Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
More Risks than Achievements? Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

The Effects of the ESMA’s Powers on Domestic Contract Law

verfasst von : Federico Della Negra

Erschienen in: Regulating and Supervising European Financial Markets

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The establishment of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is one of the most important innovations introduced by the European Union (EU) after the global financial crisis. Whereas a considerable amount of literature has investigated the impact of the ESMA’s powers on regulatory convergence, supervision, and public enforcement, little attention has been paid to the effects that the ESMA’s powers could exert on national contract law and the private enforcement of EU financial regulation. The main hypothesis of this study is that, although ESMA does not have the power of creating, suspending, or terminating contractual obligations, some of its acts (e.g. product’s restrictions, guidelines, recommendations) may become an important tool for the parties to design their contractual obligations and for national courts and alternative dispute resolution mechanism to enforce national contract law. Starting from the analysis of the ESMA’s objectives, tasks and powers this chapter explores the intersections between the ESMA’s (quasi) regulatory and supervisory powers and national contract law and it argues that the ESMA’s powers will enhance the uniform interpretation and enforcement of contract law across national jurisdictions.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel The Regulatory Powers of the European Supervisory Authorities: Constitutional, Political and Functional Considerations
Nächstes Kapitel Strengths and Weaknesses of the ESMA-SEC Supervisory Cooperation
Fußnoten
1
Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (ESMA Regulation) O.J. L 331/84 (2010); Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (EBA Regulation) O.J. L 331/12 (2010); Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/79/EC (EIOPA Regulation) O.J. L 331/48 (2010).
 
2
Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board O.J. L 331/1 (2010).
 
3
See de Larosière (2009), p. 57.
 
4
See, in particular, Haar (2015), pp. 158–187.
 
5
Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions O.J. L 287/63 (2013)(SSM Regulation).
 
6
Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 O.J. L 225 (2014).
 
7
See, in particular, Tridimas (2012), pp. 56–83; Moloney (2011), pp. 41–86.
 
8
See Chiu (2015), pp. 67–103; Lavrijssen and Ottow (2012), pp. 419–445.
 
9
See Micklitz (2015), p. 523.
 
10
See for some recent analysis, Cherednychenko (2015a), pp. 500–520; Grundmann (2015), pp. 1–16; Hadjiemmanuil (2015), pp. 1–15,  Möslein (2015), pp. 547–574. For a more general perspective on the relationship between the powers of national administrative authorities and private autonomy see Gitti (2006), p. 91 ss.
 
11
See also Hudson (2013), p. 13; Cherednychenko (2015a), p. 510; Dolmetta (2013), p. 7.
 
12
See, in particular, Art. 35a of Regulation (EU) No 462/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on credit rating agencies O.J. L 146/1 (2013).
 
13
See, in particular, Section 138D of Financial Services and Market Act 2000 (FSMA), as amended by the Financial Services Act 2012. For the distinction between the private law duties and rights of action based on EU law and national law see Hadjiemmanuil (2015), p. 388.
 
14
Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (MiFID I) O.J. L 145 (2004).
 
15
CJEU, case C-604/11, Genil v. Bankinter, ECLI:EU:C:2013:344, commented by Grundmann (2013), pp. 267–280.
 
16
Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (MiFID II) O.J. L 173/349 (2014). Art. 94 of MiFID II repealed the MiFID I with effect from 3 January 2017.
 
17
The articles and recitals cited in the text will refer, unless otherwise established, to the ESMA Regulation.
 
18
See, in particular, Schammo (2012), p. 773.
 
19
Arts. 14–17 and Arts. 21–25 of Regulation (EU) No 513/2011 of 11 May 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on credit rating agencies O.J. L 145/30 (2011).
 
20
Arts. 55–59 and Arts. 60–74 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (EMIR) O.J. L 201/1 (2012).
 
21
Art. 28 of Regulation No 236/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (Short-Selling Regulation) O.J. L 86/1 (2012) and Art. 40 of Regulation No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (MiFIR) O.J. L 173/84 (2014).
 
22
See, in particular, Chamon (2010), pp. 281–305 and Chiti (2011), pp. 93–110.
 
23
Advocate General Jääskinen, opinion in case C-270/12, UK v. Parliament and Council, EU:C:2013:562, para 24.
 
24
CJEU, case C-270/12, UK v. Parliament and Council, EU:C:2014:18 (Short-Selling case).
 
25
See the analysis of Marjosola (2014), p. 500.
 
26
CJEU, case C-9/56, Meroni v High Authority, ECLI:EU:C:1958:7, p. 143.
 
27
CJEU, case C-270/12, UK v. Parliament and Council, para 41.
 
28
CJEU, case C-270/12, UK v. Parliament and Council, para 53.
 
29
CJEU, case C-270/12, UK v. Parliament and Council, para 65 and 98.
 
30
CJEU, case C-270/12, UK v. Parliament and Council, para 116.
 
31
European Commission, Green Paper on Building a Capital Markets Union COM(2015) 63 final, p. 20. See also the Capital Markets Union: First Status Report, SWD(2016) 147 final, p. 4.
 
32
See European Commission (2014), Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the operation of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) and the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) COM(2014) 509 final, p. 6.
 
33
See, in particular, ESMA, MiFID—Conduct of Business, fair, clear and not misleading information. Peer Review Report, 11 December 2014 ESMA/2014/1485; ESMA, Best Execution under MiFID, Peer Review Report, 25 February 2015, ESMA/2015/494. See also the monitoring activity carried out by ESMA on virtual currencies: ESMA, Call for evidence. Investment using virtual currency or distributed ledger technology. 22 April 2015. ESMA 2015/532.
 
34
See Tridimas (2006), p. 139.
 
35
CJEU, case C-283/11, Sky Österreich GmbH, EU:C:2012:341, para 42–43. See also Comparato and Micklitz (2013), pp. 121–149.
 
36
CJEU, case C-256/07, Mitsui & Co. Deutschland GmbH, EU:C:2009:167, para 60; case C-376/02, Goed Wonen, ECLI:EU:C:2005:251, para 32. See also Chalmers et al. (2010), p. 411.
 
37
CJEU, case C-345/06, Heinrich, ECLI:EU:C:2009:140, para 44.
 
38
The Board of Supervisors shall adopt the DTS on the basis of a qualified majority of its members (Art. 44 (1) ESMA Regulation). See Busuioc (2013), p. 113; Moloney (2011), p. 74.
 
39
See, in particular, Türk (2006), p. 14.
 
40
See CJEU, case C-9/56, Meroni v High Authority, p. 143. See also Busuioc (2013), p. 114.
 
41
CJEU, case C-270/12, UK v. Parliament and Council, para 85.
 
42
See Moloney (2011), p. 59.
 
43
For a case in which the Commission rejected the DTS, see Commission decision of 28.1.2014 rejecting the draft implementing technical standards to amend Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012 on the format and frequency of trade reports to trade repositories under Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, C (2014) 335 final.
 
44
Advocate General Jääskinen opinion, in case C-507/13, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2394, para 64.
 
45
See, for example, ESMA, Questions and Answers. Application of the AIFMD, 21 July 2014, ESMA/2014/868.
 
46
See Moloney (2014), p. 983; Schammo (2012), p. 778.
 
47
See Tridimas (2011), p. 74.
 
48
See, inter alia, CJEU, case C-152/84 Marshall, ECLI:EU:C:1986:84, para 48; case C-91/92 Faccini Dori, ECLI:EU:C:1994:292, para 20; case C-201/02, Wells ECLI:EU:C:2004:12, para 56; case C-41/74, Van Duyn v. Home Office, ECLI:EU:C:1974:133. For a critical analysis of the theory of the horizontal effects of directives see, in particular, Dougan (2000), p. 586; Tridimas (2001), p. 326; Prechal (2005), p. 255; Craig and De Búrca (2008), p. 180; Craig (2009), p. 349.
 
49
See, in particular, case C-41/74, Van Duyn v. Home Office, para 24; case C-8/81, Ursula Becker v. Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt, ECLI:EU:C:1982:7, para 25; case C-221/88, ECSC v. Busseni, ECLI:EU:C:1990:84, para 34.
 
50
The conferring-right quality of a directive’s provision is a necessary condition to activate the remedy of State liability but it is not a condition of its direct effect. See, in this sense, Ruffert (1997), p. 315 and Van Gerven (2000), p. 507.
 
51
Section 1022 (c) (1), 1031 (a) and 1032 (a) of Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111–203, H.R. 4173 of 21 July 2010).
 
52
In the UK, see section 137D of FSMA; in Belgium, see Art. 30bis of Law 2 August 2002, as introduced by the Law 30 July 2013; in Spain, see Art. 79bis of Law 24/1988, as amended by the Law 9/2012; in Italy, see Art. 117 (8) of Legislative Decree 385/1993.
 
53
See, in particular, Moloney (2015), p. 762.
 
54
See Moloney (2014), p. 807.
 
55
On the risks related to the product intervention techniques, see, in particular, Avgouleas (2015), p. 684. See also IOSCO Regulation of Retail Structured Products. Final report, FR 14/13.
 
56
Arts. 8 and 16 of MiFID II have introduced new product governance obligations for financial firms. On product governance, see the opinion of ESMA, Good practices for product governance arrangements, 27 March 2014, ESMA/2014/332. Moreover, Art. 16 of SSM Regulation has conferred on the ECB the power to restrict the business, operations that pose excessive risks to the soundness of an institution and to restrict distributions by the institution to shareholders, members or holders of Additional Tier 1 instruments where the prohibition does not constittute an event of default of the institution.
 
57
Art. 40 (7) of MiFIR, Art. 28 (1) of Short-Selling Regulation.
 
58
See Tison (2005), p. 639.
 
59
ESMA-EBA, Warning to investors on contracts for difference (CFDs), 28 February 2013; ESMA, Warning on risks of investing in complex products, 7 February 2014.
 
60
ESMA, Warning to investors on trading in foreign exchange (forex), 5 December 2011; ESMA, Warning to investors on pitfalls of online investing, 10 September 2012.
 
61
See Tridimas (2012), p. 71; Moloney (2014), p. 929; Terpan (2015), p. 68.
 
62
See Hofmann et al. (2011), p. 567.
 
63
See Tridimas (2012), p. 71.
 
64
See European Commission, Report to the European Parliament and the Council on the evaluation of the Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps, COM(2013) 885 final.
 
65
See Micklitz (2015), p. 511.
 
66
See Van Gestel and Van Golen (2014), p. 757.
 
67
See, in particular, ESMA, Guidelines on systems and controls in a highly automated trading environment for trading platforms, investment firms and competent authorities, 20 July 2011 (ESMA/2011/224) and ESMA-EBA, Principles for Benchmark-Setting Processes in the EU, 6 June 2013, (ESMA/2013/659). For a more detailed analysis, see Moloney (2014), p. 929.
 
68
See ESMA, Guidelines on certain aspects of the MiFID suitability requirements, 6 July 2012, ESMA/2012/387. ESMA states that the age, family situation or educational level of the client should be included into the “necessary information” the firm must collect when assessing client’s suitability under Art. 25 (2) MiFID II (para 34). See also ESMA, Guidelines on ETFs and other UCITS issues, 18 December 2012, ESMA/2012/832 where ESMA imposes to the UCITS’ managers duties to conduct that have not been laid down in the relevant UCITS legislation (para 22, 37, 43).
 
69
Even if the ESAs Board of Appeal has not yet take an express view on whether guidelines are reviewable acts, in SV Capital OU v. EBA of 24 June 2013 the Board of Appeal underlined that, although the EBA’s guidelines are not binding in themselves, “they address the matter from a practical perspective and they can assist in the interpretation of EU legislation”. Moreover, in Onix Asigurari SA and Simone Lentini v EIOPA of 3 August 2015 the Board decided that a letter sent by EIOPA to an insurance company confiming an earlier decision not to open investigations against a NCA under Art. 17 was not a reviewable act because it merely confirmed a previous decision. This formalistic interpretation of the notion of decision could prevent the legal review of guidelines.
 
70
The judicial review of recommendations (of the EU institutions) is expressly excluded by Art. 263 (1) TFEU. See for a detailed analysis of this problem Hofmann et al. (2011), p. 806.
 
71
CJEU, case C-223/01, AstraZeneca, ECLI:EU:C:2003:546, para 28; AG Wahl, opinion in case C-104/13, AS “Olainfarm”, para 39. See also the pending case C-25/15, Koninklijke KPN and Others.
 
72
See, inter alia, CJEU, case C-148-73, Raymond Louwage v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1974:7, para 12.
 
73
CJEU, case C-189, 202, 205, 208, 213/02 P, Dansk Rørindustri A/S, EU:C:2005:408, para 210 with reference to the Commission’s guidelines on the method of setting fines to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty.
 
74
Art. 2, 1 (82) of Directive 2014/59/EU of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms (BRRD) O.J. L 173/190 (2014).
 
75
See Art. 117 (8) of Legislative decree 385/1993 which empowers the Bank of Italy to determine the content of the banking contracts and provides that the contracts which do not respect such determination are null and void.
 
76
Section 404 of FSMA.
 
77
The different problem of the horizontal effects of the EU conduct of business rules laid down into EU Regulations has been examined by Tountopoulos (2014), p. 297.
 
78
See, in particular, Reich (2007), p. 718; Have (2012), p. 497.
 
79
See, in particular, Tison (2010), p. 1 ss.
 
80
Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities field O.J. L 141 (1993).
 
81
See Kruithof (2011), p. 105.
 
82
See MacNeil (2015), p. 292.
 
83
See Reich (2005), p. 383; Tridimas (2011), p. 794.
 
84
It is controversial whether the MiFID I (and MiFID II) introduced a maximum or minimum harmonisation regime. For a more detailed analysis, see Cherednychenko (2011), pp. 221–259.
 
85
See Craig and De Búrca (2008), p. 284.
 
86
CJEU, case C-14/83, Von Colson, ECLI:EU:C:1984:153, para 62; case C-106/89, Marleasing ECLI:EU:C:1990:395, para 35.
 
87
CJEU, case C-397–403/01, Pfeiffer, ECLI:EU:C:2004:584, para 112.
 
88
CJEU, case C-168/95, Luciano Arcaro, ECLI:EU:C:1996:363, para 42; case C-105/03, Pupino, ECLI:EU:C:2005:386, para 45.
 
89
Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, case C-456/98, Centrosteel Srl, ECLI:EU:C:2000:137, para 35. See also Craig (2009), p. 349; Tridimas (2001), p. 327.
 
90
See Prechal (2005), p. 268.
 
91
The relationship between the principle of effectiveness of EU law and the principle of effective judicial protection has been examined by Prechal and Widdershoven (2011), p. 31 ss. and Safjan and Düsterhaus (2014), p. 1 ss.
 
92
CJEU, case C-604/11, Genil v. Bankinter, ECLI:EU:C:2013:344. In the case C-222/02, Peter Paul, ECLI:EU:C:2004:606 para 40, the CJEU held that the banking law directives (Directives 77/780, 89/299 and 89/646) aim at ensuring the mutual recognition of authorisations and of prudential supervision systems but do not confer rights on depositors in the event that their deposits are unavailable as a result of defective supervision on the part of the competent national authorities.
 
93
CJEU, case C-604/11, Genil v. Bankinter, para 57.
 
94
See also Grundmann (2013), p. 277.
 
95
See Bobek (2012), p. 305. Van Gerven (2000), p. 502; Kakouris (1997), p. 1389; Prechal (1998), p. 682.
 
96
See Della Negra (2014), p. 571.
 
97
See Section 138D of FSMA.
 
98
Commission, Public Consultation. Review of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), 8.12.2010, p. 63.
 
99
See Moloney (2012), p. 421.
 
100
Art. 72 of MiFID II (version adopted by the European Parliament on 26 October 2012 (COM(2011)0656—C7-0382/2011—2011/0298(COD)).
 
101
In EU law, a remedy must be activated by the initiative of a private individual and not by a public authority. See Van Gerven (2000), p. 501.
 
102
See, for the indirect effects on contract law of the acts adopted by the ECB in the framework of the SSM, Möslein (2015), pp. 547–574.
 
103
GC, case C-13/99 T, Pfizer Animal Health SA, EU:T:2002:209, para 146–147. On the precautionary principle see, in particular, Tridimas (2006), p. 245; Craig (2012), p. 591; Ladeur (2003), pp. 1455–1479; Purnhagen (2014), p. 453.
 
104
For the difficulty of distinguishing risk from uncertainties, see Turner (2012), p. 46.
 
105
See Black (2010), p. 302.
 
106
Commission, Communication on the precautionary principle, COM(2000) 1 final.
 
107
ESMA, Technical Advice to the Commission on MiFID II and MiFIR, cit., p.189.
 
108
For the distinction between actual and apparent retroactivity in EU law, see Schwarze (1992), p. 1120; Hofmann et al. (2011), p. 178; Craig (2012), p. 553.
 
109
In the case C-412/06, Hamilton, ECLI:EU:C:2008:215, para 42, the CJEU held that “the principle that the full performance of a contract results from discharge of the mutual obligations under the contract” is a general principle of civil law.
 
110
Hofmann et al. (2011), pp. 181–182; Tridimas (2006), p. 256.
 
111
The ISDA documentation, published in 1992 and 2002, comprises the Master Agreement (MA), which sets the general conditions, the schedule and confirmation which provide for the specific details of the transaction.
 
112
See Section 5 of ISDA MA 2002.
 
113
See Braithwaite (2012), p. 788.
 
114
Section 5 (b) i) of ISDA MA 2002. See also ISDA, Illegality/Force Majeure Protocol published on 11 July 2012.
 
115
Section 5 (d) of ISDA MA 2002.
 
116
See Sect. 2.4. above.
 
117
For an overview on the civil law countries, see Busch (2012), p. 401.
 
118
See, in particular, IFE Fund v Goldman Sachs International [2006] EWHC 2887 (Comm) para 71; JP Morgan Chase Bank (formerly Chase Manhattan Bank) v Springwell Navigation Corp [2008] EWHC 1793 (Comm), para 603.
 
119
Art. 9 of Directive 2014/104/EU of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union O.J. L 349 (2014) and art. 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty O.J. L 1 (2003).
 
120
See, in particular, Hudson (2013), p. 45; Bridge and Braithwaite (2013), pp. 361–399; Reynolds (2014), p. 269.
 
121
See, in particular, Tison (2010), p. 1; Haar (2011), p. 261; Busch (2012), p. 401; Perrone and Valente (2012), p. 37; Grundmann (2013), p. 267; Della Negra (2014), p. 571; Cherednychenko (2015a), p. 500.
 
122
See Goodhart et al. (1998), p. 23.
 
123
See Moloney (2015), p. 739.
 
124
See Moloney (2014), p. 799 ss.; Tuch (2015), p. 563.
 
125
For example, standard contracts should include new documentation to show the firm's compliance with the new requirements set out by Arts. 24 et seq. of MiFID II. Svetiev and Ottow (2014), p. 511.
 
126
See, in particular, Gilmore (1974), p. 45; Einsenberg (2000), p. 1743; Kennedy (2000), p. 94; Micklitz (2009), p. 3; Möslein and Riesenhuber (2009), p. 249; Cherednychenko (2014), p. 38.
 
127
See, in particular, Micklitz (2009), p. 3.
 
128
See the judgment of the Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) Cass. S.U. nn. 26724 and 26725/2007 in Foro it., 2008, I, 189;
 
129
See the judgment of the Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) of 20 January 2014 STS 354/2014.
 
130
See the judgment the Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) of 26 February 2008 of Bull. 2008, IV, n° 42, pourvoi n° 07–10.761.
 
131
See the judgment of the Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) XI ZR 33/10, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2011, 1949–1954.
 
132
See the judgment of the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) in Levob v. B, De Treek v. Dexia and Stichting Gedupeerden Spaarconstructie v. Aegon HR 2009, NJ 2012, 182, 183 and 184.
 
133
See Loosemore v Financial Concepts [2001] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 235; Seymour v Caroline Ockwell & Co. [2005] EWHC 1137 (QB); Shore v Sedgwick Financial Services Ltd [2007] EWHC 2509 (QB).
 
134
See Green v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2012] EWHC 3661 (QB).
 
135
See Haar (2011), p. 275.
 
136
See MacNeil (2015), p. 292.
 
137
See Weber and Faure (2015), p. 533.
 
138
See La Porta et al. (2006); Jackson and Roe (2009), p. 207 and, recently, Cherednychenko (2015b), p. 621.
 
139
See Micklitz (2015), p. 509.
 
140
See Micklitz (2015), p. 509.
 
141
See Nolan (2013), pp. 190–222; Andenas and Fairgrieve (2002), p. 757; D’Ambrosio (2015), p. 16.
 
142
CJEU, Joined cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, para 55; Joined Cases C-178/94, C-179/94, C-188/94, C-189/94, C-190/94 Dillenkofer, ECLI:EU:C:1996:375, para 25; CJEU, case C-5/94 Hedley Lomas EU:C:1996:205, para 28; Case C-352/98 P, Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA, ECLI:EU:C:2000:361, para 44.
 
Literatur
Andenas M, Fairgrieve D (2002) Misfeasance in public office, governmental liability and European influence. Int Comp Law Q 51:757–779CrossRef
Avgouleas E (2015) Regulating financial innovation: a multifaceted challenge to financial stability, consumer protection, and growth. In: Ferran E, Moloney N, Payne N (eds) Oxford handbook on financial regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Black J (2010) The role of risk in regulatory processes. In: Baldwin R, Cave M, Lodge M (eds) The Oxford handbook of regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 302–348
Bobek M (2012) Why there is no principle of ‘procedural autonomy’ of the member states. In: Micklitz H-W, De Witte B (eds) The European court of justice and autonomy of member states. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 305–322
Braithwaite JP (2012) Standard form contracts as transnational law: evidence from the derivatives markets. Mod Law Rev 75:779–805CrossRef
Bridge M, Braithwaite J (2013) Private law and financial crises. J Corp Law Stud 13:361–399CrossRef
Busch D (2012) Why MiFID matters to private law—the example of MiFID’s impact on an asset. Cap Mark Law J 7:386–413CrossRef
Busuioc M (2013) Rule-making by the European financial supervisory authorities: walking a tight rope. Eur Law J 19:111–125CrossRef
Chalmers D, Davies G, Monti G (2010) European Union law: cases and materials, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
Chamon M (2010) EU agencies: does the Meroni doctrine make sense? Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 17:281–305
Cherednychenko OO (2011) Full harmonisation of retail financial services contract law in Europe: a success or a failure? In: Grundmann S, Atamer YM (eds) Financial services, financial crisis and general European contract law. Kluwer Law International, Leiden, pp 221–259
Cherednychenko OO (2014) Public supervision over private relationships: towards European supervision private law? Eur Rev Priv Law 1:37–68
Cherednychenko OO (2015a) Contract governance in the EU: conceptualising the relationship between investor protection regulation and private law. Eur Law J 21:500–520CrossRef
Cherednychenko OO (2015b) Public and private enforcement of European private law in the financial services sector. Eur Rev Priv Law 23(4):621–648
Chiti E (2011) European agencies’ rulemaking: powers, procedures and assessment. Eur Law J 19:93–110CrossRef
Chiu IH-Y (2015) Power and accountability in the EU financial regulatory architecture: examining inter-agency relations, agency independence and accountability. Eur J Leg Stud 8(1):67–103
Comparato G, Micklitz H-W (2013) Regulated autonomy between market freedoms and fundamental rights. In: Bernitz U, Groussot X, Schulyok F (eds) General principles of EU law and European private law. Kluwer Law International, Leiden, pp 121–149
Craig P (2012) EU administrative law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
Craig P (2009) The legal effect of directives: policy, rules and exceptions. Eur Law Rev 34(3):349–377
Craig P, De Búrca G (2008) EU law‬: text, cases and materials‬. Oxford University Press, Oxford‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬
D’Ambrosio R (2015) The ECB and NCA liability within the single supervisory mechanism. Banca d’Italia, Quaderni di Ricerca Giuridica della consulenza legale
Della Negra F (2014) The private enforcement of the MiFID conduct of business rules. An overview of the Italian and Spanish experiences. Eur Rev Contract Law 10(4):571–595CrossRef
De Larosière J (2009) Report of the high level group of financial supervision in the EU. Brussels
Dolmetta AA (2013) Trasparenza dei prodotti bancari. Regole, Zanichelli, Bologna
Dougan M (2000) The “disguised” vertical direct effect of directives? Camb Law J 59(3):586–612CrossRef
Einsenberg MA (2000) The emergence of dynamic contract law. Calif Law Rev 88(6):1743–1814CrossRef
Gilmore G (1974) The death of contract. Ohio State University Press, Columbus
Gitti G (2006) L’autonomia privata e le autorità indipendenti. Il Mulino, Bologna
Goodhart C, Hartmann P, Llewellyn D, Rojas-Suarez L, Weisbrod S (1998) Financial regulation - why, how and where now? Routledge, London/New York
Grundmann S (2013) The Bankinter case on MIFID regulation and contract law. Eur Rev Contract Law 9(3):267–280P
Grundmann S (2015) The banking union translated into (private law) duties: infrastructure and rulebook. EBOR 16:357–382
Hadjiemmanui C (2015) The banking union and its implications for private law: a comment. EBOR 16:383–400
Haar B (2011) From public law to private law: market supervision and contract law standards. In: Grundmann S, Atamer YM (eds) Financial services, financial crisis and general European contract law. Kluwer Law International, Leiden, pp 259–279
Haar B (2015) Organizing regional system. The EU example. In: Ferran E, Moloney N, Payne N (eds) Oxford handbook on financial regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 158–183
Have K (2012) Horizontal liability for damages in EU law—the changing relationship of EU and national law. Eur Law J 18(3):407–426CrossRef
Hofmann CH, Rowe GC, Türk AH (2011) Administrative law and policy of the European Union. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
Hudson A (2013) The law of finance, 2nd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Jackson HE, Roe MJ (2009) Public and private enforcement of securities laws: resource- based evidence. J Financ Econ 93:207–238CrossRef
Kennedy D (2000) From the will theory to the principle of private autonomy: Lon Fuller’s “consideration and form”. Columbia Law Rev 1:94–175CrossRef
Kruithof M (2011) A differentiated approach to client protection: the example of MiFID. In: Grundmann S, Atamer YM (eds) Financial services, financial crisis and general European contract law. Kluwer Law International, Leiden, pp 105–163
Ladeur K-H (2003) The introduction of the precautionary principle into EU law: a Pyrrhic victory for environmental and public health law? Common Mark Law Rev 40(6):1455–1479
La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A (2006) What works in securities laws? J Financ 61(1):1–32CrossRef
Lavrijssen S, Ottow A (2012) Independent supervisory authorities: a fragile concept. Leg Issues Econ Integr 39(4):419–445
Kakouris CM (1997) Do the member states possess judicial procedural “autonomy”. Common Mark Law Rev 34(6):1389–1412CrossRef
MacNeil I (2015) Enforcement and sanctioning. In: Ferran E, Moloney N, Payne N (eds) Oxford handbook on financial regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 281–303
Marjosola H (2014) Bridging the constitutional gap in EU executive rule-making: the court of justice approves legislative conferral of intervention powers to European securities markets authority. Eur Constitut Law Rev 10:500–527CrossRef
Micklitz HW (2009) The visible hand of European private law. Yearb Eur Law 28:3–59CrossRef
Micklitz HW (2015) The transformation of enforcement in European private law: preliminary considerations. Eur Rev Priv Law 4:491–524
Moloney N (2011) The European securities and markets authority and institutional design for the EU financial market – a tale of two competences: part (1) rule- making. Eur Bus Organ Law Rev 12(1):41–86CrossRef
Moloney N (2012) Liability of asset managers: a comment. Cap Mark Law J 7(4):414–422CrossRef
Moloney N (2014) EU securities and financial markets regulation, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Moloney N (2015) Regulating the retail markets. In: Ferran E, Moloney N, Payne N (eds) Oxford handbook on financial regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 736–768CrossRef
Möslein F, Riesenhuber K (2009) Contract governance – a draft research agenda. Eur Rev Contract Law 3(1):249–289
Nolan D (2013) The liability of financial supervisory authorities. Eur Rev Contract Law 4(2):190–222
Perrone A, Valente S (2012) Against all odds: investor protection in Italy and the role of courts. Eur Bus Organ Law Rev 13(2):31–44CrossRef
Prechal S (1998) Community law in national courts: the lessons from Van Schijndel. Common Mark Law Rev 35(2):681–706CrossRef
Prechal S (2005) Directives in EC law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Prechal S, Widdershoven R (2011) Redefining the relationship between ‘Rewe-effectiveness’ and effective judicial protection. Rev Eur Adm Law 4(2):31–50CrossRef
Purnhagen K (2014) The behavioural law and economics of the precautionary principle in the EU and its impact on internal market regulation. J Consum Policy 37:453–464CrossRef
Reich N (2005) A European contract law, or an EU contract law regulation for consumers? J Consum Policy 28:383–407CrossRef
Reich N (2007) Horizontal liability in EC law. Common Mark Law Rev 44(3):705–742
Reynolds P (2014) Selling financial products: the interface between regulatory and common law standards. J Int Bank Law Regul 29(5):269–273
Ruffert M (1997) Rights and remedies in European community law: a comparative view. Common Mark Law Rev 34(2):307–336CrossRef
Safjan M, Düsterhaus D (2014) A union of effective judicial protection: addressing a multi-level challenge through the lens of Article 47 CFREU. Yearb Eur Law 33(1):1–38
Schammo P (2012) EU day-to-day supervision or intervention-based supervision: which way forward for the European system of financial supervision? Oxf J Leg Stud 32(4):771–797CrossRef
Schwarze J (1992) European administrative law. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Svetiev Y, Ottow A (2014) Financial supervision in the interstices between private and public law. Eur Rev Contract Law 10(4):496–544CrossRef
Terpan F (2015) Soft law in the European Union—the changing nature of EU law. Eur Law J 21(1):68–96CrossRef
Tison M (2010) The civil law effects of MiFID in a comparative law perspective. Working paper series 2010–05, pp 1–17
Tison M (2005) Do not attack the watchdog! Challenging the prudential supervisor: liability. Banking supervisor’s liability after Peter Paul. Common Mark Law Rev 42(3):639–675
Tountopoulos VD (2014) Market abuse and private enforcement. Eur Company Financ Rev 3:297–332
Tridimas T (2001) Black, white, and shades of grey: horizontality of directives revisited. Yearb Eur Law 21(1):327–354CrossRef
Tridimas T (2006) The general principles of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Tridimas T (2011) EU financial regulation: federalization, crisis management and law reform. In: Craig P, de Búrca G (eds) The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 783–804
Tridimas T (2012) Financial supervision and agency power: reflections on ESMA. In: Shuibhne NN, Gormley LW (eds) From single market to economic union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 56–83
Tuch AF (2015) Conduct of business regulation. In: Moloney N, Ferran E, Payne J (eds) Oxford handbook of financial regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 538–564
Türk A (2006) The concept of legislation in European community law: a comparative perspective. Kluwer Law International, Leiden
Turner A (2012) Economics after the crisis. Objectives and means. MIT Press, Cambridge
Van Gerven W (2000) Of rights, remedies and procedures. Common Mark Law Rev 37(3):501–536CrossRef
Van Gestel R, Van Golen T (2014) Enforcement by the new European supervisory agencies: Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? In: Purnhagen K, Rott P (eds) Varieties of European economic law and regulation: Liber Amicorum for Hans Micklitz, studies in European economic law and regulation. Springer, New York, pp 761–799
Weber F, Faure M (2015) The interplay between public and private enforcement in European private law: law and economics perspective. Eur Rev Priv Law 23(4):525–550
Metadaten
Titel
The Effects of the ESMA’s Powers on Domestic Contract Law
verfasst von
Federico Della Negra
Copyright-Jahr
2016
Buch
Regulating and Supervising European Financial Markets

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32172-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-32174-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2016

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32174-5_6

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise