Will the PRIPs' KID live up to its promise to protect investors? ECMI Commentary No. 33, 6 July 2012

Unveiled by the European Commission on July 3rd, the proposed Regulation on key information documents (KID) for packaged retail investment products (PRIPs) represents a step forward in enhancing the protection of retail investors and advancing the single market for financial services. While acknowledging in this Commentary that the KID is a commendable effort, ECMI/CEPS researcher Mirzha de Manuel Aramendía observes that pre-contractual disclosure is just one of the pieces in the jigsaw puzzle of investor protection and regrets that other pieces, such as MiFID and the IMD, are not so ambitiously constructed.

Commitments or prohibition? The EU antitrust dilemma. Bruegel Policy Brief 2014/01, 31 January 2014

The issue: Excluding cartels, most investigations into suspected infringements of European Union competition law are resolved with ‘commitment decisions’. The European Commission drops the case in exchange for a commitment from the company under investigation to implement measures to stop the presumed anti-competitive behaviour. Commitment decisions are considered speedier than formal sanctions (prohibition decisions) in restoring normal competitive market conditions. They have a cost, however: commitments are voluntary and are unlikely to be subject to judicial review. This reduces the European Commission’s incentive to build a robust case. Because commitment decisions do not establish any legal precedent, they provide for little guidance on the interpretation of the law. Policy challenge: The European Commission relies increasingly on commitment decisions. More transparency on the substance of allegations, and the establishment of a higher number of legal precedents, are however necessary. This applies in particular to cases that tackle antitrust issues in new areas, such as markets for digital goods, in which companies might find it difficult to assess if a certain behaviour constitutes a violation of competition rules. To ensure greater transparency and mitigate some of the drawbacks of commitment decisions, while retaining their main benefits, the full detail of the objections addressed by the European Commission to defendants should be published.

Banking Business Models Monitor 2014: Europe. CEPS Paperbacks, 14 October 2014

CEPS and the International Observatory on Financial Services Cooperatives (IOFSC) at HEC Montreal have initiated an annual monitoring exercise on banking business models in the EU. Based on their balance sheet structures, 147 European banks that account for more than 80% of the industry assets were categorised in four business models. The Monitor emphasises the ownership structures and assesses the financial and economic performance, resilience and robustness, before, during and after the financial and economic crises across retail diversified-, retail focused-, investment-, and wholesale oriented banks. Inter alia, this edition of the Monitor finds that banks that engage more in traditional retail banking activities with a mix of funding sources fared well as compared to other bank models during the different phases of the crisis.

The Standard of Proof in EC Merger Control-Conclusions from the Sony BMG Saga. IES WORKING PAPER 4/2008

One of the most important developments in EC competition policy during 2006 was the Court of First Instance’s (CFI) Impala v. Commission judgment annulling the European Commission’s approval of the merger between the music units of Sony and Bertelsmann. It harshly criticized the Commission’s Decision because it found that the evidence relied on was not capable of substantiating the conclusion. This was the first time that a merger decision was annulled for not meeting the requisite legal standard for authorizing the merger. Consequently, the CFI raised fundamental questions about the standard of proof incumbent on the Commission in its merger review procedures. On July 10, 2008, the European Court of Justice overturned Impala, yet it did not resolve the fundamental question underlying the judicial review of the Sony BMG Decision; does the Commission have the necessary resources and expertise to meet the Community Court’s standard of proof? This paper addresses the wider implications of the Sony BMG saga for the Commission’s future handling of complex merger investigations. It argues that the Commission may have set itself an impossible precedent in the second approval of the merger. While the Commission has made a substantial attempt to meet the high standard of proof imposed by the Community Courts, it is doubtful that it will be able to jump the fence again in a similar fashion under normal procedural circumstances.

Relaunching the European Retail Finance Market: Comments on the Commission's Green Paper. ECRI Commentary No. 20, 15 December 2015

The European Commission’s Green Paper on retail financial services, published on December 10th, provides valuable insights into the possible benefits of a single market, as well as the obstacles to its development and the possible remedies. While a greater diversity of products within countries could have a positive impact on both consumers and providers, it is also important to highlight that it could contribute to more effective macroeconomic policies at European level. The development of such a single market for Europe where consumers can confidently purchase more profitable financial products abroad necessitates the establishment of a European body along the lines of the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), or at least the establishment of closer European supervisory cooperation and enforcement. A framework for the digitalisation of financial services should not only focus on mitigating specific types of risk, such as cyber insecurity, lack of privacy and financial exclusion, but it should also continue to maintain a “space of creation” for innovative financial firms.

EEAS reloaded: recommendations for the 2013 review. CEPS Commentary, 12 December 2012

The original Council Decision establishing the European External Action Service (EEAS) in 2010, called for a review of the organisation and functioning of the EEAS by mid-2013. This CEPS Commentary argues that the review process will offer a formal opportunity to address some of the Service's weaknesses and to give a new impetus to its further development. In particular, it urges stakeholders to go beyond a review of organisational matters and also look into the Service’s overall contribution to attaining the objectives of the EU’s foreign policy, into its cooperation with the member states’ diplomatic services, the services of the European Commission, the Council General Secretariat and the European Parliament. Four sets of recommendations are put forward.