CELEX: 
Language: en
Date: 2020-07-14 00:00:00
Title: COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) …/... supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to fees charged by the European Securities and Markets Authority to central counterparties established in third countries

EUROPEAN
                            COMMISSION
                                                     Brussels, 14.7.2020
                                                     C(2020) 4891 final
                 COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) …/...
                                         of 14.7.2020
    supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the
   Council with regard to fees charged by the European Securities and Markets Authority
                   to central counterparties established in third countries
                                  (Text with EEA relevance)
EN                                                                                      EN
 ---pagebreak---                                   EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
   1.        CONTEXT OF THE DELEGATED ACT
   Regulation (EU) 2019/2099 amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 on OTC derivatives,
   central counterparties and trade repositories1 (European Market Infrastructure Regulation,
   ‘EMIR’), was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 12 December
   20192.
   In relation to third-country CCPs, the main objective of the amendments to EMIR is to ensure
   a more robust and effective supervision of central counterparties (CCPs) established in third
   countries offering services to the Union, including an enhanced role and additional tasks for
   the European Securities and Markets Authority (‘ESMA’). As part thereof, the ‘CCP
   Supervisory Committee’ is established and will prepare decisions to be taken by ESMA’s
   Board of Supervisors, and a new ‘Third-country CCP college’ will ensure that all relevant
   Union stakeholders are properly informed and involved. Moreover, Regulation (EU)
   2019/2099 introduces a two-tier system for third-country CCPs, where CCPs that are
   systemically important for the financial stability of the Union or of one or more of its Member
   States (‘Tier 2 CCPs’) must comply with EMIR requirements and be subject to ESMA’s
   supervision. Tier 2 CCPs in third countries with comparable requirements may be deemed to
   comply with EMIR requirements through compliance with its home rules (‘comparable
   compliance’). Third-country CCPs that are not systemically important (‘Tier 1 CCPs’) will –
   as today – be allowed to offer clearing services in the Union relying on compliance with their
   home rules declared equivalent under the Commission implementing act, but will be subject
   to a periodic review of their systemic importance.
   As provided in Article 25d of EMIR, ESMA should charge fees to third-country CCPs to
   cover all costs incurred for the recognition and the performance of its tasks in relation to
   third-country CCPs.
   Article 25d of EMIR empowers the Commission to adopt a delegated act in order to specify
   further the types of fees, the matters for which fees are due, the amount of the fees and the
   manner in which fees are to be paid by third-country CCPs that apply for recognition and by
   recognised third-country CCPs.
   The delegated act is to be adopted in accordance with Article 82 of EMIR and Article 290 of
   the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
   2.        CONSULTATIONS PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE ACT
   Procedural aspects
   On 3 May 2019, the Commission asked ESMA for its views (‘technical advice’) on a
   Commission delegated act specifying further the fees to be charged to third-country CCPs to
   be adopted in accordance with Article 25d(3) of EMIR.
   ESMA conducted a public consultation on its draft technical advice from 29 May to 29 July
   2019. 9 respondents to the consultation gave public feedback, other respondents replied on a
   confidential basis. The non-confidential responses to the consultation are published on
   ESMA’s website3. ESMA sent its technical advice to the Commission on 11 November 2019.
   1
           OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 1.
   2
           OJ L 322, 12.12.2019, p. 1.
   3
           https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/consultations/esma-fees-third-country-ccps-under-emir-22
EN                                                    1                                                   EN
 ---pagebreak---    On 21 October 2019, the Commission consulted the Expert Group of the European Securities
   Committee (EGESC) on the provisional content of this delegated act. The EGESC comprises
   representatives of Member States, the European Central Bank, the Secretariat of the European
   Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, and ESMA.
   In accordance with the Better Regulation Guidelines, the draft delegated act was published on
   the Better Regulation Portal for a four-week public feedback period running between 11 June
   and 9 July 2020. 2 responses were received. The responses are available on the Commission’s
   website4. In addition, ESMA also provided further technical feedback.
   Stakeholder views
   As a result of the abovementioned consultations as well as ad hoc contributions, the
   Commission received a wide range of views on the content of the delegated act. Those views
   mainly expressed the need to ensure proportionality of fees to tasks carried out and to the
   turnover of CCPs, the need to ensure that fees are predictable, and the need for transparency
   and justifications of fees.
   Need to ensure proportionality of fees to tasks carried out and to the turnover of CCPs
   Most stakeholders supported the fee structure, with a basic recognition fee to be paid by all
   third-country CCPs applying for recognition, an additional recognition fee for Tier 2 CCPs, a
   separate fee for comparable compliance request by Tier 2 CCPs combined with a possible
   reduction of the recognition fee and a discount of the annual fee, and differentiated Tier 1
   CCP and Tier 2 CCP annual fees. Many stakeholders also agreed that CCPs that become Tier
   2 CCPs should pay a top-up fee reflecting the difference between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 fees.
   Stakeholders also supported the principle that annual fees in the year of recognition are
   calculated in proportion to the time period remaining until the end of the calendar year.
   While some stakeholders considered that EUR 50 000 for a recognition fee and EUR 50 000
   for annual fees for Tier 1 CCPs was acceptable, others found the fees too high, arguing that
   they could be a barrier to entry for smaller CCPs. Others argued that the level of the
   recognition fee should depend on the purpose of the application for recognition, i.e. whether
   the CCP intends to offer clearing services in the Union or applies solely in order to obtain
   beneficial treatment under the Capital Requirements Regulation5. In general, stakeholders
   argued that fees should be proportionate to the role of ESMA as a host supervisor and not lead
   supervisor. Some stakeholders argued that fees should be aligned with fees charged to CCPs
   in third countries or in Member States.
   As concerns the EMIR requirement that fees should be proportionate to the turnover of CCPs,
   replies were mixed. Some stakeholders supported the costs being split equally between Tier 2
   CCPs, arguing that turnover does not necessarily reflect the supervisory efforts required.
   Others argued that the turnover requirement in Article 25d of EMIR could not be disregarded.
   One the one hand, some stakeholders advocated the need to take into account the turnover
   related to clearing services provided to Union clearing members or counterparties or for
   financial instruments in Union currencies. On the other hand, other stakeholders noted the
   complexity and administrative burden associated with collecting and processing the
   information required for assessing turnover related to clearing services in the Union or in
   Union currencies, while not accurately reflecting the size of CCPs.
   4
           https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12446-Fees-to-be-charged-to-
           third-country-central-counterparties
   5
           OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 1.
EN                                                         2                                                      EN
 ---pagebreak---    Most stakeholders supported a discount in the annual fee for Tier 2 CCPs that are granted
   comparable compliance, arguing for a differentiated discount depending on the scope of
   comparable compliance, however one stakeholder noted the risk of distorting the level playing
   field.
   Most stakeholders strongly opposed a specific fee for the withdrawal of recognition.
   Although, stakeholders generally agreed that recognition fees would not be reimbursed in case
   the application is withdrawn, at least not in full.
   Need to ensure predictability of fees
   Stakeholders argued that recognition fees should be paid after the tiering of CCPs, either on
   recognition or in instalments upon the achievement of specified predefined milestones.
   Stakeholders supported the proposal that annual fees are to be paid in advance of, or at the
   latest in the first quarter of, the calendar year to which they relate. At the same time, several
   stakeholders underlined the need of predictability and some stakeholders stressed that annual
   fees need to be set sufficiently in advance for CCPs to be able to include them in their
   budgets. Some stakeholders also argued that fees should only be levied as of the entry into
   force of the delegated acts allowing ESMA to tier and recognise CCPs under the framework
   laid down in Regulation (EU) 2019/2099. A few stakeholders argued that recognition fees
   should not be paid by CCPs that are already recognised by ESMA when Regulation (EU)
   2019/2099 enters into force.
   Need to provide transparency and justification of fees
   Many stakeholders asked for more transparency and justifications about ESMA’s costs and
   need for resources to perform its tasks. Some stakeholders also objected to the principle of
   funding ESMA with fees paid by CCPs, alleging a conflict of interest in determining third-
   country CCPs as Tier 2 to expand its resources and activities in relation both to third-country
   CCPs and CCPs established in the Union.
   3.        IMPACT ASSESSMENT
   The Commission must specify further the types of fees, the matters for which fees are due, the
   amount of the fees and the manner in which fees are to be paid by third-country CCPs that
   apply for recognition and that are recognised. According to Article 25d, fees should be
   proportionate to the turnover of CCPs and cover all costs incurred by ESMA for the
   recognition and the performance of its tasks in relation to third-country CCPs under EMIR.
   Commission considerations
   The Commission has fully considered all representations received, including the technical
   advice provided by ESMA and the responses to ESMA’s public consultation, the feedback
   received from the EGESC, as well as other input provided to the Commission by
   stakeholders. On this basis, the Commission is proposing the adoption under Article 25d(3) of
   EMIR of this delegated act further specifying the types of fees, the matters for which fees are
   due, the amounts of the fees and the manner in which fees are to be paid by third-country
   CCPs.
   This delegated act deviates from the technical advice received from ESMA in certain ways in
   order to enhance the proportionality and predictability of the fees: recognition fees are on total
   lower as costs related to comparable compliance will be covered by the additional recognition
   fee charged to Tier 2 CCPs; comparable compliance will not result in a discount to the Tier 2
   CCP annual fees, as ESMA remains responsible for the supervision of Tier 2 CCP on an
   ongoing basis, whether comparable compliance is granted or not; Tier 1 CCP annual fees will
EN                                                   3                                                EN
 ---pagebreak---    be set annually on the basis of ESMA’s activity-based budget; and Tier 2 CCP annual fees
   will take into account the turnover of CCPs.
   ESMA’s technical advice carefully assesses the impact of the different options considered in
   the advice. Against this background and taking into account that the Commission’s deviations
   should in principle reduce the administrative burden and costs for third-country CCPs
   compared to ESMA’s technical advice, the Commission has not prepared a separate impact
   assessment. Nevertheless, this Section and Section 3.2 below assess the positive and negative
   impacts of the changes introduced by the Commission and analyse the costs and benefits of
   the measures proposed.
   Quantitative data on the costs and benefits is limited and cannot always be disclosed due to its
   confidential nature. ESMA asked for quantitative data as part of its public consultation but
   received very limited feedback. In any case, the differences amongst third-country CCPs are
   such that the costs and benefits of the changes will vary considerably, e.g. depending on how
   much information is already publically available or has already been provided to ESMA or
   depending on the size and complexity of a third-country CCP.
   Proportionality
   Fees should be based on ESMA’s costs and tasks, which is ensured in this delegated act in
   several ways.
   First, the Commission proposes differentiated fees for Tier 1 and Tier 2 CCPs. This reflects
   ESMA’s different tasks and thus costs in relation to Tier 1 and Tier 2 CCPs. For example,
   while ESMA will have to check the completeness of applications, draft decisions and assess
   the systemic importance of both Tier 1 and Tier 2 CCPs applying for recognition, the
   assessment of compliance with the additional recognition requirements in Article 25(2b) of
   EMIR and requests for comparable compliance will create additional costs in respect of Tier 2
   CCPs. Also for all recognised third-country CCPs some tasks will be the same for Tier 1 and
   Tier 2 CCPs (the periodic review of the tiering, cooperation arrangements with third-country
   supervisors, monitoring of regulatory and supervisory developments in third countries),
   however, ESMA will have the additional task for Tier 2 CCPs to supervise on an ongoing
   basis their compliance with the requirements set out in Article 16 and Titles IV and V of
   Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, including through comparable compliance, where granted. The
   approach to apply differentiated fees was supported by Member States in the EGESC. The
   alternative advocated by some stakeholders, i.e. that all CCPs contribute equally to ESMA’s
   costs, would not seem appropriate, as Tier 1 CCPs, which are less systemic for the EU and its
   Member States, would pay the higher costs of recognising and supervising Tier 2 CCPs,
   which are systemic for the Union or one or more of its Member States.
