Article 1 Establishment and scope of action
1. This Regulation establishes a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) (hereinafter the Authority’). 2. The Authority shall act within the powers conferred by this Regulation and within the scope of Directive2009/138/EC with the exception of Title IV thereof, of Directives 2002/92/EC, 2003/41/EC, 2002/87/EC, 64/225/EEC, 73/239/EEC, 73/240/EEC, 76/580/EEC, 78/473/EEC, 84/641/EEC, 87/344/EEC, 88/357/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 98/78/EC, 2001/17/EC, 2002/83/EC, 2005/68/EC and, to the extent that those acts apply to insurance undertakings, reinsurance undertakings, institutions for occupational retirement provision and insurance intermediaries, within the relevant parts of Directives 2005/60/EC and 2002/65/EC, including all directives, regulations, and decisions based on those acts, and of any further legally binding Union act which confers tasks on the Authority. 3. The Authority shall also act in the field of activities of insurance undertakings, reinsurance undertakings, financial conglomerates, institutions for occupational retirement provision and insurance intermediaries, in relation to issues not directly covered in the acts referred to in paragraph 2, including matters of corporate governance, auditing and financial reporting, provided that such actions by the Authority are necessary to ensure the effective and consistent application of those acts. 4. With regard to institutions for occupational retirement provision, the Authority shall act without prejudice to national social and labour law. 5. The provisions of this Regulation are without prejudice to the powers of the Commission, in particular under Article 258 TFEU, to ensure compliance with Union law. 6. The objective of the Authority shall be to protect the public interest by contributing to the short, medium and long-term stability and effectiveness of the financial system, for the Union economy, its citizens and businesses. The Authority shall contribute to: (a) improving the functioning of the internal market, including in particular a sound, effective and consistent level of regulation and supervision, (b) ensuring the integrity, transparency, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, (c) strengthening international supervisory coordination, (d) preventing regulatory arbitrage and promoting equal conditions of competition, (e) ensuring the taking of risks related to insurance, reinsurance and occupational pensions activities is appropriately regulated and supervised, and (f) enhancing customer protection. For those purposes, the Authority shall contribute to ensuring the consistent, efficient and effective application of the acts referred to in paragraph 2, foster supervisory convergence, provide opinions to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission and undertake economic analyses of the markets to promote the achievement of the Authority’s objective. In the exercise of the tasks conferred upon it by this Regulation, the Authority shall pay particular attention to any potential systemic risk posed by financial institutions, the failure of which may impair the operation of the financial system or the real economy. When carrying out its tasks, the Authority shall act independently and objectively and in the interest of the Union alone.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. 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 1 Establishment and scope of action):
1. This Regulation establishes a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) (hereinafter the Authority’). 2. The Authority shall act within the powers conferred by this Regulation and within the scope of Directive 2009/138/EC with the exception of Title IV thereof, of Directive 2002/87/EC, Directive (EU) 2016/97 ( 1 ) and Directive (EU) 2016/2341 ( 2 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council, and, to the extent that those acts apply to insurance undertakings, reinsurance undertakings, institutions for occupational retirement provision and insurance intermediaries, within the relevant parts of Directive 2002/65/EC, including all directives, regulations, and decisions based on those acts, and of any further legally binding Union act which confers tasks on the Authority. 3. The Authority shall act in the field of activities of insurance undertakings, reinsurance undertakings, financial conglomerates, institutions for occupational retirement provision and insurance intermediaries, in relation to issues not directly covered by the legislative acts referred to in paragraph 2, including matters of corporate governance, auditing and financial reporting, taking into account sustainable business models and the integration of environmental, social and governance related factors, provided that such actions are necessary to ensure the effective and consistent application of those acts. 4. With regard to institutions for occupational retirement provision, the Authority shall act without prejudice to national social and labour law. 5. The provisions of this Regulation are without prejudice to the powers of the Commission, in particular under Article 258 TFEU, to ensure compliance with Union law. 7. The Authority shall establish, as an integral part thereof, a Committee advising it as to how, in full compliance with applicable rules, its actions and measures should take account of specific differences prevailing in the sector, pertaining to the nature, scale and complexity of risks, to business models and practice as well as to the size of financial institutions and of markets to the extent that such factors are relevant under the rules considered.
Article 2 European System of Financial Supervision
1. The Authority shall form part of a European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS). The main objective of the ESFS shall be to ensure that the rules applicable to the financial sector are adequately implemented to preserve financial stability and to ensure confidence in the financial system as a whole and sufficient protection for the customers of financial services. 2. The ESFS shall comprise the following: (a) the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), for the purposes of the tasks as specified in Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 and this Regulation; (b) the Authority; (c) the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 48 ); (d) the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) established by Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 49 ); (e) the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (Joint Committee) for the purposes of carrying out the tasks as specified in Articles 54 to 57 of this Regulation, of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010; (f) the competent or supervisory authorities in the Member States as specified in the Union acts referred to in Article 1(2) of this Regulation, of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010; 3. The Authority shall cooperate regularly and closely with the ESRB as well as with the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) through the Joint Committee, ensuring cross-sectoral consistency of work and reaching joint positions in the area of supervision of financial conglomerates and on other cross-sectoral issues. 4. In accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, the parties to the ESFS shall cooperate with trust and full mutual respect, in particular in ensuring the flow of appropriate and reliable information between them. 5. Those supervisory authorities that are party to the ESFS shall be obliged to supervise financial institutions operating in the Union in accordance with the acts referred to in Article 1(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. 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 European System of Financial Supervision):
1. The Authority shall form part of a European system of financial supervision (ESFS). The main objective of the ESFS shall be to ensure that the rules applicable to the financial sector are adequately implemented to preserve financial stability and to ensure confidence in the financial system as a whole and effective and sufficient protection for the customers and consumers of financial services. 3. The Authority shall cooperate regularly and closely with the ESRB as well as with the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) through the Joint Committee, ensuring cross-sectoral consistency of work and reaching joint positions in the area of supervision of financial conglomerates and on other cross-sectoral issues. 4. In accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the parties to the ESFS shall cooperate with trust and full mutual respect, in particular in ensuring the flow of appropriate and reliable information among them and from the Authority to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Commission. 5. Those supervisory authorities that are party to the ESFS shall be obliged to supervise financial institutions operating in the Union in accordance with the acts referred to in Article 1(2). Without prejudice to national competences, references in this Regulation to supervision shall include all relevant activities of all competent authorities to be carried out pursuant to the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2).
