Short Reads

Rejection of the level 2 draft RTS implementing PRIIPs by the European Parliament

Rejection of the level 2 draft RTS implementing PRIIPs by the European Parliament

16.09.2016 BE law

The PRIIPs Regulation introduces the so-called Key Information Document (the so-called “KID”) which will have to be provided to retail consumers when they buy retail and insurance-based investment products. These include asset management products and other "packaged" investment products sold by banks or insurance companies.

The PRIIPs Regulation1 introduces the so-called Key Information Document (the so-called “KID”) which will have to be provided to retail consumers when they buy retail and insurance-based investment products. These include asset management products and other "packaged" investment products sold by banks or insurance companies.

On 14 September 2016, the European Parliament has objected to a draft delegated regulation2 (Draft RTS and Draft RTS annexes) of the European Commission containing regulatory technical standards (RTS) with regard to (i) the presentation, content, review and revision of KIDs and (ii) the technical conditions that have to be met to fulfil the obligation to provide such documents.

In its press release, the Parliament stated that the draft legislation designed to protect retail investors was rejected by MEPs on as so “flawed and misleading” that it could actually lose them money’. Therefore, it will unusually be returned to the Commission for revision.

As the PRIIPs Regulation is due to come into force on 31 December 2016, the European Parliament has requested the European Commission to consider a proposal postponing the date of entry into force of the PRIIPs Regulation.

On the Belgian side, the national legislator has anticipated the PRIIPs Regulation with the adoption on 25 April 2014 of the Royal Decree concerning certain information requirements for the distribution of financial products to non-professional clients (the so-called “Transversal Royal Decree”).

The entry into force of the provisions transposing the PRIIPs Regulation has, however, been postponed by the Royal Decree of 2 June 2015 to a currently undetermined date.

The “postponed” provisions are the provisions with respect to the mandatory and voluntary information sheet (which implements the PRIIPs KID requirements); the requirement to include a risk label in any advertisement, announcement or other document and Articles 22, e and 23 with respect to future performance of financial products which are linked to the performance of financial assets, indices or reference portfolios and, if applicable, the obligation to retake unchanged the numerical examples from the KID in the marketing documents. In the Annex of the Transversal Royal Decree the legislator has even given ready-to-use templates per type of investment product.

It is not sure what the Belgian legislator will do next and when. There is currently no public information available on this.

  1. Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products.
  2. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) …/... of 30.6.2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) by laying down regulatory technical standards with regard to the presentation, content, review and revision of key information documents and the conditions for fulfilling the requirement to provide such documents

 

Team

Related news

16.02.2018 EU law
Who is a consumer? The dynamic approach to the concept of 'consumer' under the Brussels I Regulation

Short Reads - On 25 January 2018, the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") rendered a preliminary ruling in a case between Austrian citizen Maximilian Schrems and online social network Facebook. The ruling is important for two reasons. First, the ECJ approved a dynamic approach to the concept of 'consumer' under the Brussels I Regulation. Secondly, the ECJ clarified that the special consumer forum can only be invoked by the specific consumer who is party to the contractual relationship with the professional trader.

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Qualifying dawn raid documents as 'in scope' or 'out of scope': marginal review by Belgian Court

Short Reads - On 13 December 2017, the Brussels Court of Appeal rendered a judgment clarifying the qualification 'in scope' and 'out of scope' of documents seized by the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) during dawn raids at the applicants' (Distripaints NV and Novelta NV) premises. The dawn raids were launched after a complaint by SA Durieu Coatings, which accused both distributors of colluding with its competitor Akzo Nobel.

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Highest German Court rules that ASICS's ban on using price comparison websites violates EU competition law

Short Reads - On 19 January 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) published its judgment concerning an appeal brought by shoe manufacturer ASICS against a fining decision. The FCJ ruled that ASICS had infringed competition law by prohibiting its retailers from participating in price comparison websites. The judgment confirms the strict approach of German courts relating to vertical online sales restrictions.  

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Participation d’entreprises liées aux marchés publics: qui assume la responsabilité ?

Articles - L’avocat général Campos Sanchez-Bordona a récemment déposé des conclusions intéressante dans le cadre de l’affaire nr. C-531/A6 dont la Cour de justice a été saisie. Selon l’avocat général, des soumissionnaires qui sont liés mais qui présentent chacun une offre séparée pour un marché public déterminé n’ont pas à informer le pouvoir adjudicateur des liens existant entre eux. Il ressort en outre des conclusions que le pouvoir adjudicateur n’est pas légalement tenu de vérifier de manière active la participation d’entreprises liées à un marché public.

Read more

01.02.2018 EU law
Dissemination of misleading information on the safety of a medical product can be a "by object" infringement

Short Reads - On 23 January 2018, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment on a request for a preliminary ruling by the Italian Council of State. The request concerned an agreement between Roche and Novartis to make public statements concerning the alleged lack of safety and efficacy of one of Roche's products which competed with a product licensed to Novartis (the Agreement). The Court of Justice found that such an agreement can, under specific circumstances, constitute a restriction of competition "by object".

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy and Cookie Policy