   Second, the Commission proposes a simple fee structure, minimising the different types of
   fees available to what is strictly necessary. That fee structure should consist only of
   recognition fees and annual fees, reflecting the legal requirement in EMIR.
   The Commission believes that recognition fees should cover the administrative costs of
   recognition (e.g. file processing), the costs of tiering and, for Tier 2 CCPs, the costs of
   assessing the recognition requirements set out in Article 25(2b) of EMIR and comparable
   compliance, if applied for at recognition.
   Basic recognition fees should be paid by all CCPs when applying for recognition. They
   should reflect the basic administrative tasks to be performed by ESMA when assessing a
   third-country CCP’s request for recognition. They should also reflect the fact that ESMA
   needs to collect and analyse information provided by third-country CCPs to determine
   whether or not they are Tier 1 or Tier 2.
EN                                                  4                                               EN
 ---pagebreak---    In addition to the basic recognition fee, Tier 2 CCPs should pay a supplementary ‘top-up’
   recognition fee. That additional recognition fee should also be paid by recognised CCPs that
   become Tier 2 CCPs, either following the initial tiering of recognised CCPs after the entry
   into force of Regulation (EU) 2019/2099, or following a subsequent periodic review. This fee
   reflects the additional information to be collected and analysed by ESMA for Tier 2 CCPs,
   and includes the costs related to the assessment of comparable compliance. Including
   assessment of comparable compliance in the recognition fee offers several advantages, such
   as simplicity (almost all Tier 2 CCPs are expected to apply for comparable compliance given
   the benefits it offers) and the substantial synergies in the assessment of recognition
   requirements (in particular where there are conditions) and comparable compliance.
   Annual fees should also be paid by all third-country CCPs. However, the fee for Tier 1 CCPs
   and the fee for Tier 2 CCPs should differ. ESMA’s annual fees will be based on its work
   programme and expected costs, and will therefore be proportionate to its level of activity.
   Costs related to the assessment of comparable compliance after the moment of recognition
   should be covered by the annual fees. Any such requests are expected to be exceptional, as it
   is highly likely that CCPs will request comparable compliance at the time of application for
   recognition due to its benefits for Tier 2 CCPs. Moreover, the notion of any potential
   discounts is misleading as under EMIR, ESMA remains responsible for the ongoing
   supervision of CCP’s compliance with the recognition requirements, whether comparable
   compliance is granted or not.
   Finally, regarding annual fees in the year of recognition, the Commission proposes to
   calculate those annual fees as a proportion of the basic and additional recognition fees
   charged to Tier 1 and Tier 2 CCPs.
   Fees proportionate to turnover
   Article 25d of EMIR requires that the fees charged to third-country CCPs are proportionate to
   the turnover.
   In order to comply with that requirement in a proportionate manner, several aspects need to be
   taken into consideration. On the one hand, there are costs involved for third-country CCPs to
   provide annual information on turnover that is relevant and comparable across third-country
   CCPs. Thus, in principle, the fee should accurately reflect the size of third-country CCPs in
   the context of EMIR without creating an undue burden on CCPs to provide the information or
   on ESMA to analyse it. The way in which turnover is reflected in the fee should also be
   comparable between third-country CCPs and must take into account that such CCPs are
   established in different jurisdictions with accounting practices that might also differ.
   In this respect, several different measurements for turnover may be considered: global and
   total revenues of a CCP from all of its lines of business; CCPs’ global revenues from clearing
   services; or CCP’s revenues from clearing services generated in the Union or in respect of
   financial instrument in Union currencies. Global and total revenues should be relatively
   simple to find, e.g. in annual reports. Nevertheless, it may be overreaching to look at total
   revenues, as those could include revenues from lines of business other than clearing,
   depending on the corporate structure of CCPs. In this respect, comparing CCPs’ revenues
   from clearing services in general (e.g. membership fees and clearing fees, net of transaction
   costs) would seem more appropriate in the context of EMIR.
   Looking at revenues from clearing services generated in the Union or in respect of financial
   instrument in Union currencies could also amount to appropriate criteria to reflect turnover.
   Such information is not however readily available. It could involve significant administrative
   burden for third-country CCPs to provide such information in a standardised manner, and for
EN                                                 5                                              EN
 ---pagebreak---    ESMA to analyse it. The Commission therefore proposes to compare CCPs’ global revenues
   from clearing services as an appropriate proxy for reflecting turnover in the fees to be paid by
   third-country CCPs. To simplify and reduce the reporting burden, the Commission proposes
   to look at revenues in the CCP’s most recent reporting year, despite the fact that reporting
   years and accounting standards may differ between CCPs. The relevant information should be
   readily available to CCPs and possibly even be a public figure in annual reports.
   In order to further standardise the comparison between third-country CCPs and enhance
   predictability, the Commission proposes to introduce ranges within which Tier 2 CCPs will be
   charged the same fee. In that way, fees could reflect the turnover of CCPs in a workable
   manner without resulting in an unjust fee being charged as a result of imperfect comparisons
   of turnover.
   The annual tasks in relation to recognised Tier 1 and Tier 2 CCPs differ considerably. While
   ESMA’s tasks in relation to Tier 2 CCPs are larger and more complex, ESMA’s tasks in
   relation to Tier 1 CCPs will be relatively standardised across Tier 1 CCPs, regardless of their
   size. Turnover should not therefore be reflected in the annual fees for Tier 1 CCPs in the same
   way than for Tier 2 CCPs. Tier 1 CCP annual fees are expected to be substantially lower than
   the fees charged to Tier 2 CCP, thereby reflecting the lower turnover of Tier 1 CCPs.
   In addition, since it is expected that there will be more Tier 1 CCPs than Tier 2 CCPs, the
   administrative burden for ESMA, as well as for third-country CCPs, will be better reflected if
   turnover is only explicitly used for calculating fees in relation to Tier 2 CCPs.
