CESR reviews the application of guidelines to simplify UCITS notification procedures across Europe
29 January 2010
The report provides evidence of the level of application of the CESR guidelines on UCITS notification procedures within the CESR membership. Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Luxembourg and Norway are the only members currently applying CEBS guidelines in full.
CESR publishes the results of a peer review of how its members across Europe apply CESR guidelines to simplify the notification procedures of Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities (UCITS). A stock-take was conducted in 2008, looking into the degree of application of 13 CESR guidelines for the notification of UCITS by the 27 CESR Members. The results published today reflect the situation of the cut-off day set for the review which was 1 April 2008.
The work carried out by the Review Panel in the form of peer reviews contributes to achieve CESR’s objectives of increasing supervisory convergence amongst its members through peer pressure, as well as increasing transparency of implementation.
Carlos Tavares, Vice-Chair of CESR and Chair of the Portuguese Comissão do Mercado de Valores Mobiliários (CMMV), Chair of the Review Panel conducting the survey, stated:
"Today’s publication shows the importance of creating peer pressure amongst CESR Members in order to achieve greater convergence. The Review Panel will continue to maintain pressure for supervisory convergence and notes that with the implementation of the UCITS IV Directive and following Level 2 legislation, remaining uneven levels, for instance with regard to electronic filing, will be resolved."
The report provides evidence of the level of application of the CESR guidelines on notification procedures for UCITS in the CESR membership. Out of the 13 CESR guidelines for UCITS notification, seven had been identified as key guidelines according to the CESR self-assessment (Ref. 08-113) published on the CESR website, namely the notification letter (guideline 1), possible grounds to refuse notification (guideline 2), the starting of the two-month notification period (guideline 4), the maximum two-months period to check information (guideline 5), the requirement to submit the latest version of the notification documents and certification of them (guideline 7), and marketing of only part of an umbrella fund and the single notification letter for several sub-funds and cross-reference (guideline 10).
In order for members to be considered as fully applying the CESR guidelines, the benchmark set for the peer review required that at least the key guidelines be applied fully. This was the case for five CESR Members – Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Luxembourg and Norway.
Members were considered as partially applying the guidelines when, according to the benchmark, any of the key guidelines was partially applied. This was the case for four further CESR Members – Hungary, Portugal, Romania and Sweden. Countries were considered as being ‘non-applicants of the guidelines’ when any of the key guidelines were not fully complied with. This was the case for the 20 remaining CESR Members.
After the cut-off date of the peer review on 1 April 2008, the situation is likely to have changed to a higher degree of compliance with the guidelines in the jurisdictions of some CESR members which formally adopted national implementation measures – but, because of the cut-off date, the assessment of these measures was not part of the present peer review. Furthermore, the UCITS IV Directive (chapter XI) integrates some of the simplifications to the notification procedure envisaged by CESR in the Guidelines, such as those regarding the electronic filing of the notification document and the language regime of the notification letter and of the attestation of the home competent authority. Moreover, the European Commission may adopt implementing measures in other areas partly covered by the CESR guidelines.
© CESR - Committee of European Securities Regulators