Article 3 Accountability of the Authorities
The Authorities referred to in Article 2(2)(a) to (d) shall be accountable to the European Parliament and the Council.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. 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 3 Accountability of the Authorities):
1. The Authorities referred to in points (a) to (d) of Article 2(2) shall be accountable to the European Parliament and to the Council. 2. In accordance with Article 226 TFEU, the Authority shall fully cooperate with the European Parliament during any investigation carried out under that Article. 3. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt an annual report on the activities of the Authority, including on the performance of the Chairperson’s duties, and shall, by 15 June each year, transmit that report to the European Parliament, to the Council, to the Commission, to the Court of Auditors and to the European Economic and Social Committee. The report shall be made public. 4. At the request of the European Parliament, the Chairperson shall participate in a hearing before the European Parliament on the performance of the Authority. A hearing shall take place at least annually. The Chairperson shall make a statement before the European Parliament and answer any questions from its members, whenever so requested. 5. The Chairperson shall report in writing on the activities of the Authority to the European Parliament when requested and at least 15 days before making the statement referred to in paragraph 4. 6. In addition to the information referred to in Articles 11 to 18 and Articles 20 and 33, the report shall also include any relevant information requested by the European Parliament on an ad hoc basis. 7. The Authority shall reply orally or in writing to any question addressed to it by the European Parliament or by the Council within five weeks of its receipt. 8. Upon request, the Chairperson shall hold confidential oral discussions behind closed doors with the Chair, Vice-Chairs and Coordinators of the competent committee of the European Parliament. All participants shall respect the requirements of professional secrecy. 9. Without prejudice to its confidentiality obligations stemming from participation in international fora, the Authority shall inform the European Parliament upon request about its contribution to a united, common, consistent and effective representation of the Union’s interests in such international fora.
Article 4 Definitions
For the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions apply: (1) ‘financial institutions’ means undertakings, entities and natural and legal persons subject to any of the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2). With regard to Directive 2005/60/EC, ‘financial institutions’ means only insurance undertakings and insurance intermediaries as defined in that Directive; (2) ‘competent authorities’ means: (i) supervisory authorities as defined in Directive 2009/138/EC, and competent authorities as defined in Directive 2003/41/EC and 2002/92/EC; (ii) with regard to Directives 2002/65/EC and 2005/60/EC, the authorities competent for ensuring compliance with the requirements of those Directives by financial institutions as defined in point (1). (2) ‘competent authorities’ means: (i) supervisory authorities as defined in Directive 2009/138/EC, and competent authorities as defined in Directive 2003/41/EC and 2002/92/EC; (ii) with regard to Directives 2002/65/EC and 2005/60/EC, the authorities competent for ensuring compliance with the requirements of those Directives by financial institutions as defined in point (1).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. 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 Definitions):
For the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions apply: (1) ‘financial institutions’ means undertakings, entities and natural and legal persons subject to any of the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2). With regard to Directive 2005/60/EC, ‘financial institutions’ means only insurance undertakings and insurance intermediaries as defined in that Directive;
Article 5 Legal status
1. The Authority shall be a Union body with legal personality. 2. In each Member State, the Authority shall enjoy the most extensive legal capacity accorded to legal persons under national law. It may, in particular, acquire or dispose of movable and immovable property and be a party to legal proceedings. 3. The Authority shall be represented by its Chairperson.
Article 6 Composition
The Authority shall comprise: (1) a Board of Supervisors, which shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 43; (2) a Management Board, which shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 47; (3) a Chairperson, who shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 48; (4) an Executive Director, who shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 53; (5) a Board of Appeal, which shall exercise the tasks set out in Article 60.
Article 7 Seat
The Authority shall have its seat in Frankfurt am Main.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. 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 7 Seat):
The Authority shall have its seat in Frankfurt am Main. The location of the seat of the Authority shall not affect the Authority’s execution of its tasks and powers, the organisation of its governance structure, the operation of its main organisation, or the main financing of its activities, while allowing, where applicable, for the sharing with Union agencies of administrative support services and facility management services which are not related to the core activities of the Authority.
Article 8 Tasks and powers of the Authority
1. The Authority shall have the following tasks: (a) to contribute to the establishment of high-quality common regulatory and supervisory standards and practices, in particular by providing opinions to the Union institutions and by developing guidelines, recommendations, and draft regulatory and implementing technical standards which shall be based on the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2); (b) to contribute to the consistent application of legally binding Union acts, in particular by contributing to a common supervisory culture, ensuring consistent, efficient and effective application of the acts referred to in Article 1(2), preventing regulatory arbitrage, mediating and settling disagreements between competent authorities, ensuring effective and consistent supervision of financial institutions, ensuring a coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors and taking actions, inter alia, in emergency situations; (c) to stimulate and facilitate the delegation of tasks and responsibilities among competent authorities; (d) to cooperate closely with the ESRB, in particular by providing the ESRB with the necessary information for the achievement of its tasks and by ensuring a proper follow up to the warnings and recommendations of the ESRB; (e) to organise and conduct peer review analyses of competent authorities, including issuing guidelines and recommendations and identifying best practices, in order to strengthen consistency in supervisory outcomes; (f) to monitor and assess market developments in the area of its competences; (g) to undertake economic analyses of markets to inform the discharge of the Authority’s functions; (h) to foster the protection of policyholders, pension scheme members and beneficiaries (i) to contribute to the consistent and coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors, the monitoring, assessment and measurement of systemic risk, the development and coordination of recovery and resolution plans, providing a high level of protection to policy holders, to beneficiaries and throughout the Union, in accordance with Articles 21 to 26; (j) to fulfil any other specific tasks set out in this Regulation or in other legislative acts; (k) to publish on its website, and to update regularly, information relating to its field of activities, in particular, within the area of its competence, on registered financial institutions, in order to ensure information is easily accessible by the public; (l) to take over, as appropriate, all existing and ongoing tasks from the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors (CEIOPS); 2. To achieve the tasks set out in paragraph 1, the Authority shall have the powers set out in this Regulation, in particular to: (a) develop draft regulatory technical standards in the specific cases referred to in Article 10; (b) develop draft implementing technical standards in the specific cases referred to in Article 15; (c) issue guidelines and recommendations, as laid down in Article 16; (d) issue recommendations in specific cases, as referred to in Article 17(3); (e) take individual decisions addressed to competent authorities in the specific cases referred to in Articles 18(3) and 19(3); (f) in cases concerning directly applicable Union law, take individual decisions addressed to financial institutions, in the specific cases referred to in Article 17(6), in Article 18(4) and in Article 19(4); (g) issue opinions to the European Parliament, the Council, or the Commission as provided for in Article 34; (h) collect the necessary information concerning financial institutions as provided for in Article 35; (i) develop common methodologies for assessing the effect of product characteristics and distribution processes on the financial position of institutions and on consumer protection; (j) provide a centrally accessible database of registered financial institutions in the area of its competence where specified in the acts referred to in Article 1(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. 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 8 Tasks and powers of the Authority):
3. When carrying out the tasks referred to in paragraph 1 and exercising the powers referred to in paragraph 2, the Authority shall act based on and within the limits of the legislative framework and shall have due regard to the principle of proportionality, where relevant, and better regulation, including the results of cost-benefit analyses in accordance with this Regulation. The open public consultations referred to in Articles 10, 15, 16 and 16a shall be conducted as widely as possible to ensure an inclusive approach towards all interested parties and shall allow reasonable time for stakeholders to respond. The Authority shall publish a summary of the input received from stakeholders and an overview of how information and views gathered from the consultation were used in a draft regulatory technical standard and a draft implementing technical standard.
Article 9 Tasks related to consumer protection and financial activities
1. The Authority shall take a leading role in promoting transparency, simplicity and fairness in the market for consumer financial products or services across the internal market, including by: (a) collecting, analysing and reporting on consumer trends; (b) reviewing and coordinating financial literacy and education initiatives by the competent authorities; (c) developing training standards for the industry; and (d) contributing to the development of common disclosure rules. 2. The Authority shall monitor new and existing financial activities and may adopt guidelines and recommendations with a view to promoting the safety and soundness of markets and convergence of regulatory practice. 3. The Authority may also issue warnings in the event that a financial activity poses a serious threat to the objectives laid down in Article 1(6). 4. The Authority shall establish, as an integral part of the Authority, a Committee on financial innovation, which brings together all relevant competent national supervisory authorities with a view to achieving a coordinated approach to the regulatory and supervisory treatment of new or innovative financial activities and providing advice for the Authority to present to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. 5. The Authority may temporarily prohibit or restrict certain financial activities that threaten the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union in the cases specified and under the conditions laid down in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) or, if so required, in the case of an emergency situation in accordance with and under the conditions laid down in Article 18. The Authority shall review the decision referred to in the first subparagraph at appropriate intervals and at least every 3 months. If the decision is not renewed after a three-month period, it shall automatically expire. A Member State may request the Authority to reconsider its decision. In that case, the Authority shall decide in accordance with the procedure set out in the second subparagraph of Article 44(1), whether it maintains its decision. The Authority may also assess the need to prohibit or restrict certain types of financial activity and, where there is such a need, inform the Commission in order to facilitate the adoption of any such prohibition or restriction.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. 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 Tasks related to consumer protection and financial activities):
2. The Authority shall monitor new and existing financial activities and may adopt guidelines and recommendations with a view to promoting the safety and soundness of markets, and convergence and effectiveness of regulatory and supervisory practices. 3. The Authority may also issue warnings in the event that a financial activity poses a serious threat to the objectives laid down in Article 1(6). 4. The Authority shall establish, as an integral part thereof, a Committee on consumer protection and financial innovation, which brings together all relevant competent authorities and authorities responsible for consumer protection with a view to enhancing consumer protection, achieving a coordinated approach to the regulatory and supervisory treatment of new or innovative financial activities, and providing advice for the Authority to present to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Commission. The Authority shall closely cooperate with the European Data Protection Board established by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 7 ) to avoid duplication, inconsistencies and legal uncertainty in the sphere of data protection. The Authority may also invite national data protection authorities as observers in the Committee. 5. The Authority may temporarily prohibit or restrict the marketing, distribution or sale of certain financial products, instruments or activities that have the potential to cause significant financial damage to customers or consumers, or threaten the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union in the cases specified, and under the conditions laid down, in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), or, if so required, in the case of an emergency situation in accordance with, and under the conditions laid down in, Article 18. The Authority shall review the decision referred to in the first subparagraph at appropriate intervals and at least every six months. Following at least two consecutive renewals, and based on proper analysis which aims to assess the impact on the customer or consumer, the Authority may decide on the annual renewal of the prohibition. A Member State may request the Authority to reconsider its decision. In that case, the Authority shall decide, in accordance with the procedure set out in the second subparagraph of Article 44(1), whether to maintain that decision. The Authority may also assess the need to prohibit or restrict certain types of financial activity or practice and, where there is such a need, inform the Commission and the competent authorities in order to facilitate the adoption of any such prohibition or restriction.
Article 10 Regulatory technical standards
1. Where the European Parliament and the Council delegate power to the Commission to adopt regulatory technical standards by means of delegated acts under Article 290 TFEU in order to ensure consistent harmonisation in the areas specifically set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority may develop draft regulatory technical standards. The Authority shall submit its draft standards to the Commission for endorsement. Regulatory technical standards shall be technical, shall not imply strategic decisions or policy choices and their content shall be delimited by the legislative acts on which they are based. Before submitting them to the Commission, the Authority shall conduct open public consultations on draft regulatory technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft regulatory technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Authority shall also request the opinion of the relevant stakeholder group referred to in Article 37. Where the Authority submits a draft regulatory technical standard, the Commission shall immediately forward it to the European Parliament and the Council. Within 3 months of receipt of a draft regulatory technical standard, the Commission shall decide whether to endorse it. The Commission may endorse the draft regulatory technical standards in part only, or with amendments, where the Union’s interests so require. Where the Commission intends not to endorse a draft regulatory technical standard, or to endorse it in part or with amendments, it shall send the draft regulatory technical standard back to the Authority, explaining why it does not endorse it, or, as the case may be, explaining the reasons for its amendments. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft regulatory technical standard on the basis of the Commission’s proposed amendments and resubmit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council. If, on the expiry of that six-week period, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft regulatory technical standard, or has submitted a draft regulatory technical standard that is not amended in a way consistent with the Commission’s proposed amendments, the Commission may adopt the regulatory technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant or reject it. The Commission may not change the content of a draft regulatory technical standard prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article. 2. Where the Authority has not submitted a draft regulatory technical standard within the time limit set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Commission may request such a draft within a new time limit. 3. Only where the Authority does not submit a draft regulatory technical standard to the Commission within the time limits in accordance with paragraph 2, may the Commission adopt a regulatory technical standard by means of a delegated act without a draft from the Authority. The Commission shall conduct open public consultations on draft regulatory technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft regulatory technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Commission shall also request the opinion or advice of the relevant stakeholder group referred to in Article 37. The Commission shall immediately forward the draft regulatory technical standard to the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission shall send its draft regulatory technical standard to the Authority. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft regulatory technical standard and submit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council. If, on the expiry of the six-week period referred to in the fourth subparagraph, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft regulatory technical standard, the Commission may adopt the regulatory technical standard. If the Authority has submitted an amended draft regulatory technical standard within the six-week period, the Commission may amend the draft regulatory technical standard on the basis of the Authority’s proposed amendments or adopt the regulatory technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant. The Commission shall not change the content of the draft regulatory technical standard prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article. 4. The regulatory technical standards shall be adopted by means of regulations or decisions. They shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. 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 10 Regulatory technical standards):
1. Where the European Parliament and the Council delegate power to the Commission to adopt regulatory technical standards by means of delegated acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU in order to ensure consistent harmonisation in the areas specifically set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) of this Regulation, the Authority may develop draft regulatory technical standards. The Authority shall submit its draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission for adoption. At the same time, the Authority shall forward those draft regulatory technical standards for information to the European Parliament and to the Council. Regulatory technical standards shall be technical, shall not imply strategic decisions or policy choices and their content shall be delimited by the legislative acts on which they are based. Before submitting them to the Commission, the Authority shall conduct open public consultations on draft regulatory technical standards and shall analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are highly disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft regulatory technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Authority shall also request the advice of the relevant Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37. Within three months of receipt of a draft regulatory technical standard, the Commission shall decide whether to adopt it. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council in due time where the adoption cannot take place within the three-month period. The Commission may adopt the draft regulatory technical standard in part only, or with amendments, where the Union’s interests so require. Where the Commission intends not to adopt a draft regulatory technical standard or to adopt it in part or with amendments, it shall send the draft regulatory technical standard back to the Authority, explaining why it does not adopt it, or explaining the reasons for its amendments. The Commission shall send a copy of its letter to the European Parliament and to the Council. Within a period of six weeks, the Authority may amend the draft regulatory technical standard on the basis of the Commission’s proposed amendments and resubmit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council. If, on the expiry of that six-week period, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft regulatory technical standard, or has submitted a draft regulatory technical standard that is not amended in a way consistent with the Commission’s proposed amendments, the Commission may adopt the regulatory technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant or reject it. The Commission may not change the content of a draft regulatory technical standard prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article. 2. Where the Authority has not submitted a draft regulatory technical standard within the time limit set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Commission may request such a draft within a new time limit. The Authority shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, in due time, that it will not comply with the new time limit. 3. Only where the Authority does not submit a draft regulatory technical standard to the Commission within the time limits in accordance with paragraph 2, may the Commission adopt a regulatory technical standard by means of a delegated act without a draft from the Authority. The Commission shall conduct open public consultations on draft regulatory technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft regulatory technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Commission shall also request the advice of the relevant Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37. The Commission shall immediately forward the draft regulatory technical standard to the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission shall send its draft regulatory technical standard to the Authority. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft regulatory technical standard and submit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council. If, on the expiry of the six-week period referred to in the fourth subparagraph, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft regulatory technical standard, the Commission may adopt the regulatory technical standard. If the Authority has submitted an amended draft regulatory technical standard within the six-week period, the Commission may amend the draft regulatory technical standard on the basis of the Authority’s proposed amendments or adopt the regulatory technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant. The Commission shall not change the content of the draft regulatory technical standard prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article. 4. The regulatory technical standards shall be adopted by means of regulations or decisions. The words ‘regulatory technical standard’ shall appear in the title of such regulations or decisions. Those standards shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.
Article 11 Exercise of the delegation
1. The power to adopt regulatory technical standards referred to in Article 10 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of four years from 16 December 2010. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegated power not later than 6 months before the end of the four-year period. The delegation of power shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council revokes it in accordance with Article 14. 2. As soon as it adopts a regulatory technical standard, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 3. The power to adopt regulatory technical standards is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 12 to 14.
Article 12 Revocation of the delegation
1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 10 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. 2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke a delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated power which could be subject to revocation. 3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the regulatory technical standards already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union .
Article 13 Objections to regulatory technical standards
1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a regulatory technical standard within a period of three months from the date of notification of the regulatory technical standard adopted by the Commission. At the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council that period shall be extended by three months. Where the Commission adopts a regulatory technical standard which is the same as the draft regulatory technical standard submitted by the Authority, the period during which the European Parliament and the Council may object shall be one month from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by one month. That extended period may be further extended by one month at initiative of the European Parliament or the Council. 2. If, on the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the regulatory technical standard, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein. The regulatory technical standard may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections. 3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to a regulatory technical standard within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. In accordance with Article 296 TFEU, the institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the regulatory technical standard.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. 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 13 Objections to regulatory technical standards):
1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a regulatory technical standard within a period of three months from the date of notification of the regulatory technical standard adopted by the Commission. At the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council that period shall be extended by three months. 2. If, on the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the regulatory technical standard, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein. The regulatory technical standard may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections. 3. If either the European Parliament or the Council objects to a regulatory technical standard within the period referred to in paragraph 1, it shall not enter into force. In accordance with Article 296 TFEU, the institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the regulatory technical standard.
Article 14 Non-endorsement or amendment of draft regulatory technical standards
1. In the event that the Commission does not endorse a draft regulatory technical standard or amends it as provided for in Article 10, the Commission shall inform the Authority, the European Parliament and the Council, stating its reasons. 2. Where appropriate, the European Parliament or the Council may invite the responsible Commissioner, together with the Chairperson of the Authority, within 1 month of the notice referred to in paragraph 1, for an ad hoc meeting of the competent committee of the European Parliament or the Council to present and explain their differences.
Article 15 Implementing technical standards
1. The Authority may develop implementing technical standards, by means of implementing acts under Article 291 TFEU, in the areas specifically set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2). Implementing technical standards shall be technical, shall not imply strategic decisions or policy choices and their content shall be to determine the conditions of application of those acts. The Authority shall submit its draft implementing technical standards to the Commission for endorsement. Before submitting draft implementing technical standards to the Commission, the Authority shall conduct open public consultations and shall analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft implementing technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Authority shall also request the opinion of the relevant stakeholder group referred to in Article 37. Where the Authority submits a draft implementing technical standard, the Commission shall immediately forward it to the European Parliament and the Council. Within 3 months of receipt of a draft implementing technical standard, the Commission shall decide whether to endorse it. The Commission may extend that period by 1 month. The Commission may endorse the draft implementing technical standard in part only, or with amendments, where the Union’s interests so require. Where the Commission intends not to endorse a draft implementing technical standard or intends to endorse it in part or with amendments, it shall send it back to the Authority explaining why it does not intend to endorse it, or, as the case may be, explaining the reasons for its amendments. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft implementing technical standard on the basis of the Commission’s proposed amendments and resubmit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council. If, on the expiry of the six-week period referred to in the fifth subparagraph, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft implementing technical standard, or has submitted a draft implementing technical standard that is not amended in a way consistent with the Commission’s proposed amendments, the Commission may adopt the implementing technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant or reject it. The Commission shall not change the content of a draft implementing technical standard prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article. 2. In cases where the Authority has not submitted a draft implementing technical standard within the time limit set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Commission may request such a draft within a new time limit. 3. Only where the Authority does not submit a draft implementing technical standard to the Commission within the time limits in accordance with paragraph 2, may the Commission adopt an implementing technical standard by means of an implementing act without a draft from the Authority. The Commission shall conduct open public consultations on draft implementing technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft implementing technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Commission shall also request the opinion or advice of the relevant stakeholder group referred to in Article 37. The Commission shall immediately forward the draft implementing technical standard to the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission shall send the draft implementing technical standard to the Authority. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft implementing technical standard and submit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council. If, on the expiry of the six-week period referred to in the fourth subparagraph, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft implementing technical standard, the Commission may adopt the implementing technical standard. If the Authority has submitted an amended draft implementing technical standard within that six-week period, the Commission may amend the draft implementing technical standard on the basis of the Authority’s proposed amendments or adopt the implementing technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant. The Commission shall not change the content of the draft implementing technical standards prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article. 4. The implementing technical standards shall be adopted by means of regulations or decisions. They shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. 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 15 Implementing technical standards):
1. Where the European Parliament and the Council confer implementing powers on the Commission to adopt implementing technical standards by means of implementing acts pursuant to Article 291 TFEU, in the areas specifically set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) of this Regulation, the Authority may develop draft implementing technical standards. Implementing technical standards shall be technical, shall not imply strategic decisions or policy choices and their content shall be to determine the conditions of application of those acts. The Authority shall submit its draft implementing technical standards to the Commission for adoption. At the same time, the Authority shall forward those technical standards for information to the European Parliament and to the Council. Before submitting draft implementing technical standards to the Commission, the Authority shall conduct open public consultations and shall analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are highly disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft implementing technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Authority shall also request the advice of the relevant Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37. Within three months of receipt of a draft implementing technical standard, the Commission shall decide whether to adopt it. The Commission may extend that period by one month. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council in due time where the adoption cannot take place within the three-month period. The Commission may adopt the draft implementing technical standard in part only, or with amendments, where the Union’s interests so require. Where the Commission intends not to adopt a draft implementing technical standard or intends to adopt it in part or with amendments, it shall send it back to the Authority explaining why it does not intend to adopt it, or explaining the reasons for its amendments. The Commission shall send a copy of its letter to the European Parliament and to the Council. Within a period of six weeks, the Authority may amend the draft implementing technical standard on the basis of the Commission’s proposed amendments and resubmit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council. If, on the expiry of the six-week period referred to in the fourth subparagraph, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft implementing technical standard, or has submitted a draft implementing technical standard that is not amended in a way consistent with the Commission’s proposed amendments, the Commission may adopt the implementing technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant or reject it. The Commission shall not change the content of a draft implementing technical standard prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article. 2. Where the Authority has not submitted a draft implementing technical standard within the time limit set out in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Commission may request such a draft within a new time limit. The Authority shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, in due time, that it will not comply with the new time limit. 3. Only where the Authority does not submit a draft implementing technical standard to the Commission within the time limits in accordance with paragraph 2, may the Commission adopt an implementing technical standard by means of an implementing act without a draft from the Authority. The Commission shall conduct open public consultations on draft implementing technical standards and analyse the potential related costs and benefits, unless such consultations and analyses are disproportionate in relation to the scope and impact of the draft implementing technical standards concerned or in relation to the particular urgency of the matter. The Commission shall also request the advice of the relevant Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37. The Commission shall immediately forward the draft implementing technical standard to the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission shall send the draft implementing technical standard to the Authority. Within a period of 6 weeks, the Authority may amend the draft implementing technical standard and submit it in the form of a formal opinion to the Commission. The Authority shall send a copy of its formal opinion to the European Parliament and to the Council. If, on the expiry of the six-week period referred to in the fourth subparagraph, the Authority has not submitted an amended draft implementing technical standard, the Commission may adopt the implementing technical standard. If the Authority has submitted an amended draft implementing technical standard within that six-week period, the Commission may amend the draft implementing technical standard on the basis of the Authority’s proposed amendments or adopt the implementing technical standard with the amendments it considers relevant. The Commission shall not change the content of the draft implementing technical standards prepared by the Authority without prior coordination with the Authority, as set out in this Article. 4. The implementing technical standards shall be adopted by means of regulations or decisions. The words ‘implementing technical standard’ shall appear in the title of such regulations or decisions. Those standards shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.
Article 16 Guidelines and recommendations
1. The Authority shall, with a view to establishing consistent, efficient and effective supervisory practices within the ESFS, and to ensuring the common, uniform and consistent application of Union law, issue guidelines and recommendations addressed to competent authorities or financial institutions. 2. The Authority shall, where appropriate, conduct open public consultations regarding the guidelines and recommendations and analyse the related potential costs and benefits. Such consultations and analyses shall be proportionate in relation to the scope, nature and impact of the guidelines or recommendations. The Authority shall, where appropriate, also request opinions or advice from the relevant stakeholder group referred to in Article 37. 3. The competent authorities and financial institutions shall make every effort to comply with those guidelines and recommendations. Within 2 months of the issuance of a guideline or recommendation, each competent authority shall confirm whether it complies or intends to comply with that guideline or recommendation. In the event that a competent authority does not comply or does not intend to comply, it shall inform the Authority, stating its reasons. The Authority shall publish the fact that a competent authority does not comply or does not intend to comply with that guideline or recommendation. The Authority may also decide, on a case-by-case basis, to publish the reasons provided by the competent authority for not complying with that guideline or recommendation. The competent authority shall receive advanced notice of such publication. If required by that guideline or recommendation, financial institutions shall report, in a clear and detailed way, whether they comply with that guideline or recommendation. 4. In the report referred to in Article 43(5) the Authority shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of the guidelines and recommendations that have been issued, stating which competent authority has not complied with them, and outlining how the Authority intends to ensure that the competent authority concerned follow its recommendations and guidelines in the future.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. 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 16 Guidelines and recommendations):
1. The Authority shall, with a view to establishing consistent, efficient and effective supervisory practices within the ESFS, and to ensuring the common, uniform and consistent application of Union law, issue guidelines addressed to all competent authorities or all financial institutions and issue recommendations to one or more competent authorities or to one or more financial institutions. Guidelines and recommendations shall be in accordance with the empowerments conferred in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) or in this Article. 2. The Authority shall, where appropriate, conduct open public consultations regarding the guidelines and recommendations which it issues and analyse the related potential costs and benefits of issuing such guidelines and recommendations. Those consultations and analyses shall be proportionate in relation to the scope, nature and impact of the guidelines or recommendations. The Authority shall, where appropriate, also request advice from the Insurance and Reinsurance Stakeholder Group and of the Occupational Pensions Stakeholder Group referred to in Article 37. Where the Authority does not conduct open public consultations or does not request advice from the Insurance and Reinsurance Stakeholder Group and of the Occupational Pensions Stakeholder Group, the Authority shall provide reasons. 2a. Guidelines and recommendations shall not merely refer to, or reproduce, elements of legislative acts. Before issuing a new guideline or recommendation, the Authority shall first review existing guidelines and recommendations, in order to avoid any duplication. 3. The competent authorities and financial institutions shall make every effort to comply with those guidelines and recommendations. Within 2 months of the issuance of a guideline or recommendation, each competent authority shall confirm whether it complies or intends to comply with that guideline or recommendation. In the event that a competent authority does not comply or does not intend to comply, it shall inform the Authority, stating its reasons. The Authority shall publish the fact that a competent authority does not comply or does not intend to comply with that guideline or recommendation. The Authority may also decide, on a case-by-case basis, to publish the reasons provided by the competent authority for not complying with that guideline or recommendation. The competent authority shall receive advanced notice of such publication. If required by that guideline or recommendation, financial institutions shall report, in a clear and detailed way, whether they comply with that guideline or recommendation. 4. In the report referred to in Article 43(5), the Authority shall inform the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of the guidelines and recommendations that have been issued.
Article 17 Breach of Union law
1. Where a competent authority has not applied the acts referred to in Article 1(2) or has applied them in a way which appears to be a breach of Union law, including the regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards established in accordance with Articles 10 to 15, in particular by failing to ensure that a financial institution satisfies the requirements laid down in those acts, the Authority shall act in accordance with the powers set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of this Article. 2. Upon a request from one or more competent authorities, the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission or the relevant stakeholder group, or on its own initiative and after having informed the competent authority concerned, the Authority may investigate the alleged breach or non-application of Union law. Without prejudice to the powers laid down in Article 35, the competent authority shall, without delay, provide the Authority with all information which the Authority considers necessary for its investigation, including with regard to how the acts referred to in Article 1(2) are applied in accordance with Union law. 3. The Authority may, not later than 2 months from initiating its investigation, address a recommendation to the competent authority concerned setting out the action necessary to comply with Union law. The competent authority shall, within ten working days of receipt of the recommendation, inform the Authority of the steps it has taken or intends to take to ensure compliance with Union law. 4. Where the competent authority has not complied with Union law within 1 month from receipt of the Authority’s recommendation, the Commission may, after having been informed by the Authority, or on its own initiative, issue a formal opinion requiring the competent authority to take the action necessary to comply with Union law. The Commission’s formal opinion shall take into account the Authority’s recommendation. The Commission shall issue such a formal opinion no later than 3 months after the adoption of the recommendation. The Commission may extend this period by 1 month. The Authority and the competent authorities shall provide the Commission with all necessary information. 5. The competent authority shall, within ten working days of receipt of the formal opinion referred to in paragraph 4, inform the Commission and the Authority of the steps it has taken or intends to take to comply with that formal opinion. 6. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the formal opinion referred to in paragraph 4 within the period of time specified therein, and where it is necessary to remedy in a timely manner such non-compliance in order to maintain or restore neutral conditions of competition in the market or ensure the orderly functioning and integrity of the financial system, the Authority may, where the relevant requirements of the acts referred to in Article 1(2) are directly applicable to financial institutions, adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial institution requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under Union law including the cessation of any practice. The decision of the Authority shall be in conformity with the formal opinion issued by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 4. 7. Decisions adopted under paragraph 6 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter. When taking action in relation to issues which are subject to a formal opinion pursuant to paragraph 4 or a decision pursuant to paragraph 6, competent authorities shall comply with the formal opinion or the decision, as the case may be. 8. In the report referred to in Article 43(5), the Authority shall set out which competent authorities and financial institutions have not complied with the formal opinions or decisions referred to in paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Article.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. 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 17 Breach of Union law):
1. Where a competent authority has not applied the acts referred to in Article 1(2) or has applied them in a way which appears to be a breach of Union law, including the regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards established in accordance with Articles 10 to 15, in particular by failing to ensure that a financial institution satisfies the requirements laid down in those acts, the Authority shall act in accordance with the powers set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of this Article. 2. Upon request from one or more competent authorities, the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the relevant Stakeholder Group, or on its own initiative, including when this is based on well substantiated information from natural or legal persons, and after having informed the competent authority concerned, the Authority shall outline how it intends to proceed with the case and, where appropriate, investigate the alleged breach or non-application of Union law. Without prejudice to the powers laid down in Article 35, the competent authority shall, without delay, provide the Authority with all information which the Authority considers necessary for its investigation, including with regard to how the acts referred to in Article 1(2) are applied in accordance with Union law. Without prejudice to the powers laid down in Article 35, the Authority may, after having informed the competent authority concerned, address a duly justified and reasoned request for information directly to other competent authorities whenever requesting information from the competent authority concerned has proven, or is deemed to be, insufficient to obtain the information that is deemed necessary for the purpose of investigating an alleged breach or non-application of Union law. The addressee of such a request shall provide the Authority with clear, accurate and complete information without undue delay. 2a. Without prejudice to powers under this Regulation, and before issuing a recommendation as set out in paragraph 3, the Authority shall engage with the competent authority concerned where it considers such engagement appropriate in order to resolve a breach of Union law, in an attempt to reach agreement on actions necessary for the competent authority to comply with Union law. 3. The Authority may, not later than 2 months from initiating its investigation, address a recommendation to the competent authority concerned setting out the action necessary to comply with Union law. The competent authority shall, within ten working days of receipt of the recommendation, inform the Authority of the steps it has taken or intends to take to ensure compliance with Union law. 4. Where the competent authority has not complied with Union law within 1 month from receipt of the Authority’s recommendation, the Commission may, after having been informed by the Authority, or on its own initiative, issue a formal opinion requiring the competent authority to take the action necessary to comply with Union law. The Commission’s formal opinion shall take into account the Authority’s recommendation. The Commission shall issue such a formal opinion no later than 3 months after the adoption of the recommendation. The Commission may extend this period by 1 month. The Authority and the competent authorities shall provide the Commission with all necessary information. 5. The competent authority shall, within ten working days of receipt of the formal opinion referred to in paragraph 4, inform the Commission and the Authority of the steps it has taken or intends to take to comply with that formal opinion. 6. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission pursuant to Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the formal opinion referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article within the period specified therein, and where it is necessary to remedy in a timely manner such non-compliance in order to maintain or restore neutral conditions of competition in the market or ensure the orderly functioning and integrity of the financial system, the Authority may, where the relevant requirements of the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) of this Regulation are directly applicable to financial institutions, adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial institution requiring it to take all necessary action to comply with its obligations under Union law, including the cessation of any practice. The decision of the Authority shall be in conformity with the formal opinion issued by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 4. 7. Decisions adopted in accordance with paragraph 6 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter. When taking action in relation to issues which are subject to a formal opinion pursuant to paragraph 4 or to a decision pursuant to paragraph 6, competent authorities shall comply with the formal opinion or the decision, as the case may be. 8. In the report referred to in Article 43(5), the Authority shall set out which competent authorities and financial institutions have not complied with the formal opinions or decisions referred to in paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Article.
Article 18 Action in emergency situations
1. In the case of adverse developments which may seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union, the Authority shall actively facilitate and, where deemed necessary, coordinate any actions undertaken by the relevant national competent supervisory authorities. In order to be able to perform that facilitating and coordinating role, the Authority shall be fully informed of any relevant developments, and shall be invited to participate as an observer in any relevant gathering by the relevant national competent supervisory authorities. 2. The Council, in consultation with the Commission and the ESRB and, where appropriate, the ESAs, may adopt a decision addressed to the Authority, determining the existence of an emergency situation for the purposes of this Regulation, following a request by the Authority, the Commission or the ESRB. The Council shall review that decision at appropriate intervals and at least once a month. If the decision is not renewed at the end of a one-month period, it shall automatically expire. The Council may declare the discontinuation of the emergency situation at any time. Where the ESRB or the Authority considers that an emergency situation may arise, it shall issue a confidential recommendation addressed to the Council and provide it with an assessment of the situation. The Council shall then assess the need for a meeting. In that process, due care of confidentiality shall be guaranteed. If the Council determines the existence of an emergency situation, it shall duly inform the European Parliament and the Commission without delay. 3. Where the Council has adopted a decision pursuant to paragraph 2, and in exceptional circumstances where coordinated action by national authorities is necessary to respond to adverse developments which may seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union, the Authority may adopt individual decisions requiring competent authorities to take the necessary action in accordance with the legislation referred to in Article 1(2) to address any such developments by ensuring that financial institutions and competent authorities satisfy the requirements laid down in that legislation. 4. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the decision of the Authority referred to in paragraph 3 within the period laid down in that decision, the Authority may, where the relevant requirements laid down in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) including in regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards adopted in accordance with those acts are directly applicable to financial institutions, adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial institution requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under that legislation, including the cessation of any practice. This shall apply only in situations in which a competent authority does not apply the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), including regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards adopted in accordance with those acts, or applies them in a way which appears to be a manifest breach of those acts, and where urgent remedying is necessary to restore the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union. 5. Decisions adopted under paragraph 4 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter. Any action by the competent authorities in relation to issues which are subject to a decision pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4 shall be compatible with those decisions.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. 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 18 Action in emergency situations):
1. In the case of adverse developments which may seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union, the Authority shall actively facilitate and, where deemed necessary, coordinate any actions undertaken by the relevant national competent supervisory authorities. In order to be able to perform that facilitating and coordinating role, the Authority shall be fully informed of any relevant developments, and shall be invited to participate as an observer in any relevant gathering by the relevant national competent supervisory authorities. 2. The Council, in consultation with the Commission and the ESRB and, where appropriate, the ESAs, may adopt a decision addressed to the Authority, determining the existence of an emergency situation for the purposes of this Regulation, following a request by the Authority, the Commission or the ESRB. The Council shall review that decision at appropriate intervals and at least once a month. If the decision is not renewed at the end of a one-month period, it shall automatically expire. The Council may declare the discontinuation of the emergency situation at any time. Where the ESRB or the Authority considers that an emergency situation may arise, it shall issue a confidential recommendation addressed to the Council and provide it with an assessment of the situation. The Council shall then assess the need for a meeting. In that process, due care of confidentiality shall be guaranteed. If the Council determines the existence of an emergency situation, it shall duly inform the European Parliament and the Commission without delay. 3. Where the Council has adopted a decision pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article and, in exceptional circumstances, where coordinated action by competent authorities is necessary to respond to adverse developments which may seriously jeopardise the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union, or customer and consumer protection, the Authority may adopt individual decisions requiring competent authorities to take the necessary action in accordance with the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) to address any such developments by ensuring that financial institutions and competent authorities satisfy the requirements laid down in those legislative acts. 4. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the decision of the Authority referred to in paragraph 3 within the period laid down in that decision, the Authority may, where the relevant requirements laid down in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) including in regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards adopted in accordance with those acts are directly applicable to financial institutions, adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial institution requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under that legislation, including the cessation of any practice. This shall apply only in situations in which a competent authority does not apply the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), including regulatory technical standards and implementing technical standards adopted in accordance with those acts, or applies them in a way which appears to be a manifest breach of those acts, and where urgent remedying is necessary to restore the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union. 5. Decisions adopted under paragraph 4 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter. Any action by the competent authorities in relation to issues which are subject to a decision pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4 shall be compatible with those decisions.
Article 19 Settlement of disagreements between competent authorities in cross-border situations
1. Without prejudice to the powers laid down in Article 17, where a competent authority disagrees about the procedure or content of an action or inaction of a competent authority of another Member State in cases specified in the acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority, at the request of one or more of the competent authorities concerned, may assist the authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 2 to 4 of this Article. In cases specified in the legislation referred to in Article 1(2), and where on the basis of objective criteria, disagreement between competent authorities from different Member States can be determined, the Authority may, on its own initiative, assist the authorities in reaching an agreement in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 2 to 4. 2. The Authority shall set a time limit for conciliation between the competent authorities taking into account any relevant time periods specified in the acts referred to in Article 1(2) and the complexity and urgency of the matter. At that stage the Authority shall act as a mediator. 3. If the competent authorities concerned fail to reach an agreement within the conciliation phase referred to in paragraph 2, the Authority may, in accordance with the procedure set out in the third and fourth subparagraph of Article 44(1) take a decision requiring them to take specific action or to refrain from action in order to settle the matter, with binding effects for the competent authorities concerned, in order to ensure compliance with Union law. 4. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission under Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the decision of the Authority, and thereby fails to ensure that a financial institution complies with requirements directly applicable to it by virtue of the acts referred to in Article 1(2), the Authority may adopt an individual decision addressed to a financial institution requiring the necessary action to comply with its obligations under Union law, including the cessation of any practice. 5. Decisions adopted under paragraph 4 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter. Any action by the competent authorities in relation to facts which are subject to a decision pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4 shall be compatible with those decisions. 6. In the report referred to in Article 50(2), the Chairperson of the Authority shall set out the nature and type of disagreements between competent authorities, the agreements reached and the decisions taken to settle such disagreements.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. 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 19 Settlement of disagreements between competent authorities in cross-border situations):
In cases where the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) require a joint decision to be taken by competent authorities, and where in accordance with those acts the Authority may assist, on its own initiative in reaching an agreement in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 2 to 4 of this Article, the competent authorities concerned, a disagreement shall be presumed in the absence of a joint decision being taken by those authorities within the time limits set out in those acts. 1b. The Chairperson shall assess whether the Authority should act in accordance with paragraph 1. Where the intervention is at the Authority’s own initiative, the Authority shall notify the competent authorities concerned of its decision regarding the intervention. Pending the Authority’s decision in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 44(4), in cases where the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) require a joint decision to be taken, all competent authorities involved in the joint decision shall defer their individual decisions. Where the Authority decides to act, all the competent authorities involved in the joint decision shall defer their decisions until the procedure set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article is concluded. 2. The Authority shall set a time limit for conciliation between the competent authorities taking into account any relevant time periods specified in the acts referred to in Article 1(2) and the complexity and urgency of the matter. At that stage the Authority shall act as a mediator. 3. Where the competent authorities concerned fail to reach an agreement within the conciliation phase referred to in paragraph 2, the Authority may take a decision requiring those authorities to take specific action, or to refrain from certain action, in order to settle the matter, and to ensure compliance with Union law. The decision of the Authority shall be binding on the competent authorities concerned. The Authority’s decision may require competent authorities to revoke or amend a decision that they have adopted or to make use of the powers which they have under the relevant Union law. 3a. The Authority shall notify the competent authorities concerned of the conclusion of the procedures under paragraphs 2 and 3 together with, where applicable, its decision taken under paragraph 3. 4. Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission pursuant to Article 258 TFEU, where a competent authority does not comply with the decision of the Authority, and thereby fails to ensure that a financial institution complies with requirements directly applicable to it by virtue of the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) of this Regulation, the Authority may adopt an individual decision addressed to that financial institution requiring it to take all necessary action to comply with its obligations under Union law, including the cessation of any practice. 5. Decisions adopted under paragraph 4 shall prevail over any previous decision adopted by the competent authorities on the same matter. Any action by the competent authorities in relation to facts which are subject to a decision pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4 shall be compatible with those decisions. 6. In the report referred to in Article 50(2), the Chairperson of the Authority shall set out the nature and type of disagreements between competent authorities, the agreements reached and the decisions taken to settle such disagreements.
Article 20 Settlement of disagreements between competent authorities across sectors
The Joint Committee shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 19 and Article 56, settle cross-sectoral disagreements that may arise between competent authorities as defined in Article 4(2) of this Regulation, of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 respectively.
Article 21 Colleges of supervisors
1. The Authority shall contribute to promoting and monitoring the efficient, effective and consistent functioning of the colleges of supervisors referred to in Directive 2009/138/EC and foster the coherence of the application of Union law among the colleges of supervisors. With the objective of converging supervisory best practices, staff from the Authority shall be able to participate in the activities of the colleges of supervisors, including on-site examinations, carried out jointly by two or more competent authorities. 2. The Authority shall lead in ensuring a consistent and coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors for cross-border institutions across the Union, taking account of the systemic risk posed by financial institutions referred to in Article 23. For the purpose of this paragraph and of paragraph 1 of this Article, the Authority shall be considered a ‘competent authority’ within the meaning of the relevant legislation. The Authority may: (a) collect and share all relevant information in cooperation with the competent authorities in order to facilitate the work of the college and establish and manage a central system to make such information accessible to the competent authorities in the college; (b) initiate and coordinate Union-wide stress tests in accordance with Article 32 to assess the resilience of financial institutions, in particular the systemic risk posed by financial institutions as referred to in Article 23, to adverse market developments, and evaluate the potential for systemic risk to increase in situations of stress, ensuring that a consistent methodology is applied at the national level to such tests and, where appropriate, address a recommendation to the competent authority to correct issues identified in the stress test; (c) promote effective and efficient supervisory activities, including evaluating the risks to which financial institutions are or might be exposed as determined under the supervisory review process or in stress situations; (d) oversee, in accordance with the tasks and powers specified in this Regulation, the tasks carried out by the competent authorities; and (e) request further deliberations of a college in any cases where it considers that the decision would result in an incorrect application of Union law or would not contribute to the objective of convergence of supervisory practices. It may also require the group supervisor to schedule a meeting of the college or add a point to the agenda of a meeting. 3. The Authority may develop draft regulatory and implementing technical standards to ensure uniform conditions of application with respect to the provisions regarding the operational functioning of colleges of supervisors and issue guidelines and recommendations adopted under Article 16 to promote convergence in supervisory functioning and best practices adopted by the colleges of supervisors. 4. The Authority shall have a legally binding mediation role to resolve disputes between competent authorities in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 19. The Authority may take supervisory decisions directly applicable to the institution concerned in accordance with Article 19.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. 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 21 Colleges of supervisors):
1. The Authority shall, promote and monitor within the scope of its powers, the efficient, effective and consistent functioning of the colleges of supervisors where established by legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2) and foster the consistency and coherence of the application of Union law among the colleges of supervisors. With the objective of converging supervisory best practices, the Authority shall promote joint supervisory plans and joint examinations, and staff from the Authority shall have full participation rights in the colleges of supervisors and, as such, shall be able to participate in the activities of the colleges of supervisors, including on-site inspections, carried out jointly by two or more competent authorities. 3. The Authority may develop draft regulatory and implementing technical standards in accordance with the empowerments laid down in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), and in accordance with Articles 10 to 15, to ensure uniform conditions of application with respect to the provisions regarding the operational functioning of colleges of supervisors. The Authority may issue guidelines and recommendations in accordance with Article 16 to promote convergence in supervisory functioning and best practices that have been adopted by the colleges of supervisors. 4. The Authority shall have a legally binding mediation role to resolve disputes between competent authorities in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 19. The Authority may take supervisory decisions directly applicable to the institution concerned in accordance with Article 19.