   The Commission therefore considers appropriate to provide for a flat annual fee for Tier 1
   CCPs, which reflects ESMA’s costs connected to the activity of Tier 1 CCPs split equally
   between all recognised Tier 1 CCPs.
   For Tier 2 CCPs, the Commission considers that annual fees should be set in explicit
   proportion to the turnover of CCPs, reflecting ESMA’s expected costs for Tier 2 CCPs. For
   the sake of simplicity and to minimise the impact of a potential lack of comparability, Tier 2
   CCPs should be divided into two broad groups reflecting their worldwide turnover accrued
   from the provision of clearing services. CCPs within one and the same group would be
   charged the same annual fee, but instead of splitting costs equally between all third-country
   CCPs, the CCPs in the lower range would be attributed a turnover weight of 1.0 and CCPs in
   the higher range a turnover weight of 1.2.
   Predictability
   Stakeholders advocated that fees should (1) to the extent possible, be predictable for third-
   country CCPs, and (2) should not apply retroactively.
   Concerning recognition fees, the tasks and the work are, to a large extent, foreseeable. As
   such, recognition fees (i.e. both the basic recognition fee and the ‘top-up’ additional
   recognition fee for Tier 2 CCPs) should be set in the delegated act based on ESMA’s past
   experience and expectations as reflected in its work programme and activity-based budget.
   This offers third-country CCPs clear predictability.
   Concerning annual fees, a balance should be struck between achieving the same degree of
   predictability while ensuring that the fees reflect the costs of ESMA performing its annual
   tasks (e.g. maintaining cooperation arrangements with third-country supervisors, monitoring
   regulatory and supervisory developments, reviewing the tiering, supervising on an ongoing
   basis Tier 2 CCPs). In line with the approach used for trade repositories and credit ratings
   agencies, and in order to enable the fee to reflect the costs incurred by ESMA, the annual fees
   should be set annually on the basis of ESMA’s work programme and activity-based budget.
   This approach should apply to both Tier 1 and Tier 2 CCPs. Proposals by some to fix the Tier
EN                                                  6                                               EN
 ---pagebreak---    1 annual fees in the delegated act while varying the Tier 2 CCP annual fees runs the risk that
   Tier 2 CCPs potentially cross-subsidise the lower fees of Tier 1 CCPs (and vice-versa). This
   can be avoided if annual fees for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 CCPs are determined annually on the
   basis of ESMA’s work programme and budget.
   The procedure for fixing annual fees is transparent and predictable. ESMA presents its annual
   work programme together with its estimated costs and draft budget in September each year.
   That gives a first indication of the levels of fees. The approved budget is published on
   ESMA’s website and in the Official Journal of the EU in the beginning of the calendar year to
   which it relates. ESMA will be required to send debit notes to third-country CCPs specifying
   the amount of the annual fee 30 calendar days in advance to the due date.
   Transparency and justification of fees
   Article 25d of EMIR requires ESMA to charge third-country CCPs fees to cover all costs
   incurred by it for the recognition and the performance of its tasks in relation to third-country
   CCPs under EMIR. Fees should however, be limited to costs incurred in relation to third-
   country CCPs, and should not cover costs for tasks carried out in relation to CCPs established
   in the Union, which will be covered by contributions from national public authorities and
   subsidies from the Union. Moreover, ESMA’s budget is set in relation to the expected level of
   activity in relation to Tier 1 and Tier 2 CCPs in the coming year. In other words, fees are
   charged to cover ESMA’s expected costs, not to expand its activity. ESMA is a public
   authority and, as such, under the highest level of scrutiny. Its budget is audited annually by
   the European Court of Auditors.
   Fees should also be carefully calibrated so as to avoid structural budgetary unbalances –
   deficits or surpluses. Although ESMA is expected to draw lessons for coming years and
   recalibrate its budgets where deficits or surpluses are repeated or significant, no extra fees are
   collected to cover deficits, and surpluses are not paid back.
   Stakeholders also asked for more similarity with the fees charged by other regulators and
   supervisors. Authorities in Canada, Hong Kong, Australia and Singapore charge fees of
   varying levels to domestic and foreign CCPs. In the United Kingdom authorisation fees
   charged to UK CCPs vary between approximately EUR 5 500 and EUR 330 000. Within the
   Union, in Sweden authorities charge authorisation fees to domestic CCPs that vary between
   approximately EUR 6 300 and EUR 820 000, and authorities in Germany, Spain, Greece and
   Poland also charge authorisation fees to domestic CCPs (between EUR 4 500 and
   EUR 150 000, depending on the authority). Other Member State authorities do not charge
   authorisation fees. In any case, these figures also reflect the different funding models of
   different bodies (e.g. it is more common in Europe to have fee based funding models), as well
   as the different supervisory approach to risk and the administrative and supervisory costs.
   According to the information available to the Commission, the level of fees in this delegated
   act would not be unprecedented6.
   3.1. Analysis of costs and benefits
   ESMA will incur costs associated with the recognition and the performance of its tasks under
   EMIR in relation to third-country CCPs. EMIR requires that ESMA charge fees to third-
   country CCPs to cover those costs. Fees should be proportionate to the turnover of CCPs.
   6
           ESMA technical advice, https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma70-151-
           2650_final_report_on_ta_on_emir_2_2_ccp_fees.pdf
EN                                                    7                                               EN
 ---pagebreak---    The Commission has, based on information provided by ESMA, assessed the potential level
   of work involved as well as the different underlying assumptions. The Commission has also
   reviewed on a granular level ESMA’s cost estimates underlying its technical advice.
   Methodology
   3 categories of costs are considered: specific variable costs, allocated variable costs and fixed
   costs.
           Specific variable costs (full-time equivalents (FTEs) per CCP) cover specific tasks
            for each third-country CCP (e.g. the review of the completeness of an application for
            recognition);
           Allocated variable costs (FTE per CCP) cover specific tasks to be carried out by
            ESMA for all third-country CCPs in the same jurisdiction (e.g. the conclusion of
            cooperation arrangements with a third-country authority); and
           Fixed costs cover aspects such as the investment and maintenance of specific IT
            developments for all third-country CCPs and the cost of the CCP Supervisory
            Committee, including of the Chair and the two independent members. Those costs
            are estimated at a certain amount which is then allocated to each CCP
   For the purpose of setting the level of the basic and additional recognition fees, standard
   average costs7 of EUR 172 125 per full time equivalent (FTE) for a Temporary Agent and
   EUR 95 620 for a national expert of a Member State seconded to ESMA are used for the
   estimation. The standard average costs includes provisions for salary and other allowances,
   pension and healthcare contributions as well as other costs indispensable for the performance
   of the duties of the relevant staff member (facility management services, training, missions,
   building rent and maintenance, IT systems/equipment) and takes into account national experts
   of Member States seconded to ESMA. The cost of overheads has to be added to that average
   cost per FTE. The costs for the Chair and independent members of the CCP Supervisory
   Committee is estimated at approximately EUR 1 million annually, of which a proportion
   should be covered by fees paid by third-country CCPs. In addition, the investment into a
   specific IT tool to take over the new mandate in relation to third-country CCPs will be
   significant.
   The levels of fees proposed in this delegated act are based on several key assumptions
   regarding costs which are in line with those used by ESMA in its technical advice, in
   particular:
           the number of third-country CCPs that will apply for recognition and be recognised
            under EMIR 2.2 and that will be tiered as Tier 1 or Tier 2. To test this assumption,
            the Commission ran several different scenarios with different numbers of CCPs
            tiered as Tier 1 or Tier 2; nevertheless the overall impact on the level of fees was
            negligible;
           the allocation of the fixed costs is evenly shared: the cost for each Tier 1 CCP and
            each Tier 2 CCP is the same in a given year; and
           the CCP Supervisory Committee will focus most of its time on third-country CCPs
            (recognition, tiering and then supervision of) – and therefore a large part of the costs
   7
           Standard per FTE average costs applicable in 2020 for the estimation of the direct costs to the European
           Commission.
EN                                                       8                                                          EN
 ---pagebreak---              for the Chair and the independent members should be allocated to third-country
             CCPs.
   Recognition fees
   The Commission estimates the costs to process recognition applications (assessing the
   completeness of the application, requesting additional information if needed, drafting of the
   decision) and the costs relating to the tiering of third-country CCPs would be approximately
   EUR 50 000. According to the Commission’s calculations on basis of the costs described
   above, that corresponds to approximately 2 FTEs for a period of 1.5 months, as well as an
   allocation of fixed costs.
   Applications for recognition by Tier 2 CCPs will entail additional costs (requesting additional
   information) as well as more substantial work (consultation of third-country authorities,
   consultation of central banks of issue, assessment of the additional recognition requirements,
   including CCPs’ compliance with Article 16 and Titles IV and V of Regulation (EU) No
   648/2012, assessment of requests for comparable compliance) and the higher involvement of
   the CCP Supervisory Committee. The additional costs are estimated at EUR 360 000. That
   corresponds to approximately 2 FTEs (annually), as well as an allocation of fixed costs,
   including that of the CCP Supervisory Committee. The amount reflects inter alia the simpler
   and more proportionate approach to comparable compliance.
   The Commission therefore proposes a basic recognition fee of EUR 50 000 to be charged to
   all third-country CCPs applying for recognition, and an additional recognition fee of
   EUR 360 000 to be charged to Tier 2 CCPs.
   Annual fees
   The Commission proposes that the annual fees for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 CCPs are
   determined annually on the basis of ESMA’s annual work programme and budget.
   ESMA’s budget is based on costs per activity. The budget identifies the costs for the number
   of FTEs needed to perform ESMA’s tasks, related logistics, IT, communication and general
   costs, as well as fixed costs. The correct implementation of the budget is audited by the
   European Court of Auditors. Annual fees determined on that basis therefore ensure that costs
   are transparent and that fees are aligned with ESMA’s costs.
   The annual fees for Tier 1 and Tier 2 CCPs should cover:
            ongoing activities, such as the ongoing supervision of third-country CCPs, the
             cooperation with third-country authorities and the monitoring of regulatory and
             supervisory developments in third countries;
            periodic activities, such as the regular review of the tiering of CCPs (as required in
             EMIR) and the assessments required in case of an extension of activities or services;
            the allocation of fixed cost (IT, CCP Supervisory Committee).
   For Tier 1 CCPs, the Commission estimates the total annual fee at approximately EUR 50 000
   per CCP. This is in line with ESMA’s estimates provided in the technical advice.
   Nevertheless, it is important to underline that this is not a fixed annual amount but linked to
   the tasks and costs associated with Tier 1 CCPs. As such, the annual fees for Tier 1 CCPs will
   vary over time.
   For Tier 2 CCPs, the Commission assumes that the supervision tasks will be the same for
   ESMA regardless whether or not the CCP was granted comparable compliance. In order to
   reflect turnover, Tier 2 CCPs will be placed into one of two groups.
EN                                                  9                                               EN
 ---pagebreak---    CCPs are likely to pass on their costs – to varying degrees and in different ways – to their
   clearing members and clients, and in any event the amount should be offset by the benefits
   resulting from access to the Union clearing members and trading venues and the beneficial
   treatment under the Capital Requirements Regulation.
   3.2. Proportionality
   This Regulation lays down the fees to be paid by third-country CCPs, specifying their types,
   the matters for which they are due, the amounts of the fees and the manner in which they are
   to be paid. The objective of the fees is to fully cover ESMA’s costs for the recognition and the
   performance of its tasks in relation to third-country CCPs under EMIR. Fees should be
   carefully calibrated to cover all of ESMA’s costs, without resulting in budgetary surpluses or
   deficits. While fees should be proportionate to the turnover of CCPs, their implementation
   should not result in undue burdens on third-country CCPs or on ESMA. The fees laid down in
   this delegated act meet those objectives and are therefore proportionate.
   In view of the above, this delegated act ensures the proportionate application of EMIR,
   thereby taking into account the principle of proportionality.
   3.3. Subsidiarity
   This delegated act lays down the fees ESMA should charge to third-country CCPs to cover its
   costs for performing its tasks in relation to such CCPs under EMIR. Member States cannot
   take actions to lay down fees that ESMA should charge to third-country CCPs. This delegated
   act complements EMIR, whilst respecting the principle of proportionality as set out above,
   and therefore is in line with the principle of subsidiarity.
   4.        LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE DELEGATED ACT
   Chapter I of the proposed delegated regulation lays down the types of fees to be charged to
   third-country CCPs:
            Article 1 specifies the one-off basic recognition fees to be charged to all third-
             country CCPs applying for recognition, independently of their systemic importance
             to the Union or its Member States (paragraph 1), as well as the additional one-off
             recognition fees to be charges to systemically important third-country CCPs to cover
             the extra costs to process such applications (paragraph 2);
            Article 2 specifies how to determine the annual fees to be charged to recognised
             third-country CCPs depending on the systemic importance of CCPs on the basis of
             ESMA’s expected costs and its activity-based budget;
            Article 3 specifies how to calculate the (reduced) annual fees to be charged to third-
             country CCPs in the year in which they are recognised;
            Article 4 specifies how to take into account the turnover of systemically important
             CCPs for the purpose of setting the annual fees charged to them.
   Chapter II defines the payment modalities and the principle of non-reimbursement of fees, in
   particular:
            Article 5 specifies the general payment modalities: payments have to be made in euro
             and penalties are to be imposed in case of late payment;
            Article 6 specifies the payment modalities for recognition fees and that they are to be
             paid before ESMA carries out the assessment whether the recognition requirements
             are fulfilled and are not reimbursed;
EN                                                  10                                               EN
 ---pagebreak---           Article 7 specifies the payment modalities for annual fees and that they are to be paid
           in advance of the calendar year to which they relate and are not reimbursed.
   Chapter III provides for transitional and final provisions:
          Article 8 specifies the payment modalities for recognition fees for third-country
           CCPs that have applied for recognition before the entry into force of the delegated
           act;
          Article 9 specifies the interim annual fees to be paid by CCPs recognised before the
           entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2019/2099 amending EMIR;
          Article 10 lays down the date of entry into force of the delegated act.
EN                                                 11                                              EN
 ---pagebreak---                     COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) …/...
                                             of 14.7.2020
      supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the
     Council with regard to fees charged by the European Securities and Markets Authority
                       to central counterparties established in third countries
                                      (Text with EEA relevance)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the
   Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories 8, and
   in particular Article 25d(3) thereof,
   Whereas:
   (1)     Article 25d of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 requires that the European Securities and
           Markets Authority (‘ESMA’) charge third-country central counterparties (‘CCPs’) fees
           associated with applications for recognition under Article 25 of that Regulation and
           annual fees associated with the performance of its tasks in accordance with that
           Regulation in relation to recognised third-country CCPs. Article 25d(2) of Regulation
           (EU) No 648/2012 requires that such fees be proportionate to the turnover of the CCP
           concerned and cover all costs incurred by ESMA for the recognition and the
           performance of its tasks in relation to third-country CCP in accordance with that
           Regulation.
   (2)     Fees associated with applications for recognition (‘recognition fees’) should be
           charged to third-country CCPs to cover ESMA’s costs for processing applications for
           recognition, including costs for verifying that applications are complete, requesting
           additional information, drafting of decisions and costs relating to the assessment of the
           systemic importance of third-country CCPs (‘tiering’). For CCPs that are systemically
           important or likely to become systemically important for the financial stability of the
           Union or of one or more of its Member States and that are recognised by ESMA in
           accordance with Article 25(2b) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (‘Tier 2 CCPs’),
           additional costs are incurred by ESMA. These additional costs are incurred by ESMA
           when assessing compliance with the recognition conditions set out in Article 25(2b) of
           Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 and whether, by complying with the applicable third-
           country legal framework, a CCP may be deemed to satisfy compliance with the
           requirements set out in Article 16 and Titles IV and V of Regulation (EU) No
           648/2012 (‘comparable compliance’). The costs associated with applications made by
           Tier 2 CCPs will therefore be higher than those associated with applications made by
           third-country CCPs that are not deemed to be systemically important or likely to
           become systemically important for the financial stability of the Union or of one or
           more of its Member States (‘Tier 1 CCPs’).
   8
           OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 1.
EN                                                12                                                 EN
 ---pagebreak---    (3) While a basic recognition fee should be charged to all third-country CCPs applying for
       recognition under Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, an additional fee
       should be charged to Tier 2 CCPs to cover the additional cost incurred by ESMA as
       part of the application process. The additional recognition fee should also be charged
       to already recognised CCPs the first time that ESMA determines whether they are to
       be classified as Tier 2 CCPs following the review of their systemic importance under
       Article 25(5) or Article 89(3c) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.
   (4) Annual fees are also to be charged to recognised third-country CCPs to cover ESMA’s
       costs for the performance of its tasks under Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 in relation
       to such CCPs. For both Tier 1 and Tier 2 CCPs, those tasks include the periodic
       review of the systemic importance of CCPs pursuant to Article 25(5) of Regulation
       (EU) No 648/2012, the implementation and maintenance of cooperation arrangements
       with third-country authorities and the monitoring of regulatory and supervisory
       developments in third countries. For Tier 2 CCPs, ESMA is also required to supervise
       on an ongoing basis compliance by those CCPs with the requirements set out in
       Article 16 and Titles IV and V of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, including through
       comparable compliance, where granted. It is therefore appropriate that different annual
       fees apply to Tier 1 and Tier 2 CCPs.
   (5) The recognition and annual fees laid down in this Regulation should cover the costs
       that ESMA expects to incur when processing applications for recognition on the basis
       of its experience in performing tasks in relation to third-country CCPs and other
       supervised entities as well as on the basis of its expected costs as stated in its annual
       activity-based budget.
   (6) The tasks performed by ESMA under Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 in relation to
       recognised Tier 1 CCPs will largely be the same for each Tier 1 CCP independently of
       their size. It is therefore appropriate that the costs incurred by ESMA in relation to
       recognised Tier 1 CCPs are covered by levying an annual fee of the same amount on
       each recognised Tier 1 CCP. In relation to recognised Tier 2 CCPs, in order to ensure
       a fair allocation of fees which, at the same time, reflects the actual administrative
       effort required by ESMA for the performance of its tasks with respect to each Tier 2
       CCP, annual fees should also take account of the turnover of the Tier 2 CCP.
   (7) Annual fees charged to third-country CCPs for the first year in which they are
       recognised pursuant to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 should be
       proportionate to the part of that year during which ESMA performs tasks in
       accordance with that Regulation in relation to those CCPs. The same principle should
       apply for the year in which a CCP that is recognised as a Tier 1 CCP, is classified for
       the first time as a Tier 2 CCP pursuant to Article 25(5) of that Regulation.
   (8) To ensure the timely funding of the costs incurred by ESMA in relation to applications
       for recognition made pursuant to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012,
       recognition fees should be paid to ESMA before the processing of applications for
       recognition or the assessment of whether Tier 2 CCPs comply with the recognition
       requirements set out in Article 25(2b) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. In order to
       ensure the timely funding of the costs incurred by ESMA in the performance of its
       tasks in relation to recognised third-country CCPs, annual fees should be paid in the
       beginning of the calendar year to which they relate. Annual fees in the first year of
       recognition should be paid soon after the adoption of recognition decisions.
   (9) In order to discourage repeated or unfounded applications, recognition fees should not
       be reimbursed in the case where an applicant withdraws its application. As the
EN                                             13                                                EN
 ---pagebreak---         administrative work required in the case of an application for recognition that is
        refused is the same as that required in the case of an application that is accepted,
        recognition fees should not be reimbursed if recognition is refused.
   (10) Any costs incurred by ESMA after the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No
        2019/2099 in respect of third-country CCPs that have already been recognised in
        accordance with Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 prior to [PO, please
        insert the date of entry into force of this Regulation] should be covered by fees. Such
        third-country CCPs should therefore be required to pay an interim annual fee for 2020
        and each subsequent year until the review of their systemic importance pursuant to
        Article 89(3c) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 has been carried out.
   (11) This Delegated Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency to ensure that
        ESMA is funded in a timely and appropriate manner following the entry into force of
        Regulation (EU) 2019/2099,
   HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
                                           CHAPTER I
                                               FEES
                                             Article 1
                                         Recognition fees
   1.     A CCP established in a third country that applies for recognition in accordance with
          Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 shall pay a basic recognition fee of
          EUR 50 000.
   2.     A CCP established in a third country shall pay an additional recognition fee of
          EUR 360 000 where ESMA determines that, in accordance with Article 25(2a) of
          Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, that CCP is systemically important or likely to
          become systemically important for the financial stability of the Union or of one or
          more of its Member States (‘Tier 2 CCP’). A Tier 2 CCP shall pay the additional
          recognition fee in any of the following cases:
          (a)   the CCP applies for recognition;
          (b)   the CCP, where already recognised pursuant to Article 25(2) of Regulation
                (EU) No 648/2012, is determined to be a Tier 2 CCP following the review
                carried out by ESMA in accordance with Article 25(5) of that Regulation.
                                             Article 2
                                            Annual fees
   1.     A recognised CCP shall pay an annual fee.
   2.     Where a CCP is recognised by ESMA in accordance with Article 25(2) of Regulation
          (EU) No 648/2012 (‘Tier 1 CCP’), the annual fee for each Tier 1 CCP for a given
          year (n) shall be the total annual fee divided in equal parts between all Tier 1 CCPs
          recognised on 31 December of the previous year (n-1).
EN                                               14                                             EN
 ---pagebreak---       For the purposes of the first subparagraph, the total annual fee for a given year (n)
      shall be the estimate of expenditure relating to the tasks to be performed by ESMA
      with regard to all recognised Tier 1 CCPs under Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 as
      included in ESMA's budget for that year.
   3. Where a CCP is recognised by ESMA in accordance with Article 25(2b) of
      Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (‘Tier 2 CCP’), the annual fee for a given year (n)
      shall be the total annual fee divided between all Tier 2 CCPs recognised on 31
      December of the previous year (n-1) and multiplied by the applicable weight
      determined pursuant to Article 4 of this Regulation.
      For the purposes of the first subparagraph, the total annual fee for a given year (n)
      shall be the estimate of expenditure relating to the tasks to be performed by ESMA
      with regard to all recognised Tier 2 CCPs under Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 as
      included in ESMA's budget for that year.
                                          Article 3
                            Annual fees in year of recognition
   1. For the year in which a third-country CCP is recognised by ESMA in accordance
      with Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, the annual fee shall be calculated
      as follows:
      (a)    where ESMA recognises a CCP as a Tier 1 CCP, the annual fee shall be
             determined as the proportion of the basic recognition fee laid down in Article
             1(1) of this Regulation calculated in accordance with the following ratio:
               𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑙 31 𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟
                                   𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
      (b)    where ESMA recognises a CCP as a Tier 2 CCP, the annual fee shall be
             determined as the proportion of the additional recognition fee laid down in
             Article 1(2) of this Regulation calculated in accordance with the following
             ratio:
               𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑙 31 𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟
                                   𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
   2. Where a CCP has paid an interim annual fee in accordance with Article 9 for the year
      in which that CCP is recognised as a Tier 1 CCP, the annual fee calculated in
      accordance with paragraph 1(a) shall not be charged.
   3. Where a CCP has paid an interim annual fee in accordance with Article 9 or an
      annual fee in accordance with Article 2(2) for the year in which that CCP is
      recognised as a Tier 2 CCP, the amount of that fee shall be deducted from the fee to
      be paid in accordance with paragraph 1(b).
                                          Article 4
                           Applicable turnover for Tier 2 CCPs
   1. The relevant turnover of a Tier 2 CCP shall be its worldwide revenues accrued from
      provision of clearing services (membership fees and clearing fees net of transaction
      costs) during the CCP’s most recent financial year.
EN                                           15                                             EN
 ---pagebreak---        Tier 2 CCPs shall provide ESMA, on an annual basis, with audited figures
       confirming its worldwide revenues accrued from the provision of the clearing
       services referred to in the first subparagraph. The audited figures shall be submitted
       to ESMA no later than 30 September each year. The documents containing audited
       figures shall be provided in a language customary in the sphere of financial services.
       If the revenues referred to in the first subparagraph are reported in another currency
       than euro, ESMA shall convert them into euro using the average euro foreign
       exchange rate applicable to the period during which the revenues were recorded. For
       that purpose, the euro foreign exchange reference rate published by the European
       Central Bank shall be used.
   2.  On the basis of the turnover determined in accordance with paragraph 1 for a given
       year (n), the CCP shall be deemed to belong to one of the following groups:
       (a)    Group 1: annual turnover below EUR 600 million;
       (b)    Group 2: annual turnover of EUR 600 million or above.
       A Tier 2 CCP in Group 1 shall be attributed the turnover weight 1.
       A Tier 2 CCP in Group 2 shall be attributed the turnover weight 1,2.
   3.  The total turnover weight of all recognised Tier 2 CCPs for a given year (n) shall be
       the sum of the turnover weights determined in accordance with paragraph 2 of all
       Tier 2 CCPs recognised by ESMA on the 31 December of the previous year (n-1).
   4.  For the purpose of Article 2(3), the applicable weight of a Tier 2 CCP for a given
       year (n) shall be its turnover weight determined in accordance with paragraph 2
       divided by the total turnover weight of all recognised Tier 2 CCPs determined in
       accordance with paragraph 3.
                                         CHAPTER II
                                 PAYMENT CONDITIONS
                                           Article 5
                                 General payment modalities
   1.  All fees shall be paid in euro.
   2.  Any late payment shall incur the default interest laid down in Article 99 of
       Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/10469.
   3.  Communications between ESMA and third-country CCPs shall take place by
       electronic means.
                                           Article 6
                                 Payment of recognition fees
   1.  The basic recognition fee provided for in Article 1(1) of this Regulation shall be paid
       when the CCP submits its application for recognition.
   9
      OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1.
EN                                            16                                               EN
 ---pagebreak---       By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, where the Commission has not
      adopted an implementing act in accordance with Article 25(6) of Regulation (EU)
      No 648/2012 for the third country in which the CCP is established when the CCP
      applies for recognition, the basic recognition fee shall be paid at the latest on the day
      that such an implementing act enters into force.
   2. The date by which the additional recognition fee provided for in Article 1(2) of this
      Regulation is to be paid shall be set in a debit note sent by ESMA to the CCP
      following ESMA’s request to the CCP to submit additional information for the
      assessment of the CCP’s compliance with the requirements laid down in Article
      25(2b) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. The payment date shall provide the CCP
      with at least 30 calendar days to pay, from the day on which ESMA sent the debit
      note to the CCP.
   3. Recognition fees shall not be reimbursed.
                                          Article 7
                                 Payment of annual fees
   1. The annual fees provided for in Article 2 for a given year (n) shall be paid at the
      latest on 31 March of the year (n).
      ESMA shall send debit notes to all recognised third-country CCPs specifying the
      amount of the annual fee at the latest on 1 March of year (n).
   2. The amount of the annual fee provided for in Article 3 in the year of recognition as
      well as the date by which the annual fee is to be paid, shall be stated in a debit note
      sent by ESMA to the CCP. The payment date shall provide the CCP with at least 30
      calendar days to pay, from the day on which ESMA sent the debit note to the CCP.
   3. Annual fees paid by a CCP shall not be reimbursed.
                                      CHAPTER III
                           Transitional and Final Provisions
                                          Article 8
                     Applications for recognition already submitted
   1. Where a third-country CCP has submitted an application for recognition before [PO,
      please insert the date of entry into force of this Regulation], and ESMA has not yet
      adopted a decision to recognise or to refuse recognition of that CCP, the CCP shall
      pay the recognition fee provided for in Article 1(1) by [PO: Please enter the date
      that is 30 calendar days from the entry into force of this Regulation].
   2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where ESMA has suspended the processing
      of a third-country CCP’s application for recognition before [PO, please insert the
      date of entry into force of this Regulation], the CCP shall pay the recognition fee
      provided for in Article 1(1) within the payment date stated in the debit note sent by
      ESMA to the CCP, following the notification that the processing of its application is
      no longer suspended. The payment date shall provide the CCP with at least 30
      calendar days to pay, from the day on which ESMA sent the debit note to the CCP.
EN                                           17                                                 EN
 ---pagebreak---                                                 Article 9
                            Interim annual fee for CCPs already recognised
   1.        A third-country CCP that is recognised by ESMA in accordance with Article 25 of
             Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 at the time this Regulation enters into force shall pay
             an interim annual fee of EUR 50 000 for 2020 and each subsequent year until the
             review of its systemic importance pursuant to Article 89(3c) of Regulation (EU) No
             648/2012 has been carried out and it has been recognised in accordance with either
             Article 25(2) or Article 25(2b) of that Regulation or such recognition has not been
             granted.
   2.        The interim annual fee for 2020 shall be paid within 30 calendar days from the entry
             into force of this Regulation. Interim annual fees for another year (n) shall be paid at
             the latest on 31 March of the year (n).
                                                Article 10
                                            Entry into force
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the
   Official Journal of the European Union.
   This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
   Done at Brussels, 14.7.2020
                                                  For the Commission
                                                  The President
                                                  Ursula VON DER LEYEN
EN                                                  18                                                EN