Today the @EP_Legal votes on the Parliament's position on (still subject to a vote in the plenary). I am responsible for financial services: (1) there is no carve-out for any financial service provider and (2) they are subject to a continuous due diligence observation. 🧵

🐦🔗: n.respublicae.eu/repasi/status

1⃣ On scope: covers due diligence obligations for (1) own operations, (2) operations by subsidiaries and (3) operations carried out by other entities within their value chain. Only for the latter the defintion of the 'value chain' further defines the scope.

🐦🔗: n.respublicae.eu/repasi/status

2⃣ For finance: no limitations as to up- and downstream of the value chain for own operations (1) and (2), but a limitation with regard to clients of financial service providers (3): only "activities" of clients directly receiving financial services are covered by scope.

🐦🔗: n.respublicae.eu/repasi/status

Concretely, any own investment activity of financial undertakings is completely covered by , only when providing financial services to others, the due diligence obligation is limited to the activities (downstream & upstream) of this client.

🐦🔗: n.respublicae.eu/repasi/status

3⃣ Most importantly: no carve-out for any financial service from the scope (in stark contrast to the Council with it exemption). Financial undertakings are subject to the general scope which is lowered to 250 employees (but subject to a temporal phase-in).

🐦🔗: n.respublicae.eu/repasi/status

4⃣ On due diligence: we managed to keep the continuous due diligence in the final text (in contrast to the limitation to the pre-contractual phase in the COM proposal) but limited to defined action moments such as the release of instalments when executing credit agreements.

🐦🔗: n.respublicae.eu/repasi/status

5⃣ Disinvestment can only be no option to sanction a company causing of contributing to human rights violations or environmental damages if this is strictly necessary to prevent bankruptcy.

🐦🔗: n.respublicae.eu/repasi/status

6⃣ Financial undertakings remain subject to the civil liability rule provided their activity caused or contributed to the damage. This is normally not the case. The directive establishes a presumption that financial services are "only" linked to damages, which can be rebutted.

🐦🔗: n.respublicae.eu/repasi/status

Follow

7⃣ Finally, the review clause requires from the Commission to assess whether an extension of the definition of 'value chain' for financial services must be included in the next revision of the .

🐦🔗: n.respublicae.eu/repasi/status

· · mirror-bot · 1 · 0 · 0

Next stop: plenary vote! Then: negotiations with the Council and the Commission. That will be a major challenge for financial services given how far the Council is away from the expected Parliament's position:
RT @repasi: The Member States have indeed made it to adopt a common position of the Council on the Directive (). All in all, more light than shadow. Yet: There is finance! More about that in the thread 👇 t.co/VWEHIwnpPa

🐦🔗: n.respublicae.eu/repasi/status

To conclude: good to have no carve-out for financial services and the continuous due diligence obligations in the @EP_Legal position. The original @EP_Economics position was stronger. But we had to give in in order to get the EPP on board in the Legal Affairs committee.

🐦🔗: n.respublicae.eu/repasi/status

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

A Mastodon forum for the discussion of European Union matters. Not run by the EU. Powered by PleromaBot, Nitter and PrivacyDev.net.