
Convention, page 10; see also paragraph 17). Given the existing Community legislation in this
domain, the ECB is not convinced that there is a compelling or urgent need for the Community to
adopt the Convention, and recommends synchronising the harmonisation of the conflict-of-laws rules
with the substantive law harmonisation, at least at Community level.

Interference of other laws

16. Another element that concerns legal certainty is that the Convention itself does not guarantee that
only one single law would apply to the issues it covers. Indeed, the Convention provides that the
application of the law determined under the Convention may be refused if the effects of such applica-
tion would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the forum that is asked to apply the Conven-
tion (Article 11(1) of the Convention, which contains the traditional ‘public policy’ exception). Further-
more, the Convention does not prevent the application of the provisions of the forum State that, irre-
spective of the applicable law, must be applied even to international situations (Article 11(2) of the
Convention, which contains the traditional ‘mandatory laws’ exception). Notwithstanding the restric-
tion of the interferences of such public policy or mandatory laws by virtue of Article 11(3) of the
Convention, it may be questionable whether a court would only in ‘extraordinarily rare cases’ (see
paragraph 11-1 of the Hague Convention Report) set aside or restrict the application of the law deter-
mined under the Convention pursuant to Article 11(1) or (2) thereof. For example, a jurisdiction in
which an SSS or CSD is located might adopt such mandatory laws, amongst others to ensure that the
legal and operational
including the securities
framework underlying the securities infrastructure,
accounts, is sound and effective.

17. Generally speaking and irrespective of direct interference by Article 11(1) or (2) of the Convention,
the ECB notes that in many jurisdictions, a significant number of other laws dealing with various
issues regarding securities and/or securities accounts, and which are often of a public law nature, refer
for their application to the situs of these securities and securities accounts. Under the current Com-
munity legislation regarding the proprietary aspects of securities, the situs laws coincide with the law
governing these proprietary aspects. When replacing the current regime with the Convention, and
even though these other laws might address issues that are not listed in Article 2(1) of the Convention,
these other laws and the Convention law could nevertheless directly or indirectly interfere with each
other. Unidroit also confirms this possibility: ‘aspects of, e.g., contractual, corporate, insolvency, prop-
erty and securities law may or may not be subject to choice of law provisions, and the conflict-of-laws
rules may point to different jurisdictions for certain aspects … However, certain previously unsus-
pected legislative gaps, lack of clarity, complications or barriers may impede a sound legal result, at
least within a reasonable time. Deficiencies within one domestic legal framework may create difficulties
regarding aspects governed by another law, etc. Thus, it may be said that cross-border holding and
disposition are likely to multiply legal uncertainty’ (see draft Explanatory Notes on the Unidroit draft
Convention, page 10). This interference might, for instance, also relate to the ECB's collection of statis-
tical
information (see Article 5 of the Statute), which seeks to minimise the reporting formalities
within the existing legal framework and where a change of the current conflict-of-laws regime might
affect the reporting of cross-border securities transactions and positions. The possible existence of
such a relationship between a conflict-of-laws rule and the surrounding framework of other relevant
laws also pleads in favour of a prior broad impact assessment of the Convention's effects in the Com-
munity and of a harmonisation of the substantive securities law (see paragraph 20).

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/17

Opting-out possibility

18. Finally, the ECB briefly notes that, as pointed out in paragraph 1-37 of the Hague Convention Report,
the possibility for certain specific SSSs or CSDs to opt out of the Convention under certain circum-
stances pursuant to Article 1(5) of the Convention may also be relevant for other similar systems. The
effects of this opt-out on the operation of an SSS and on book-entry securities held with an SSS have
not yet been analysed and should therefore also be further assessed.

Concluding considerations

19. Since this consultation concerns the question whether an international convention is to be signed on
behalf of the Community, the present opinion focuses on, and is confined to, general observations of
direct relevance to advising the Council whether or not to approve the signing of the Convention. The
these
ECB has additional
comments could be more appropriately addressed within the framework of an impact assessment by
the Community.

legal and technical comments on the Convention, but considers that

20. To sum up, the current Community legislation on the law applicable to the holding, transfer and
collateralisation of multi-tiered book-entry securities held with an intermediary represented an
improvement in legal certainty and the protection against systemic risk throughout the Community.
The Convention offers one possible approach to addressing legitimate considerations arising from the
difficulty of sometimes clearly identifying the location of a securities account for conflict-of-law
purposes in an increasingly integrated global financial system. The ECB supports the objective of estab-
lishing a universally applicable conflict-of-law approach in this area, but would, in view of the Conven-
tion's possible implications and current Community legislation, nevertheless welcome a comprehensive
prior assessment of the Convention's impact in the Community. The ECB and the Eurosystem, for
which the Convention's systemic risk aspects are of paramount importance, stand ready to contribute
to such assessment as part of the Eurosystem's tasks under Article 105(5) of the Treaty. In order not
to pre-empt an open-ended outcome, this assessment should be undertaken prior to a discussion of
the possible signature of the Convention, considering that the existing Community regime is suffi-
ciently satisfactory and does not require an urgent or compelling signature of the Convention. This
assessment is without prejudice to the Community's initiatives in the area of clearing and settlement
and to the need for a swift substantive book-entry securities law reform and harmonisation, which
would enhance financial integration in the Community.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 17 March 2005.

The President of the ECB

Jean-Claude TRICHET