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 Europea

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

 

Related news

30.04.2019 EU law
Climate goals and energy targets: legal perspectives

Seminar - On Tuesday April 30th, Stibbe organizes a seminar on climate goals and energy targets. Climate change has incited different international and supranational institutions to issue climate goals and renewable energy targets. Both the UN and the EU have led this movement with various legal instruments.

Read more

11.04.2019 NL law
The Dutch UBO register will be introduced in January 2020

Short Reads - On 4 April 2019, a legislative proposal to implement the Dutch Ultimate Beneficial Owner (''UBO'') register (''UBO register'') was submitted to the Dutch parliament. The obligation to introduce a UBO register derives from the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive as amended by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. Approximately 1.5 million Dutch legal entities must register information on their UBOs in this register.

Read more

04.04.2019 NL law
Tick-tock: no reset of the appeal clock for amending Commission decision

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice recently upheld the General Court's order finding that metal production and recycling company Eco-Bat had submitted its appeal outside of the appeal term. Eco-Bat had relied on the term starting from the date of the European Commission's decision correcting figures for the fine calculation in the initial infringement decision.

Read more

12.04.2019 NL law
Hoogste Europese rechter bevestigt dat overheden onrechtmatige staatssteun proactief moeten terugvorderen

Short Reads - De maand maart 2019 zal vermoedelijk de juridisch handboeken ingaan als een historische maand voor het mededingings- en staatssteunrecht. Niet alleen deed het Hof van Justitie een baanbrekende uitspraak op het gebied van het verhaal van kartelschade. Het heeft in de uitspraak Eesti Pagar (C-349/17) van 5 maart 2019 belangrijke vragen opgehelderd over de handhaving van het staatssteunrecht op nationaal niveau.

Read more

04.04.2019 NL law
Fine liability in antitrust cases is closely scrutinised by Dutch courts

Short Reads - A parent company can be held liable for a subsidiary's anti-competitive conduct if the parent has exercised decisive influence over the subsidiary, because the two are then considered a single undertaking. This is why the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) recently found that the ACM cannot simply rely on managing partners' civil liability to determine fine liability for a limited partnership's anti-competitive conduct.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring