BIPAR

In broad lines we can agree with the draft requirements on passport notifications. We would however suggest one amendment, namely with regard to the freedom of establishment, in points e) the address of the proposed branch and f) the name(s) of those responsible for the management of the proposed branch. Indeed, we wonder if at the time of notification this information will already be known in all cases. Therefore we would suggest to add “to the extent already available” to these requirements.

As a general comment, we also believe it is not sufficiently clear what the triggering element is for the exercise of FOS and FOE under the Mortgage Credit Directive. What precisely triggers the situation where an intermediary carries out FOS or FOE? We believe it is important for legal certainty to clearly describe the triggering element of the FOS activities of an intermediary because general good rules or stricter/additional requirements of the host Member State may have to be complied with by the intermediaries when they are considered as carrying out FOS in that Member State. Is the credit intermediary doing FOS activities in a host Member State when he is carrying his activities with a customer who resides or is established in a Member State different from the home Member State of the intermediary? What about the location of the object of the mortgage credit? Is that the criterion?
Please see our reply to question 1. We believe that the requested information under point 13 and 14 of the draft notification form for exercising FOE will not always be available at the moment of notification. We would therefore suggest adding “to the extent already available” to these points of the form.
Nic De Maesschalck
B