Article 1 Subject matter and scope
1. This Regulation lays down clearing and bilateral risk-management requirements for over-the-counter (‘OTC’) derivative contracts, reporting requirements for derivative contracts and uniform requirements for the performance of activities of central counterparties (‘CCPs’) and trade repositories. 2. This Regulation shall apply to CCPs and their clearing members, to financial counterparties and to trade repositories. It shall apply to non-financial counterparties and trading venues where so provided. 3. Title V of this Regulation shall apply only to transferable securities and money-market instruments, as defined in point (18)(a) and (b) and point (19) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC. 4. This Regulation shall not apply to: (a) the members of the ESCB and other Member States’ bodies performing similar functions and other Union public bodies charged with or intervening in the management of the public debt; (b) the Bank for International Settlements; (c) the central banks and public bodies charged with or intervening in the management of the public debt in the following countries: (i) Japan; (ii) United States of America; (iii) Australia; (iv) Canada; (v) Hong Kong; (vi) Mexico; (vii) Singapore; (viii) Switzerland. 5. With the exception of the reporting obligation under Article 9, this Regulation shall not apply to the following entities: (a) multilateral development banks, as listed under Section 4.2 of Part 1 of Annex VI to Directive 2006/48/EC; (b) public sector entities within the meaning of point (18) of Article 4 of Directive 2006/48/EC where they are owned by central governments and have explicit guarantee arrangements provided by central governments; (c) the European Financial Stability Facility and the European Stability Mechanism. 6. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 82 to amend the list set out in paragraph 4 of this Article. To that end, by 17 November 2012 the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and the Council a report assessing the international treatment of public bodies charged with or intervening in the management of the public debt and central banks. The report shall include a comparative analysis of the treatment of those bodies and of central banks within the legal framework of a significant number of third countries, including at least the three most important jurisdictions as regards volumes of contracts traded, and the risk-management standards applicable to the derivative transactions entered into by those bodies and by central banks in those jurisdictions. If the report concludes, in particular in regard to the comparative analysis, that the exemption of the monetary responsibilities of those third-country central banks from the clearing and reporting obligation is necessary, the Commission shall add them to the list set out in paragraph 4.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 1 Subject matter and scope):
1. This Regulation lays down clearing and bilateral risk-management requirements for over-the-counter (‘OTC’) derivative contracts, reporting requirements for derivative contracts and uniform requirements for the performance of activities of central counterparties (‘CCPs’) and trade repositories. 2. This Regulation shall apply to CCPs and their clearing members, to financial counterparties and to trade repositories. It shall apply to non-financial counterparties and trading venues where so provided.
Article 2 Definitions
For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply: (1) ‘CCP’ means a legal person that interposes itself between the counterparties to the contracts traded on one or more financial markets, becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer; (2) ‘trade repository’ means a legal person that centrally collects and maintains the records of derivatives; (3) ‘clearing’ means the process of establishing positions, including the calculation of net obligations, and ensuring that financial instruments, cash, or both, are available to secure the exposures arising from those positions; (4) ‘trading venue’ means a system operated by an investment firm or a market operator within the meaning of Article 4(1)(1) and 4(1)(13) of Directive 2004/39/EC other than a systematic internaliser within the meaning of Article 4(1)(7) thereof, which brings together buying or selling interests in financial instruments in the system, in a way that results in a contract in accordance with Title II or III of that Directive; (5) ‘derivative’ or ‘derivative contract’ means a financial instrument as set out in points (4) to (10) of Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC as implemented by Article 38 and 39 of Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006; (6) ‘class of derivatives’ means a subset of derivatives sharing common and essential characteristics including at least the relationship with the underlying asset, the type of underlying asset, and currency of notional amount. Derivatives belonging to the same class may have different maturities; (7) ‘OTC derivative’ or ‘OTC derivative contract’ means a derivative contract the execution of which does not take place on a regulated market within the meaning of Article 4(1)(14) of Directive 2004/39/EC or on a third-country market considered to be equivalent to a regulated market in accordance with Article 2a of this Regulation; (8) ‘financial counterparty’ means an investment firm authorised in accordance with Directive 2004/39/EC, a credit institution authorised in accordance with Directive 2006/48/EC, an insurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 73/239/EEC, an assurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2002/83/EC, a reinsurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2005/68/EC, a UCITS and, where relevant, its management company, authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/65/EC, an institution for occupational retirement provision within the meaning of Article 6(a) of Directive 2003/41/EC and an alternative investment fund managed by AIFMs authorised or registered in accordance with Directive 2011/61/EU; (9) ‘non-financial counterparty’ means an undertaking established in the Union other than the entities referred to in points (1) and (8); (10) ‘pension scheme arrangement’ means: (a) institutions for occupational retirement provision within the meaning of Article 6(a) of Directive 2003/41/EC, including any authorised entity responsible for managing such an institution and acting on its behalf as referred to in Article 2(1) of that Directive as well as any legal entity set up for the purpose of investment of such institutions, acting solely and exclusively in their interest; (b) occupational retirement provision businesses of institutions referred to in Article 3 of Directive 2003/41/EC; (c) occupational retirement provision businesses of life insurance undertakings covered by Directive 2002/83/EC, provided that all assets and liabilities corresponding to the business are ring-fenced, managed and organised separately from the other activities of the insurance undertaking, without any possibility of transfer; (d) any other authorised and supervised entities, or arrangements, operating on a national basis, provided that: (i) they are recognised under national law; and (ii) their primary purpose is to provide retirement benefits; (11) ‘counterparty credit risk’ means the risk that the counterparty to a transaction defaults before the final settlement of the transaction’s cash flows; (12) ‘interoperability arrangement’ means an arrangement between two or more CCPs that involves a cross-system execution of transactions; (13) ‘competent authority’ means the competent authority referred to in the legislation referred to in point (8) of this Article, the competent authority referred to in Article 10(5) or the authority designated by each Member State in accordance with Article 22; (14) ‘clearing member’ means an undertaking which participates in a CCP and which is responsible for discharging the financial obligations arising from that participation; (15) ‘client’ means an undertaking with a contractual relationship with a clearing member of a CCP which enables that undertaking to clear its transactions with that CCP; (16) ‘group’ means the group of undertakings consisting of a parent undertaking and its subsidiaries within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 83/349/EEC or the group of undertakings referred to in Article 3(1) and Article 80(7) and (8) of Directive 2006/48/EC; (17) ‘financial institution’ means an undertaking other than a credit institution, the principal activity of which is to acquire holdings or to carry on one or more of the activities listed in points (2) to (12) of Annex I to Directive 2006/48/EC; (18) ‘financial holding company’ means a financial institution, the subsidiary undertakings of which are either exclusively or mainly credit institutions or financial institutions, at least one of such subsidiary undertakings being a credit institution, and which is not a mixed financial holding company within the meaning of Article 2(15) of Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate ( 1 ); (19) ‘ancillary services undertaking’ means an undertaking the principal activity of which consists in owning or managing property, managing data-processing services, or a similar activity which is ancillary to the principal activity of one or more credit institution; (20) ‘qualifying holding’ means any direct or indirect holding in a CCP or trade repository which represents at least 10 % of the capital or of the voting rights, as set out in Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market ( 2 ), taking into account the conditions regarding aggregation thereof laid down in Article 12(4) and (5) of that Directive, or which makes it possible to exercise a significant influence over the management of the CCP or trade repository in which that holding subsists; (21) ‘parent undertaking’ means a parent undertaking as described in Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 83/349/EEC; (22) ‘subsidiary’ means a subsidiary undertaking as described in Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 83/349/EEC, including a subsidiary of a subsidiary undertaking of an ultimate parent undertaking; (23) ‘control’ means the relationship between a parent undertaking and a subsidiary, as described in Article 1 of Directive 83/349/EEC; (24) ‘close links’ means a situation in which two or more natural or legal persons are linked by: (a) participation, by way of direct ownership or control, of 20 % or more of the voting rights or capital of an undertaking; or (b) control or a similar relationship between any natural or legal person and an undertaking or a subsidiary of a subsidiary also being considered a subsidiary of the parent undertaking which is at the head of those undertakings. A situation in which two or more natural or legal persons are permanently linked to one and the same person by a control relationship shall also be regarded as constituting a close link between such persons. (25) ‘capital’ means subscribed capital within the meaning of Article 22 of Council Directive 86/635/EEC of 8 December 1986 on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions ( 3 ) in so far it has been paid up, plus the related share premium accounts, it fully absorbs losses in going concern situations, and, in the event of bankruptcy or liquidation, it ranks after all other claims; (26) ‘reserves’ means reserves as set out in Article 9 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies ( 4 ) and profits and losses brought forward as a result of the application of the final profit or loss; (27) ‘board’ means administrative or supervisory board, or both, in accordance with national company law; (28) ‘independent member’ of the board means a member of the board who has no business, family or other relationship that raises a conflict of interests regarding the CCP concerned or its controlling shareholders, its management or its clearing members, and who has had no such relationship during the five years preceding his membership of the board; (29) ‘senior management’ means the person or persons who effectively direct the business of the CCP or the trade repository, and the executive member or members of the board; (30) ‘covered bond’ means a bond meeting the requirements of Article 129 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (31) ‘covered bond entity’ means the covered bond issuer or cover pool of a covered bond.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Derivatives contracts are a key tool for Europe's banks and businesses to manage their risks, whether they are related to changes in interest rates, currency fluctuations or the default of a business counterpart. However, opaque derivatives markets also acted as an unwelcome contagion channel. Derivatives markets must therefore be regulated and supervised effectively to safeguard financial stability. Given the global nature of derivatives markets and in accordance with the 2009 G20 Pittsburgh agreement 1 to reduce the systemic risk linked to extensive use of derivatives, the EU adopted the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) in 2012. 2 As a key pillar of EMIR standardised over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives contracts must be cleared through a Central Counterparty (CCP). A CCP is a market infrastructure that reduces systemic risk and enhances financial stability by standing between the two counterparties to a derivatives contract (i.e. acting as buyer to the seller and seller to the buyer of risk) and thereby reducing the risk for both. EMIR also introduced strict prudential, organisational and business conduct requirements for CCPs and established arrangements for their prudential supervision to minimise any risk to users of a CCP and underpin systemic stability. Since 2012 when EMIR was adopted, central clearing has been significantly expanding and CCPs have become increasingly concentrated and integrated across the EU and with third countries. The present proposal ensures that supervisory arrangements keep pace with these developments. It is proposed that the EU equips its Capital Markets Union with a more effective and consistent supervisory system for CCPs, in the interest of further market integration, financial stability and a level-playing field. CCPs have grown in importance since the adoption of EMIR and will expand further in the coming years In the five years since the adoption of EMIR, the volume of CCP activity – in the EU and globally - has grown rapidly both in scale and in scope. This is a sign that the legislation works and is fulfilling its purpose. As of end of June 2016, around 62% of the global value of all OTC derivatives contracts and asset classes (interest rates, credit default, foreign exchange, etc.) were centrally cleared by CCPs 3 , which is equivalent to $337 trillion. About 97% ($328 trillion) of all centrally-cleared derivatives contracts are interest-rate derivatives. At the end of 2015, about 60% of all OTC interest-rate derivatives were centrally cleared, while the corresponding figure by the end of 2009 was 36% 4 . Central clearing has similarly gained in importance in the credit derivatives (so-called CDS) market, with the proportion of outstanding CDSs cleared through CCPs increasing steadily since these data were first reported, i.e. 37% at the end of June 2016 while the corresponding figure was 10% at the end of June 2010 5 . The rapidly expanding role of CCPs in the global financial system not only reflects the introduction of central clearing obligations across different asset classes 6 , but also increased voluntary use of central clearing amid growing awareness of the benefits of central clearing among market participants (clearing obligations have applied only since June 2016) 7 . EMIR requires certain interest-rate derivatives and CDSs to be centrally cleared in line with similar requirements in other G20 countries 8 . Bank capital rules have been changed to incentivise central clearing and make bilateral clearing a costlier option in relative terms 9 , while bilateral transactions are subject to additional collateral requirements since March 2017 10 . The expansion in CCP activity is set to continue in the coming years. Mandatory clearing obligations are likely for additional asset classes 11 and the incentives to mitigate risks and costs are likely to lead to even more voluntary clearing. The May 2017 proposal to amend EMIR in a targeted manner, to improve its effectiveness and proportionality, will reinforce this trend, by creating further incentives for CCPs to offer central clearing of derivatives to counterparties. 12 Finally, deeper and more integrated capital markets as a result of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) will further increase the need for cross-border clearing in the EU, thus increasing the importance and the interconnectedness of CCPs within the financial system. Expanding role of CCPs raises concerns about the need to upgrade supervisory arrangements under EMIR , also in light of the establishment of the Capital Markets Union The growing importance of CCPs in the financial system and the associated concentration of credit risk in these infrastructures have drawn the attention of governments, regulators, supervisors, central banks and market participants. While the scale and scope of centrally-cleared transactions has expanded, the number of CCPs has remained relatively limited. There are currently 17 CCPs established in the EU, all of which are authorised under EMIR to offer their services within the Union - although not all CCPs are authorised to clear all asset classes (e.g. only 2 CCPs clear credit derivatives, only 2 CCPs clear inflation derivatives 13 ). 14 An additional 28 third-country CCPs have been recognised under EMIR's equivalence provisions, allowing them to offer their services in the EU. 15 Accordingly, clearing markets are integrated across the EU and are highly concentrated in certain asset classes . They are also highly interconnected. 16 While increased clearing via properly regulated and supervised CCPs reinforces systemic stability overall, the concentration of risk makes the failure of a CCP a low-probability but potentially extremely high-impact event. Given the centrality of CCPs to the financial system, the increasing systemic importance of CCPs gives rise to concerns. CCPs have themselves become a source of macro-prudential risk, as their failure could cause significant disruption to the financial system and would have systemic effects. For instance, large scale, uncontrolled termination and close-out of contracts cleared by CCPs could lead to liquidity and collateral strains across the market, causing instability in the underlying asset market and the wider financial system. Like some other financial intermediaries, CCPs are also potentially susceptible to “runs” due to clearing members losing confidence in the solvency of a CCP. This could create a liquidity shock for the CCP as it attempts to meet its obligations to return the principal collateral (i.e. initial margin). The impact of a CCP failure due to increased concentration of risk would be amplified by a growing interconnectedness between CCPs both directly and indirectly via their members (usually large global banks) and clients. In response, and in line with the G20 consensus 17 , the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on CCP Recovery and Resolution in November 2016 18 . The objective of the proposal is to ensure that authorities are appropriately prepared to address a failing CCP, safeguarding financial stability and limiting taxpayer costs. The CCP Recovery and Resolution proposal refocused attention on the supervisory arrangements for EU and third-country CCPs included in EMIR and the extent to which these arrangements can be made more effective five years after adoption of EMIR. This proposal is currently under negotiations in the European Parliament and the Council. That ongoing work-stream needs to be coordinated and consistent with the current proposal. Supervisory arrangements for EU CCPs Under EMIR, EU CCPs are supervised by colleges of national supervisors, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), relevant members of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), and other relevant authorities (e.g. supervisors of the largest clearing members, supervisors of certain trading venues and central securities depositories). These colleges can include as many as 20 member authorities and they rely on coordination by the home-country authority. These arrangements raise certain concerns in light of the current state of integration in the market that needs to be reflected in the supervisory arrangements. This is also important in order to advance the Capital Markets Union . First, the growing concentration of clearing services in a limited number of CCPs, and the consequential increase in cross-border activity, implies that CCPs in a small number of individual Member States are increasingly relevant for the EU financial system as a whole. Against this trend, the current supervisory arrangements relying mainly on the home-country authority (e.g. the home-country authority is ultimately responsible for important decisions such as the extension of the authorisation or the approval of outsourcing and interoperability arrangements) need to be reconsidered. Second, diverging supervisory practices for CCPs (e.g. different conditions for authorisation or model validation processes) across the EU can create risks of regulatory and supervisory arbitrage for CCPs and indirectly for their clearing members or clients. The Commission has drawn attention to these emerging risks and the need for more supervisory convergence in its Communication on CMU of September 2016 19 and in the public consultation on the operations of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) 20 , both of which highlighted the challenges posed by heterogeneous supervisory practices. Third, the role of central banks - as issuers of currency - is not adequately reflected in CCP colleges. While the mandates of central banks and supervisors may overlap (in particular in areas such as interoperability, liquidity-risk controls etc.), there is a potential for misalignment when supervisory actions impact on key responsibilities of central banks in areas such as price stability, monetary policy and the payment systems. In crisis situations, their misalignments can amplify the risks to financial stability if the assignment of responsibilities between authorities remains unclear. Supervisory arrangements for third-country CCPs Today, a significant amount of financial instruments denominated in the currencies of the Member States are cleared by recognised third-country CCPs. For example, the notional amount outstanding at Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) in the US is EUR 1.8 trillion for euro-denominated interest-rate derivatives, and SEK 348 billion for SEK denominated interest-rate derivatives. This also raises a series of concerns. First, the implementation of EMIR’s system of equivalence and recognition has shown certain shortcomings in particular regarding ongoing supervision. In particular, after a third-country CCP has been recognised, ESMA has encountered difficulties in accessing information from the CCP, in conducting on-site inspections of the CCP and in sharing information with the relevant EU regulators, supervisors and central banks. As a result, there is a risk that third-country CCP practices and/or adjustments to risk management models go undetected and/or unaddressed, which may have important financial-stability implications for the EU entities. Second, the potential for misalignments between supervisory and central-bank objectives within colleges acquires an additional dimension in the context of third-country CCPs where non-EU authorities are involved. Third, there is a risk that changes to the CCP rules and/or regulatory framework in a third-country could negatively affect regulatory or supervisory outcomes, leading to an un-level playing field between EU and third-country CCPs and creating scope for regulatory or supervisory arbitrage. There is currently no mechanism to ensure that the EU is informed automatically of such changes and can take appropriate measures. Such concerns are likely to become more significant in the coming years because the global nature of capital markets means that the role played by third-country CCPs is set to expand. In addition to the 28 third-country CCPs already recognised by ESMA, a further 12 CCPs from 10 jurisdictions have applied for recognition 21 and are awaiting a decision of the Commission for the equivalence of their regulatory and supervisory regimes. Moreover, a substantial volume of euro-denominated derivatives transactions (and other transactions subject to the EU clearing obligation) is currently cleared in CCPs located in the United Kingdom. When the United Kingdom exits the EU, there will therefore be a distinct shift in the proportion of such transactions being cleared in CCPs outside the EU's jurisdiction, exacerbating the concerns outlined above. This implies significant challenges for safeguarding financial stability in the EU that need to be addressed. In light of these considerations, the Commission adopted a Communication on 4 May 2017 on responding to challenges for critical financial market infrastructures and further developing the Capital Markets Union 22 . The Communication indicated that "further changes [to EMIR] will be necessary to improve the current framework that ensures financial stability and supports the further development and deepening of the Capital Markets Union (CMU)". Need to improve current supervisory arrangements As the EU clearing landscape continues to evolve, the arrangements for crisis prevention and management of CCPs must be as effective as possible. EMIR and the Commission proposal for a Regulation on CCP Recovery and Resolution are important steps in this regard. However, five years after the adoption of EMIR, the growing size, complexity and cross-border dimension of clearing in the EU and globally have highlighted shortcomings in the supervisory arrangements for EU and third-country CCPs. The present proposal therefore sets out specific amendments to EMIR and the ESMA Regulation 23 , in particular to establish clear and coherent supervisory arrangements both for EU and third-country CCPs. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options in order to enhance supervision of CCPs at EU level, involve further the central banks of issue in the supervision of CCPs, and strengthen the ability of the EU to monitor, identify and mitigate third-country CCP risks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforce the overall stability of the EU financial system and to lower further the already low probability (but extremely high-impact) risk of a CCP failure, while keeping costs at a minimum for market participants. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission. 
Revised version (Article 2 Definitions):
For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply: (1) ‘CCP’ means a legal person that interposes itself between the counterparties to the contracts traded on one or more financial markets, becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer; (2) ‘trade repository’ means a legal person that centrally collects and maintains the records of derivatives; (3) ‘clearing’ means the process of establishing positions, including the calculation of net obligations, and ensuring that financial instruments, cash, or both, are available to secure the exposures arising from those positions; (4) ‘trading venue’ means a system operated by an investment firm or a market operator within the meaning of Article 4(1)(1) and 4(1)(13) of Directive 2004/39/EC other than a systematic internaliser within the meaning of Article 4(1)(7) thereof, which brings together buying or selling interests in financial instruments in the system, in a way that results in a contract in accordance with Title II or III of that Directive; (5) ‘derivative’ or ‘derivative contract’ means a financial instrument as set out in points (4) to (10) of Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC as implemented by Article 38 and 39 of Regulation (EC) No 1287/2006; (6) ‘class of derivatives’ means a subset of derivatives sharing common and essential characteristics including at least the relationship with the underlying asset, the type of underlying asset, and currency of notional amount. Derivatives belonging to the same class may have different maturities; (7) ‘OTC derivative’ or ‘OTC derivative contract’ means a derivative contract the execution of which does not take place on a regulated market within the meaning of Article 4(1)(14) of Directive 2004/39/EC or on a third-country market considered to be equivalent to a regulated market in accordance with Article 2a of this Regulation; (8) ‘financial counterparty’ means: (a) an investment firm authorised in accordance with Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 1 ); (b) a credit institution authorised in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 2 ); (c) an insurance undertaking or reinsurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 3 ); (d) a UCITS and, where relevant, its management company, authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/65/EC, unless that UCITS is set up exclusively for the purpose of serving one or more employee share purchase plans; (e) an institution for occupational retirement provision (IORP), as defined in point (1) of Article 6 of Directive (EU) 2016/2341 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 4 ); (f) an alternative investment fund (AIF), as defined in point (a) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2011/61/EU, which is either established in the Union or managed by an alternative investment fund manager (AIFM) authorised or registered in accordance with that Directive, unless that AIF is set up exclusively for the purpose of serving one or more employee share purchase plans, or unless that AIF is a securitisation special purpose entity as referred to in point (g) of Article 2(3) of Directive 2011/61/EU, and, where relevant, its AIFM established in the Union; (g) a central securities depository authorised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 5 ); (9) ‘non-financial counterparty’ means an undertaking established in the Union other than the entities referred to in points (1) and (8); (10) ‘pension scheme arrangement’ means: (a) institutions for occupational retirement provision within the meaning of Article 6(a) of Directive 2003/41/EC, including any authorised entity responsible for managing such an institution and acting on its behalf as referred to in Article 2(1) of that Directive as well as any legal entity set up for the purpose of investment of such institutions, acting solely and exclusively in their interest; (b) occupational retirement provision businesses of institutions referred to in Article 3 of Directive 2003/41/EC; (c) occupational retirement provision businesses of life insurance undertakings covered by Directive 2002/83/EC, provided that all assets and liabilities corresponding to the business are ring-fenced, managed and organised separately from the other activities of the insurance undertaking, without any possibility of transfer; (d) any other authorised and supervised entities, or arrangements, operating on a national basis, provided that: (i) they are recognised under national law; and (ii) their primary purpose is to provide retirement benefits; (11) ‘counterparty credit risk’ means the risk that the counterparty to a transaction defaults before the final settlement of the transaction’s cash flows; (12) ‘interoperability arrangement’ means an arrangement between two or more CCPs that involves a cross-system execution of transactions; (13) ‘competent authority’ means the competent authority referred to in the legislation referred to in point (8) of this Article, the competent authority referred to in Article 10(5) or the authority designated by each Member State in accordance with Article 22; (14) ‘clearing member’ means an undertaking which participates in a CCP and which is responsible for discharging the financial obligations arising from that participation; (15) ‘client’ means an undertaking with a contractual relationship with a clearing member of a CCP which enables that undertaking to clear its transactions with that CCP; (16) ‘group’ means the group of undertakings consisting of a parent undertaking and its subsidiaries within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 83/349/EEC or the group of undertakings referred to in Article 3(1) and Article 80(7) and (8) of Directive 2006/48/EC; (17) ‘financial institution’ means an undertaking other than a credit institution, the principal activity of which is to acquire holdings or to carry on one or more of the activities listed in points (2) to (12) of Annex I to Directive 2006/48/EC; (18) ‘financial holding company’ means a financial institution, the subsidiary undertakings of which are either exclusively or mainly credit institutions or financial institutions, at least one of such subsidiary undertakings being a credit institution, and which is not a mixed financial holding company within the meaning of Article 2(15) of Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate ( 6 ); (19) ‘ancillary services undertaking’ means an undertaking the principal activity of which consists in owning or managing property, managing data-processing services, or a similar activity which is ancillary to the principal activity of one or more credit institution; (20) ‘qualifying holding’ means any direct or indirect holding in a CCP or trade repository which represents at least 10 % of the capital or of the voting rights, as set out in Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market ( 7 ), taking into account the conditions regarding aggregation thereof laid down in Article 12(4) and (5) of that Directive, or which makes it possible to exercise a significant influence over the management of the CCP or trade repository in which that holding subsists; (21) ‘parent undertaking’ means a parent undertaking as described in Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 83/349/EEC; (22) ‘subsidiary’ means a subsidiary undertaking as described in Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 83/349/EEC, including a subsidiary of a subsidiary undertaking of an ultimate parent undertaking; (23) ‘control’ means the relationship between a parent undertaking and a subsidiary, as described in Article 1 of Directive 83/349/EEC; (24) ‘close links’ means a situation in which two or more natural or legal persons are linked by: (a) participation, by way of direct ownership or control, of 20 % or more of the voting rights or capital of an undertaking; or (b) control or a similar relationship between any natural or legal person and an undertaking or a subsidiary of a subsidiary also being considered a subsidiary of the parent undertaking which is at the head of those undertakings. A situation in which two or more natural or legal persons are permanently linked to one and the same person by a control relationship shall also be regarded as constituting a close link between such persons. (25) ‘capital’ means subscribed capital within the meaning of Article 22 of Council Directive 86/635/EEC of 8 December 1986 on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions ( 8 ) in so far it has been paid up, plus the related share premium accounts, it fully absorbs losses in going concern situations, and, in the event of bankruptcy or liquidation, it ranks after all other claims; (26) ‘reserves’ means reserves as set out in Article 9 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies ( 9 ) and profits and losses brought forward as a result of the application of the final profit or loss; (27) ‘board’ means administrative or supervisory board, or both, in accordance with national company law; (28) ‘independent member’ of the board means a member of the board who has no business, family or other relationship that raises a conflict of interests regarding the CCP concerned or its controlling shareholders, its management or its clearing members, and who has had no such relationship during the five years preceding his membership of the board; (29) ‘senior management’ means the person or persons who effectively direct the business of the CCP or the trade repository, and the executive member or members of the board; (30) ‘covered bond’ means a bond meeting the requirements of Article 129 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; (31) ‘covered bond entity’ means the covered bond issuer or cover pool of a covered bond.
Article 2a Equivalence decisions for the purposes of the definition of OTC derivatives
1. For the purposes of Article 2(7) of this Regulation, a third-country market shall be considered to be equivalent to a regulated market within the meaning of Article 4(1)(14) of Directive 2004/39/EC where it complies with legally binding requirements which are equivalent to the requirements laid down in Title III of that Directive and it is subject to effective supervision and enforcement in that third country on an ongoing basis, as determined by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article. 2. The Commission may adopt implementing acts determining that a third-country market complies with legally binding requirements which are equivalent to the requirements laid down in Title III of Directive 2004/39/EC and it is subject to effective supervision and enforcement in that third country on an ongoing basis for the purposes of paragraph 1. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 86(2) of this Regulation. 3. The Commission and ESMA shall publish on their websites a list of those markets that are to be considered to be equivalent in accordance with the implementing act referred to in paragraph 2. That list shall be updated periodically.
Article 3 Intragroup transactions
1. In relation to a non-financial counterparty, an intragroup transaction is an OTC derivative contract entered into with another counterparty which is part of the same group provided that both counterparties are included in the same consolidation on a full basis and they are subject to an appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures and that counterparty is established in the Union or, if it is established in a third country, the Commission has adopted an implementing act under Article 13(2) in respect of that third country. 2. In relation to a financial counterparty, an intragroup transaction is any of the following: (a) an OTC derivative contract entered into with another counterparty which is part of the same group, provided that the following conditions are met: (i) the financial counterparty is established in the Union or, if it is established in a third country, the Commission has adopted an implementing act under Article 13(2) in respect of that third country; (ii) the other counterparty is a financial counterparty, a financial holding company, a financial institution or an ancillary services undertaking subject to appropriate prudential requirements; (iii) both counterparties are included in the same consolidation on a full basis; and (iv) both counterparties are subject to appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures; (b) an OTC derivative contract entered into with another counterparty where both counterparties are part of the same institutional protection scheme, referred to in Article 80(8) of Directive 2006/48/EC, provided that the condition set out in point (a)(ii) of this paragraph is met; (c) an OTC derivative contract entered into between credit institutions affiliated to the same central body or between such credit institution and the central body, as referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 2006/48/EC; or (d) an OTC derivative contract entered into with a non-financial counterparty which is part of the same group provided that both counterparties are included in the same consolidation on a full basis and they are subject to an appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures and that counterparty is established in the Union or in a third-country jurisdiction for which the Commission has adopted an implementing act as referred to in Article 13(2) in respect of that third country. 3. For the purposes of this Article, counterparties shall be considered to be included in the same consolidation when they are both either: (a) included in a consolidation in accordance with Directive 83/349/EEC or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adopted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 or, in relation to a group the parent undertaking of which has its head office in a third country, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles of a third country determined to be equivalent to IFRS in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1569/2007 (or accounting standards of a third country the use of which is permitted in accordance with Article 4 of that Regulation); or (b) covered by the same consolidated supervision in accordance with Directive 2006/48/EC or Directive 2006/49/EC or, in relation to a group the parent undertaking of which has its head office in a third country, the same consolidated supervision by a third-country competent authority verified as equivalent to that governed by the principles laid down in Article 143 of Directive 2006/48/EC or in Article 2 of Directive 2006/49/EC.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 3 Intragroup transactions):
1. In relation to a non-financial counterparty, an intragroup transaction is an OTC derivative contract entered into with another counterparty which is part of the same group provided that both counterparties are included in the same consolidation on a full basis and they are subject to an appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures and that counterparty is established in the Union or, if it is established in a third country, the Commission has adopted an implementing act under Article 13(2) in respect of that third country. In relation to a financial counterparty, an intragroup transaction is any of the following: an OTC derivative contract entered into with another counterparty which is part of the same group, provided that the following conditions are met: (i) the financial counterparty is established in the Union or, if it is established in a third country, the Commission has adopted an implementing act under Article 13(2) in respect of that third country; (ii) the other counterparty is a financial counterparty, a financial holding company, a financial institution or an ancillary services undertaking subject to appropriate prudential requirements; (iii) both counterparties are included in the same consolidation on a full basis; and (iv) both counterparties are subject to appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures; (c) an OTC derivative contract entered into between credit institutions affiliated to the same central body or between such credit institution and the central body, as referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 2006/48/EC; or (d) an OTC derivative contract entered into with a non-financial counterparty which is part of the same group provided that both counterparties are included in the same consolidation on a full basis and they are subject to an appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures and that counterparty is established in the Union or in a third-country jurisdiction for which the Commission has adopted an implementing act as referred to in Article 13(2) in respect of that third country. For the purposes of this Article, counterparties shall be considered to be included in the same consolidation when they are both either: included in a consolidation in accordance with Directive 83/349/EEC or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adopted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 or, in relation to a group the parent undertaking of which has its head office in a third country, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles of a third country determined to be equivalent to IFRS in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1569/2007 (or accounting standards of a third country the use of which is permitted in accordance with Article 4 of that Regulation); or (b) covered by the same consolidated supervision in accordance with Directive 2006/48/EC or Directive 2006/49/EC or, in relation to a group the parent undertaking of which has its head office in a third country, the same consolidated supervision by a third-country competent authority verified as equivalent to that governed by the principles laid down in Article 143 of Directive 2006/48/EC or in Article 2 of Directive 2006/49/EC.
Article 4 Clearing obligation
1. Counterparties shall clear all OTC derivative contracts pertaining to a class of OTC derivatives that has been declared subject to the clearing obligation in accordance with Article 5(2), if those contracts fulfil both of the following conditions: (a) they have been concluded in one of the following ways: (i) between two financial counterparties; (ii) between a financial counterparty and a non-financial counterparty that meets the conditions referred to in Article 10(1)(b); (iii) between two non-financial counterparties that meet the conditions referred to in Article 10(1)(b); (iv) between a financial counterparty or a non-financial counterparty meeting the conditions referred to in Article 10(1)(b) and an entity established in a third country that would be subject to the clearing obligation if it were established in the Union; or (v) between two entities established in one or more third countries that would be subject to the clearing obligation if they were established in the Union, provided that the contract has a direct, substantial and foreseeable effect within the Union or where such an obligation is necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provisions of this Regulation; and (b) they are entered into or novated either: (i) on or after the date from which the clearing obligation takes effect; or (ii) on or after notification as referred to in Article 5(1) but before the date from which the clearing obligation takes effect if the contracts have a remaining maturity higher than the minimum remaining maturity determined by the Commission in accordance with Article 5(2)(c). 2. Without prejudice to risk-mitigation techniques under Article 11, OTC derivative contracts that are intragroup transactions as described in Article 3 shall not be subject to the clearing obligation. The exemption set out in the first subparagraph shall apply only: (a) where two counterparties established in the Union belonging to the same group have first notified their respective competent authorities in writing that they intend to make use of the exemption for the OTC derivative contracts concluded between each other. The notification shall be made not less than 30 calendar days before the use of the exemption. Within 30 calendar days after receipt of that notification, the competent authorities may object to the use of this exemption if the transactions between the counterparties do not meet the conditions laid down in Article 3, without prejudice to the right of the competent authorities to object after that period of 30 calendar days has expired where those conditions are no longer met. If there is disagreement between the competent authorities, ESMA may assist those authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with its powers under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010; (b) to OTC derivative contracts between two counterparties belonging to the same group which are established in a Member State and in a third country, where the counterparty established in the Union has been authorised to apply the exemption by its competent authority within 30 calendar days after it has been notified by the counterparty established in the Union, provided that the conditions laid down in Article 3 are met. The competent authority shall notify ESMA of that decision. 3. The OTC derivative contracts that are subject to the clearing obligation pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be cleared in a CCP authorised under Article 14 or recognised under Article 25 to clear that class of OTC derivatives and listed in the register in accordance with Article 6(2)(b). For that purpose a counterparty shall become a clearing member, a client, or shall establish indirect clearing arrangements with a clearing member, provided that those arrangements do not increase counterparty risk and ensure that the assets and positions of the counterparty benefit from protection with equivalent effect to that referred to in Articles 39 and 48. 4. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the contracts that are considered to have a direct, substantial and foreseeable effect within the Union or the cases where it is necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provision of this Regulation as referred to in paragraph 1(a)(v), and the types of indirect contractual arrangements that meet the conditions referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 5. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply with respect to OTC derivative contracts that are concluded by covered bond entities in connection with a covered bond, or by a securitisation special purpose entity in connection with a securitisation, within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 5 ) provided that: (a) in the case of securitisation special purpose entities, the securitisation special purpose entity shall solely issue securitisations that meet the requirements of Article 18, and of Articles 19 to 22 or 23 to 26 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 (the Securitisation Regulation); (b) the OTC derivative contract is used only to hedge interest rate or currency mismatches under the covered bond or securitisation; and (c) the arrangements under the covered bond or securitisation adequately mitigate counterparty credit risk with respect to the OTC derivative contracts concluded by the covered bond entity or securitisation special purpose entity in connection with the covered bond or securitisation. 6. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, and taking into account the need to prevent regulatory arbitrage, the ESAs shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying criteria for establishing which arrangements under covered bonds or securitisations adequately mitigate counterparty credit risk, within the meaning of paragraph 5. The ESAs shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 18 July 2018. Power is delegated to the Commission to supplement this Regulation by adopting the regulatory technical standards referred to in this paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010, (EU) No 1094/2010 or (EU) No 1095/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Derivatives contracts are a key tool for Europe's banks and businesses to manage their risks, whether they are related to changes in interest rates, currency fluctuations or the default of a business counterpart. However, opaque derivatives markets also acted as an unwelcome contagion channel. Derivatives markets must therefore be regulated and supervised effectively to safeguard financial stability. Given the global nature of derivatives markets and in accordance with the 2009 G20 Pittsburgh agreement 1 to reduce the systemic risk linked to extensive use of derivatives, the EU adopted the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) in 2012. 2 As a key pillar of EMIR standardised over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives contracts must be cleared through a Central Counterparty (CCP). A CCP is a market infrastructure that reduces systemic risk and enhances financial stability by standing between the two counterparties to a derivatives contract (i.e. acting as buyer to the seller and seller to the buyer of risk) and thereby reducing the risk for both. EMIR also introduced strict prudential, organisational and business conduct requirements for CCPs and established arrangements for their prudential supervision to minimise any risk to users of a CCP and underpin systemic stability. Since 2012 when EMIR was adopted, central clearing has been significantly expanding and CCPs have become increasingly concentrated and integrated across the EU and with third countries. The present proposal ensures that supervisory arrangements keep pace with these developments. It is proposed that the EU equips its Capital Markets Union with a more effective and consistent supervisory system for CCPs, in the interest of further market integration, financial stability and a level-playing field. CCPs have grown in importance since the adoption of EMIR and will expand further in the coming years In the five years since the adoption of EMIR, the volume of CCP activity – in the EU and globally - has grown rapidly both in scale and in scope. This is a sign that the legislation works and is fulfilling its purpose. As of end of June 2016, around 62% of the global value of all OTC derivatives contracts and asset classes (interest rates, credit default, foreign exchange, etc.) were centrally cleared by CCPs 3 , which is equivalent to $337 trillion. About 97% ($328 trillion) of all centrally-cleared derivatives contracts are interest-rate derivatives. At the end of 2015, about 60% of all OTC interest-rate derivatives were centrally cleared, while the corresponding figure by the end of 2009 was 36% 4 . Central clearing has similarly gained in importance in the credit derivatives (so-called CDS) market, with the proportion of outstanding CDSs cleared through CCPs increasing steadily since these data were first reported, i.e. 37% at the end of June 2016 while the corresponding figure was 10% at the end of June 2010 5 . The rapidly expanding role of CCPs in the global financial system not only reflects the introduction of central clearing obligations across different asset classes 6 , but also increased voluntary use of central clearing amid growing awareness of the benefits of central clearing among market participants (clearing obligations have applied only since June 2016) 7 . EMIR requires certain interest-rate derivatives and CDSs to be centrally cleared in line with similar requirements in other G20 countries 8 . Bank capital rules have been changed to incentivise central clearing and make bilateral clearing a costlier option in relative terms 9 , while bilateral transactions are subject to additional collateral requirements since March 2017 10 . The expansion in CCP activity is set to continue in the coming years. Mandatory clearing obligations are likely for additional asset classes 11 and the incentives to mitigate risks and costs are likely to lead to even more voluntary clearing. The May 2017 proposal to amend EMIR in a targeted manner, to improve its effectiveness and proportionality, will reinforce this trend, by creating further incentives for CCPs to offer central clearing of derivatives to counterparties. 12 Finally, deeper and more integrated capital markets as a result of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) will further increase the need for cross-border clearing in the EU, thus increasing the importance and the interconnectedness of CCPs within the financial system. Expanding role of CCPs raises concerns about the need to upgrade supervisory arrangements under EMIR , also in light of the establishment of the Capital Markets Union The growing importance of CCPs in the financial system and the associated concentration of credit risk in these infrastructures have drawn the attention of governments, regulators, supervisors, central banks and market participants. While the scale and scope of centrally-cleared transactions has expanded, the number of CCPs has remained relatively limited. There are currently 17 CCPs established in the EU, all of which are authorised under EMIR to offer their services within the Union - although not all CCPs are authorised to clear all asset classes (e.g. only 2 CCPs clear credit derivatives, only 2 CCPs clear inflation derivatives 13 ). 14 An additional 28 third-country CCPs have been recognised under EMIR's equivalence provisions, allowing them to offer their services in the EU. 15 Accordingly, clearing markets are integrated across the EU and are highly concentrated in certain asset classes . They are also highly interconnected. 16 While increased clearing via properly regulated and supervised CCPs reinforces systemic stability overall, the concentration of risk makes the failure of a CCP a low-probability but potentially extremely high-impact event. Given the centrality of CCPs to the financial system, the increasing systemic importance of CCPs gives rise to concerns. CCPs have themselves become a source of macro-prudential risk, as their failure could cause significant disruption to the financial system and would have systemic effects. For instance, large scale, uncontrolled termination and close-out of contracts cleared by CCPs could lead to liquidity and collateral strains across the market, causing instability in the underlying asset market and the wider financial system. Like some other financial intermediaries, CCPs are also potentially susceptible to “runs” due to clearing members losing confidence in the solvency of a CCP. This could create a liquidity shock for the CCP as it attempts to meet its obligations to return the principal collateral (i.e. initial margin). The impact of a CCP failure due to increased concentration of risk would be amplified by a growing interconnectedness between CCPs both directly and indirectly via their members (usually large global banks) and clients. In response, and in line with the G20 consensus 17 , the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on CCP Recovery and Resolution in November 2016 18 . The objective of the proposal is to ensure that authorities are appropriately prepared to address a failing CCP, safeguarding financial stability and limiting taxpayer costs. The CCP Recovery and Resolution proposal refocused attention on the supervisory arrangements for EU and third-country CCPs included in EMIR and the extent to which these arrangements can be made more effective five years after adoption of EMIR. This proposal is currently under negotiations in the European Parliament and the Council. That ongoing work-stream needs to be coordinated and consistent with the current proposal. Supervisory arrangements for EU CCPs Under EMIR, EU CCPs are supervised by colleges of national supervisors, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), relevant members of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), and other relevant authorities (e.g. supervisors of the largest clearing members, supervisors of certain trading venues and central securities depositories). These colleges can include as many as 20 member authorities and they rely on coordination by the home-country authority. These arrangements raise certain concerns in light of the current state of integration in the market that needs to be reflected in the supervisory arrangements. This is also important in order to advance the Capital Markets Union . First, the growing concentration of clearing services in a limited number of CCPs, and the consequential increase in cross-border activity, implies that CCPs in a small number of individual Member States are increasingly relevant for the EU financial system as a whole. Against this trend, the current supervisory arrangements relying mainly on the home-country authority (e.g. the home-country authority is ultimately responsible for important decisions such as the extension of the authorisation or the approval of outsourcing and interoperability arrangements) need to be reconsidered. Second, diverging supervisory practices for CCPs (e.g. different conditions for authorisation or model validation processes) across the EU can create risks of regulatory and supervisory arbitrage for CCPs and indirectly for their clearing members or clients. The Commission has drawn attention to these emerging risks and the need for more supervisory convergence in its Communication on CMU of September 2016 19 and in the public consultation on the operations of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) 20 , both of which highlighted the challenges posed by heterogeneous supervisory practices. Third, the role of central banks - as issuers of currency - is not adequately reflected in CCP colleges. While the mandates of central banks and supervisors may overlap (in particular in areas such as interoperability, liquidity-risk controls etc.), there is a potential for misalignment when supervisory actions impact on key responsibilities of central banks in areas such as price stability, monetary policy and the payment systems. In crisis situations, their misalignments can amplify the risks to financial stability if the assignment of responsibilities between authorities remains unclear. Supervisory arrangements for third-country CCPs Today, a significant amount of financial instruments denominated in the currencies of the Member States are cleared by recognised third-country CCPs. For example, the notional amount outstanding at Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) in the US is EUR 1.8 trillion for euro-denominated interest-rate derivatives, and SEK 348 billion for SEK denominated interest-rate derivatives. This also raises a series of concerns. First, the implementation of EMIR’s system of equivalence and recognition has shown certain shortcomings in particular regarding ongoing supervision. In particular, after a third-country CCP has been recognised, ESMA has encountered difficulties in accessing information from the CCP, in conducting on-site inspections of the CCP and in sharing information with the relevant EU regulators, supervisors and central banks. As a result, there is a risk that third-country CCP practices and/or adjustments to risk management models go undetected and/or unaddressed, which may have important financial-stability implications for the EU entities. Second, the potential for misalignments between supervisory and central-bank objectives within colleges acquires an additional dimension in the context of third-country CCPs where non-EU authorities are involved. Third, there is a risk that changes to the CCP rules and/or regulatory framework in a third-country could negatively affect regulatory or supervisory outcomes, leading to an un-level playing field between EU and third-country CCPs and creating scope for regulatory or supervisory arbitrage. There is currently no mechanism to ensure that the EU is informed automatically of such changes and can take appropriate measures. Such concerns are likely to become more significant in the coming years because the global nature of capital markets means that the role played by third-country CCPs is set to expand. In addition to the 28 third-country CCPs already recognised by ESMA, a further 12 CCPs from 10 jurisdictions have applied for recognition 21 and are awaiting a decision of the Commission for the equivalence of their regulatory and supervisory regimes. Moreover, a substantial volume of euro-denominated derivatives transactions (and other transactions subject to the EU clearing obligation) is currently cleared in CCPs located in the United Kingdom. When the United Kingdom exits the EU, there will therefore be a distinct shift in the proportion of such transactions being cleared in CCPs outside the EU's jurisdiction, exacerbating the concerns outlined above. This implies significant challenges for safeguarding financial stability in the EU that need to be addressed. In light of these considerations, the Commission adopted a Communication on 4 May 2017 on responding to challenges for critical financial market infrastructures and further developing the Capital Markets Union 22 . The Communication indicated that "further changes [to EMIR] will be necessary to improve the current framework that ensures financial stability and supports the further development and deepening of the Capital Markets Union (CMU)". Need to improve current supervisory arrangements As the EU clearing landscape continues to evolve, the arrangements for crisis prevention and management of CCPs must be as effective as possible. EMIR and the Commission proposal for a Regulation on CCP Recovery and Resolution are important steps in this regard. However, five years after the adoption of EMIR, the growing size, complexity and cross-border dimension of clearing in the EU and globally have highlighted shortcomings in the supervisory arrangements for EU and third-country CCPs. The present proposal therefore sets out specific amendments to EMIR and the ESMA Regulation 23 , in particular to establish clear and coherent supervisory arrangements both for EU and third-country CCPs. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options in order to enhance supervision of CCPs at EU level, involve further the central banks of issue in the supervision of CCPs, and strengthen the ability of the EU to monitor, identify and mitigate third-country CCP risks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforce the overall stability of the EU financial system and to lower further the already low probability (but extremely high-impact) risk of a CCP failure, while keeping costs at a minimum for market participants. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission. 
Revised version (Article 4 Clearing obligation):
1. Counterparties shall clear all OTC derivative contracts pertaining to a class of OTC derivatives that has been declared subject to the clearing obligation in accordance with Article 5(2), if those contracts fulfil both of the following conditions: (a) they have been concluded in one of the following ways: (i) between two financial counterparties that meet the conditions set out in the second subparagraph of Article 4a(1); (ii) between a financial counterparty that meets the conditions set out in the second subparagraph of Article 4a(1) and a non-financial counterparty that meets the conditions set out in the second subparagraph of Article 10(1); (iii) between two non-financial counterparties that meet the conditions set out in the second subparagraph of Article 10(1); (iv) between, on the one side, a financial counterparty that meets the conditions set out in the second subparagraph of Article 4a(1) or a non-financial counterparty that meets the conditions set out in the second subparagraph of Article 10(1), and, on the other side, an entity established in a third country that would be subject to the clearing obligation if it were established in the Union; (v) between two entities established in one or more third countries that would be subject to the clearing obligation if they were established in the Union, provided that the contract has a direct, substantial and foreseeable effect within the Union or where such an obligation is necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provisions of this Regulation; and (b) they are entered into or novated on or after the date on which the clearing obligation takes effect, provided that, on the date they are entered into or novated, both counterparties meet the conditions set out in point (a). 2. Without prejudice to risk-mitigation techniques under Article 11, OTC derivative contracts that are intragroup transactions as described in Article 3 shall not be subject to the clearing obligation. The exemption set out in the first subparagraph shall apply only: (a) where two counterparties established in the Union belonging to the same group have first notified their respective competent authorities in writing that they intend to make use of the exemption for the OTC derivative contracts concluded between each other. The notification shall be made not less than 30 calendar days before the use of the exemption. Within 30 calendar days after receipt of that notification, the competent authorities may object to the use of this exemption if the transactions between the counterparties do not meet the conditions laid down in Article 3, without prejudice to the right of the competent authorities to object after that period of 30 calendar days has expired where those conditions are no longer met. If there is disagreement between the competent authorities, ESMA may assist those authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with its powers under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010; (b) to OTC derivative contracts between two counterparties belonging to the same group which are established in a Member State and in a third country, where the counterparty established in the Union has been authorised to apply the exemption by its competent authority within 30 calendar days after it has been notified by the counterparty established in the Union, provided that the conditions laid down in Article 3 are met. The competent authority shall notify ESMA of that decision. 3. The OTC derivative contracts that are subject to the clearing obligation pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be cleared in a CCP authorised under Article 14 or recognised under Article 25 to clear that class of OTC derivatives and listed in the register in accordance with Article 6(2)(b). For that purpose a counterparty shall become a clearing member, a client, or shall establish indirect clearing arrangements with a clearing member, provided that those arrangements do not increase counterparty risk and ensure that the assets and positions of the counterparty benefit from protection with equivalent effect to that referred to in Articles 39 and 48. 4. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the contracts that are considered to have a direct, substantial and foreseeable effect within the Union or the cases where it is necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provision of this Regulation as referred to in paragraph 1(a)(v), and the types of indirect contractual arrangements that meet the conditions referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 5. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply with respect to OTC derivative contracts that are concluded by covered bond entities in connection with a covered bond, or by a securitisation special purpose entity in connection with a securitisation, within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 10 ) provided that: (a) in the case of securitisation special purpose entities, the securitisation special purpose entity shall solely issue securitisations that meet the requirements of Article 18, and of Articles 19 to 22 or 23 to 26 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 (the Securitisation Regulation); (b) the OTC derivative contract is used only to hedge interest rate or currency mismatches under the covered bond or securitisation; and (c) the arrangements under the covered bond or securitisation adequately mitigate counterparty credit risk with respect to the OTC derivative contracts concluded by the covered bond entity or securitisation special purpose entity in connection with the covered bond or securitisation. 6. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, and taking into account the need to prevent regulatory arbitrage, the ESAs shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying criteria for establishing which arrangements under covered bonds or securitisations adequately mitigate counterparty credit risk, within the meaning of paragraph 5. The ESAs shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 18 July 2018. Power is delegated to the Commission to supplement this Regulation by adopting the regulatory technical standards referred to in this paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010, (EU) No 1094/2010 or (EU) No 1095/2010.
Article 5 Clearing obligation procedure
1. Where a competent authority authorises a CCP to clear a class of OTC derivatives under Article 14 or 15, it shall immediately notify ESMA of that authorisation. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details to be included in the notifications referred to in the first subparagraph. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the second subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 2. Within six months of receiving notification in accordance with paragraph 1 or accomplishing a procedure for recognition set out in Article 25, ESMA shall, after conducting a public consultation and after consulting the ESRB and, where appropriate, the competent authorities of third countries, develop and submit to the Commission for endorsement draft regulatory technical standards specifying the following: (a) the class of OTC derivatives that should be subject to the clearing obligation referred to in Article 4; (b) the date or dates from which the clearing obligation takes effect, including any phase in and the categories of counterparties to which the obligation applies; and (c) the minimum remaining maturity of the OTC derivative contracts referred to in Article 4(1)(b)(ii). Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. In the developing of the draft regulatory technical standards under this paragraph ESMA shall not prejudice the transitional provision relating to C6 energy derivative contracts as laid down in Article 95 of Directive 2014/65/EU ( 6 ). 3. ESMA shall, on its own initiative, after conducting a public consultation and after consulting the ESRB and, where appropriate, the competent authorities of third countries, identify, in accordance with the criteria set out in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 4 and notify to the Commission the classes of derivatives that should be subject to the clearing obligation provided in Article 4, but for which no CCP has yet received authorisation. Following the notification, ESMA shall publish a call for a development of proposals for the clearing of those classes of derivatives. 4. With the overarching aim of reducing systemic risk, the draft regulatory technical standards for the part referred to in paragraph 2(a) shall take into consideration the following criteria: (a) the degree of standardisation of the contractual terms and operational processes of the relevant class of OTC derivatives; (b) the volume and liquidity of the relevant class of OTC derivatives; (c) the availability of fair, reliable and generally accepted pricing information in the relevant class of OTC derivatives. In preparing those draft regulatory technical standards, ESMA may take into consideration the interconnectedness between counterparties using the relevant classes of OTC derivatives, the anticipated impact on the levels of counterparty credit risk between counterparties as well as the impact on competition across the Union. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards further specifying the criteria referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt regulatory technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 5. The draft regulatory technical standards for the part referred to in paragraph 2(b) shall take into consideration the following criteria: (a) the expected volume of the relevant class of OTC derivatives; (b) whether more than one CCP already clear the same class of OTC derivatives; (c) the ability of the relevant CCPs to handle the expected volume and to manage the risk arising from the clearing of the relevant class of OTC derivatives; (d) the type and number of counterparties active, and expected to be active within the market for the relevant class of OTC derivatives; (e) the period of time a counterparty subject to the clearing obligation needs in order to put in place arrangements to clear its OTC derivative contracts through a CCP; (f) the risk management and the legal and operational capacity of the range of counterparties that are active in the market for the relevant class of OTC derivatives and that would be captured by the clearing obligation pursuant to Article 4(1). 6. If a class of OTC derivative contracts no longer has a CCP which is authorised or recognised to clear those contracts under this Regulation, it shall cease to be subject to the clearing obligation referred to in Article 4, and paragraph 3 of this Article shall apply.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Derivatives contracts are a key tool for Europe's banks and businesses to manage their risks, whether they are related to changes in interest rates, currency fluctuations or the default of a business counterpart. However, opaque derivatives markets also acted as an unwelcome contagion channel. Derivatives markets must therefore be regulated and supervised effectively to safeguard financial stability. Given the global nature of derivatives markets and in accordance with the 2009 G20 Pittsburgh agreement 1 to reduce the systemic risk linked to extensive use of derivatives, the EU adopted the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) in 2012. 2 As a key pillar of EMIR standardised over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives contracts must be cleared through a Central Counterparty (CCP). A CCP is a market infrastructure that reduces systemic risk and enhances financial stability by standing between the two counterparties to a derivatives contract (i.e. acting as buyer to the seller and seller to the buyer of risk) and thereby reducing the risk for both. EMIR also introduced strict prudential, organisational and business conduct requirements for CCPs and established arrangements for their prudential supervision to minimise any risk to users of a CCP and underpin systemic stability. Since 2012 when EMIR was adopted, central clearing has been significantly expanding and CCPs have become increasingly concentrated and integrated across the EU and with third countries. The present proposal ensures that supervisory arrangements keep pace with these developments. It is proposed that the EU equips its Capital Markets Union with a more effective and consistent supervisory system for CCPs, in the interest of further market integration, financial stability and a level-playing field. CCPs have grown in importance since the adoption of EMIR and will expand further in the coming years In the five years since the adoption of EMIR, the volume of CCP activity – in the EU and globally - has grown rapidly both in scale and in scope. This is a sign that the legislation works and is fulfilling its purpose. As of end of June 2016, around 62% of the global value of all OTC derivatives contracts and asset classes (interest rates, credit default, foreign exchange, etc.) were centrally cleared by CCPs 3 , which is equivalent to $337 trillion. About 97% ($328 trillion) of all centrally-cleared derivatives contracts are interest-rate derivatives. At the end of 2015, about 60% of all OTC interest-rate derivatives were centrally cleared, while the corresponding figure by the end of 2009 was 36% 4 . Central clearing has similarly gained in importance in the credit derivatives (so-called CDS) market, with the proportion of outstanding CDSs cleared through CCPs increasing steadily since these data were first reported, i.e. 37% at the end of June 2016 while the corresponding figure was 10% at the end of June 2010 5 . The rapidly expanding role of CCPs in the global financial system not only reflects the introduction of central clearing obligations across different asset classes 6 , but also increased voluntary use of central clearing amid growing awareness of the benefits of central clearing among market participants (clearing obligations have applied only since June 2016) 7 . EMIR requires certain interest-rate derivatives and CDSs to be centrally cleared in line with similar requirements in other G20 countries 8 . Bank capital rules have been changed to incentivise central clearing and make bilateral clearing a costlier option in relative terms 9 , while bilateral transactions are subject to additional collateral requirements since March 2017 10 . The expansion in CCP activity is set to continue in the coming years. Mandatory clearing obligations are likely for additional asset classes 11 and the incentives to mitigate risks and costs are likely to lead to even more voluntary clearing. The May 2017 proposal to amend EMIR in a targeted manner, to improve its effectiveness and proportionality, will reinforce this trend, by creating further incentives for CCPs to offer central clearing of derivatives to counterparties. 12 Finally, deeper and more integrated capital markets as a result of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) will further increase the need for cross-border clearing in the EU, thus increasing the importance and the interconnectedness of CCPs within the financial system. Expanding role of CCPs raises concerns about the need to upgrade supervisory arrangements under EMIR , also in light of the establishment of the Capital Markets Union The growing importance of CCPs in the financial system and the associated concentration of credit risk in these infrastructures have drawn the attention of governments, regulators, supervisors, central banks and market participants. While the scale and scope of centrally-cleared transactions has expanded, the number of CCPs has remained relatively limited. There are currently 17 CCPs established in the EU, all of which are authorised under EMIR to offer their services within the Union - although not all CCPs are authorised to clear all asset classes (e.g. only 2 CCPs clear credit derivatives, only 2 CCPs clear inflation derivatives 13 ). 14 An additional 28 third-country CCPs have been recognised under EMIR's equivalence provisions, allowing them to offer their services in the EU. 15 Accordingly, clearing markets are integrated across the EU and are highly concentrated in certain asset classes . They are also highly interconnected. 16 While increased clearing via properly regulated and supervised CCPs reinforces systemic stability overall, the concentration of risk makes the failure of a CCP a low-probability but potentially extremely high-impact event. Given the centrality of CCPs to the financial system, the increasing systemic importance of CCPs gives rise to concerns. CCPs have themselves become a source of macro-prudential risk, as their failure could cause significant disruption to the financial system and would have systemic effects. For instance, large scale, uncontrolled termination and close-out of contracts cleared by CCPs could lead to liquidity and collateral strains across the market, causing instability in the underlying asset market and the wider financial system. Like some other financial intermediaries, CCPs are also potentially susceptible to “runs” due to clearing members losing confidence in the solvency of a CCP. This could create a liquidity shock for the CCP as it attempts to meet its obligations to return the principal collateral (i.e. initial margin). The impact of a CCP failure due to increased concentration of risk would be amplified by a growing interconnectedness between CCPs both directly and indirectly via their members (usually large global banks) and clients. In response, and in line with the G20 consensus 17 , the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on CCP Recovery and Resolution in November 2016 18 . The objective of the proposal is to ensure that authorities are appropriately prepared to address a failing CCP, safeguarding financial stability and limiting taxpayer costs. The CCP Recovery and Resolution proposal refocused attention on the supervisory arrangements for EU and third-country CCPs included in EMIR and the extent to which these arrangements can be made more effective five years after adoption of EMIR. This proposal is currently under negotiations in the European Parliament and the Council. That ongoing work-stream needs to be coordinated and consistent with the current proposal. Supervisory arrangements for EU CCPs Under EMIR, EU CCPs are supervised by colleges of national supervisors, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), relevant members of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), and other relevant authorities (e.g. supervisors of the largest clearing members, supervisors of certain trading venues and central securities depositories). These colleges can include as many as 20 member authorities and they rely on coordination by the home-country authority. These arrangements raise certain concerns in light of the current state of integration in the market that needs to be reflected in the supervisory arrangements. This is also important in order to advance the Capital Markets Union . First, the growing concentration of clearing services in a limited number of CCPs, and the consequential increase in cross-border activity, implies that CCPs in a small number of individual Member States are increasingly relevant for the EU financial system as a whole. Against this trend, the current supervisory arrangements relying mainly on the home-country authority (e.g. the home-country authority is ultimately responsible for important decisions such as the extension of the authorisation or the approval of outsourcing and interoperability arrangements) need to be reconsidered. Second, diverging supervisory practices for CCPs (e.g. different conditions for authorisation or model validation processes) across the EU can create risks of regulatory and supervisory arbitrage for CCPs and indirectly for their clearing members or clients. The Commission has drawn attention to these emerging risks and the need for more supervisory convergence in its Communication on CMU of September 2016 19 and in the public consultation on the operations of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) 20 , both of which highlighted the challenges posed by heterogeneous supervisory practices. Third, the role of central banks - as issuers of currency - is not adequately reflected in CCP colleges. While the mandates of central banks and supervisors may overlap (in particular in areas such as interoperability, liquidity-risk controls etc.), there is a potential for misalignment when supervisory actions impact on key responsibilities of central banks in areas such as price stability, monetary policy and the payment systems. In crisis situations, their misalignments can amplify the risks to financial stability if the assignment of responsibilities between authorities remains unclear. Supervisory arrangements for third-country CCPs Today, a significant amount of financial instruments denominated in the currencies of the Member States are cleared by recognised third-country CCPs. For example, the notional amount outstanding at Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) in the US is EUR 1.8 trillion for euro-denominated interest-rate derivatives, and SEK 348 billion for SEK denominated interest-rate derivatives. This also raises a series of concerns. First, the implementation of EMIR’s system of equivalence and recognition has shown certain shortcomings in particular regarding ongoing supervision. In particular, after a third-country CCP has been recognised, ESMA has encountered difficulties in accessing information from the CCP, in conducting on-site inspections of the CCP and in sharing information with the relevant EU regulators, supervisors and central banks. As a result, there is a risk that third-country CCP practices and/or adjustments to risk management models go undetected and/or unaddressed, which may have important financial-stability implications for the EU entities. Second, the potential for misalignments between supervisory and central-bank objectives within colleges acquires an additional dimension in the context of third-country CCPs where non-EU authorities are involved. Third, there is a risk that changes to the CCP rules and/or regulatory framework in a third-country could negatively affect regulatory or supervisory outcomes, leading to an un-level playing field between EU and third-country CCPs and creating scope for regulatory or supervisory arbitrage. There is currently no mechanism to ensure that the EU is informed automatically of such changes and can take appropriate measures. Such concerns are likely to become more significant in the coming years because the global nature of capital markets means that the role played by third-country CCPs is set to expand. In addition to the 28 third-country CCPs already recognised by ESMA, a further 12 CCPs from 10 jurisdictions have applied for recognition 21 and are awaiting a decision of the Commission for the equivalence of their regulatory and supervisory regimes. Moreover, a substantial volume of euro-denominated derivatives transactions (and other transactions subject to the EU clearing obligation) is currently cleared in CCPs located in the United Kingdom. When the United Kingdom exits the EU, there will therefore be a distinct shift in the proportion of such transactions being cleared in CCPs outside the EU's jurisdiction, exacerbating the concerns outlined above. This implies significant challenges for safeguarding financial stability in the EU that need to be addressed. In light of these considerations, the Commission adopted a Communication on 4 May 2017 on responding to challenges for critical financial market infrastructures and further developing the Capital Markets Union 22 . The Communication indicated that "further changes [to EMIR] will be necessary to improve the current framework that ensures financial stability and supports the further development and deepening of the Capital Markets Union (CMU)". Need to improve current supervisory arrangements As the EU clearing landscape continues to evolve, the arrangements for crisis prevention and management of CCPs must be as effective as possible. EMIR and the Commission proposal for a Regulation on CCP Recovery and Resolution are important steps in this regard. However, five years after the adoption of EMIR, the growing size, complexity and cross-border dimension of clearing in the EU and globally have highlighted shortcomings in the supervisory arrangements for EU and third-country CCPs. The present proposal therefore sets out specific amendments to EMIR and the ESMA Regulation 23 , in particular to establish clear and coherent supervisory arrangements both for EU and third-country CCPs. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options in order to enhance supervision of CCPs at EU level, involve further the central banks of issue in the supervision of CCPs, and strengthen the ability of the EU to monitor, identify and mitigate third-country CCP risks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforce the overall stability of the EU financial system and to lower further the already low probability (but extremely high-impact) risk of a CCP failure, while keeping costs at a minimum for market participants. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission. 
Revised version (Article 5 Clearing obligation procedure):
1. Where a competent authority authorises a CCP to clear a class of OTC derivatives under Article 14 or 15, or where a class of OTC derivatives which a CCP intends to start clearing is covered by an existing authorisation granted in accordance with Article 14 or 15, the competent authority shall immediately notify ESMA of that authorisation or of the class of OTC derivatives which the CCP intends to start clearing. 2. Within six months of receiving notification in accordance with paragraph 1 or accomplishing a procedure for recognition set out in Article 25, ESMA shall, after conducting a public consultation and after consulting the ESRB and, where appropriate, the competent authorities of third countries, develop and submit to the Commission for endorsement draft regulatory technical standards specifying the following: (a) the class of OTC derivatives that should be subject to the clearing obligation referred to in Article 4; (b) the date or dates from which the clearing obligation takes effect, including any phase in and the categories of counterparties to which the obligation applies. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. In the developing of the draft regulatory technical standards under this paragraph ESMA shall not prejudice the transitional provision relating to C6 energy derivative contracts as laid down in Article 95 of Directive 2014/65/EU ( 11 ). 3. ESMA shall, on its own initiative, after conducting a public consultation and after consulting the ESRB and, where appropriate, the competent authorities of third countries, identify, in accordance with the criteria set out in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 4 and notify to the Commission the classes of derivatives that should be subject to the clearing obligation provided in Article 4, but for which no CCP has yet received authorisation. Following the notification, ESMA shall publish a call for a development of proposals for the clearing of those classes of derivatives. 4. With the overarching aim of reducing systemic risk, the draft regulatory technical standards for the part referred to in paragraph 2(a) shall take into consideration the following criteria: (a) the degree of standardisation of the contractual terms and operational processes of the relevant class of OTC derivatives; (b) the volume and liquidity of the relevant class of OTC derivatives; (c) the availability of fair, reliable and generally accepted pricing information in the relevant class of OTC derivatives. In preparing those draft regulatory technical standards, ESMA may take into consideration the interconnectedness between counterparties using the relevant classes of OTC derivatives, the anticipated impact on the levels of counterparty credit risk between counterparties as well as the impact on competition across the Union. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards further specifying the criteria referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt regulatory technical standards referred to in the third subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 5. The draft regulatory technical standards for the part referred to in paragraph 2(b) shall take into consideration the following criteria: (a) the expected volume of the relevant class of OTC derivatives; (b) whether more than one CCP already clear the same class of OTC derivatives; (c) the ability of the relevant CCPs to handle the expected volume and to manage the risk arising from the clearing of the relevant class of OTC derivatives; (d) the type and number of counterparties active, and expected to be active within the market for the relevant class of OTC derivatives; (e) the period of time a counterparty subject to the clearing obligation needs in order to put in place arrangements to clear its OTC derivative contracts through a CCP; (f) the risk management and the legal and operational capacity of the range of counterparties that are active in the market for the relevant class of OTC derivatives and that would be captured by the clearing obligation pursuant to Article 4(1). 6. If a class of OTC derivative contracts no longer has a CCP which is authorised or recognised to clear those contracts under this Regulation, it shall cease to be subject to the clearing obligation referred to in Article 4, and paragraph 3 of this Article shall apply.
Article 6 Public register
1. ESMA shall establish, maintain and keep up to date a public register in order to identify the classes of OTC derivatives subject to the clearing obligation correctly and unequivocally. The public register shall be available on ESMA’s website. 2. The register shall include: (a) the classes of OTC derivatives that are subject to the clearing obligation pursuant to Article 4; (b) the CCPs that are authorised or recognised for the purpose of the clearing obligation; (c) the dates from which the clearing obligation takes effect, including any phased-in implementation; (d) the classes of OTC derivatives identified by ESMA in accordance with Article 5(3); (e) the minimum remaining maturity of the derivative contracts referred to in Article 4(1)(b)(ii); (f) the CCPs that have been notified to ESMA by the competent authority for the purpose of the clearing obligation and the date of notification of each of them. 3. Where a CCP is no longer authorised or recognised in accordance with this Regulation to clear a given class of derivatives, ESMA shall immediately remove it from the public register in relation to that class of OTC derivatives. 4. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details to be included in the public register referred to in paragraph 1. ESMA shall submit any such draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Derivatives contracts are a key tool for Europe's banks and businesses to manage their risks, whether they are related to changes in interest rates, currency fluctuations or the default of a business counterpart. However, opaque derivatives markets also acted as an unwelcome contagion channel. Derivatives markets must therefore be regulated and supervised effectively to safeguard financial stability. Given the global nature of derivatives markets and in accordance with the 2009 G20 Pittsburgh agreement 1 to reduce the systemic risk linked to extensive use of derivatives, the EU adopted the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) in 2012. 2 As a key pillar of EMIR standardised over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives contracts must be cleared through a Central Counterparty (CCP). A CCP is a market infrastructure that reduces systemic risk and enhances financial stability by standing between the two counterparties to a derivatives contract (i.e. acting as buyer to the seller and seller to the buyer of risk) and thereby reducing the risk for both. EMIR also introduced strict prudential, organisational and business conduct requirements for CCPs and established arrangements for their prudential supervision to minimise any risk to users of a CCP and underpin systemic stability. Since 2012 when EMIR was adopted, central clearing has been significantly expanding and CCPs have become increasingly concentrated and integrated across the EU and with third countries. The present proposal ensures that supervisory arrangements keep pace with these developments. It is proposed that the EU equips its Capital Markets Union with a more effective and consistent supervisory system for CCPs, in the interest of further market integration, financial stability and a level-playing field. CCPs have grown in importance since the adoption of EMIR and will expand further in the coming years In the five years since the adoption of EMIR, the volume of CCP activity – in the EU and globally - has grown rapidly both in scale and in scope. This is a sign that the legislation works and is fulfilling its purpose. As of end of June 2016, around 62% of the global value of all OTC derivatives contracts and asset classes (interest rates, credit default, foreign exchange, etc.) were centrally cleared by CCPs 3 , which is equivalent to $337 trillion. About 97% ($328 trillion) of all centrally-cleared derivatives contracts are interest-rate derivatives. At the end of 2015, about 60% of all OTC interest-rate derivatives were centrally cleared, while the corresponding figure by the end of 2009 was 36% 4 . Central clearing has similarly gained in importance in the credit derivatives (so-called CDS) market, with the proportion of outstanding CDSs cleared through CCPs increasing steadily since these data were first reported, i.e. 37% at the end of June 2016 while the corresponding figure was 10% at the end of June 2010 5 . The rapidly expanding role of CCPs in the global financial system not only reflects the introduction of central clearing obligations across different asset classes 6 , but also increased voluntary use of central clearing amid growing awareness of the benefits of central clearing among market participants (clearing obligations have applied only since June 2016) 7 . EMIR requires certain interest-rate derivatives and CDSs to be centrally cleared in line with similar requirements in other G20 countries 8 . Bank capital rules have been changed to incentivise central clearing and make bilateral clearing a costlier option in relative terms 9 , while bilateral transactions are subject to additional collateral requirements since March 2017 10 . The expansion in CCP activity is set to continue in the coming years. Mandatory clearing obligations are likely for additional asset classes 11 and the incentives to mitigate risks and costs are likely to lead to even more voluntary clearing. The May 2017 proposal to amend EMIR in a targeted manner, to improve its effectiveness and proportionality, will reinforce this trend, by creating further incentives for CCPs to offer central clearing of derivatives to counterparties. 12 Finally, deeper and more integrated capital markets as a result of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) will further increase the need for cross-border clearing in the EU, thus increasing the importance and the interconnectedness of CCPs within the financial system. Expanding role of CCPs raises concerns about the need to upgrade supervisory arrangements under EMIR , also in light of the establishment of the Capital Markets Union The growing importance of CCPs in the financial system and the associated concentration of credit risk in these infrastructures have drawn the attention of governments, regulators, supervisors, central banks and market participants. While the scale and scope of centrally-cleared transactions has expanded, the number of CCPs has remained relatively limited. There are currently 17 CCPs established in the EU, all of which are authorised under EMIR to offer their services within the Union - although not all CCPs are authorised to clear all asset classes (e.g. only 2 CCPs clear credit derivatives, only 2 CCPs clear inflation derivatives 13 ). 14 An additional 28 third-country CCPs have been recognised under EMIR's equivalence provisions, allowing them to offer their services in the EU. 15 Accordingly, clearing markets are integrated across the EU and are highly concentrated in certain asset classes . They are also highly interconnected. 16 While increased clearing via properly regulated and supervised CCPs reinforces systemic stability overall, the concentration of risk makes the failure of a CCP a low-probability but potentially extremely high-impact event. Given the centrality of CCPs to the financial system, the increasing systemic importance of CCPs gives rise to concerns. CCPs have themselves become a source of macro-prudential risk, as their failure could cause significant disruption to the financial system and would have systemic effects. For instance, large scale, uncontrolled termination and close-out of contracts cleared by CCPs could lead to liquidity and collateral strains across the market, causing instability in the underlying asset market and the wider financial system. Like some other financial intermediaries, CCPs are also potentially susceptible to “runs” due to clearing members losing confidence in the solvency of a CCP. This could create a liquidity shock for the CCP as it attempts to meet its obligations to return the principal collateral (i.e. initial margin). The impact of a CCP failure due to increased concentration of risk would be amplified by a growing interconnectedness between CCPs both directly and indirectly via their members (usually large global banks) and clients. In response, and in line with the G20 consensus 17 , the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on CCP Recovery and Resolution in November 2016 18 . The objective of the proposal is to ensure that authorities are appropriately prepared to address a failing CCP, safeguarding financial stability and limiting taxpayer costs. The CCP Recovery and Resolution proposal refocused attention on the supervisory arrangements for EU and third-country CCPs included in EMIR and the extent to which these arrangements can be made more effective five years after adoption of EMIR. This proposal is currently under negotiations in the European Parliament and the Council. That ongoing work-stream needs to be coordinated and consistent with the current proposal. Supervisory arrangements for EU CCPs Under EMIR, EU CCPs are supervised by colleges of national supervisors, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), relevant members of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), and other relevant authorities (e.g. supervisors of the largest clearing members, supervisors of certain trading venues and central securities depositories). These colleges can include as many as 20 member authorities and they rely on coordination by the home-country authority. These arrangements raise certain concerns in light of the current state of integration in the market that needs to be reflected in the supervisory arrangements. This is also important in order to advance the Capital Markets Union . First, the growing concentration of clearing services in a limited number of CCPs, and the consequential increase in cross-border activity, implies that CCPs in a small number of individual Member States are increasingly relevant for the EU financial system as a whole. Against this trend, the current supervisory arrangements relying mainly on the home-country authority (e.g. the home-country authority is ultimately responsible for important decisions such as the extension of the authorisation or the approval of outsourcing and interoperability arrangements) need to be reconsidered. Second, diverging supervisory practices for CCPs (e.g. different conditions for authorisation or model validation processes) across the EU can create risks of regulatory and supervisory arbitrage for CCPs and indirectly for their clearing members or clients. The Commission has drawn attention to these emerging risks and the need for more supervisory convergence in its Communication on CMU of September 2016 19 and in the public consultation on the operations of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) 20 , both of which highlighted the challenges posed by heterogeneous supervisory practices. Third, the role of central banks - as issuers of currency - is not adequately reflected in CCP colleges. While the mandates of central banks and supervisors may overlap (in particular in areas such as interoperability, liquidity-risk controls etc.), there is a potential for misalignment when supervisory actions impact on key responsibilities of central banks in areas such as price stability, monetary policy and the payment systems. In crisis situations, their misalignments can amplify the risks to financial stability if the assignment of responsibilities between authorities remains unclear. Supervisory arrangements for third-country CCPs Today, a significant amount of financial instruments denominated in the currencies of the Member States are cleared by recognised third-country CCPs. For example, the notional amount outstanding at Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) in the US is EUR 1.8 trillion for euro-denominated interest-rate derivatives, and SEK 348 billion for SEK denominated interest-rate derivatives. This also raises a series of concerns. First, the implementation of EMIR’s system of equivalence and recognition has shown certain shortcomings in particular regarding ongoing supervision. In particular, after a third-country CCP has been recognised, ESMA has encountered difficulties in accessing information from the CCP, in conducting on-site inspections of the CCP and in sharing information with the relevant EU regulators, supervisors and central banks. As a result, there is a risk that third-country CCP practices and/or adjustments to risk management models go undetected and/or unaddressed, which may have important financial-stability implications for the EU entities. Second, the potential for misalignments between supervisory and central-bank objectives within colleges acquires an additional dimension in the context of third-country CCPs where non-EU authorities are involved. Third, there is a risk that changes to the CCP rules and/or regulatory framework in a third-country could negatively affect regulatory or supervisory outcomes, leading to an un-level playing field between EU and third-country CCPs and creating scope for regulatory or supervisory arbitrage. There is currently no mechanism to ensure that the EU is informed automatically of such changes and can take appropriate measures. Such concerns are likely to become more significant in the coming years because the global nature of capital markets means that the role played by third-country CCPs is set to expand. In addition to the 28 third-country CCPs already recognised by ESMA, a further 12 CCPs from 10 jurisdictions have applied for recognition 21 and are awaiting a decision of the Commission for the equivalence of their regulatory and supervisory regimes. Moreover, a substantial volume of euro-denominated derivatives transactions (and other transactions subject to the EU clearing obligation) is currently cleared in CCPs located in the United Kingdom. When the United Kingdom exits the EU, there will therefore be a distinct shift in the proportion of such transactions being cleared in CCPs outside the EU's jurisdiction, exacerbating the concerns outlined above. This implies significant challenges for safeguarding financial stability in the EU that need to be addressed. In light of these considerations, the Commission adopted a Communication on 4 May 2017 on responding to challenges for critical financial market infrastructures and further developing the Capital Markets Union 22 . The Communication indicated that "further changes [to EMIR] will be necessary to improve the current framework that ensures financial stability and supports the further development and deepening of the Capital Markets Union (CMU)". Need to improve current supervisory arrangements As the EU clearing landscape continues to evolve, the arrangements for crisis prevention and management of CCPs must be as effective as possible. EMIR and the Commission proposal for a Regulation on CCP Recovery and Resolution are important steps in this regard. However, five years after the adoption of EMIR, the growing size, complexity and cross-border dimension of clearing in the EU and globally have highlighted shortcomings in the supervisory arrangements for EU and third-country CCPs. The present proposal therefore sets out specific amendments to EMIR and the ESMA Regulation 23 , in particular to establish clear and coherent supervisory arrangements both for EU and third-country CCPs. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options in order to enhance supervision of CCPs at EU level, involve further the central banks of issue in the supervision of CCPs, and strengthen the ability of the EU to monitor, identify and mitigate third-country CCP risks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforce the overall stability of the EU financial system and to lower further the already low probability (but extremely high-impact) risk of a CCP failure, while keeping costs at a minimum for market participants. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission. 
Revised version (Article 6 Public register):
1. ESMA shall establish, maintain and keep up to date a public register in order to identify the classes of OTC derivatives subject to the clearing obligation correctly and unequivocally. The public register shall be available on ESMA’s website. 2. The register shall include: (a) the classes of OTC derivatives that are subject to the clearing obligation pursuant to Article 4; (b) the CCPs that are authorised or recognised for the purpose of the clearing obligation; (c) the dates from which the clearing obligation takes effect, including any phased-in implementation; (d) the classes of OTC derivatives identified by ESMA in accordance with Article 5(3); (f) the CCPs that have been notified to ESMA by the competent authority for the purpose of the clearing obligation and the date of notification of each of them. 3. Where a CCP is no longer authorised or recognised in accordance with this Regulation to clear a specific class of OTC derivatives, ESMA shall immediately remove that CCP from the public register in relation to that class of OTC derivatives. 4. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details to be included in the public register referred to in paragraph 1. ESMA shall submit any such draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Article 7 Access to a CCP
1. A CCP that has been authorised to clear OTC derivative contracts shall accept clearing such contracts on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis, including as regards collateral requirements and fees related to access, regardless of the trading venue. This in particular shall ensure that a trading venue has the right to non-discriminatory treatment in terms of how contracts traded on that trading venue are treated in terms of: (a) collateral requirements and netting of economically equivalent contracts, where the inclusion of such contracts in the close-out and other netting procedures of a CCP based on the applicable insolvency law would not endanger the smooth and orderly functioning, the validity or enforceability of such procedures; and (b) cross-margining with correlated contracts cleared by the same CCP under a risk model that complies with Article 41. A CCP may require that a trading venue comply with the operational and technical requirements established by the CCP, including the risk-management requirements. 2. A CCP shall accede to or refuse a formal request for access by a trading venue within three months of such a request. 3. Where a CCP refuses access under paragraph 2, it shall provide the trading venue with full reasons for such refusal. 4. Save where the competent authority of the trading venue and that of the CCP refuse access, the CCP shall, subject to the second subparagraph, grant access within three months of a decision acceding to the trading venue’s formal request in accordance with paragraph 2. The competent authority of the trading venue and that of the CCP may refuse access to the CCP following a formal request by the trading venue only where such access would threaten the smooth and orderly functioning of the markets or would adversely affect systemic risk. 5. ESMA shall settle any dispute arising from a disagreement between competent authorities in accordance with its powers under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 6. The conditions laid down in paragraph 1 regarding non-discriminatory treatment in terms of how contracts traded on that trading venue are treated in terms of collateral requirements and netting of economically equivalent contracts and cross-margining with correlated contracts cleared by the same CCP shall be further specified by the technical standards adopted pursuant to Article 35(6)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 ( 7 ).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 7 Access to a CCP):
1. A CCP that has been authorised to clear OTC derivative contracts shall accept clearing such contracts on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis, including as regards collateral requirements and fees related to access, regardless of the trading venue. This in particular shall ensure that a trading venue has the right to non-discriminatory treatment in terms of how contracts traded on that trading venue are treated in terms of: (a) collateral requirements and netting of economically equivalent contracts, where the inclusion of such contracts in the close-out and other netting procedures of a CCP based on the applicable insolvency law would not endanger the smooth and orderly functioning, the validity or enforceability of such procedures; and (b) cross-margining with correlated contracts cleared by the same CCP under a risk model that complies with Article 41. A CCP that has been authorised to clear OTC derivative contracts shall accept clearing such contracts on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis, including as regards collateral requirements and fees related to access, regardless of the trading venue. This in particular shall ensure that a trading venue has the right to non-discriminatory treatment in terms of how contracts traded on that trading venue are treated in terms of: (a) collateral requirements and netting of economically equivalent contracts, where the inclusion of such contracts in the close-out and other netting procedures of a CCP based on the applicable insolvency law would not endanger the smooth and orderly functioning, the validity or enforceability of such procedures; and (b) cross-margining with correlated contracts cleared by the same CCP under a risk model that complies with Article 41. A CCP may require that a trading venue comply with the operational and technical requirements established by the CCP, including the risk-management requirements. 2. A CCP shall accede to or refuse a formal request for access by a trading venue within three months of such a request. 3. Where a CCP refuses access under paragraph 2, it shall provide the trading venue with full reasons for such refusal. 4. Save where the competent authority of the trading venue and that of the CCP refuse access, the CCP shall, subject to the second subparagraph, grant access within three months of a decision acceding to the trading venue’s formal request in accordance with paragraph 2. The competent authority of the trading venue and that of the CCP may refuse access to the CCP following a formal request by the trading venue only where such access would threaten the smooth and orderly functioning of the markets or would adversely affect systemic risk. 5. ESMA shall settle any dispute arising from a disagreement between competent authorities in accordance with its powers under Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 6. The conditions laid down in paragraph 1 regarding non-discriminatory treatment in terms of how contracts traded on that trading venue are treated in terms of collateral requirements and netting of economically equivalent contracts and cross-margining with correlated contracts cleared by the same CCP shall be further specified by the technical standards adopted pursuant to Article 35(6)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 ( 12 ).
Article 8 Access to a trading venue
1. A trading venue shall provide trade feeds on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis to any CCP that has been authorised to clear OTC derivative contracts traded on that trading venue upon request by the CCP. 2. Where a request to access a trading venue has been formally submitted to a trading venue by a CCP, the trading venue shall respond to the CCP within three months. 3. Where access is refused by a trading venue, it shall notify the CCP accordingly, providing full reasons. 4. Without prejudice to the decision by competent authorities of the trading venue and of the CCP, access shall be made possible by the trading venue within three months of a positive response to a request for access. Access of the CCP to the trading venue shall be granted only where such access would not require interoperability or threaten the smooth and orderly functioning of markets in particular due to liquidity fragmentation and the trading venue has put in place adequate mechanisms to prevent such fragmentation. 5. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the notion of liquidity fragmentation. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Article 9 Reporting obligation
1. Counterparties and CCPs shall ensure that the details of any derivative contract they have concluded and of any modification or termination of the contract are reported to a trade repository registered in accordance with Article 55 or recognised in accordance with Article 77. The details shall be reported no later than the working day following the conclusion, modification or termination of the contract. The reporting obligation shall apply to derivative contracts which: (a) were entered into before 16 August 2012 and remain outstanding on that date; (b) are entered into on or after 16 August 2012. A counterparty or a CCP which is subject to the reporting obligation may delegate the reporting of the details of the derivative contract. Counterparties and CCPs shall ensure that the details of their derivative contracts are reported without duplication. 2. Counterparties shall keep a record of any derivative contract they have concluded and any modification for at least five years following the termination of the contract. 3. Where a trade repository is not available to record the details of a derivative contract, counterparties and CCPs shall ensure that such details are reported to ESMA. In this case ESMA shall ensure that all the relevant entities referred to in Article 81(3) have access to all the details of derivative contracts they need to fulfil their respective responsibilities and mandates. 4. A counterparty or a CCP that reports the details of a derivative contract to a trade repository or to ESMA, or an entity that reports such details on behalf of a counterparty or a CCP shall not be considered in breach of any restriction on disclosure of information imposed by that contract or by any legislative, regulatory or administrative provision. No liability resulting from that disclosure shall lie with the reporting entity or its directors or employees. 5. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details and type of the reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 for the different classes of derivatives. The reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 shall specify at least: (a) the parties to the derivative contract and, where different, the beneficiary of the rights and obligations arising from it; (b) the main characteristics of the derivative contracts, including their type, underlying maturity, notional value, price, and settlement date. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 6. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraphs 1 and 3, ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards specifying: (a) the format and frequency of the reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 for the different classes of derivatives; (b) the date by which derivative contracts are to be reported, including any phase-in for contracts entered into before the reporting obligation applies. ESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Derivatives contracts are a key tool for Europe's banks and businesses to manage their risks, whether they are related to changes in interest rates, currency fluctuations or the default of a business counterpart. However, opaque derivatives markets also acted as an unwelcome contagion channel. Derivatives markets must therefore be regulated and supervised effectively to safeguard financial stability. Given the global nature of derivatives markets and in accordance with the 2009 G20 Pittsburgh agreement 1 to reduce the systemic risk linked to extensive use of derivatives, the EU adopted the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) in 2012. 2 As a key pillar of EMIR standardised over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives contracts must be cleared through a Central Counterparty (CCP). A CCP is a market infrastructure that reduces systemic risk and enhances financial stability by standing between the two counterparties to a derivatives contract (i.e. acting as buyer to the seller and seller to the buyer of risk) and thereby reducing the risk for both. EMIR also introduced strict prudential, organisational and business conduct requirements for CCPs and established arrangements for their prudential supervision to minimise any risk to users of a CCP and underpin systemic stability. Since 2012 when EMIR was adopted, central clearing has been significantly expanding and CCPs have become increasingly concentrated and integrated across the EU and with third countries. The present proposal ensures that supervisory arrangements keep pace with these developments. It is proposed that the EU equips its Capital Markets Union with a more effective and consistent supervisory system for CCPs, in the interest of further market integration, financial stability and a level-playing field. CCPs have grown in importance since the adoption of EMIR and will expand further in the coming years In the five years since the adoption of EMIR, the volume of CCP activity – in the EU and globally - has grown rapidly both in scale and in scope. This is a sign that the legislation works and is fulfilling its purpose. As of end of June 2016, around 62% of the global value of all OTC derivatives contracts and asset classes (interest rates, credit default, foreign exchange, etc.) were centrally cleared by CCPs 3 , which is equivalent to $337 trillion. About 97% ($328 trillion) of all centrally-cleared derivatives contracts are interest-rate derivatives. At the end of 2015, about 60% of all OTC interest-rate derivatives were centrally cleared, while the corresponding figure by the end of 2009 was 36% 4 . Central clearing has similarly gained in importance in the credit derivatives (so-called CDS) market, with the proportion of outstanding CDSs cleared through CCPs increasing steadily since these data were first reported, i.e. 37% at the end of June 2016 while the corresponding figure was 10% at the end of June 2010 5 . The rapidly expanding role of CCPs in the global financial system not only reflects the introduction of central clearing obligations across different asset classes 6 , but also increased voluntary use of central clearing amid growing awareness of the benefits of central clearing among market participants (clearing obligations have applied only since June 2016) 7 . EMIR requires certain interest-rate derivatives and CDSs to be centrally cleared in line with similar requirements in other G20 countries 8 . Bank capital rules have been changed to incentivise central clearing and make bilateral clearing a costlier option in relative terms 9 , while bilateral transactions are subject to additional collateral requirements since March 2017 10 . The expansion in CCP activity is set to continue in the coming years. Mandatory clearing obligations are likely for additional asset classes 11 and the incentives to mitigate risks and costs are likely to lead to even more voluntary clearing. The May 2017 proposal to amend EMIR in a targeted manner, to improve its effectiveness and proportionality, will reinforce this trend, by creating further incentives for CCPs to offer central clearing of derivatives to counterparties. 12 Finally, deeper and more integrated capital markets as a result of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) will further increase the need for cross-border clearing in the EU, thus increasing the importance and the interconnectedness of CCPs within the financial system. Expanding role of CCPs raises concerns about the need to upgrade supervisory arrangements under EMIR , also in light of the establishment of the Capital Markets Union The growing importance of CCPs in the financial system and the associated concentration of credit risk in these infrastructures have drawn the attention of governments, regulators, supervisors, central banks and market participants. While the scale and scope of centrally-cleared transactions has expanded, the number of CCPs has remained relatively limited. There are currently 17 CCPs established in the EU, all of which are authorised under EMIR to offer their services within the Union - although not all CCPs are authorised to clear all asset classes (e.g. only 2 CCPs clear credit derivatives, only 2 CCPs clear inflation derivatives 13 ). 14 An additional 28 third-country CCPs have been recognised under EMIR's equivalence provisions, allowing them to offer their services in the EU. 15 Accordingly, clearing markets are integrated across the EU and are highly concentrated in certain asset classes . They are also highly interconnected. 16 While increased clearing via properly regulated and supervised CCPs reinforces systemic stability overall, the concentration of risk makes the failure of a CCP a low-probability but potentially extremely high-impact event. Given the centrality of CCPs to the financial system, the increasing systemic importance of CCPs gives rise to concerns. CCPs have themselves become a source of macro-prudential risk, as their failure could cause significant disruption to the financial system and would have systemic effects. For instance, large scale, uncontrolled termination and close-out of contracts cleared by CCPs could lead to liquidity and collateral strains across the market, causing instability in the underlying asset market and the wider financial system. Like some other financial intermediaries, CCPs are also potentially susceptible to “runs” due to clearing members losing confidence in the solvency of a CCP. This could create a liquidity shock for the CCP as it attempts to meet its obligations to return the principal collateral (i.e. initial margin). The impact of a CCP failure due to increased concentration of risk would be amplified by a growing interconnectedness between CCPs both directly and indirectly via their members (usually large global banks) and clients. In response, and in line with the G20 consensus 17 , the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on CCP Recovery and Resolution in November 2016 18 . The objective of the proposal is to ensure that authorities are appropriately prepared to address a failing CCP, safeguarding financial stability and limiting taxpayer costs. The CCP Recovery and Resolution proposal refocused attention on the supervisory arrangements for EU and third-country CCPs included in EMIR and the extent to which these arrangements can be made more effective five years after adoption of EMIR. This proposal is currently under negotiations in the European Parliament and the Council. That ongoing work-stream needs to be coordinated and consistent with the current proposal. Supervisory arrangements for EU CCPs Under EMIR, EU CCPs are supervised by colleges of national supervisors, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), relevant members of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), and other relevant authorities (e.g. supervisors of the largest clearing members, supervisors of certain trading venues and central securities depositories). These colleges can include as many as 20 member authorities and they rely on coordination by the home-country authority. These arrangements raise certain concerns in light of the current state of integration in the market that needs to be reflected in the supervisory arrangements. This is also important in order to advance the Capital Markets Union . First, the growing concentration of clearing services in a limited number of CCPs, and the consequential increase in cross-border activity, implies that CCPs in a small number of individual Member States are increasingly relevant for the EU financial system as a whole. Against this trend, the current supervisory arrangements relying mainly on the home-country authority (e.g. the home-country authority is ultimately responsible for important decisions such as the extension of the authorisation or the approval of outsourcing and interoperability arrangements) need to be reconsidered. Second, diverging supervisory practices for CCPs (e.g. different conditions for authorisation or model validation processes) across the EU can create risks of regulatory and supervisory arbitrage for CCPs and indirectly for their clearing members or clients. The Commission has drawn attention to these emerging risks and the need for more supervisory convergence in its Communication on CMU of September 2016 19 and in the public consultation on the operations of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) 20 , both of which highlighted the challenges posed by heterogeneous supervisory practices. Third, the role of central banks - as issuers of currency - is not adequately reflected in CCP colleges. While the mandates of central banks and supervisors may overlap (in particular in areas such as interoperability, liquidity-risk controls etc.), there is a potential for misalignment when supervisory actions impact on key responsibilities of central banks in areas such as price stability, monetary policy and the payment systems. In crisis situations, their misalignments can amplify the risks to financial stability if the assignment of responsibilities between authorities remains unclear. Supervisory arrangements for third-country CCPs Today, a significant amount of financial instruments denominated in the currencies of the Member States are cleared by recognised third-country CCPs. For example, the notional amount outstanding at Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) in the US is EUR 1.8 trillion for euro-denominated interest-rate derivatives, and SEK 348 billion for SEK denominated interest-rate derivatives. This also raises a series of concerns. First, the implementation of EMIR’s system of equivalence and recognition has shown certain shortcomings in particular regarding ongoing supervision. In particular, after a third-country CCP has been recognised, ESMA has encountered difficulties in accessing information from the CCP, in conducting on-site inspections of the CCP and in sharing information with the relevant EU regulators, supervisors and central banks. As a result, there is a risk that third-country CCP practices and/or adjustments to risk management models go undetected and/or unaddressed, which may have important financial-stability implications for the EU entities. Second, the potential for misalignments between supervisory and central-bank objectives within colleges acquires an additional dimension in the context of third-country CCPs where non-EU authorities are involved. Third, there is a risk that changes to the CCP rules and/or regulatory framework in a third-country could negatively affect regulatory or supervisory outcomes, leading to an un-level playing field between EU and third-country CCPs and creating scope for regulatory or supervisory arbitrage. There is currently no mechanism to ensure that the EU is informed automatically of such changes and can take appropriate measures. Such concerns are likely to become more significant in the coming years because the global nature of capital markets means that the role played by third-country CCPs is set to expand. In addition to the 28 third-country CCPs already recognised by ESMA, a further 12 CCPs from 10 jurisdictions have applied for recognition 21 and are awaiting a decision of the Commission for the equivalence of their regulatory and supervisory regimes. Moreover, a substantial volume of euro-denominated derivatives transactions (and other transactions subject to the EU clearing obligation) is currently cleared in CCPs located in the United Kingdom. When the United Kingdom exits the EU, there will therefore be a distinct shift in the proportion of such transactions being cleared in CCPs outside the EU's jurisdiction, exacerbating the concerns outlined above. This implies significant challenges for safeguarding financial stability in the EU that need to be addressed. In light of these considerations, the Commission adopted a Communication on 4 May 2017 on responding to challenges for critical financial market infrastructures and further developing the Capital Markets Union 22 . The Communication indicated that "further changes [to EMIR] will be necessary to improve the current framework that ensures financial stability and supports the further development and deepening of the Capital Markets Union (CMU)". Need to improve current supervisory arrangements As the EU clearing landscape continues to evolve, the arrangements for crisis prevention and management of CCPs must be as effective as possible. EMIR and the Commission proposal for a Regulation on CCP Recovery and Resolution are important steps in this regard. However, five years after the adoption of EMIR, the growing size, complexity and cross-border dimension of clearing in the EU and globally have highlighted shortcomings in the supervisory arrangements for EU and third-country CCPs. The present proposal therefore sets out specific amendments to EMIR and the ESMA Regulation 23 , in particular to establish clear and coherent supervisory arrangements both for EU and third-country CCPs. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options in order to enhance supervision of CCPs at EU level, involve further the central banks of issue in the supervision of CCPs, and strengthen the ability of the EU to monitor, identify and mitigate third-country CCP risks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforce the overall stability of the EU financial system and to lower further the already low probability (but extremely high-impact) risk of a CCP failure, while keeping costs at a minimum for market participants. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission. 
Revised version (Article 9 Reporting obligation):
1. Counterparties and CCPs shall ensure that the details of any derivative contract they have concluded and of any modification or termination of the contract are reported in accordance with paragraphs 1a to 1f of this Article to a trade repository registered in accordance with Article 55 or recognised in accordance with Article 77. The details shall be reported no later than the working day following the conclusion, modification or termination of the contract. The reporting obligation shall apply to derivative contracts which: (a) were entered into before 12 February 2014 and remain outstanding on that date; (b) were entered into on or after 12 February 2014. Notwithstanding Article 3, the reporting obligation shall not apply to derivative contracts within the same group where at least one of the counterparties is a non-financial counterparty or would be qualified as a non-financial counterparty if it were established in the Union, provided that: (a) both counterparties are included in the same consolidation on a full basis; (b) both counterparties are subject to appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures; and (c) the parent undertaking is not a financial counterparty. Counterparties shall notify their competent authorities of their intention to apply the exemption referred to in the third subparagraph. The exemption shall be valid unless the notified competent authorities do not agree upon fulfilment of the conditions referred to in the third subparagraph within three months of the date of notification. 1e. Counterparties and CCPs that are required to report the details of derivative contracts shall ensure that such details are reported correctly and without duplication. 1f. Counterparties and CCPs that are subject to the reporting obligation referred to in paragraph 1 may delegate that reporting obligation. 2. Counterparties shall keep a record of any derivative contract they have concluded and any modification for at least five years following the termination of the contract. 3. Where a trade repository is not available to record the details of a derivative contract, counterparties and CCPs shall ensure that such details are reported to ESMA. In this case ESMA shall ensure that all the relevant entities referred to in Article 81(3) have access to all the details of derivative contracts they need to fulfil their respective responsibilities and mandates. 4. A counterparty or a CCP that reports the details of a derivative contract to a trade repository or to ESMA, or an entity that reports such details on behalf of a counterparty or a CCP shall not be considered in breach of any restriction on disclosure of information imposed by that contract or by any legislative, regulatory or administrative provision. No liability resulting from that disclosure shall lie with the reporting entity or its directors or employees. 5. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details and type of the reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 for the different classes of derivatives. The reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 shall specify at least: (a) the parties to the derivative contract and, where different, the beneficiary of the rights and obligations arising from it; (b) the main characteristics of the derivative contracts, including their type, underlying maturity, notional value, price, and settlement date. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 6. To ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraphs 1 and 3, ESMA shall, in close cooperation with the ESCB, develop draft implementing technical standards specifying: (a) the data standards and formats for the information to be reported, which shall include at least the following: (i) global legal entity identifiers (LEIs); (ii) international securities identification numbers (ISINs); (iii) unique trade identifiers (UTIs); (b) the methods and arrangements for reporting; (c) the frequency of the reports; (d) the date by which derivative contracts are to be reported. In developing those draft implementing technical standards, ESMA shall take into account international developments and standards agreed upon at Union or global level, and their consistency with the reporting requirements laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2365 ( 13 ) and Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. ESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 18 June 2020. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.