Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-14-Speech-4-228"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061214.46.4-228"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mrs Berès, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission’s proposal of 2003 on the signing of the Hague Convention on securities is at a standstill. The United States and Switzerland signed the Convention in July 2006, Europe debates with itself and the Council is divided.
The introduction, in 1998, of the provision on the location of the account in the directive on the finality of settlement and, later, in the directive on the winding up of credit institutions and in the directive on financial collateral arrangements – all this has helped to ensure legal certainty in respect of laws applicable to securities held with an intermediary.
If it is indeed true that there is no proof that practical problems exist in the internal market, the scope of this instrument is essentially limited to situations in which securities function as guarantees in the banking sector. Determining the location of securities accounts in the dematerialised and virtual world in which we now live necessitates the development of a new common legislation, for example by means of a standardised numbering system for bank accounts.
The objective of the negotiations on the Hague Convention on securities was to create one single, common provision which could be applied at an international level. For this purpose, the Convention proposes to leave it up to the parties to choose the legislation that will regulate the legal ownership of securities. Given that, at the time, all the Member States had accepted this compromise, in 2003 the Commission proposed signing the Convention. At that point, several Member States raised new questions about this project. Then the Council asked the Commission for precise details on four specific legal questions. The response was given in the form of a legal impact assessment of the Convention, carried out by the services of the Commission and communicated to the Council on 3 July 2006.
In this assessment, the services of the Commission considered that signing up to the Convention represented today the simplest solution to the question of how to have a single regulation at an international level. The impact assessment also proposed alternatives to signing the Convention, in particular extending the ‘location of account’ clause to cover all uses of securities, and not only uses of securities as guarantees.
However, in order to obtain a solution at an international level on this basis, it would be necessary to enter into new negotiations with third countries. At this stage, according to the opinion of my colleague in charge of the internal market, we do not think that an assessment of the economic and financial impact of the Convention, as mentioned in the oral question, would help us to come up with a solution. In fact, the Member States which negotiated the Convention in 2002 and which today are debating within the Council did not deem it necessary to have such a study – neither then nor now.
In accordance with the Interinstitutional Agreement and in the desire to legislate more effectively, the Commission would favourably receive any additional external legal or economic impact assessment which might help us to make some progress.
As I have already told you, the issue is at a standstill in the Council, but the Commission remains open to all proposals. This is what I wanted to say about this question on behalf of Mr McCreevy and the Commission, while underlining, obviously, the difficulty of the problem. Of course I remain very attentive to any proposals and suggestions that Parliament might make on this issue."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples