Proposition 54K2504

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 2 août 2002 relative à la surveillance du secteur financier et aux services financiers, en vue de mettre en oeuvre le Règlement (UE) n° 596/2014 sur les abus de marché et de transposer la Directive 2014/57/UE relative aux sanctions pénales applicables aux abus de marché ainsi que la Directive d'exécution (UE) 2015/2392 concernant le signalement des violations, et portant des dispositions diverses.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

June 14, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive financial policy financial legislation financial market penalty

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP DéFI ∉ PVDA | PTB PP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Stéphanie Thoron (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 19, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs, Mr Crusnière and Van Biesen, refer to the written report.

I give the floor to Mr Laaouej.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to this bill, which we have discussed extensively in the Finance Committee, and in particular to the problem of whistleblowers. In fact, the response that the minister gave me in commission does not seem to me to fully correspond to the prescribed.

What is it about? In paragraph 4 of Article 13, the Government provided for the possibility for the King, upon the opinion of the FSMA, to provide financial incentives. On page 129, paragraph 4, I quote: "The King may, upon the opinion of the FSMA, provide for the granting of financial incentives to persons who make a report referred to in paragraph 1. It shall determine the conditions and procedures for such grant in accordance with Article 32(4) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014.

The majority removed this paragraph. The majority submitted an amendment to remove this paragraph. That being, when we were surprised, because I was able to understand the arguments related to the dangers of merchandising of the phenomenon of the warner. Therefore, I have proposed to the majority to think about a compensation system. In other words, it was a question of whether one can ensure that someone who, because of the information disclosed, loses his salary, is fired, undergoes trials... can benefit from compensation rather than an incentive. To this, the Minister responded that the compensation existed since, I cite, "when it is a matter with respect to a worker who reports an offence, a measure or treatment adopted in violation of the provisions set out in paragraph 1 (market abuse), he is not reintegrated into the company or institution, or is not reintroduced in his previous position under the conditions that prevailed before the termination of the employment relationship or the modification of employment contracts, as well as if he has not submitted the application referred to in the preceding paragraph, an indemnity is due". I therefore refer to document 2504/004, page 18. The compensation paid is equal to the choice of the worker, either a flat amount corresponding to the gross remuneration of six months, or to the damage actually suffered by the worker. In the latter case, the employee must prove the extent of this damage. This system, the minister said, is inspired by the system of protection against violence and harassment at work.” End of citation.

Okay, I take note of this. But the Minister’s response provides for compensation only in the context of unfair treatment, which is provided for in paragraph 3. Paragraph 4 was not so limited. In other words, the paragraph deleted by the majority went far beyond what was envisaged in the current paragraph 3. Therefore, it seems to me clearly that the majority has stepped back on financial incentives. I heard the arguments.

But our amendment, which nevertheless wanted to restore the principle of total compensation, whatever happened, brought something to the bill.

The response that the Minister gave me did not exhaust the problem. In other words, yes, there are compensations that are provided but with a limited scope. It is therefore regrettable that I must regret this and consider that, unfortunately, whistleblowers on the problem of market abuse will not be as well protected as, it seems to me, a number of civil society actors, starting with the whistleblowers themselves, would like.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to refer to the discussion we had in the committee on the protection provided for whistleblowers. I believe, in addition, that Mr. Laaouej referred to the answers I gave on this occasion and which have not changed since.