DIRECTIVE 97/9/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 57 (2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Monetary Institute (3),

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 189b of the Treaty (4) in the light of the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on 18 December 1996,

(1) Whereas on 10 May 1993 the Council adopted Directive 93/22/EEC on investment services in the securities field (5); whereas that Directive is an essential instrument for the achievement of the internal market for investment firms;

(2) Whereas Directive 93/22/EEC lays down prudential rules which investment firms must observe at all times, including rules the purpose of which is to protect as far as possible investor's rights in respect of money or instruments belonging to them;

(3) Whereas, however, no system of supervision can provide complete protection, particularly where acts of fraud are committed;

(4) Whereas the protection of investors and the maintenance of confidence in the financial system are an important aspect of the completion and proper functioning of the internal market in this area; whereas to that end it is therefore essential that each Member State should have an investor-compensation scheme that guarantees a harmonized minimum level of protection at least for the small investor in the event of an investment firm being unable to meet its obligations to its investor clients;

(5) Whereas small investors will therefore be able to purchase investment services from branches of Community investment firms or on the basis of the cross-border provision of services as confidently as from domestic investment firms, in the knowledge that a harmonized minimum level of protection would be available to them in the event of an investment firm being unable to meet its obligations to its investor clients;

(6) Whereas, in the absence of such minimum harmonization, a host Member State might consider itself justified, by considerations of investor protection, in requiring membership of its compensation scheme when a Community investment firm operating through a branch or under the freedom to provide services either belonged to no investor-compensation scheme in its home Member State or belonged to a scheme which was not regarded as offering equivalent protection; whereas such a requirement might prejudice the operation of the internal market;

(7) Whereas although most Member States currently have some investor-compensation arrangements those arrangements do not in general cover all investment firms that hold the single authorization provided for in Directive 93/22/EEC;

(8) Whereas, therefore, every Member State should be required to have an investor-compensation scheme or schemes to which every such investment firm would belong; whereas each scheme must cover money and instruments held by an investment firm in connection with an investor's investment operations which, where an investment firm is unable to meet its obligations to its investor clients, cannot be returned to the investor; whereas this is entirely without prejudice to the rules and procedures applicable in each Member State as regards the decisions to be taken in the event of the insolvency or winding-up of an investment firm;

(9) Whereas the definition of investment firm includes credit institutions which are authorized to provide investment services; whereas every such credit institution must also be required to belong to an investor-compensation scheme to cover its investment business; whereas, however, it is not necessary to require such a credit institution to belong to two separate schemes where a single scheme meets the requirements both of this Directive and of Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (6); whereas, however, in the case of investment firms which are credit institutions it may in certain cases be difficult to distinguish between deposits covered by Directive 94/19/EC and money held in connection with investment business; whereas Member States should be allowed to determine which Directive shall apply to such claims;

(10) Whereas Directive 94/19/EC allows a Member State to exempt a credit institution from the obligation to belong to a deposit-guarantee scheme where that credit institution belongs to a system which protects the credit institution itself and, in particular, ensures its solvency; whereas, where a credit institution belonging to such a system is also an investment firm, a Member State should also be allowed, subject to certain conditions, to exempt it from the obligation to belong to an investor-compensation scheme;

(11) Whereas a harmonized minimum level of compensation of ECU 20 000 for each investor should be sufficient to protect the interests of the small investor where an investment firm is unable to meet its obligations to its investor clients; whereas it would therefore appear reasonable to set the harmonized minimum level of compensation at ECU 20 000; whereas, as in Directive 94/19/EC, limited transitional provisions might be required to enable compensation schemes to comply with that figure since this applies equally to Member States which, when this Directive is adopted, do not have any such scheme;

(12) Whereas the same figure was adopted in Directive 94/19/EC;

(13) Whereas in order to encourage investors to take due care in their choice of investment firms it is reasonable to allow Member States to require investors to bear a proportion of any loss; whereas, however, an investor must be covered for at least 90 % of any loss as long as the compensation paid is less than the Community minimum;

(14) Whereas certain Member States' schemes offer levels of cover higher than the harmonized minimum level of protection under this Directive; whereas, however, it does not seem desirable to require any change in those schemes in that respect;

(15) Whereas the retention in the Community of schemes providing levels of cover higher than the harmonized minimum may, within the same territory, lead to disparities in compensation and unequal conditions of competition between national investment firms and branches of firms from other Member States; whereas, in order to counteract those disadvantages, branches should be authorized to join their host countries' schemes so that they may offer their investors the same cover as is provided by the schemes of the countries in which they are located; whereas it is appropriate that, in its report on the application of this Directive, the Commission should indicate the extent to which branches have exercised that option and any difficulties which they or the investor-compensation schemes may have encountered in implementing those provisions; whereas the possibility that home Member States' schemes should themselves offer such supplementary cover, subject to the conditions such schemes may lay down, is not ruled out;

(16) Whereas market disturbances could be caused by branches of investment firms established in Member States other than their Member States of origin which offer levels of cover higher than those offered by investment firms authorized in their host Member States; whereas it is not appropriate that the level or scope of cover offered by compensation schemes should become an instrument of competition; whereas it is therefore necessary, at least during an initial period, to stipulate that neither the level nor the scope of cover offered by a home Member State's scheme to investors at branches located in another Member State should exceed the maximum level or scope offered by the corresponding scheme in the host Member State; whereas any market disturbances should be reviewed at an early date, on the basis of the experience acquired and in the light of developments in the financial sector;

(17) Whereas a Member State must be able to exclude certain categories of specifically listed investments or investors, if it does not consider that they need special protection, from the cover afforded by investor-compensation schemes;

(18) Whereas some Member States have investor-compensation schemes under the responsibility of professional organizations; whereas in other Member States there are schemes that have been set up and are regulated on a statutory basis; whereas that diversity of status poses a problem only with regard to compulsory membership of and exclusion from schemes; whereas it is therefore necessary to take steps to limit the powers of schemes in that area;

(19) Whereas the investor must be compensated without excessive delay once the validity of his claim has been established; whereas the compensation scheme itself must be able to fix a reasonable period for the presentation of claims; whereas, however, the fact that such a period has expired may not be invoked against an investor who for good reason has not been able to present his claim within the time allowed;

(20) Whereas informing investors of compensation arrangements is an essential element of investor protection; whereas Article 12 of Directive 93/22/EEC required investment firms to inform investors, before doing business with them, of the possible application of a compensation scheme; whereas, therefore, this Directive should lay down rules on informing such intending investors regarding the compensation schemes covering their investment business;

(21) Whereas, however, the unregulated use in advertising of references to the amount and scope of a compensation scheme could affect the stability of the financial system or investor confidence; whereas Member States should therefore lay down rules to limit such references;

(22) Whereas in principle this Directive requires every investment firm to join an investor-compensation scheme; whereas the Directives governing the admission of any investment firm the head office of which is in a non-member country, and in particular Directive 93/22/EEC, allow Member States to decide whether and subject to what conditions to permit branches of such investment firms to operate within their territories; whereas such branches will not enjoy the freedom to provide services under the second paragraph of Article 59 of the Treaty, or the right of establishment in Member States other than those in which they are established; whereas, accordingly, a Member State admitting such branches must decide how to apply the principles of this Directive to such branches in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 93/22/EEC and with the need to protect investors and maintain the integrity of the financial system; whereas it is essential that investors at such branches should be fully aware of the compensation arrangements applicable to them;

(23) Whereas it is not indispensable in this Directive to harmonize the ways in which investor-compensation schemes are to be financed given, on the one hand, that the cost of financing such schemes must, in principle, be borne by investment firms themselves and, on the other hand, that the financing capacities of such schemes must be in proportion to their liabilities; whereas that must not, however, jeopardize the stability of the financial system of the Member State concerned;

(24) Whereas this Directive may not result in the Member States or their competent authorities being made liable in respect of investors if they have ensured that one or more schemes for the compensation or protection of investors under the conditions prescribed in this Directive have been introduced and officially recognized;

(25) Whereas, in conclusion, a minimum degree of harmonization of investor-compensation arrangements is necessary for the completion of the internal market for investment firms since it will make it possible for investors to do business with such firms with greater confidence, especially firms from other Member States, and make it possible to avoid any difficulties caused by host Member States applying national investor-protection rules that are not coordinated at Community level; whereas a binding Community Directive is the only appropriate instrument for the achievement of the desired objective in the general absence of investor-compensation arrangements corresponding to the coverage of Directive 93/22/EEC; whereas this Directive effects only the minimum harmonization required, allows Member States to prescribe wider or higher coverage if they desire and gives Member States the necessary latitude as regards the organization and financing of investor-compensation schemes,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: