(1)

Pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402, the European Securities and Markets Authority (‘ESMA’) shall charge securitisation repositories fees that fully cover ESMA’s necessary expenditure relating to the registration and supervision of those repositories. ESMA will incur higher costs when processing applications for registration from securitisation repositories that intend to offer ancillary services. Such costs, however, will be lower where the securitisation repository is already registered as a trade repository under either Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), or Regulation (EU) 2015/2365 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). The registration fee on entities applying for registration should therefore take specific account of the type of services to be provided by the securitisation repository and whether or not it is already registered as a trade repository. As ESMA’s expenditure in assessing the application for registration is the same, regardless of the size of the applicant, and only depends on the type of services that are to be provided, it is appropriate that the registration fee is fixed.

(2)

Where an entity that is not already registered as a trade repository submits, at the same time, applications for registration as a trade repository and as a securitisation repository, the costs incurred by ESMA when processing those applications simultaneously would also be lower owing to synergies. Where such applications are submitted simultaneously, the securitisation repository should pay the full fee pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 or Regulation (EU) 2015/2365, as applicable, for registration as a trade repository while a reduced extension-of-registration fee should be payable for registration as a securitisation repository.

(3)

The registration fee or extension-of-registration fee payable by a securitisation repository that offers ancillary services after registration should take account of those ancillary services. Conversely, a securitisation repository that stops offering ancillary services after registration should not have its registration fee or extension-of-registration fee reimbursed as ESMA will already have incurred the cost for the assessment of the application.

(4)

In order to discourage frivolous applications, registration fees or extension-of-registration fees should not be reimbursed where ESMA has refused registration and should only be partially reimbursed where an applicant withdraws its application during the registration process.

(5)

In order to ensure the fair allocation of supervisory fees and to ensure that fees imposed reflect the actual cost incurred by ESMA with respect to each supervised entity, the annual supervisory fee should be calculated on the basis of the turnover generated by each securitisation repository. Where historical data on a registered securitisation repository’s turnover are not available, the annual supervisory fee should be based on the securitisation repository’s expected turnover.

(6)

The annual supervisory fees charged to each securitisation repository should be proportionate to the turnover accrued by that repository within a given financial year in comparison with the total turnover accrued by all registered and supervised securitisation repositories within the same financial year. A minimum annual supervisory fee should also be imposed on each securitisation repository, given that certain fixed administrative costs apply for the supervision of all securitisation repositories, irrespective of the amount of turnover accrued.

(7)

As only limited data will be available on the activity of a securitisation repository during the financial year following registration, the annual supervisory fee for that year should be calculated on the basis of the registration fee and the effort ESMA has put into supervising that securitisation repository over the course of the year. The supervisory effort in the first months after registration is similar to the effort in assessing the registration of the applicant. Therefore, in the first year of operation of the securitisation repository, the supervisory fee should be based on the registration fee paid by the applicant, adjusted by a coefficient.

(8)

In view of ESMA’s annual budgetary procedure and the time needed to estimate supervisory costs, it will not be possible to take securitisation repositories registered on or after 1 October of a given financial year into account for the purposes of calculating the total annual supervisory cost for the following year. Therefore, the annual supervisory fee for a securitisation repository registered on or after 1 October of the preceding year should be equal to its registration fee.

(9)

National competent authorities incur costs when carrying out work pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2017/2402, and, in particular, undertaking tasks delegated in accordance with Article 14(1) of that Regulation. The fees charged by ESMA to securitisation repositories should also cover those costs. To ensure that competent authorities do not incur a loss or profit when carrying out delegated tasks or when assisting ESMA, ESMA should reimburse only the actual costs incurred by a national competent authority in this respect,