22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/1

(1)

The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.

(2)

The mandate of the Central Bank of Ireland’s current external auditors ended after the audit for the financial year 2011. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2012.

(3)

The Central Bank of Ireland has selected RSM Farrell Grant Sparks as its external auditors for the financial years 2012 to 2016,

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/2

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/4

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/6

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6490. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/6

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6560. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/7

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M5979. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/7

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6628. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/8

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6678. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/9

1.1.

Article 10(4) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (1) provides that the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has to consult the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) and other relevant authorities on the development of draft regulatory technical standards specifying: (a) criteria for establishing which over-the-counter (OTC) derivative contracts are objectively measurable as reducing risks directly relating to the commercial activity or treasury financing activity referred to in Article 10(3); and (b) values of the clearing thresholds above which non-financial corporations have to clear their future derivative contracts through central counterparties (CCPs), which are determined taking into account the systemic relevance of the sum of net positions and exposures per counterparty and per class of OTC derivatives.

1.2.

On 26 June 2012 the ESRB received from ESMA a request for its advice on the above issues, referring to the ESMA consultation document published on 25 June 2012 (2).

1.3.

In accordance with Articles 3(2)(b) and (g) and 4(2) of 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 (3), the General Board of the ESRB has adopted this Advice, which is published in accordance with Article 30 of Decision ESRB/2011/1 of the European Systemic Risk Board of 20 January 2011 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European Systemic Risk Board (4).

2.1.

OTC derivative contracts are used by non-financial corporations mainly for the purpose of hedging commercial and treasury financing activities. Any definition of a clearing threshold should as a matter of principle ensure that the following policy goals are achieved:

2.2.

In a number of market segments, such as commodities markets, which were previously mainly accessed by non-financial corporations, the use of OTC derivatives for speculative, investment or trading purposes has become predominant. This is partly a response to the entry of financial institutions into these markets, the so-called financialisation process. This calls for a prudent approach to the risks posed by the use of derivatives by non-financial corporations.

2.3.

The definitions of commercial and treasury financing activities should be as detailed and objective as possible, leaving no leeway for different interpretations or arbitrage, since the consequences of meeting the definition or not might be significant.

2.4.

Following a detailed analysis (5), the ESRB is proposing calculating thresholds using a two-step approach aimed at defending the integrity of the market and ensuring market transparency, and not at protecting the interests of the single market participants. The aim is also to make sure that the risks arising from the holding of derivatives by non-financial corporations are appropriately considered.

2.5.

Derivatives held in the context of commercial and treasury financing activities are not risk free because, in cases where they are not appropriately priced in, they may lead to an inefficiently large level of hedging, which may have systemic consequences.

2.6.

From a macro-prudential stance, it is preferable that non-financial corporations clear their derivatives through CCPs by paying margins rather than obtaining similar services from banks in exchange for a fee. There is the risk that banking fees, which are essentially resources and which leave the non-financial corporations, will not adequately price the risk, from the point of view of both the banks and the non-financial corporations.

3.1.

The ESRB welcomes the work carried out by ESMA in the definition of commercial and treasury financing activities and broadly agrees with the results of this work subject to the following:

3.2.

Commercial activities of non-financial corporations should refer to specific items in the balance sheet and, more specifically, to the core business of the non-financial corporation, namely, stocks, payables, receivables, property, plant and equipment. The concepts of ‘capital expenditure’ and ‘operational expenditure’ should be introduced in the definition of commercial activities, as a reference to International Financial Reporting Standards for the definition of commercial activities may prove not to be optimal. The maximum level of derivatives linked to the commercial activities of the non-financial corporation should be the carrying amount of the stocks, payables, receivables, property, plant and equipment in the balance sheet.

3.3.

Treasury financing activities should be defined using the cash flow statement of the non-financial corporation, establishing that such activities should be limited to the cash flows from the financing activities of the non-financial corporation generated during the year.

3.4.

The ESRB welcomes the work carried out by ESMA in the definition of the clearing thresholds subject to the following:

3.5.

Initial low clearing thresholds for non-financial corporations should be based on clear macro-prudential principles with the possibility of increasing them in further reviews if deemed necessary.

3.6.

A balance between the complexity of the calculation of the clearing threshold and the mitigation of risks arising from the holdings of OTC derivatives by non-financial corporations should be found.

3.7.

A limited number of classes of OTC derivatives should be defined, which should be subject to different requirements in terms of clearing thresholds.

3.8.

Clearing thresholds should not be defined per counterparty, as that would increase the complexity of the regime without bringing substantial benefits.

3.9.

Gross market values for the definition of clearing thresholds should be preferred to notional values as this would provide a more accurate picture of the market value of the derivatives held by non-financial corporations and hence a more accurate approach to the risk posed by those derivatives to the system. The calculation of the clearing thresholds should be conducted with a fixed frequency, with the possibility for competent authorities to increase this frequency in times of financial crisis.

3.10.

The clearing threshold per class of OTC derivatives, subject to the calibration of the clearing threshold as a two-step approach in Section 4, should be defined as follows:

(a)

Non-financial corporations should be assigned to two subsets according to the following criteria:

and

(b)

For non-financial corporations for which the value as defined in (a) exceeds 0,03, the following thresholds for each class of OTC derivatives should apply:

(c)

For non-financial corporations for which the value as defined in (a) does not exceed 0,03, the following thresholds for each class of OTC derivatives should apply:

(d)

For non-financial corporations for which the value as defined in (a) exceeds 0,03, the following thresholds derived as absolute amounts should apply:

NCNTFD (x) > ε'

(e)

For non-financial corporations for which the value as defined in (a) does not exceed 0,03, the following thresholds derived as absolute amounts should apply:

NCNTFD (x) > γ'

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/13

1.1.

Article 46(3) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (1) provides that the European Securities and Market Authority (ESMA) has to consult the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) and other relevant authorities on the development of draft regulatory technical standards concerning eligible collateral for central counterparties (CCPs). In particular, the consultation relates to the following three issues: (a) the type of eligible collateral that could be considered highly liquid; (b) the haircuts to apply to asset values; and (c) the conditions under which commercial bank guarantees may be accepted by CCPs as collateral.

1.2.

On 26 June 2012, the ESRB received from ESMA a request for its advice on the above issues, referring to the ESMA consultation document published on 25 June 2012 (2).

1.3.

In accordance with Article 3(2)(b) and (g) and Article 4(2) of 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 (3), the General Board of the ESRB has adopted this Advice, which is published in accordance with Article 30 of Decision ESRB/2011/1 of the European Systemic Risk Board of 20 January 2011 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European Systemic Risk Board (4).

1.4.

The mandate of the ESRB, as defined in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010, embraces the oversight of the financial system as defined in Article 2(b) (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010; this includes financial system infrastructures such as CCPs and their role within the financial system.

2.1.

CCPs are crucial nodes of the financial system and this role will grow with the implementation of the 2009 Pittsburgh G20 initiative to centrally clear all standardised over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. Legislation should be drafted with macro-prudential concerns over pro-cyclicality in mind. The ESRB considers that the issue of pro-cyclicality must not be limited to the immediate impact on the resilience of CCPs themselves, and must also relate to the influence of CCP behaviour on the broader financial system.

2.2.

The potential use of haircuts and margins applied to collateral as macro-prudential tools is a crucial aspect and the ESRB invites competent macro-prudential authorities to consider it for the first scheduled review of EMIR.

2.3.

The ESRB acknowledges that, while every effort should be made to limit pro-cyclicality, this should never compromise CCP resilience.

3.1.

References to the country where the issuer is established should be removed from the low credit risk requirement, as this risk is normally already considered in the issuer’s credit risk assessment.

3.2.

CCPs should have a high degree of certainty that the transferability and value of collateral are:

3.3.

CCPs should have appropriate legal and operational safeguards to ensure that cross-border collateral can be used in a timely manner.

3.4.

The acceptance of collateral issued by clearing members should be subject to the following prudential measures:

3.5.

Concentration limits should be set in alignment with the collateral pool, as the harder it becomes to achieve diversification, the more restricted the range of eligible collateral becomes.

3.6.

To ensure legal certainty and market predictability, the ability of a CCP to re-use or accept re-hypothecated collateral should be clarified by the legislation, considering its strong macro-prudential implications.

3.7.

Transparency requirements should apply to the eligibility and the use of collateral by CCPs, in order to enable the monitoring by oversight authorities of market behaviour and risk distribution of pledged collateral.

3.8.

Legislation on eligibility of collateral should be subject to prudent implementation and frequent review to carefully consider systemic risk.

4.1.

Haircuts should be set in a prudent, and defined in a conservative, manner, so as to protect CCPs and limit pro-cyclical effects.

4.2.

From a financial stability point of view, it is desirable to limit pro-cyclical movements in the acceptance criteria and haircuts for CCP collateral. Haircut practices should be designed in a way that minimises sudden and large increases in times of market stress.

4.3.

Transparent and predictable procedures for adjusting haircuts in response to changing market conditions should be required.

4.4.

In the light of Financial Stability Board (FSB) Principles that were endorsed by the 2012 Mexico City G20 Summit, a mechanistic reliance on credit rating agency (CRA) ratings should be avoided (6).

4.5.

CCPs should be required to demonstrate to the competent authority the avoidance of any mechanical trigger, in order to limit pro-cyclical effects. Legislation should be consistent with the FSB Principles for reducing reliance on CRA ratings.

5.1.

Legislation should define a reliable party for the holding of collateral that backs commercial bank guarantees.

5.2.

Commercial bank guarantees should be subject to a limited use and a lower concentration ratio than the one applicable to other eligible collateral.

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/16

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 sets out principles and rules applicable to all European Union institutions and bodies and provides for the appointment by each Union institution and body of a data protection officer (DPO).

(2)

Pursuant to Article 24(8) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, each Union institution or body must adopt further implementing rules concerning the DPO in accordance with the Annex to that Regulation.

(3)

It is appropriate to include provisions relating to controllers and data protection coordinators, whose tasks and duties relate to those of the DPO, and to the regulation of data subjects’ rights,

(a)

the appointment and status of the European Systemic Risk Board’s (ESRB’s) DPO, as well as to the tasks, duties and powers of the DPO;

(b)

the roles, tasks and duties of controllers and data protection coordinators;

(c)

the exercise of rights by data subjects.

(a)

‘controller’ means a manager responsible for an organisational unit that determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data;

(b)

‘data protection coordinator’ means a staff member who assists a controller in fulfilling the latter’s data protection obligations. This person shall be a specialist in record management.

(a)

appoint a DPO who is sufficiently senior to meet the requirements of Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001;

(b)

set a term of office for the DPO of between two and five years.

(a)

when an issue arises that has, or might have, data protection implications; and

(b)

in respect of all contacts between the ESRB and external parties relating to the application of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, notably any interaction with the EDPS.

(a)

raise awareness concerning data protection issues and encourage a culture of protection of personal data within the ESRB;

(b)

advise the General Board, the Steering Committee, the Secretariat, the controller and the data protection coordinator on matters concerning the application of data protection provisions at the ESRB. The DPO may be consulted by the General Board, the Steering Committee, the Secretariat, the controller concerned or any individual on any matter concerning the interpretation or application of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001;

(c)

cooperate with the EDPS at the latter’s request or on their own initiative and respond to requests that the EDPS addresses to the ESRB DPO;

(d)

determine whether a processing operation is likely to present specific risks in the sense of Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and is thus subject to prior checking. The DPO shall consult the controller concerned if necessary. In case of doubt as to the need for prior checking the EDPS shall be consulted, in accordance with Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001;

(e)

at the request of the General Board, the Steering Committee, the Secretariat or any individual, or on their own initiative, investigate matters and occurrences directly relating to DPO tasks and duties and report back to the requester. The DPO shall consider issues and facts impartially and with due regard to the data subject’s rights. If the DPO deems it appropriate, they shall inform all other parties concerned accordingly. If the requester is an individual or acts on behalf of an individual, the DPO shall, to the extent possible, ensure that the request remains confidential, unless the data subject concerned gives their unambiguous consent to treating the request otherwise;

(f)

cooperate with the DPOs of other Union institutions and bodies, in particular by exchanging experience and sharing know-how and representing the ESRB in all discussions — excluding court cases — relating to data protection issues; and

(g)

submit an annual work programme and an annual report of DPO activities to the General Board and the EDPS.

(a)

request an opinion from the ESRB Secretariat on any matter relating to DPO tasks and duties;

(b)

issue an opinion on the lawfulness of current or proposed processing operations or on any issue concerning the notification of processing operations;

(c)

bring to the attention of the Head of the ESRB Secretariat any failure of staff to comply with the obligations under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001;

(d)

have access at all times to the data forming the subject matter of processing operations on personal data and to all offices, data-processing installations and data carriers;

(e)

be involved whenever the ESRB draws up internal rules related to the protection of personal data;

(f)

keep an anonymous list of the written requests from data subjects relating to the exercise of their rights; and

(g)

carry out the other tasks specified in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

(a)

the data protection coordinators shall assist the controllers in fulfilling their obligations, either at the controllers’ request or on their own initiative. When doing so, the data protection coordinators shall liaise with the controllers’ staff, who shall provide them with all necessary information. This may, at the relevant controller’s discretion, include accessing personal data processed under that controller’s responsibility;

(b)

the data protection coordinators shall assist the DPO in:

(a)

these rights may only be exercised by the data subject or their duly authorised representative. Such persons may exercise any of these rights free of charge;

(b)

requests to exercise these rights shall be addressed in writing to the relevant controller. The controller shall only grant the request if the requester’s identity and, if relevant, their entitlement to represent the data subject have been appropriately verified. The controller shall without delay inform the data subject in writing of whether or not the request has been accepted. If the request has been rejected, the controller shall include the grounds for the rejection;

(c)

the controller shall, at any time within three calendar months of receipt of the request, grant access pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 by enabling the data subject to consult these data on-site or to receive a copy thereof, according to the applicant’s preference;

(d)

data subjects may contact the DPO in the event that the controller does not respect either of the time limits in paragraphs (b) or (c). In the event of obvious abuse by a data subject in exercising their rights, the controller may refer the data subject to the DPO. If the case is referred to the DPO, the DPO shall decide on the merits of the request and the appropriate follow-up. In the event of disagreement between the data subject and the controller, both parties shall have the right to consult the DPO.

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/20

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/21

European Court of Auditors

Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’

12, rue Alcide de Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/22

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/22

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/23

—

promotion of the transnational mobility of people working in the cultural sector,

—

support for the transnational circulation of cultural and artistic works and products,

—

promotion of intercultural dialogue.

(a)

ambassadors;

(b)

representation and defence networks;

(c)

structured dialogue platforms.

—

promotion of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue,

—

promotion of culture as a catalyst for creativity in the framework of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs,

—

promotion of culture as a vital element in the Union's international relations, implementing the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (4).

—

be a public (5) or private organisation with legal status, whose principal activity is in the cultural sphere (cultural and creative sectors), and

—

have their registered legal seat in one of the eligible countries.

—

EU Member States (6),

—

EEA (7) countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway),

—

Croatia, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turkey, Serbia, Albania and Montenegro.

—

the extent to which the project can generate real European added value,

—

the relevance of the activities to the specific objectives of the programme,

—

the extent to which the proposed activities are designed and can be carried out successfully with a high level of excellence,

—

the quality of partnership between coordinator and co-organisers,

—

the extent to which the activities can produce outputs which achieve the objectives of the programme,

—

the extent to which the results of proposed activities will be appropriately communicated and promoted,

—

the extent to which the activities can generate a long-lasting impact (sustainability),

—

international cooperation dimension (only for cooperation projects with third countries, strand 1.3.5).

—

the extent to which the project can generate real European added value and the relevance of the activities to the objectives of the programme,

—

the extent to which the proposed activities are designed and can be carried out with a high level of excellence,

—

the extent to which the results of the proposed activities will be appropriately communicated and promoted.

—

European added value and European dimension of the proposed activities,

—

quality and innovative nature of the programming,

—

audience impact,

—

participation of European professionals and quality of the exchanges foreseen between them.

—

the extent to which the work programme and the subsequent activities can generate a real European added value as well as the European dimension of the proposed activities,

—

the relevance of the work programme and subsequent activities to the specific objectives of the programme,

—

the extent to which the proposed work programme and the subsequent activities are designed and can be carried out successfully with a high level of excellence,

—

the extent to which the proposed work programme and subsequent activities can produce outputs which reach as many people as possible, both directly and indirectly,

—

the extent to which the results of proposed activities will be appropriately communicated and promoted,

—

the extent to which the activities can generate an appropriate level of sustainability (long-term results and cooperation) and also to act as multipliers to other possible promoters.

—

the extent to which the project can generate real European added value,

—

the relevance of the activities to the specific objectives of the programme in connection with the European agenda for culture,

—

the extent to which the proposed activities are designed and can be carried out successfully with a high level of excellence,

—

the quality of partnership between coordinator and co-organisers,

—

the extent to which the activities can produce outputs which achieve the objectives of the programme,

—

the extent to which the results of proposed activities will be appropriately communicated and promoted,

—

the extent to which the activities can generate a long-lasting impact (sustainability).

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/29

1.

On 17 September 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings OAO VTB Bank (‘VTB’, the Russian Federation) and Corporate Commercial Bank AD (‘Corporate Commercial Bank’, Bulgaria) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Bulgarian Telecommunications Company AD (‘Bulgarian Telecommunications Company’, Bulgaria), by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6720 — OAO VTB Bank/Corporate Commercial Bank/Bulgarian Telecommunications Company, to the following address: