Home / DIRECTIVE 2011/61/EU / ENACTING TERMS / Paragraphs 65 - 71

Paragraphs 65 - 71

(65) Therefore, where a non-EU AIFM intends to manage EU AIFs and/or market AIFs in the Union with a passport, it should also be required to comply with this Directive, so that it is subject to the same obligations as EU AIFMs. In very exceptional circumstances, if and to the extent compliance with a provision of this Directive is incompatible with compliance with the law to which the non- EU AIFM or the non-EU AIF marketed in the Union is subject, it should be possible for the non-EU AIFM to be exempted from compliance with the relevant provision of this Directive if it can demonstrate that: it is impossible to combine compliance with a provision of this Directive with compliance with a mandatory provision in the law to which the non-EU AIFM or the non- EU AIF marketed in the Union is subject; the law to which the non-EU AIFM or the non-EU AIF is subject provides for an equivalent rule having the same regulatory purpose and offering the same level of protection to the investors of the relevant AIF; and the non-EU AIFM or the non-EU AIF complies with that equivalent rule.

(66) Further, a non-EU AIFM intending to manage EU AIFs and/or market AIFs in the Union with a passport should comply with a specific authorisation procedure and certain specific requirements concerning the third country of the non-EU AIFM and, as appropriate, the third country of the non-EU AIF should be satisfied.

(67) ESMA should provide advice on the determination of the Member State of reference, and, where relevant, the exemption as regards compatibility with an equivalent rule. Specific requirements for the exchange of information between the competent authorities of the Member State of reference and the competent authorities of the host Member States of the AIFM should apply. Further, the mediation procedure provided for in Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 should apply in case of disagreement between competent authorities of Member States on the determination of the Member State of reference, the application of the exemption in case of incompatibility between compliance with this Directive and compliance with equivalent rules of a third country, and the assessment regarding the fulfilment of the specific requirements concerning the third country of the non-EU AIFM and, as appropriate, the third country of the non-EU AIF.

(68) ESMA should, on an annual basis, conduct a peer review analysis of the supervisory activities of the competent authorities in relation to the authorisation and the supervision of non-EU AIFMs, to further enhance consistency in supervisory outcomes, in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.

(69) During a transitional period which will, in principle, taking into account ESMA’s advice, be brought to an end by means of a delegated act 3 years after the establishment of the passport for non-EU AIFMs, a non-EU AIFM intending to market AIFs in certain Member States only and without such a passport should also be permitted to do so by the relevant Member States, but only in so far as certain minimum conditions are met. Those non-EU AIFMs should be subject at least to rules similar to those applicable to EU AIFMs managing EU AIFs with respect to the disclosure to investors. In order to facilitate the monitoring of systemic risk those non-EU AIFMs should also be subject to reporting obligations vis- à-vis the competent authorities of the Member State in which AIFs are marketed. Such AIFMs should therefore comply with the transparency requirements laid down in this Directive and the obligations on AIFMs managing AIFs which acquire control of non-listed companies and issuers. Further, appropriate cooperation arrangements for the purpose of systemic risk oversight and in line with international standards should be in place between the competent authorities of the Member States where the AIFs are marketed, if applicable, the competent authorities of the EU AIFs concerned and the supervisory authorities of the third country where the non-EU AIFM is established and, if applicable, the supervisory authorities of the third country where the non-EU AIF is established in order to ensure an efficient exchange of information that allows competent authorities of the relevant Member States to carry out their duties in accordance with this Directive. The cooperation arrangements should not be used as a barrier to impede third country funds from being marketed in a Member State. Finally, the third country where the non- EU AIFM or the non-EU AIF is established should not be listed as a Non-Cooperative Country and Territory by FATF.

(70) This Directive should not affect the current situation, whereby a professional investor established in the Union may invest in AIFs on its own initiative, irrespective of where the AIFM and/or the AIF is established.

(71) Member States should be able to allow the marketing of all or certain types of AIFs managed by AIFMs to retail investors in their territory. If a Member State allows the marketing of certain types of AIF, the Member State should make an assessment on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a specific AIF should be considered as a type of AIF which may be marketed to retail investors in its territory. Without prejudice to the application of other instruments of Union law, Member States should in such cases be able to impose stricter requirements on AIFs and AIFMs as a precondition for marketing to retail investors than is the case for AIFs marketed to professional investors in their territory, irrespective of whether such AIFs are marketed on a domestic or cross-border basis. Where a Member State allows the marketing of AIFs to retail investors in its territory, this possibility should be available regardless of the Member State where the AIFM managing the AIFs is established, and Member States should not impose stricter or additional requirements on EU AIFs established in another Member State and marketed on a cross-border basis than on AIFs marketed domestically. In addition, AIFMs, investment firms authorised under Directive 2004/39/EC and credit institutions authorised under Directive 2006/48/EC which provide investment services to retail clients should take into account any additional requirements when assessing whether a certain AIF is suitable or appropriate for an individual retail client or whether it is a complex or non-complex financial instrument.