Sittings · Compare

What changed

From · report parliamentary committee draft · 2025-12-11 ECON-PR-781372 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 laying down a general framework for securitisation and creating a specific framework for simple, transparent and standardised securitisation

→

To · Plenary report · 2026-05-08 A-10-2026-0138 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 laying down a general framework for securitisation and creating a specific framework for simple, transparent and standardised securitisation

+392 added · −359 removed · 4 modified paragraphs hide unchanged text

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 18 September 2025,

– having regard to the report of 9 September 2024 by Mario Draghi entitled ‘The future of European competitiveness’,

– having regard to the report of 17 April 2024 by Enrico Letta entitled 'Much More Than A Market’,

– having regard to Rule 60 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs ~~(A100000/2025),~~(A10-0138/2026),

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

Amendment 1

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

AMENDMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT*

~~Recital 3~~

to the Commission proposal

~~Or. en~~

---------------------------------------------------------

~~Amendment 2~~

2025/0826(COD)

Proposal for a ~~regulation~~

~~Recital 8~~

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

~~Or. en~~

amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 laying down a general framework for securitisation and creating a specific framework for simple, transparent and standardised securitisation

~~Amendment 3~~

(Text with EEA relevance)

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

~~Recital 10~~

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,

~~Or. en~~

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

~~Amendment 4~~

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

Having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank,

~~Recital 12~~

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee,

~~Or. en~~

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

~~Justification~~

Whereas:

~~The mention of “certain types of consumer loans” is too vague, and will generate divergences of approaches between NCAs.~~

(1) Securitisation can boost investment by allowing banks to transfer risks to those that are able to bear them and thereby free up their capital, which they could use for additional lending to households and businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 of the European Parliament and of the Council, covering both simple, transparent and standardised (STS) and non-STS securitisations, has strengthened market transparency, safety, and standardisation. At the same time, that Regulation should be further simplified to more fully exploit the benefits that securitisations can offer.

~~Amendment 5~~

(2) It is important that financial institutions employ their capital where it is most needed to reach the Union’s economic goals and funding the real economy. In addition to the flexibility provided for by the existing rules, targeted changes to Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 would ensure that the Union securitisation framework better supports investments in the economy and facilitates lending to businesses.

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(3) To enhance transparency and to ensure consistent regulatory treatment aiming at reducing costs for issuers, a definition of public and of private securitisation should be introduced. A securitisation should be deemed public whenever a prospectus is required to be published or where the underlying pool of exposures is actively managed by the originator or sponsor. Defining those types of transactions as public, by virtue of their accessibility to a broad range of investors, should ensure that such transactions are subject to the appropriate transparency requirements and regulatory scrutiny and contribute to better market oversight and functioning.

~~Recital 14~~

(4) Due diligence requirements should be proportionate to the risk profile of securitisation positions. Investor due diligence should therefore be focused on the risks characteristics and structural features that can materially affect the performance of the securitisation, avoiding duplicative, overly burdensome or generic obligations that may not be meaningful across different types of securitisation. For the same reason, due diligence obligations should be streamlined, thus reducing unnecessary costs for investors — particularly in lower-risk securitisations — and fostering more proportionate and risk-sensitive investor behaviour in the securitisation market.

~~Or. en~~

(4a) The due diligence requirements applicable to securitisations issued by third-country entities currently oblige such issuers to comply with the Union’s disclosure requirements, in particular the use of the standardised disclosure templates laid down in the delegated acts under Regulation (EU) 2017/2402. This obligation creates unnecessary barriers to investment, as it requires third-country issuers to replicate the Union’s regime even where equivalent or substantially similar information is already provided under their domestic frameworks. To avoid limiting investment opportunities for Union investors and to support the development of a strong investor base for securitisations within the Union, the requirements should be adjusted so that Union investors, as part of their due diligence, verify that third-country issuers provide information which is substantively equivalent to the transparency standards set out in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/2402, without mandating formal adherence to the Union’s disclosure templates.

~~Amendment 6~~

(5) Originators, original lenders, sponsors or securitisation special purpose entities (SSPEs) (the ‘sell-side entities’) that are established in the Union are already subject to supervision in the Union and can be sanctioned in case they breach their obligations under Regulation (EU) 2017/2402. It is therefore appropriate that investors are no longer required to verify whether Union sell-side entities, where those entities are responsible on behalf of the sell-side parties in the transaction, comply with due diligence requirements set in Regulation (EU) 2017/2402. Investors should, however, still verify whether transactions that involve sell-side entities established in third countries comply with requirements corresponding to those of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402.

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(6) Senior tranches, typically benefiting from substantial credit enhancement and posing lower risk, should require a less extensive due diligence review than junior or mezzanine tranches, which bear higher risk and greater exposure to losses. That proportional approach supports more efficient allocation of resources by investors and avoids excessive burdens for low-risk investments.

~~Recital 18~~

(7) Since compliance with the STS requirements is already subject to separate regulatory oversight and notification, the obligation for investors to verify compliance with those requirements is redundant. Moreover, verifying compliance with the STS criteria is not relevant for all types of investors. The corresponding requirement should therefore be deleted.

~~Or. en~~

(8) Investors should be allowed to conduct simplified due diligence to investments in repeat transactions where key risk characteristics are already well understood. For those purposes, investment in repeat transactions should be considered as investment in securitisation positions issued by the same originator, backed by the same type of underlying assets, exhibiting the same structural features, and offering the same or lower level of credit risk compared to previous investments. For that purpose, a definition of repeat transactions should be introduced in Regulation (EU) 2017/2402. Those changes should ensure consistency in due diligence practices while facilitating investor participation in well-known and transparent structures.

~~Justification~~

(9) Multilateral development banks can play a significant role in facilitating investor access to securitisation markets, enhancing liquidity, and supporting the objectives of the Savings and Investments Union. Where a securitisation position is fully, unconditionally and irrevocably guaranteed by a multilateral development bank listed in Article 117(2) of Regulation (EU) 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, the credit risk arising from the securitisation position is effectively transferred from the pool of underlying assets to the guarantor, resulting in a 0% risk weight of such exposure. In addition, such securitisation position is categorised as Level 1 asset under Article 10(1), point (g), of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61. In such cases, it is appropriate to exempt institutional investors, except the entity providing the guarantee, from their due diligence requirements in full under Regulation (EU) 2017/2402.

~~Active portfolio management is prohibited only for STS transactions.~~

(10) Transactions where the first loss tranche is either held or guaranteed by the Union, national promotional banks or institutions within the meaning of point (3) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 of the European Parliament and of the Council inherently possess characteristics that mitigate the need to carry out the full due diligence and fulfil the risk retention requirement. These transactions carry an assurance by the guarantor, who carries out due diligence processes before affording such a guarantee. This assessment removes the need for the institutional investors to perform a full due diligence assessment under Regulation (EU) 2017/2402. Furthermore, the essence of a guarantee is the assumption of risk by the guarantor. Therefore, it is appropriate to lift the risk retention requirement. These changes are expected to crowd in private investment in derisked structures with a public guarantee.

~~Amendment 7~~

(11) An institutional investor that delegates the authority to make investment management decisions to another institutional investor should be able to instruct the delegate to perform the due diligence obligations set out in Regulation (EU) 2017/2402. In such cases, the delegating institutional investor should assess and monitor the effectiveness of the delegate's ability to perform the delegated due diligence tasks. That specification is intended to reflect established regulatory practice and to ensure that obligations are fulfilled effectively while maintaining clear lines of accountability.

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(11a) The ‘sole purpose test’ is an important safeguard to avoid loopholes in risk retention. However, its implementation needs to be recalibrated to avoid creating obstacles for businesses that are considered economically suitable to act as retainers. The EBA should in greater detail specify the criteria whereby an entity should not be considered to have been established or to operate for the sole purpose of securitising exposures. In particular, those criteria should ensure that entities acting as an originator, that provide SME loans, consumer credit or residential mortgages, and that can demonstrate that securitising exposures is a means to finance their business or that of an entity belonging to the same group, which is centred on the provision of goods or non-financial services, should be deemed to satisfy the ‘sole purpose test’. When an entity does not meet the criteria set out in a delegated regulation adopted pursuant to this Regulation, the actual purpose for which the entity was established and operates should be examined by the competent authority on a case-by-case basis to ascertain that it has real substance and that the entity is suitable to act as a retainer in a securitisation transaction.

~~Recital 24~~

(12) The disclosure requirements should consider the granularity of the underlying pool of exposures, i.e. how many loans are in the underlying pool. ▌ Loan level disclosure for highly-granular pools of ▌ exposures can be particularly costly and entails a considerable burden for issuers, often without offering significant benefits in terms of additional information to investors. Therefore, disclosure requirements for ▌ certain types of underlying exposures should not need to encompass reporting at the level of each individual underlying exposure. At the same time, the degree of granularity of underlying exposures which justifies aggregated reporting might differ from asset class to asset class. Therefore, mapping the granularity of pools of exposures, which allows for aggregated reporting, to specific underlying asset classes, including mortgages, corporate loans, credit cards, consumer loans, auto loans and trade receivables, should be trusted to the EBA. However, in duly justified cases, the competent authorities should still have the possibility to ask for additional information to ensure that they have a complete overview of the market, including on the exposures that constitute the underlying pool, in carrying out their duties under Regulation (EU) 2017/2402.

~~Or. en~~

(13) The current reporting templates both for public and private securitisations are too costly and burdensome. The burden on entities when complying with their reporting obligations should be therefore reduced, without undermining the goal of providing transparency to the market. The reporting templates should be streamlined to reduce the number of mandatory data fields. The revision of the template should aim to bring a reduction of at least 35% of mandatory data fields. The conversion of certain mandatory fields into voluntary fields could add further flexibility, but appropriate attention should be given to ensure that that does not compromise data quality or usability.

~~Justification~~

(14) The reporting framework should account for the specific characteristics of private securitisations. A dedicated and simplified reporting template for private securitisations should be developed since it should not be required to report the same amount of information for private securitisations as that for public securitisations. In specifying the details of reporting requirements, the information required to be reported should be aligned as closely as possible with other well-established templates, in particular with the guide on the notification of securitisation transactions developed by the European Central Bank in accordance with Article 6(5), point (a), of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013. Any future changes to the European Central Bank guide should be assessed and the reporting templates may need to be reviewed, where appropriate. To allow for basic visibility for supervisors over the private market, private securitisations should report to repositories. Leveraging securities repositories for private securitisations will allow national competent authorities to reduce costs and to benefit from existing reporting infrastructure established under Regulation (EU) 2017/2402. Private securitisations should not need to report the same amount of information as public securitisations. Requiring private transactions to report to securitisation repositories, using a simplified template, would improve supervisory oversight and market monitoring. However, to ensure the required high level of confidentiality of private transactions, data from those transactions should not be publicly disclosed.

~~The verification by NCAs of the compliance on an individual basis would be impossible considering the amount of securitisation transactions in some Member States.~~

(15) The securitisation sub-committee of the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (the “Joint Committee Securitisation Committee - JCSC”), referred to in Article 36(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402, under the leadership of the European Banking Authority (EBA), should develop draft regulatory technical standards to further specify the information that the originator, sponsor and SSPE are to provide to comply with the reporting obligation. Those draft regulatory technical standards should take into account the usefulness of the information for the holder of the securitisation position, whether the securitisation is public or private, whether the securitisation position is of a short-term nature and, in the case of an asset-backed commercial paper programme (ABCP) transaction, whether it is fully supported by a sponsor. The Commission should be empowered to supplement Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 by adopting those regulatory technical standards by means of delegated acts pursuant to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Moreover, the JCSC, under the leadership of the EBA, should develop draft implementing technical standards to specify the format for the provision of the information to repositories. The Commission should be empowered to adopt those implementing technical standards by means of an implementing act pursuant to Article 291 TFEU and in accordance with Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010, (EU) No 1094/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010.

~~Amendment 8~~

(16) To support access to market-based financing for SMEs, and to facilitate the development of cross-border securitisations involving exposures from multiple Member States, the criteria for the homogeneity of asset pools should be revised. While it is possible to have securitisations involving exposures from multiple Member States, the requirement of homogeneity, as defined at present, is considered as an obstacle for SMEs securitisations. To overcome that obstacle, a pool of underlying exposures should be deemed homogeneous where at least 70 % of the exposures at origination consists of exposures to SMEs. That lower threshold recognises the specific financing needs and characteristics of SMEs and ensures that mixed pools with a predominant SME component can benefit from the legal certainty and operational efficiencies associated with homogeneous pools. The remaining portion of the pool should be allowed to include other types of exposures, also from different Member States, without affecting the securitisation’s status as STS.

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(17) In 2021, Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 was amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/557 of the European Parliament and of the Council to extend the STS framework to synthetic securitisations. As indicated in the report of the Joint Committee of European Supervisory Authorities, that extension of the STS label has led to satisfactory results in terms of opening the way for new issuance and encouraging greater activity in this market segment. However, the practical implementation of the STS requirements has revealed the necessity to further improve the clarity and consistency in specific requirements with some technical adjustments.

~~Recital 25~~

(18) To ensure the consistent selection of the underlying exposures in a securitisation and to enable investors to assess the credit risk of the asset pool prior to investment, active portfolio management on a discretionary basis of a securitisation exposure is prohibited. Article 26b of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 contains an exhaustive list of permitted management activities and stipulates that certain activities should not be considered active portfolio management on a discretionary basis and therefore not be prohibited. It is necessary to update that list to include removals due to sanctions imposed on an entity during the life of the transaction or fraudulent practices, or amendments to the loan due to a change in the law affecting the enforceability, which are outside the control of the originator. Both circumstances would have an impact on the enforceability of the underlying exposures (beyond the control of the originator) and the removal of those underlying exposures should not be considered as active portfolio management on a discretionary basis.

~~Or. en~~

(19) The criteria relating to standardisation laid down in Article 26c of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 outline the mechanisms for loss allocation to securitisation position holders and determine the application of various amortisation methods to tranches. The central aim of those criteria is to ensure that non-sequential amortisation is employed only when accompanied by distinctly specified contractual triggers. Those triggers are intended to prompt a switch to sequential payments based on the hierarchy of seniority, thereby protecting the transaction from the premature amortisation of credit enhancement in the event of a decline in credit quality. Such premature amortisation could expose originators holding those tranches to risks associated with a diminishing credit enhancement cushion. However, those criteria fail to adequately consider the loss-bearing capacity of tranches subordinated to the protected tranches within a securitisation, leading to misapplication when interpreted literally in the context of synthetic securitisations that include mezzanine tranches. Those criteria inadvertently assume that all associated losses fall solely on the protected tranche, and thus ignoring an assignment to more junior tranches. It should therefore be specified that, in instances where junior tranches absorb portions of the underlying exposure losses, their loss-bearing capacities should be taken into consideration for the application of the criteria.

~~Amendment 9~~

(20) Article 26e(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 currently specifies that the credit protection premiums to be paid under the credit protection agreement are to be structured as contingent on the outstanding nominal amount of the performing securitised exposures at the time of the payment and reflect the risk of the protected tranche. To ensure the effectiveness of the credit protection agreement from the originators’ perspective and at the same time provide legal certainty for investors on the termination date to make payments by specifying the maximum extension period for the debt workout, it should be specified that only credit protection premiums contingent on the size of the outstanding tranche and credit risk of the protected tranche are allowed.

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(21) Article 26e(7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 specifies the conditions under which an originator may commit synthetic excess spread as credit enhancement for investors. One of those conditions is that, for originators not using the IRB Approach referred to in Article 143 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, the calculation of the one-year expected loss of the underlying portfolio is to be clearly determined in the transaction documentation. In order to specify the requirements for the synthetic excess spread committed by the originator and available as credit enhancement for the investors, a specific criterion has been introduced in the 2021 amendment to Regulation (EU) 2017/2402. The application of this criterion has shown that it requires further clarification. In addition, an inconsistency has been identified regarding the requirements for originators not using the IRB Approach. That requirement should be amended to align with the intent to set a cap, equivalent to one year's expected loss, on the total amount of synthetic excess spread that the originator should commit per year, thereby ensuring consistency and clarity in the application of that provision.

~~Recital 30 a (new)~~

(22) The current criterion requiring credit protection is to be funded in the STS framework for on-balance-sheet synthetic securitisation under the STS regime has limited the ability of insurance or reinsurance companies to participate in the on-balance-sheet STS securitisation market. That is detrimental to the development of the STS market and the ability of originators to transfer credit risk outside the banking system. Allowing unfunded credit protection to be eligible for the STS label should, however, not undermine the quality of the STS label or the reliability of the credit protection agreement, nor should it create incentives for inexperienced or undiversified insurance or reinsurance undertakings to become exposed to high levels of risk. It is therefore appropriate to put in place safeguards to ensure that participation is limited to insurers with a certain level of robustness and diversification. Therefore, eligibility for providing unfunded credit protection under the STS label should be accompanied by requirements related to diversification, solvency, risk measurement, and minimum size of the protection provider. Specifically, when it comes to risk measurement, the insurance or reinsurance undertaking should use an approved internal model to calculate capital requirements for such credit protection agreements. When it comes to solvency, the insurance or reinsurance undertaking should comply with the Solvency Capital Requirement and Minimum Capital Requirement referred to in Articles 100 and 128 of Directive 2009/138/EC, respectively, and should have been assigned to credit quality step 2 or better at the time the credit protection was first recognised. When it comes to diversification, the insurance or reinsurance undertaking should have significant business activities in ▌classes of non-life insurance that are not correlated with the provision of credit protection, which should reduce overexposure to any single risk type. Finally, when it comes to minimum size, the value of the total assets of the insurance or reinsurance undertaking should be laid down at solo and consolidated level and should take account of the market structure.

~~Or. en~~

(23) Third-party verifiers have a role in assessing the compliance of securitisations to the STS criteria. Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 only requires third-party verifiers to be authorised by national competent authorities. Such authorisation is, however, of limited assurance if competent authorities are not in position to assess whether those third-party verifiers continue to comply with the conditions for their authorisation on an ongoing basis. To ensure consistency in the supervision of third-party verifiers and monitoring on an ongoing basis, it is therefore appropriate to lay down that ESMA is responsible for the authorisation and ongoing supervision of such third-party verifiers and adequately empowered to do so. Doing so would also strengthen investor confidence and ensure a level playing field in terms of authorisation requirements and ongoing supervision and eliminate the risk of regulatory arbitrage across Member States.

~~Amendment 10~~

(24) To ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402, it is necessary to clarify the responsibilities of competent authorities in supervising the compliance of all relevant parties involved in a securitisation. Competent authorities should oversee the conduct of originators, sponsors, original lenders, and SSPEs. ▌

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(25) In order to strengthen compliance with, and to enhance the effectiveness of, Regulation (EU) 2017/2402, the scope of sanctioning powers under Article 32 of that Regulation should be broadened to explicitly include infringements of due diligence obligations. Institutional investors play a key role in ensuring the soundness and transparency of the securitisation market by conducting appropriate due diligence before and during their exposures. To ensure consistent enforcement across the Union of those due diligence requirements, it should be specified that failure to comply with those requirements is to be subject to remedial measures and administrative sanctions by competent authorities. However, if the sanctioning regime for infringements of the due diligence requirements is too harsh, new investors might be disincentivised from participation. Therefore, a more proportionate sanctioning regime vis-à-vis institutional investors as compared to the sanctions applicable to the sell-side requirements would be better suited to achieving the objective of widening the investor base in securitisation markets.

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1~~

(26) Fostering supervisory convergence is essential to the proper functioning and further development of the securitisation market which brings together a wide range of economic actors often based in different jurisdictions, even for the same transaction. The involvement of several competent authorities, combined with the current complexity of the decision-making process, highlights the need to strengthen the supervisory coordination. Simplifying and reinforcing existing frameworks for supervisory coordination, where feasible, should support the broader aim of simplification in regulation and supervision. Stronger convergence can be achieved by using more efficiently and effectively existing powers that allocated to the ESAs and the competent authorities. This outcome should be also supported by giving a more prominent role to the EBA, which should assume permanent stewardship of supervision coordination issues for the securitisation market in the Union.

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(27) The Joint Committee Securitisation Committee, composed of market and prudential competent authorities, should focus on issues stemming from supervision and should facilitate and promote supervisory convergence through common supervisory practices. The current mandate of the JCSC should be reviewed to put emphasis on supervisory convergence and work related to Article 44 of this Regulation. The JCSC can meet in different formats or establish subgroups for specific tasks according to the issues to be discussed. The EBA should provide the secretariat and a vice-chairperson for the Joint Committee Securitisation Committee on a permanent basis, deputising and supporting the chairperson in the exercise of his or her duties. In the absence of the chairperson, the vice-chairperson should perform the tasks of the chairperson, including in situations where no chairperson is elected. Representatives to this body from participating market and prudential competent authorities should have the appropriate level of knowledge and experience in matters under discussion. The regular monitoring of the state of the market and evaluation of the supervisory securitisation framework in the Union through monitoring reports, development of guidelines and regular peer reviews would further strengthen the supervisory framework promoting best (supervisory) practices.

~~Article 1 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)~~

(28) Given that securitisation activity in the Union is primarily concentrated in the banking sector, it is appropriate that the EBA assumes the permanent stewardship role in the Joint Committee Securitisation Committee. In the exercise of its permanent role in the Joint Committee Securitisation Committee, the EBA should attach particular attention to nourishing strong and collaborative working relationships with the European Securities Markets Authority (ESMA) and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) and duly taking account of their sectoral perspectives. It should be expected that such reinforced supervisory coordination will result in more robust and consistent supervision of the securitisation market in the Union. In this capacity, the EBA should also lead the work on the development of the disclosure templates as provided for in Article 7 of this Regulation. This will be instrumental in preparing the market for the anticipated growth and developing supervisory capacity and preparedness to support this expansion. Assigning a stewardship role to EBA in this supervisory capacity aligns with the strategic vision of an efficient and simplified regulatory landscape.

~~Or. en~~

(29) In case of cross-border securitisations, appointing a lead supervisor would streamline the supervision of compliance with Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 and ensure consistency and better coordination among the different competent authorities. The lead supervisor should be appointed from among the competent authorities of the entities involved in the transaction, with the decision taken by the competent authorities concerned. In case of disagreements the matter should be dealt with at the level of the Joint Committee Securitisation Committee. Whenever a new transaction involves entities supervised by the same competent authorities, the lead previously appointed can keep that role.

~~Justification~~

(29a) In line with the Commission’s objectives of simplification, reducing reporting burdens, ensuring consistent and effective supervision across the Union and advancing the Savings and Investments Union agenda, the EBA should be responsible for supervising compliance with Articles 18 to 27 of this Regulation by originators, sponsors, and SSPEs to ensure consistent supervision and enforcement at Union level. On the other hand, to achieve the above objectives, ESMA is better suited to authorise and supervise third-party verifiers, for which it should be granted the necessary investigatory and enforcement powers, including the ability to request information, carry out on-site inspections and impose administrative measures and sanctions where appropriate.

When national promotional banks use tranched guarantees from the EU or Member States to share risks for public-policy purposes, these arrangements are currently treated as synthetic securitisations, triggering extensive originator obligations that provide no added value in this context. Adjusting the framework is necessary to avoid disproportionate operational burdens and to ensure that promotional activities can continue efficiently despite tight budget conditions.

(29b) To ensure appropriate funding of their new supervisory tasks in accordance with this Regulation, the EBA and ESMA should be empowered to levy annual fees on entities submitting STS notifications and on third party verifiers. Those fees should reflect the supervisory costs of the EBA and ESMA and be proportionate to the turnover of the entity, relative to the total turnover of all such entities for that period.

~~Amendment 11~~

(29c) Close cooperation and timely information exchange between ESMA, national competent authorities, and the European Central Bank — particularly in relation to the supervision of significant institutions under Articles 6 to 9 — should be ensured. Governance-related findings and risk indicators should be shared to avoid duplication and ensure an efficient and coordinated supervisory approach across prudential and investor protection mandates.

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(30) It is important to ensure that the regulatory framework for securitisations remains effective and adapts to the evolving financial landscape. For that reason, the Commission should comprehensively review the impact and functionality of this Regulation within 5 years after its adoption, with careful attention to its influence on the securitisation market and its broader economic implications. That review should focus on critical aspects, including market dynamics, the accessibility of credit in particular for SMEs, investments, and the interconnectedness of financial institutions which is vital for maintaining the stability of the financial sector. Combining insights from the reports referred to in Article 31 and Article 44 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 and further analyses, the Commission should determine the necessity for legislative updates to safeguard the role of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 in supporting a resilient and dynamic economy within the European Union.

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2~~

(31) Since the objectives of this Regulation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States given that securitisation markets operate globally and that a level playing field in the internal market for all institutional investors and entities involved in securitisation should be ensured but, by reason of their scale and effects, can be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(32) Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 should therefore be amended accordingly,

~~Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 32~~

Article 1 Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402

~~Or. en~~

Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 is amended as follows:

~~Justification~~

(1) in Article 1, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

The amendment preserves the current definitions of public and private securitisations for transparency purposes, avoiding an expansion of “public securitisations” beyond those with a prospectus, and preventing market disruption or unintended effects.

‘This Regulation applies to institutional investors and to originators, sponsors, original lenders, servicers and securitisation special purpose entities.

~~Amendment 12~~

(2) ▌Article 2 is amended as follows:

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(a) in point (1), the introductory wording is replaced by the following:

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2~~

‘(1) ‘securitisation’ means a transaction or scheme whereby the credit risk associated with an underlying exposure or a pool of underlying exposures is tranched, having all of the following characteristics:’;

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(b) the following points ▌ are added:

~~Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 33~~

‘(32) ‘public securitisation’ means a securitisation that meets any of the following criteria:

~~Or. en~~

(a) ▌ a prospectus has to be drawn up for that securitisation pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

~~Amendment 13~~

(b) the underlying pool of exposures is actively managed by the originator or sponsor;’;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

▌

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2~~

(32a) ‘actively managed’ means portfolio management that is directly related to the replacement of underlying exposures transferred or assigned to the SSPE, involving sale of the underlying exposures for reasons other than those listed in the case of excluded techniques, or any type of active selection of the underlying exposures on a discretionary basis not related to the sale of underlying exposures, including management of the underlying exposures for speculative purposes aiming to achieve better performance or increased investor yield, while excluding the following portfolio management techniques:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(a) substitution or repurchase of underlying exposures due to the breach of representations or warranties;

~~Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 33 a (new)~~

(b) replenishment of underlying exposures, that is, the addition of underlying exposures as substitute for amortised exposures during the revolving period;

~~Or. en~~

(c) use of a ‘ramp up’ period following the transfer of the underlying exposures to the SSPE, during which the proceeds from the underlying exposures are invested into additional exposures to line up the value of the underlying exposures with the value of the securitisation obligations;

~~Justification~~

(33) ‘private securitisation’ means a securitisation that is not a public securitisation;

Even so there is a reference to "repeat transactions" in recital (8), there is no definition of what a “repeat transaction” is, and no specification of what the simplified due diligence on those transactions entails.

(33a)‘repeat transactions’ mean a sequence of securitisation transactions that fulfil all of the following criteria:

~~Amendment 14~~

(a) they have the same originator or original lender;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(b) they are backed by the same type of underlying assets;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b – point ii~~

(c) they display the same overall structural features, notably concerning the number and hierarchy of tranches, credit enhancement mechanisms and cash flow distribution;

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(d) they are presented to the market as a repeated and programmatic issuance with a similar name.’;

~~Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1– point c~~

(3) Article 5 is amended as follows:

~~Or. en~~

(a) paragraph 1 is amended as follows:

~~Justification~~

(-i) the introductory wording and points (a), (b) and (c) are replaced by the following:

For securitisations notified as STS, compliance with the applicable STS criteria must be ensured. Where a securitisation position has been verified by a supervised third-party verifier, the standard investor compliance check is not required. This maintains high STS standards while reducing administrative burdens through reliance on independent verification.

‘1. Prior to holding a securitisation position, institutional investors, other than the originator, sponsor or original lender, shall verify that:

~~Amendment 15~~

(a) where the originator or original lender established in the Union is not a credit institution or an investment firm as defined in Article 4(1), points (1) and (2), of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, the originator or original lender grants all the credits giving rise to the underlying exposures, or generates trade receivables, on the basis of sound and well-defined criteria and clearly established processes for approving, amending, renewing and financing those credits or trade receivables and has effective systems in place to apply those criteria and processes in accordance with Article 9(1) of this Regulation;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(b) where the originator or original lender is established in a third country, the originator or original lender grants all the credits giving rise to the underlying exposures, or generates trade receivables, on the basis of sound and well-defined criteria and clearly established processes for approving, amending, renewing and financing those credits or trade receivables and has effective systems in place to apply those criteria and processes to ensure that credit-granting is based on a thorough assessment of the obligor’s creditworthiness;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b – point ii a (new)~~

(c) with regard to a securitisation notified as STS in accordance with Article 27, the compliance of that securitisation with Articles 19 to 22 or Articles 23 to 26 or Articles 26a to 26e, and Article 27;’;

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(ii) points (e) and (f) are replaced by the following:

~~Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)~~

‘(e) if established in a third country, the originator, sponsor or SSPE ▌ has made available at least the information listed in Article 7(1), which would have been required to be provided if those entities were established in the Union in accordance with the frequency▌provided for in that paragraph, not including the requirement to use standardised templates referred to in Article 7(4);

~~Or. en~~

(f) if established in a third country, in the case of non-performing exposures, the originator, sponsor or original lender has applied sound standards in the selection and pricing of the exposures.’;

~~Amendment 16~~

(iia) the following subparagraph is added:

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

‘Point (c) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall not apply if the securitisation position has been verified by a third-party verifier authorised and supervised in accordance with Article 28.’

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c – point i a (new)~~

(b) paragraph 3 is amended as follows:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(-i) the introductory wording is replaced by the following:

~~Article 5 – paragraph 4 – points b and c~~

‘3. Prior to holding a securitisation position, an institutional investor, other than the originator, sponsor or original lender, shall carry out a proportionate due diligence assessment which enables it to assess the risks involved. That assessment shall consider at least all of the following:’;

~~Or. en~~

(i) point (b) is replaced by the following:

~~Amendment 17~~

‘(b) all the structural features of the securitisation that can materially impact the performance of the securitisation position;’;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(ii) point (c) is deleted;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c – point i b (new)~~

(iia) the following subparagraph is added:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

‘When considering the proportionality of the due diligence assessment under this paragraph, its appropriate scope and depth may be reduced by factors such as the credit risk and relative seniority of the securitisation position and related credit enhancement, and whether the securitisation position relates to a repeat transaction.’;

~~Article 5 – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)~~

~~Or. en~~

(i) in point (a), the second subparagraph is deleted;

~~Justification~~

(ia) the following point is inserted:

To‘(ca) ~~ensure~~in the ~~workability~~case of ~~"repeat~~repeat ~~transactions"~~transactions, indocument ~~recital~~the ~~(8),~~due itdiligence ~~should~~solely beon ~~specified~~the ~~that~~elements ~~investors~~of inthe ~~repeat~~transaction ~~transactions~~that ~~conduct~~have ~~their~~changed ~~due~~since ~~diligence~~the onlast issuance, provided that the ~~sole~~investor ~~elements~~has ofalready ~~the~~purchased a securitisation ~~that~~position ~~have~~in ~~changed~~a ~~since~~previous transaction in the ~~last~~past ~~issuance.~~24 months;’;

~~Amendment 18~~

(ib) points (d) and (e) are replaced by the following:

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

‘(d) ensure internal reporting to its management body or an entity designated by the management body so that the management body or an entity designated by the management body is aware of the material risks arising from the securitisation position and so that those risks are adequately managed;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c – point i c (new)~~

(e) be able to demonstrate to its competent authorities, upon request, that it has a comprehensive and thorough understanding of the securitisation position and its underlying exposures and that it has implemented written policies and procedures for the risk management of the securitisation position proportionate to its risk profile and for maintaining records of the verifications and due diligence in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 and of any other relevant information;’;

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(ii) the following point (g) is added:

~~Article 5 – parargraph 4 – point d~~

‘(g) in the case of secondary market investments, document the due diligence assessment and verifications within a reasonable period of time which in any case shall not exceed 15 calendar days after the investment.’;

~~Or. en~~

(iia) the following subparagraph is added:

~~(Regulation (EU) 2017/2402)~~

‘When considering the proportionality of the obligations under points (a), (b), (d) and (e) under this paragraph, an institutional investor may take into account the risk of the securitisation position and factors such as the seniority of the securitisation position and related credit enhancement and whether the securitisation position relates to a repeat transaction.’;

~~Justification~~

(d) the following paragraphs 4a and 4b are inserted:

The delegation to an entity designated by the management body provides the management body greater flexibility without having any effect on the quality of the information processing. Inclusion of the management body in individual decisions is also not necessary. Indeed, this obligation only serves to slow down the transaction.

‘4a. Paragraphs 1 to 4 shall not apply to institutional investors that hold a securitisation position where such securitisation position is guaranteed by a multilateral development bank listed in Article 117(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

~~Amendment 19~~

For the purposes of the first subparagraph, the guarantee shall meet the conditions of Article 213 and 215 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

4b. Paragraphs 1 and 4 shall not apply to institutional investors that hold a securitisation position where the first loss tranche representing at least 15% of the nominal value of the securitised exposures for non-STS securitisations, and at least 10% of the nominal value of the securitised exposures for STS securitisations, is either held or guaranteed by one of the entities listed under Article 6(5), points (a) to (f).

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point d~~

(e) paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

‘5. Without prejudice to paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article, where an institutional investor has delegated to another institutional investor the authority to make investment management decisions that might expose the delegating institutional investor to a securitisation, that investor may instruct the delegate to fulfil the delegating institutional investor’s obligations under this Article in respect of any exposure to a securitisation arising from those decisions. Member States shall ensure that, where a delegate is instructed under this paragraph to fulfil the obligations of the delegating institutional investor and fails to do so, any sanction under Articles 32 and 33 is imposed on the delegate and not on the delegating institutional investor that is exposed to the securitisation. Before instructing the delegate to fulfil its obligations under this Article, the delegating institutional investor shall ensure that the delegate has prior experience in conducting due diligence obligations for its own account or on account of other parties.’;

~~Article 5 – paragraph 4b~~

(4) Article 6 is amended as follows:

~~Or. en~~

(-a) in paragraph 1, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

~~Amendment 20~~

‘For the purposes of this Article, an entity shall not be considered an originator where the entity has been established or operates for the sole purpose of securitising exposures. For entities that provide SME loans, consumer credit or residential mortgages, and that act as originators, it shall suffice to demonstrate that securitising exposures is a means to finance their business, or that of an entity belonging to the same group, which is centred on the provision of goods or non-financial services.

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

When an entity does not meet the criteria set out in a delegated regulation adopted pursuant to paragraph 7, the actual purpose for which the entity was established and operates shall be examined by the competent authority on a case-by-case basis to ascertain that it has real substance and that the entity is suitable to act as a retainer in a securitisation transaction.’;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point e~~

(a) in paragraph 5 point (f) is added:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

‘(f) the Union.’

~~Article 5 – paragraph 5~~

(b) the following paragraphs are inserted:

~~Or. en~~

‘5a. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where the first loss tranche representing at least 15% of the nominal value of the securitised exposures for non-STS securitisations and at least 10% of the nominal value of the securitised exposures for STS securitisations, is either held or guaranteed by one of the entities listed under points (a) to (f) of paragraph 5.

~~Justification~~

5b. This Article shall not apply to synthetic securitisations that meet all of the following conditions:

Compliance with due diligence should remain primarily the responsibility of the entity conducting the checks. While the Article could be clarified to require the delegating investor to ensure the delegated entity has sufficient experience, removing the obligation could discourage new investors and undermine the market.

(a) the synthetic securitisation is originated by a national promotional bank or institution as defined in Article 2, point (3), of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017;

~~Amendment 21~~

(b) the first-loss tranche is guaranteed by any of the entities referred to in points (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) of paragraph 5;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b a (new)~~

(d) the guarantor has established and approved the eligibility criteria for the underlying exposures prior to their creation, whereby no other party has discretion to alter or override such criteria; and

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(e) the entity referred to in point (b) of this paragraph guarantees the first-loss tranche on a continuous basis and cannot hedge or otherwise transfer the credit risk associated with that tranche to an entity not referred in points (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) of paragraph 5.’;

~~Article 6 – paragraph 5 b (new)~~

(ba) paragraph 7 is amended as follows:

~~Or. en~~

(i) in the first subparagraph, the following point is inserted:

~~Amendment 22~~

‘(ba) the criteria to be fulfilled by an entity in order not to be considered to have been established or to operate for the sole purpose of securitising exposures, as referred to in paragraph 1, second and third subparagraphs;’;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(ii) the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b b (new)~~

‘The EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by … [six months from the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation].’;

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(5) Article 7 is amended as follows:

~~Article 6 – paragraph 5 c (new)~~

(a) in paragraph 1, the introductory wording is replaced by the following:

~~Or. en~~

‘1. If established in the Union, the originator, sponsor and SSPE of a securitisation shall, in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article, make at least the following information available to holders of a securitisation position, to the competent authorities referred to in Article 29 and, upon request, to potential investors:’;

~~Justification~~

(aa) the fourth subparagraph is replaced by the following:

The proposed paragraph 5c introduces a flexible compliance option for NPE securitisations with public guarantees, allowing risk retention via a vertical slice on non-guaranteed tranches. This supports NPE resolution, enhances flexibility, and aligns with the prudential framework.

‘In the case of ▌a securitisation of highly-granular pools of ▌ exposures, whether public or private, or in the case of ABCPs, the information described in points (a), (c)(ii) and (e)(i) of the first subparagraph shall be made available in aggregate form to holders of securitisation positions and, upon request, to potential investors.’;

~~Amendment 23~~

(b) in paragraph 2, the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

‘Private securitisations shall be subject to a distinct and reduced reporting framework that acknowledges their unique characteristics, differing from public securitisation, in a dedicated and simplified reporting template. That dedicated and simplified reporting template shall ensure that essential information relevant to ▌competent authorities is adequately reported, while respecting strict confidentiality requirements, without imposing the full extent of reporting obligations applicable to public securitisations. Private securitisations shall fulfil their obligations under this subparagraph as of [date set in the fourth subparagraphs of paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article].’;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a~~

(ba) the following paragraph is inserted:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

‘2a. This Article shall not apply to synthetic securitisations that meet all of the following conditions:

~~Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4~~

(a) the synthetic securitisation is originated by a national promotional bank or institution as defined in Article 2, point (3), of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017;

~~Or. en~~

(b) the first-loss tranche is guaranteed by any of the entities referred to in Article 6(5), points (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f);

~~Justification~~

Clarification is needed to resolve the apparent conflict, as ABCP transactions are referenced under Art. 7(1) reporting requirements but should be exempt under the new Art. 7(2), given that ABCP transactions are always private.

~~Amendment 24~~

(e) the entity referred to in point (b) of this paragraph guarantees the first-loss tranche on a continuous basis and cannot hedge or otherwise transfer the credit risk associated with that tranche to an entity not referred in Article 6(5), points (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f).’;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point b~~

‘3. The ESAs shall develop, through the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities, under the leadership of the EBA and in close cooperation with ESMA and EIOPA, draft regulatory technical standards in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010, (EU) No 1094/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 to specify the information that the originator, sponsor and SSPE shall provide to comply with paragraph 1, first subparagraph, points (a) and (e), and paragraph 2 taking into account:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(a) the usefulness and comparability of information for the holder of the securitisation position and for supervisors;

~~Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3~~

(b) whether the securitisation is public or private;

~~Or. en~~

~~Amendment 25~~

(d) in the case of an ABCP transaction, whether that transaction is fully supported by a sponsor;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(da) the data requirements under other Union legal acts that are relevant for monitoring climate change and environmental risks, including those related to physical and transition risks.

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point -a (new)~~

For the purposes of paragraph 1, fourth subparagraph, the draft regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall map, with the exception of ABCPs, the granularity of pools of exposures, which allows for aggregated reporting, to specific underlying asset classes, including mortgages, corporate loans, credit cards, consumer loans, auto loans and trade receivables.

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

The ESAs, through the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities, under the leadership of the EBA and in close cooperation with ESMA and EIOPA, shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [6 months after the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation].

~~Article 20 – paragraph 1~~

The Commission is empowered to supplement this Regulation by adopting the regulatory technical standards referred to in this paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010, (EU) No 1094/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010.

~~Or. en~~

The regulatory technical standards shall enter into force [12 months] after the adoption by the Commission

~~(Regulation (EU) 2017/2402)~~

At least every three years from the date of their adoption by the Commission the ESAs, through the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities, shall assess the regulatory technical standards to determine their continued relevance and accuracy, to ensure they remain effective, up to date, aligned with market practices and needs. The ESAs, through the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities, shall inform the Commission of the results of the assessment.’

~~Justification~~

(d) paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

Securitisations should be allowed to obtain the STS label even when no SSPE is used. Banks can buy receivables directly onto their own balance sheet and still structure the deal like a traditional ABS with tranching, without adding risk. These direct structures offer legal protection, avoid extra insolvency risk, reduce operational costs, and align with the EU goal of lowering red tape.

‘4. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application for the information to be specified in accordance with paragraph 3, the ESAs, through the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities, under the leadership of the EBA and in close cooperation with ESMA and EIOPA, shall develop draft implementing technical standards in accordance with Article 15 of Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010, (EU) No 1094/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 specifying the format thereof by means of standardised templates.

~~Amendment 26~~

The ESAs, through the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities, shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by [6 months after the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation].

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

The Commission is empowered to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in this paragraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010, (EU) No 1094/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010.

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a~~

The implementing technical standards shall enter into force [12 months] after the adoption by the Commission.

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

At least every three years from the date of their adoption by the Commission the ESAs, through the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities, shall assess the implementing regulatory technical standards to determine their continued relevance and accuracy, to ensure they remain effective, up to date, aligned with market practices and needs. The ESAs, through the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities, shall inform the Commission of the results of that assessment.’;

~~Article 20 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 4~~

(5a) in Article 9, the following paragraph is added:

~~Or. en~~

‘5. This Article shall not apply to synthetic securitisations that meet all of the following conditions:

~~Justification~~

(a) the synthetic securitisation is originated by a national promotional bank or institution as defined in Article 2, point (3), of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017;

Incorporating the definition of homogeneity into the Level 1 text and deleting the EBA RTS would simplify the framework by reducing the homogeneity test to a single asset-class criterion, thereby removing unnecessary complexity and allowing similar loan types to be pooled more efficiently.

(b) the first-loss tranche is guaranteed by any of the entities referred to in Article 6(5), points (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f);

~~Amendment 27~~

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b a (new)~~

(e) the entity referred to in point (b) of this paragraph guarantees the first-loss tranche on a continuous basis and cannot hedge or otherwise transfer the credit risk associated with that tranche to an entity not referred in Article 6(5), points (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f).’;

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(6) Article 10 is amended as follows:

~~Article 20 – paragraph 14~~

(a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

~~Or. en~~

‘1. A securitisation repository shall register with ESMA for the purposes of Article 7 under the conditions and the procedure set out in this Article.’;

~~(Regulation (EU) 2017/2402)~~

(b) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

~~Amendment 28~~

‘2. To be eligible to be registered under this Article, a securitisation repository shall be a legal person established in the Union, apply procedures to verify the completeness and consistency of the information made available to it in accordance with Article 7(2) of this Regulation, and meet the requirements laid down in in Articles 78 and 79, and Article 80(1), (2), (3), (5) and (6) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. For the purposes of this Article, references in Articles 78 and 80 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 to Article 9 thereof shall be construed as references to Article 7 of this Regulation.’

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(7) Article 17 is amended as follows:

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)~~

(a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

‘1. Without prejudice to Article 7(2), the securitisation repository referred to in Article 10 shall collect and maintain details of the securitisation. It shall provide direct and immediate access free of charge to all of the following entities to enable them to fulfil their respective responsibilities, mandates and obligations:

~~Article 21 – paragraph 6 – points c and d~~

(a) the EBA;

~~Or. en~~

(b) EIOPA;

~~(Regulation (EU) 2017/2402)~~

~~Justification~~

(d) the ESRB;

Excluding these triggers for private transactions would simplify the framework and remove provisions that are difficult to define or unsuitable for fluctuating exposures. Existing triggers for credit-quality deterioration and originator or servicer insolvency continue to protect investors, while this approach allows flexibility for cyclical industries and aligns non-ABCP STS criteria with ABCP practices.

(e) the relevant members of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), including the European Central Bank (ECB) in carrying out its tasks within a single supervisory mechanism under Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013;

~~Amendment 29~~

(f) the relevant authorities whose respective supervisory responsibilities and mandates cover transactions, markets, participants and assets which fall within the scope of this Regulation;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(g) the resolution authorities designated under Article 3 of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and the Council;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 – point -a (new)~~

(h) the Single Resolution Board established by Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(i) the authorities referred to in Article 29 of this Regulation;

~~Article 22 – paragraph 1~~

(j) the Commission, upon request;

~~Or. en~~

(k) in case of public securitisations, investors and potential investors.’

~~(Regulation (EU) 2017/2402)~~

(b) in paragraph 2, point (a) is deleted.

~~Justification~~

(8) Article 20 is amended as follows:

To meet transparency requirements, originators are required to provide data on historical default and loss performance to potential investors. In practice, it is often unclear which specific data should be disclosed. The amendment clarifies that the originator may select relevant information based on factors specific to the business and transaction, removing ambiguities and ensuring investors receive targeted and meaningful data.

(-a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

~~Amendment 30~~

‘1. The title to the underlying exposures shall be acquired by the SSPE or, in the case of securitisations of trade receivables where no SSPE is used, by the buyer of the underlying exposures, by means of a true sale or assignment or transfer with the same legal effect in a manner that is enforceable against the seller or any other third party. The transfer of the title to the SSPE or, in the case of securitisations of trade receivables where no SSPE is used, to the buyer of the underlying exposures, shall not be subject to severe clawback provisions in the event of the seller’s insolvency.

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

The buyer of the underlying exposers for the purposes of this Article and Article 27 shall be a credit institution as defined in Article 4(1), point (1), of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013’;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point -a (new)~~

(-aa) in paragraph 2, point (b) is replaced by the following:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

‘(b) provisions where the SSPE or, in the case of securitisations of trade receivables where no SSPE is used, the buyer of the underlying exposures, can only prevent the invalidation referred to in point (a) if it can prove that it was not aware of the insolvency of the seller at the time of sale.’;

~~Article 24 – paragraph 1~~

(-ab) paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:

~~Or. en~~

‘7. The underlying exposures transferred from, or assigned by, the seller to the SSPE or, in the case of securitisations of trade receivables where no SSPE is used, to the buyer of the underlying exposures, shall meet predetermined, clear and documented eligibility criteria which do not allow for active portfolio management of those exposures on a discretionary basis. For the purposes of this paragraph, substitution of exposures that are in breach of representations and warranties shall not be considered active portfolio management. Exposures transferred to the SSPE or, in the case of securitisations of trade receivables where no SSPE is used, to the buyer of the underlying exposures, after the closing of the transaction shall meet the eligibility criteria applied to the initial underlying exposures.’;

~~(Regulation (EU) 2017/2402)~~

(a) in paragraph 8, the following subparagraph is added:

~~Justification~~

‘A pool of underlying exposures shall be deemed to comply with the first sentence of the first subparagraph where all of the following conditions are met:

(a) at least 70% of the exposures in the pool at origination consists of exposures to SMEs;

~~Amendment 31~~

(b) all of the exposures in the pool are to obligors established in Member States;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(c) all of the exposures in the pool are underwritten in accordance with standards that apply similar approaches for assessing associated credit risk;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point a a(new)~~

(d) all of the exposures in the pool are serviced in accordance with similar procedures for monitoring, collecting and administering cash receivables;

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(e) the overall risk profile of the exposures remains consistent and comparable.’;

~~Article 24 – paragraph 14~~

(b) ▌paragraph 11 is amended as follows:

~~Or. en~~

(i) the introductory wording is replaced by the following:

~~(Regulation (EU) 2017/2402)~~

‘The underlying exposures shall be transferred to the SSPE or, in the case of securitisations of trade receivables where no SSPE is used, to the buyer of the underlying exposures, after selection without undue delay and shall not include, at the time of selection, exposures in default within the meaning of Article 178(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 or exposures to a credit-impaired debtor or guarantor, who, to the best of the originator´s or original lender´s knowledge:’;

~~Justification~~

(ii) ▌ point (a) ▌ is replaced by the following:

‘(a) has been declared insolvent or had a court grant his creditors a final non-appealable right of enforcement or material damages as a result of a missed payment within three years prior to the date of origination or has undergone a debt-restructuring process with regard to his non-peroforming exposures within three years prior to the date of transfer or assignment of the underlying exposures to the SSPE or, in the case of securitisations of trade receivables where no SSPE is used, to the buyer of the underlying exposures, except if:

~~Amendment 32~~

(i) a restructured underlying exposure has not presented new arrears since the date of the restructuring, which must have taken place at least one year prior to the date of transfer or assignment of the underlying exposures to the SSPE or, where relevant, to the buyer of the underlying exposures; and

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(ii) the information provided by the originator, sponsor or SSPE explicitly sets out the proportion of restructured underlying exposures, the time and details of the restructuring, and their performance since the date of the restructuring;’;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point b – point i (new)~~

(ba) in paragraph 14, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

‘The EBA, in close cooperation with ESMA and EIOPA, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards further specifying which of the underlying exposures referred to in paragraph 8, first, second and third subparagraphs, are deemed to be homogeneous.’;

~~Article 24 – paragraph 15 – subparagraph 2~~

(9) Article 22 is amended as follows:

~~Or. en~~

(-a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

~~Amendment 33~~

‘1. The originator and the sponsor shall make available robust data on static and dynamic historical default and loss performance, such as delinquency and default data, ▌for substantially similar exposures to those being securitised, and the sources of those data and the basis for claiming similarity, to potential investors before pricing. Where the sponsor does not have access to such data, it shall obtain access thereto from the seller. The quality of the data shall be such as to enable potential institutional investors to conduct a prudent stress test analysis. Those data shall cover a period of five years, except for data relating to trade receivables and other short-term receivables, for which the historical period shall be no shorter than three years, unless the EBA confirms a shorter period for duly justified reasons.’;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(-ab) in paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is added:

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point b – point ii (new)~~

‘In the case of a securitisation where information is disclosed on an aggregated basis in accordance with Article 7(1), the external verification shall focus on the accuracy of the aggregation process and the consistency of the aggregated data with the underlying internal records of the originator.’;

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(a) in paragraph 4, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:

~~Article 24 – paragraph 15 – subparagraph 5~~

‘In case of a securitisation where the underlying exposures are residential loans or auto loans or leases, the originator and sponsor shall publish the available information related to the environmental performance of the assets financed by such residential loans or auto loans or leases.’;

~~Or. en~~

(b) paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:

~~Justification~~

‘5. The originator and the sponsor shall be responsible for compliance with Article 7. In case of a public securitisation, the information required by Article 7(1), first subparagraph, point (a), shall be made available to potential investors before pricing upon request. In case of a public securitisation, the information required by Article 7(1), first subparagraph, points (b) to (d), shall be made available before pricing at least in draft or initial form. The final documentation shall be made available to investors at the latest 15 days after closing of the transaction.’;

(10) Article 24 is amended as follows:

~~Amendment 34~~

(a) in paragraph 9, in point (a), point (ii) is replaced by the following:

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

‘(ii) the information provided by the originator, sponsor and SSPE explicitly sets out the proportion of restructured underlying exposures, the time and details of the restructuring, and their performance since the date of the restructuring;’;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 – point b a (new)~~

(aa) paragraph 14 is replaced by the following:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

‘14. The originator and the sponsor shall make available robust data on static and dynamic historical default and loss performance, such as delinquency and default data, for substantially similar exposures to those being securitised, and the sources of those data and the basis for claiming similarity, to potential investors before pricing. Where the sponsor does not have access to such data, it shall obtain access thereto from the seller. The quality of the data shall be such as to enable potential institutional investors to conduct a prudent stress test analysis. Those data shall cover a period of five years, except for data relating to trade receivables and other short-term receivables, for which the historical period shall be no shorter than three years, unless the EBA confirms a shorter period for duly justified reasons.’;

~~Article 24 – paragraph 21~~

(b) in paragraph 15 the following subparagraph is added:

~~Or. en~~

‘A pool of underlying exposures shall be deemed to comply with the first sentence of the first subparagraph where all of the following conditions are met:

~~(Regulation (EU) 2017/2402)~~

(a) at least 70% of the exposures in the pool at origination consists of exposures to SMEs;

~~Amendment 35~~

(b) all of the exposures in the pool are to obligors established in Member States;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(c) all of the exposures in the pool are underwritten in accordance with standards that apply similar approaches for assessing associated credit risk;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point b – point i (new)~~

(d) all of the exposures in the pool are serviced in accordance with similar procedures for monitoring, collecting and administering cash receivables;

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(e) the overall risk profile of the exposures remains consistent and comparable’.’;

~~Article 26b – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 3~~

(ba) in paragraph 21, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:

~~Or. en~~

‘The EBA, in close cooperation with ESMA and EIOPA, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards further specifying which of the underlying exposures referred to in paragraph 15, first to fourth subparagraphs, are deemed to be homogeneous.’;

~~(Regulation (EU) 2017/2402)~~

(11) Article 26b is amended as follows:

~~Justification~~

(a) in paragraph 7, in the fourth subparagraph, the following points (e) and (f) are added:

~~Reference portfolios for synthetic on-balance-sheet securitisations of corporate loans often include undrawn or partially drawn credit facilities, generating defined periodic commitment fee payments.~~

‘(e) has been the object of Union restrictive measures or of proven fraudulent practices;

~~Amendment 36~~

‘(f) has been subject to changes in the national legal framework that would affect the enforceability of the claims of the underlying exposures.’;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(b) ▌ paragraph 8 is amended as follows:

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point b – point ii (new)~~

(i) the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

‘The underlying exposures referred to in the first subparagraph shall have defined periodic payment streams, the instalments of which may differ in their amounts, relating to rental, principal or interest payments or to other payments, including commitment fees, received on a periodic basis, or to any other right to receive income from assets supporting such payments. The underlying exposures may also generate proceeds from the sale of any financed or leased assets.’;

~~Article 26b – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 5~~

(iii) the following subparagraph is added:

~~Or. en~~

‘A pool of underlying exposures shall be deemed to comply with the first sentence of the first subparagraph where all of the following conditions are met:

~~Justification~~

(a) at least 70% of the exposures in the pool at origination consists of exposures to SMEs;

(b) all of the exposures in the pool are to obligors established in Member States;

~~Amendment 37~~

(c) all of the exposures in the pool are underwritten in accordance with standards that apply similar approaches for assessing associated credit risk; (d) all of the exposures in the pool are serviced in accordance with similar procedures for monitoring, collecting and administering cash receivables;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(e) the overall risk profile of the exposures remains consistent and comparable.’;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 – point c a (new)~~

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

~~Article 26b – paragraph 13~~

(ca) in paragraph 13, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:

~~Or. en~~

‘The EBA, in close cooperation with ESMA and EIOPA, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards further specifying which of the underlying exposures referred to in paragraph 8, first to fourth subparagraphs, are deemed to be homogeneous.’;

~~(Regulation (EU) 2017/2402)~~

(12) in Article 26c, in paragraph 5, the eighth subparagraph is replaced by the following:

~~Amendment 38~~

‘Where a credit event, as referred to in Article 26e, has occurred in relation to underlying exposures and the debt workout for those exposures has not been completed, the amount of credit protection remaining at any payment date plus the amount of any retained tranches which rank junior to the tranches covered by the credit protection remaining at any payment date shall be at least equivalent to the outstanding nominal amount of those underlying exposures, minus the amount of any interim payment made in relation to those underlying exposures.’;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(12a) in Article 26d, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12 a (new)~~

‘1. The originator shall make available robust data on static and dynamic historical default and loss performance such as delinquency and default data for substantially similar exposures to those being securitised, and the sources of those data and the basis for claiming similarity, to potential investors before pricing. The quality of the data shall be such as to enable potential institutional investors to conduct a prudent stress test analysis. Those data shall cover a period of five years, except for data relating to trade receivables and other short-term receivables, for which the historical period shall be no shorter than three years, unless the EBA confirms a shorter period for duly justified reasons.’

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(13) Article 26e is amended as follows:

~~Article 26 d – paragraph 1~~

(a) in paragraph 3, the third subparagraph is replaced by the following:

~~Or. en~~

‘The credit protection premiums to be paid under the credit protection agreement shall be structured as contingent on the outstanding size of the tranche and credit risk of the protected tranche. For those purposes, the credit protection agreement shall not stipulate guaranteed premiums, upfront premium payments, rebate mechanisms or other mechanisms that may avoid or reduce the actual allocation of losses to the investors or return part of the paid premiums to the originator after the maturity of the transaction.’;

~~(Regulation (EU) 2017/2402)~~

(b) in paragraph 7, point (d) is replaced by the following:

~~Justification~~

‘(d) for originators not using the IRB Approach referred to in Article 143 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013:

(i) the total committed amount per year shall not be higher than the one-year expected loss of the portfolio for that year;

~~Amendment 39~~

(ii) the calculation of the one-year expected loss of the underlying portfolio shall be clearly determined in the transaction documentation.’;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point c – point i~~

(i) the following point (aa) is inserted:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

‘(aa) a guarantee meeting the requirements set out in Part Three, Title II, Chapter 4 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, by which the credit risk is transferred to an insurance or reinsurance undertaking that meets ▌ the ▌ criteria laid down in points (i) to (iv):

~~Article 26e – paragraph 8 – point aa – introductory part~~

(i) the undertaking uses an internal model approved in accordance with Articles 112 and 113 of Directive 2009/138/EC for thecalculation of capital requirements for such guarantees; (ii) the undertaking complies with its Solvency Capital Requirement and its Minimum Capital Requirement referred to in Articles 100 and 128 of Directive 2009/138/EC, respectively, and has been assigned to credit quality of at least step 2 or better, at the date on which the credit protection was first recognised;

~~Or. en~~

(iii) the undertaking’s total non-life technical provisions, net of amounts recoverable from reinsurance contracts and special purpose vehicles, across all lines of business, within the meaning of the delegated regulation adopted pursuant to Article 86(1), point (e), of Directive 2009/138/EC, except those that correspond to non-life insurance classes of ‘credit’, ‘surety ship’ and ‘miscellaneous financial loss’, shall represent at least 40% of the total non-life technical provisions of the undertaking, net of amounts recoverable from reinsurance contracts and special purpose vehicles;

~~Amendment 40~~

(iv) the undertaking providing the credit protection is based in the Union and either of the following conditions is fulfilled:

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

– the value of the total assets, calculated in accordance with Article 75 of Directive 2009/138/EC, of the undertaking exceeds EUR 10 billion; or

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point c – point i~~

– the undertaking is not part of the same group as the originator, is a subsidiary of a group subject to group supervision within the meaning of Article 213(2), point (a) or (b), of Directive 2009/138/EC, the value of the total consolidated assets of that group, determined in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC, exceeds EUR 15 billion, and the insurance undertaking can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the supervisory authority, that, in the event that it is unable to meet its obligations under the credit protection agreement, a contractually binding commitment from its parent undertaking ensures the full and timely payment of claims arising under that agreement, either directly to the originating institution or by way of financial support of an equivalent amount to the subsidiary insurance undertaking;’;

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(ii) point (c) is replaced by the following:

~~Article 26e – paragraph 8 – point aa – point i~~

(c) another credit protection not referred to in points (a), (aa) and (b) of this paragraph in the form of a guarantee, a credit derivative or a credit linked note that meets the requirements set out in Article 249 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, provided that the obligations of the investor are secured by collateral meeting the requirements laid down in paragraphs 9 and 10 of this Article.’;

~~Or. en~~

(13a) Article 27 is amended as follows:

~~Justification~~

(a) paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:

The proposed criteria limits the eligibility solely to undertakings with an approved internal model, which would reduce the number of providers able to offer this guarantee, because the majority of European (re)insurers use the Solvency II standard formula.

‘1. Originators and sponsors shall jointly notify ESMA by means of the template referred to in paragraph 7 of this Article where a securitisation meets the requirements set out in Articles 19 to 22, Articles 23 to 26 or Articles 26a to 26e (‘STS notification’). In the case of an ABCP programme, only the sponsor shall be responsible for the notification of that programme and, within that programme, of the ABCP transactions complying with Article 24. In the case of a securitisation of trade receivables where no SSPE is used, the buyer of the underlying exposures shall be responsible for the notification. In the case of a synthetic securitisation, only the originator shall be responsible for the notification.

~~Amendment 41~~

The STS notification shall include an explanation by the originator and sponsor of how the STS criteria set out in Articles 20, 21 and 22, Articles 24, 25 and 26 or Articles 26b to 26e have been complied with.

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

ESMA shall inform the EBA of the STS notification and shall publish such notifications on its official website pursuant to paragraph 5.

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point c – point i~~

2. The originator, sponsor, SSPE or the buyer of the underlying exposures referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article may use the service of a third party authorised under Article 28 to assess whether a securitisation complies with Articles 19 to 22, Articles 23 to 26 or Articles 26a to 26e. However, the use of such a service shall not, under any circumstances, affect the liability of the originator, sponsor, SSPE or the buyer of the underlying exposures referred to in paragraph 1 in respect of their legal obligations under this Regulation. The use of such service shall not affect the obligations imposed on institutional investors as set out in Article 5.

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

Where the originator, sponsor, SSPE or the buyer of the underlying exposures referred to in paragraph 1 uses the service of a third party authorised pursuant to Article 28 to assess whether a securitisation complies with Articles 19 to 22, Articles 23 to 26 or Articles 26a to 26e, the STS notification shall include a statement that compliance with the STS criteria was confirmed by that authorised third party. The notification shall include the name of the authorised third party, its place of establishment and the name of the competent authority that authorised it.’;

~~Article 26e – paragraph 8 – point aa – point ii~~

(b) paragraphs 4 and 5 are replaced by the following:

~~Or. en~~

‘4. The originator and, where applicable, sponsor, shall immediately notify ESMA and inform the EBA where a securitisation no longer meets the requirements set out in Articles 19 to 22, Articles 23 to 26, or Articles 26a to 26e.

~~Amendment 42~~

5. ESMA shall maintain, on its official website, a list of all securitisations which the originators and sponsors have notified it of meeting the requirements set out in Articles 19 to 22, Articles 23 to 26, or Articles 26a to 26e. ESMA shall add each securitisation so notified to that list immediately and shall update the list where the securitisations are no longer considered to be STS following a decision of the EBA or a notification by the originator or sponsor. Where the EBA has imposed administrative sanctions or remedial measures in accordance with Article 33a, it shall immediately notify ESMA thereof. ESMA shall immediately indicate on the list provided for in this paragraph that the EBA has imposed administrative sanctions or remedial measures in relation to the securitisation concerned.’;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(14) ▌Article 28 is amended as follows:

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point c – point i~~

(a) paragraph 1 is amended as follows:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(i) in the first subparagraph, the introductory wording is replaced by the following:

~~Article 26e – paragraph 8 – point aa – point iii~~

‘A third party as referred to in Article 27(2) shall be authorised and supervised by ESMA to assess compliance of securitisations with the STS criteria provided for in Articles 19 to 22, Articles 23 to 26, and Articles 26a to 26e. ESMA shall grant the authorisation if the following conditions are met:’;

~~Or. en~~

(ii) the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

~~Amendment 43~~

‘ESMA shall withdraw the authorisation when it considers the third party to be materially non-compliant with the first subparagraph.’;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(b) paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 13 – point c – point i~~

‘2. A third party authorised in accordance with paragraph 1 shall notify ESMA without delay of any material changes to the information provided under that paragraph, or any other changes that could reasonably be considered to affect the assessment of its competent authority.

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

3. ESMA may charge cost-based fees to the third party referred to in paragraph 1, in order to cover necessary expenditure relating to the assessment of applications for authorisation and to the subsequent monitoring of compliance with the conditions set out in paragraph 1.’;

~~Article 26e – paragraph 8 – point aa – point iv~~

(15) in Article 29, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 are deleted.

~~Or. en~~

▌

~~Amendment 44~~

(15a) the following article is inserted:

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

‘Article 29a

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16 – point a~~

Direct supervision of STS securitisation and third party verifiers

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

1. The EBA shall be responsible for supervising compliance by originators, sponsors, SSPEs and, in the case of a securitisation of trade receivables where no SSPE is used in accordance with Article 20, the buyers of the underlying exposures, with the obligations set out in Articles 18 to 27 of this Regulation and ESMA shall be responsible for supervising compliance of third parties verifying STS compliance with Article 28.

~~Article 30 – paragraph 1a~~

2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the EBA and ESMA shall be empowered to exercise supervisory, investigatory and enforcement powers. Those powers shall be exercised in accordance with Articles 23a to 23e of Regulation (EU) No 1060/2009, which shall apply mutatis mutandis to both the EBA and ESMA, and in accordance with Article 33a of this Regulation.

~~Or. en~~

3. The supervisory, investigatory and enforcement powers conferred on EBA and ESMA pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be exclusive with regard to the obligations referred to therein. Member States shall ensure that no national competent authority exercises parallel supervisory or sanctioning powers in respect of compliance with Articles 18 to 27 and Article 28. Any transfer of responsibilities to EBA or ESMA under this Article shall fully replace corresponding national competences, including with regard to supervisory fees.’;

~~Justification~~

(16) Article 30 is amended as follows:

This provision is not necessary since each NCA automatically receives supervisory competence over all requirements set out in the Regulation, not only those applying to originators, sponsors, SSPEs and original lenders.

(a) in paragraph 2, points (b), (c) and (e) are deleted;

~~Amendment 45~~

(b) paragraph 5 is deleted.

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(17) ▌Article 32 is amended as follows:

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 17 – introductory part~~

(a) in paragraph 1, the first subparagraph, is amended as follows:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(i) the introductory wording is replaced by the following:

~~Article 32 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point i~~

‘Without prejudice to the right for Member States to provide for and impose criminal sanctions pursuant to Article 34, Member States shall lay down rules establishing appropriate administrative sanctions, in the case of negligence or intentional infringement, and remedial measures, applicable to situations where:’;

~~Or. en~~

(ii) points (e) to (h) are deleted.

~~Amendment 46~~

(iii) the following point (i) is added:

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

‘(i) an institutional investor, other than the originator, sponsor or original lender, has failed to meet the requirements provided for in Article 5.’;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 17 – point b – point i (new)~~

(b) paragraph 2 is amended as follows:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(i) the introductory wording is replaced by the following:

~~Article 32 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)~~

‘2. Member States shall confer on competent authorities the power to apply the following sanctions and measures in the event of the infringements referred to in paragraph 1:’;

~~Or. en~~

(ii) point (d) is deleted;

~~(Regulation (EU) 2017/2402)~~

(iii) the following point is inserted:

~~Amendment 47~~

‘(fa) in the case of an institutional investor, or the delegate pursuant to Article 5(5), maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of up to the half of the invested amount;’;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(iv) point (h) is deleted;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 17 – point b – point ii (new)~~

(v) the following subparagraph is added:

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

‘When laying down rules establishing administrative sanctions and administrative measures, Member States shall take into account any sanctions and measures implemented in accordance with sectoral regulation in order to avoid duplications for the same infringement by reason of negligence or omission;’;

~~Article 32 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)~~

(17a) the following article is inserted:

~~Or. en~~

‘Article 33a

~~(Regulation (EU) 2017/2402)~~

Direct supervision of STS securitisations and third party verifiers

~~Amendment 48~~

1. Where the EBA´s Board of Supervisors finds that an originator, sponsor, SSPE or, in the case of securitisations of trade receivables where no SSPE is used in accordance with Article 20, the buyer of the underlying exposures has, intentionally or negligently, committed one of the infringements listed in the second subparagraph, the EBA shall adopt a decision imposing one or more of the relevant sanctions or measures listed in paragraph 3 of this Article.

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

The infringements referred to in the first subparagraph are the following:

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 17 – point b – point ii (new)~~

(a) a securitisation is designated as STS and an originator, sponsor or SSPE of that securitisation has failed to meet the requirements provided for in Articles 19 to 22, Articles 23 to 26 or Articles 26a to 26e;

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(b) an originator, sponsor or the buyer of the underlying exposures makes a misleading notification pursuant to Article 27(1); or

~~Article 32 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 b (new)~~

(c) an originator, sponsor or the buyer of the underlying exposures has failed to meet the requirements provided for in Article 27(4).

~~Or. en~~

2. Where ESMA´s Board of Supervisors finds that a third party verifying STS compliance with Article 28 has, intentionally or negligently, failed to notify material changes to the information provided in accordance with Article 28(1), or any other changes that could reasonably be considered to affect the assessment of ESMA, ESMA shall adopt a decision imposing one or more of the sanctions or measures listed in paragraph 3 of this Article.

~~(Regulation (EU) 2017/2402)~~

3. The EBA and ESMA shall have the power to apply one or more of the following sanctions and measures in the event of infringements referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, respectively:

~~Justification~~

(a) a public statement which indicates the identity of the natural or legal person and the nature of the infringement in accordance with Article 37;

~~Sanctions should not be duplicated when they are already covered by sectoral regulation, to avoid unnecessary overlap.~~

(b) an order requiring the natural or legal person to cease the conduct and to desist from a repetition of that conduct;

~~Amendment 49~~

(c) a temporary ban preventing any member of the originator’s, sponsor’s or SSPE’s management body or any other natural person held responsible for the infringement from exercising management functions in such undertakings;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(d) in the case of an infringement as referred to in paragraph 1, point (a) or (b), of this Article a temporary ban preventing the originator and sponsor from notifying under Article 27(1) that a securitisation meets the requirements set out in Articles 19 to 22, Articles 23 to 26 or Articles 26a to 26e;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 18 – point c~~

(e) in the case of a natural person, maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least EUR 5 000 000 or, in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 17 January 2018;

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

(f) in the case of a legal person, maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least EUR 5 000 000, or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 17 January 2018 or of up to 10 % of the total annual net turnover of the legal person according to the last available accounts approved by the management body; where the legal person is a parent undertaking or a subsidiary of the parent undertaking which has to prepare consolidated financial accounts in accordance with Directive 2013/34/EU, the relevant total annual net turnover shall be the total net annual turnover or the corresponding type of income in accordance with the relevant accounting legislative acts according to the last available consolidated accounts approved by the management body of the ultimate parent undertaking;

~~Article 36 – paragraph 3b~~

(g) maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least twice the amount of the benefit derived from the infringement where that benefit can be determined, even if that exceeds the maximum amounts in points (e) and (f);

~~Or. en~~

(h) in the case of an infringement as referred to in paragraph 2, a temporary withdrawal of the authorisation referred to in Article 28 for the third party authorised to assess the compliance of a securitisation with Articles 19 to 22, Articles 23 to 26 or Articles 26a to 26e.

~~Amendment 50~~

4. The EBA and ESMA, when determining the type and level of an administrative sanction or remedial measure imposed under this Article, shall take into account the extent to which the infringement is intentional or results from negligence and all other relevant circumstances, including, where appropriate:

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(a) the materiality, gravity and the duration of the infringement;

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 19 – point a~~

(b) the degree of responsibility of the natural or legal person responsible for the infringement;

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

~~Article 44 – subparagraph 1 – point e~~

(d) the importance of profits gained or losses avoided by the responsible natural or legal person, insofar as they can be determined;

~~Or. en~~

(e) the losses for third parties caused by the infringement, insofar as they can be determined;

~~Amendment 51~~

(f) the level of cooperation of the responsible natural or legal person with EBA or ESMA, without prejudice to the need to ensure disgorgement of profits gained or losses avoided by that person;

~~Proposal for a regulation~~

(g) previous infringements by the responsible natural or legal person.

~~Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20a~~

5. Any decision by the EBA or ESMA imposing administrative sanctions or remedial measures set out in paragraph 3 of this Article shall be properly reasoned, shall be notified to the person concerned and shall be subject to a right of appeal in accordance with Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1060/2009.

~~Regulation (EU) 2017/2402~~

6. Any decision referred in paragraph 5 of this Article shall be communicated to the competent authorities designated under Article 29 for the person concerned and to the other ESAs. The EBA or ESMA shall make public any such decision on its website within 10 working days from the date on which it was adopted subject to Article 37(2), (3) and (4).’;

~~Article 47a~~

(18) Article 36 is amended as follows:

~~Or. en~~

(a) paragraph 2 is deleted

~~EXPLANATORY STATEMENT~~

(b) paragraph 3, is replaced by the following:

The rapporteur welcomes the adjustments proposed by the Commission, which aim to reduce the high operational costs for issuers and investors in EU securitisations and to simplify certain due diligence and transparency requirements. Reducing undue operational burdens while maintaining high standards of transparency, investor protection, and supervision will be crucial for reviving the European securitisation market.

‘A specific securitisation sub-committee shall be established within the framework of the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities, within which competent authorities shall closely cooperate, in order to carry out their duties pursuant to Articles 30 to 34. The securitisation sub-committee shall be led by the EBA with the cooperation of ESMA, ▌ EIOPA and ESRB. The EBA shall provide the secretariat and a vice-chairperson to the securitisation sub-committee on a permanent basis. The securitisation sub-committee shall foster supervisory convergence to ensure common supervisory practices. The members of the securitisation sub-committee, under the stewardship of the EBA, shall closely coordinate their supervisory actions in order to identify and remedy infringements of this Regulation, develop and promote best practices, facilitate collaboration, foster consistentapplication of law and provide cross-jurisdictional assessments in the event of any disagreements. The securitisation sub-committee shall regularly monitor the state of the market and the application of this Regulation.’;

Recent analysis by the European Supervisory Authorities supports this approach. Their 2025 evaluation report highlights that the existing framework has imposed compliance burdens in disclosures that are often described as ‘excessive’, limiting access to securitisation, especially for smaller originators and investors. Simplifying due diligence and disclosure requirements while preserving core supervisory safeguards will enhance market efficiency and support broader participation.

Moreover, the proposed regulatory recalibration aligns with the objective of making securitisation more risk-sensitive and economically viable. A lighter and proportionate regulatory regime will help unlock capital flows, encourage issuances in Member States with underdeveloped securitisation markets, and ultimately facilitate increased lending to the real economy.

‘3a. The securitisation sub-committee referred to in paragraph 3 shall by [12 months after adoption] develop guidelines to establish common supervisory procedures.

However, the broadening of the definition of public securitisations to include private transactions could have a severe impact on the market, resulting in unnecessary and disproportionate costs for additional depositories. The determination of whether a transaction is public or private should not be linked to its listing status. Listing is often done for withholding tax purposes, not for trading. As a result, the proposed criterion might capture genuinely private transactions that are listed solely for tax reasons. The rapporteur therefore proposes to maintain the current definition, which has worked well in the past. Retaining the current public/private distinction ensures market functioning without over‑regulating genuinely private transactions, thus supporting efficiency and encouraging wider investor engagement.

3b. Where more than one competent authority is notified under Article 7(1), the competent authority responsible for the supervision of the originator or, if there are several originators, the competent authority supervising the originator that contributes the highest proportion of underlying exposures to the securitisation, shall be the lead supervisor for that specific securitisation. The lead supervisor shall coordinate actions and avoid divergences of application of this Regulation for transactions involving sell-side entities under the remit of competent authorities from more than one Member State. ▌ Competent authorities shall delegate the exercise of some or all of the tasks and powers referred to in this Regulation to the lead supervisor.’;

The rapporteur welcomes the Commission’s approach to streamlining due diligence requirements for EU securitisations, while noting that many of the proposed reductions in due diligence obligations will also benefit third‑country transactions. This is important for ensuring that international investors are not unduly disadvantaged or excluded.

(ca) paragraphs 4 and 5 are replaced by the following:

Differentiated requirements under Article 5(1) are justified to ensure an equivalent level of disclosures, given that compliance with the relevant provisions is already supervised within the EU. The main objective is to strengthen the EU securitisation market by reducing administrative costs without compromising financial stability.

‘4. Where a competent authority finds that one or more of the requirements under Articles 6 to 27 have been infringed or has reason to believe so, it shall inform the competent authority of the entity or entities suspected of such infringement, or the EBA, of its findings in a sufficiently detailed manner. The competent authorities responsible for supervision of compliance with Articles 6 to 17 shall closely coordinate their supervision in order to ensure consistent decisions.

~~Channelling more funds into the EU securitisation market will support market growth and development, particularly in Member States where securitisation markets are not yet well established.~~

5. Where the infringement referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article concerns, in particular, an incorrect or misleading notification pursuant to Article 27(1), the competent authority finding that infringement shall, without delay, notify the EBA of its findings.’;

The rapporteur is not opposed to extending the scope of administrative sanctions under Article 32 to institutional investors who fail to comply with due diligence requirements. Such inclusion would provide legal clarity and ensure a level playing field, as some Member States already consider institutional investors to fall within the scope of Article 32.

(d) in paragraph 6, the first and second subparagraphs are replaced by the following:

Since the due diligence requirements are more principles‑based and the criteria less prescriptive, institutional investors should not face major difficulties in complying with them. However, penalties of up to 10% of annual turnover could discourage investors from participating in the securitisation market. As the responsibilities and risks of institutional investors are not equivalent to those of originators or sponsors, the rapporteur proposes introducing a more proportionate cap on administrative sanctions. This ensures that obligations are enforceable without discouraging legitimate investor participation.

‘Upon receipt of the information referred to in paragraph 4, the competent authority of the entity suspected of the infringement shall take within 15 working days any action necessary to address the infringement identified and notify the other competent authorities involved, in particular those of the originator, sponsor and SSPE, and the competent authorities of the holder of a securitisation position, where known. A competent authority that disagrees with another competent authority regarding the procedure or content of the action or inaction or that other competent authority shall notify all other competent authorities involved about its disagreement without undue delay. Where that disagreement is not resolved within three months of the date on which all competent authorities involved were notified, the matter shall be referred to the EBA in accordance with Article 19 and, where applicable, Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. The conciliation period referred to in Article 19(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 shall be one month.

By simplifying disclosure and due diligence requirements, the reform should strengthen transparency and investor confidence across the EU securitisation market. These enhancements should improve market functioning while preserving efficiency, promoting broader investor participation, and supporting the sustainable development of the EU securitisation market.

Where the competent authorities concerned fail to reach an agreement within the conciliation phase referred to in the first subparagraph, the EBA shall take the decision referred to in Article 19(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 within one month. During the procedure set out in this Article, a securitisation appearing on the list maintained by ESMA pursuant to Article 27 of this Regulation shall continue to be considered an STS pursuant to Chapter 4 of this Regulation and shall be kept on that list.’;

(e) paragraph 7 is replaced by the following

‘7. Three years from the date of application of this Regulation, and every three years thereafter, the EBA, in cooperation with ESMA and EIOPA, shall conduct a peer review in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 on the implementation of the supervisory powers provided for in Article 30 of this Regulation.’;

(f) paragraph 8 is deleted;

(19) Article 44 is amended as follows:

(a) in the first subparagraph, point (e) is replaced by the following:

‘(e) the contribution of securitisation to funding Union companies, in particular SMEs, and households and to the economy and financial stability of the Union.’;

(b) the second subparagraph is deleted;

(20) Article 46 is replaced by the following:

’Article 46

Review

By …[PO please insert the date: 5 years after date of entry into force], the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the functioning of this Regulation, accompanied, where appropriate, by a legislative proposal.

That report shall consider in particular the findings of the reports referred to in Articles 31 and 44, and shall assess:

(a) the effects of this Regulation on the functioning and the development of the market for securitisations in the Union;

(b) the contribution of securitisation to:

(i) to funding EU companies and economy, in particular on access to credit for SMEs and investments;

(ii) the build up of risks to the financial stability of the banking sector and the financial sector as a whole which could arise from the growth of issuances of synthetic securitisations, taking into account interconnectedness between financial institutions

(iia) housing affordability and access to housing;

(c) whether in the area of STS securitisations, an equivalence regime could be introduced for third country originators, sponsors and SSPEs, including in relation to due-diligence requirements, taking into consideration international developments in the area of securitisation, in particular initiatives on simple, transparent and comparable securitisations;

(d) the implementation of the requirements set out in Article 22(4) and Article 26d(4) and whether those requirements may be extended to securitisation where the underlying exposures are not residential loans or auto loans or leases, with a view to mainstreaming environmental, social and governance disclosures.

Article 2 Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Strasbourg,

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he included in his report input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that he received, in the preparation of the report, prior to the adoption thereof in committee, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that he submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament’s Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE