The European Securities and Markets Authority, the EU’s securities markets regulator, today launches a public consultation on supervisory fees for data reporting services providers (DRSPs) to be supervised by ESMA starting in 2022.
Following the ESAs Review, the authorisation and supervision of data reporting services providers (DRSP) will be transferred from national competent authorities to ESMA starting January 2022.
The consultation aims to gather stakeholder views on fees for DRSPs that will be supervised by ESMA. The proposed fee framework for DRSPs draws on the existing fee frameworks for Trade Repositories and Securitisation Repositories which set out application as well as annual supervisory fees.
ESMA is proposing both application and authorisation fees, as well as an annual supervisory fee for DRSPs. It has also proposed a timeline for the payment of the fees.
Next steps
The closing date for responses is 4 January 2021. ESMA will consider the responses to this consultation in providing technical advice to the Commission and aims to publish its final report in Q1 2021.
This consultation paper is published to seek stakeholders’ input on ESMA’s proposals relating to fees for data reporting service provides (DRSPs) in relation to the new competences granted to ESMA under Regulation (EU) 600/2014 (MiFIR) as amended by Regulation 2019/2175 (ESA Review).
Responding to this paper
ESMA invites comments on all matters in this paper and in particular on the specific questions summarised in Annex 1. Comments are most helpful if they:
respond to the question stated;
indicate the specific question to which the comment relates;
contain a clear rationale; and
describe any alternatives ESMA should consider.
ESMA will consider all comments received by 4 January 2021
All contributions should be submitted online at www.esma.europa.eu under the heading ‘Your input – Consultations’.
Publication of responses
All contributions received will be published following the close of the consultation, unless you request otherwise. Please clearly and prominently indicate in your submission any part you do not wish to be publicly disclosed. A standard confidentiality statement in an email message will not be treated as a request for non-disclosure. A confidential response may be requested from us in accordance with ESMA’s rules on access to documents. We may consult you if we receive such a request. Any decision we make not to disclose the response is reviewable by ESMA’s Board of Appeal and the European Ombudsman.
Seventh Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan, the last ruler of erstwhile Hyderabad State and the architect of modern city of Hyderabad, was a visionary who never discriminated against people on the basis of religion, says his grandson Nawab Mir Najaf Ali Khan.
He rues that immense contributions of his grandfather were forgotten while some elements are even attempting to tarnish his secular image.
“My grandfather was someone who never discriminated between people of any religion, caste or financial status. He was an excellent and just person who kept all the people under his reign at the same mounting,” Najaf Ali Khan told IANS.
He believes that present divisive political atmosphere in the country has given rise to things like ‘Hindu India’. “If such a thing exists it is solely due to the divisive political atmosphere of our country right now. As children and young adults we never knew what the difference between being a Muslim or a Hindu was. We never discriminated between people of any religion,” he said.
“I am as much an Indian as any other person of his country whose family has been here for more than 10 generations,” he added.
He is of the view that Muslims need to come together and align their goals for the betterment of the community.
For Najaf Ali Khan, his grandfather is a role model and his father Prince Hasham Jah Bahadur was the biggest influence on his personality. “My grandfather is a role model for me. I have been immensely inspired by him and tried my best to be a reflection of what he would expect from me. My father is also one of the biggest influences on my personality.”
Prince Hasham Jah Bahadur was one of the 16 sons of Mir Osman Ali Khan. The Nizam also had 18 daughters.
“An anecdote about my father is that an extraordinary gazette was issued on his birth in 1912 and holiday was announced state wide to commemorate his birthday,” said Najaf Ali Khan.
Ten of Nizam’s sons and daughters were issueless. He had 104 grandchildren, some of whom have passed away.
About 400 family members of the Nizam clan, mostly 5th and 6th generation, are settled in Hyderabad, other parts of India and abroad.
Mir Osman Ali Khan, who ruled Hyderabad State from 1911 to 1948, was considered the richest man in the world with a fortune of $2 billion.
“As the Nizam had 16 sons and 18 daughters our family is quite large. All are well educated and the young generation is paving the way in terms of new opportunities,” said Najaf Ali Khan, one of over 100 legal heirs to Nizam VII.
According to him, the late Nizam did outstanding philanthropic work for all religions and one of the very few rulers who lived solely for the welfare of his subjects. “This was evident from the fact that his funeral was the largest. A sea of over one million people attended his funeral irrespective of caste and religion and the Government issued an extraordinary gazette and declared it a State holiday,” he said.
After Hyderabad State acceded to India, Mir Osman Ali Khan was appointed Rajpramukh and he held the administrative post till 1956 when the title was abolished.
“One of the late Nizam’s countless contributions is the donation of 5000 kgs of gold for National Defense Fund in 1965 which he donated without any reservations for the welfare of the country and advancement of its defense. This donation is unmatched in the history of India,” said 56-year-old Najaf Ali Khan.
Seventh Nizam also built the Nizam Orthopedic Hospital for the poor people who didn’t have the means to travel for their treatment. He also founded the Nizam Charitable Trust for the poor irrespective of any religion. “He led a Spartan life with very few comforts and luxuries and felt that he had a fiduciary duty towards the people.”
The historic city is dotted with several landmarks built by Nizam. Osmania University, Osmania Hospital, Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS). In recent years there have been demands by some parties to change these names.
“It can be only viewed as an attempt to erase his heritage and take erroneous credit for the enormous philanthropic work that he did. It is nothing but trying to erode history as we know it.”
He pointed out that successive governments ignored their requests to include a lesson on Nizam in history textbooks or to organize the birth anniversary of the late Nizam as an official event every year in recognition of his umpteen contributions to transform Hyderabad into a modern city.
According to Najaf Ali Khan, Mir Osman Ali Khan was a great ruler who made far-reaching contributions to the development of the region, served humanity and loved his subjects that make him stand out.
He recalled that on the last Nizam’s demise, the then Andhra Pradesh government remembered him by issuing an extraordinary gazette.
The government declared state mourning on February 25, 1967, the day when he was buried. State government offices remained closed as a mark of respect while the national flag was flown at half-mast on all government buildings throughout the state.
On his death, the gazette described the Nizam as “deeply solicitous of the welfare of the depressed classes and through the unremitting labour of his Government many new schemes for promoting their welfare were enunciated”.
It said that he kept up the tradition “to observe absolute impartiality in matters pertaining to religions of different communities in the Dominions” and was well known for his philanthropic activities. He made “substantial contributions to a variety of institutions belonging to all creeds and communities such as the Banaras Hindu University, Bhandarkar Institute, Santiniketan, Aligarh Muslim University, etc.,” the gazette said.
The gazette also noted that he established the Osmania University in 1918, the first of its kind in India to have an Indian language as the medium of instruction. He took personal interest in the construction of the buildings of the University, which possess elements of Hindu and Muslim architecture blended with beauty, and Buddhist, Jain, Chalukyan, Bahamani and Qutub Shahi styles of architecture harmonised into one.
A business consultant to Indian and foreign companies, Najaf Ali Khan is also working for the welfare of the Nizam family as president of Nizam Family Welfare Association.
He has been in the forefront to fight for the legal rights of the family members and is currently waging a legal battle to get their share in 35 million British Pounds.
The relationship between the European Union (EU) and Turkey is “approaching a watershed moment” and is further deteriorating, according to a statement from the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell.
High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission Josep Borrell spoke at the EU Foregn Ministers meeting yesterday (November 19).
He has indicated that the relationship between the EU and Turkey will be decided in the European Union Council on December 10-11.
As reported by the state-run Anadolu Agency (AA), Borrell has noted solidarity with Greece and Cyprus and indicated that “the recent actions and a statement by Turkey related to Cyprus, were considered contrary to the United Nations (UN) resolutions and further igniting tensions.”
“We also consider that it is important that Turkey understands that its behavior is widening its separation from the EU. Sorry to say that, but that’s what the Foreign Affairs ministers consider it. In order to return to a positive agenda, as we wish, we will require a fundamental change of the attitude on the Turkish side,” he has said and added:
“In order to return to a positive agenda, as we wish, we will require a fundamental change of attitude on the Turkish side. The European Council will provide crucial direction on this next month. Time is running, and we are approaching a watershed moment in our relationship with Turkey.”
Other highlights from Borrell’s speech are as follows:
‘No positive signs from Turkey’
“I cannot anticipate the decision of the leaders at the European Union Council. My task is not to anticipate what they are going to decide, but to prepare their decision.
“The Council tasked the President of the Council [Charles Michel] and the President of the Commission [Ursula von der Leyen], the two highest authorities, to prepare and present to the Council a palette of options in order to increase positive engagement and to take measures in case that this positive engagement would not be possible – depending on the attitude that Turkey was going to show since the last European Union Council until the next European Union Council.
“I am supporting the work of the two Presidents and at the same time, I am working on a task that was specifically addressed to the High Representative, which is the organisation of an international conference on Eastern Mediterranean issues, and this is what I am fully devoted to.
“I cannot anticipate which are the measures the two presidents will present to the European Union Council. They will depend on the options that the Turkish behaviour will prompt [us] to follow.
“For the time being, unfortunately, there are no positive signals sent by Turkey and the last events in Cyprus, in Varosha, in Famagusta, have also been considered as very negative [as stressed] in my statement immediately after and also by the Foreign Affairs Ministers today.
“On the preparation of the Eastern Mediterranean conference, we already have a position paper that has been consulted with the ambassadors of the countries that should be invited to participate in this conference.” (EKN/SD)
“This is a fear-driven response,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said during an Oct. 6 phone conversation about his pandemic-inspired restrictions on religious services. “This is not a policy being written by a scalpel. This is a policy being cut by a hatchet.”
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, which is asking the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency injunction against Cuomo’s order, argues that a bit more care is required when the government interferes with the free exercise of religion. The Court’s decision will be an important indication of whether the justices are prepared to enforce constitutional limits on what politicians can do in the name of fighting COVID-19.
Under the hatchet-cut policy that Cuomo imposed last month, “houses of worship” in Brooklyn may admit no more than 10 people in “red” zones and no more than 25 in “orange” zones. The injunction application says those limits, which apply regardless of a building’s size, “effectively shutter all of the Diocese’s churches in those zones.”
The rules for secular activities are much looser. In red zones, “essential” businesses — including supermarkets, convenience stores, hardware stores, banks, pet stores and various offices — operate without capacity limits. In “orange” zones, that is true for an even wider range of businesses, including department stores.
You might surmise that Cuomo is picking on churches because they have proved to be especially dangerous sources of infection. Yet, U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, even while declining to enjoin enforcement of the restrictions, acknowledged that “there has not been any COVID-19 outbreak in any of the Diocese’s churches since they reopened.”
In fact, Garaufis said, “the Diocese has been an exemplar of community leadership” in responding to COVID-19. “At each step,” he noted, the diocese “has been ahead of the curve, enforcing stricter safety protocols than the State required.”
When the diocese began to reopen its churches, Garaufis added, it enforced “rigorous safety protocols.” Those included face masks, physical distancing, shorter services, sanitization between masses, a revised Holy Communion ritual and a 25% capacity cap, which it continued following even when the legal limit was raised.
The diocese is perfectly willing to accept neutral public health guidelines aimed at preventing virus transmission. It is not willing to accept a policy that explicitly imposes special burdens on religious activities while granting more leeway to myriad secular activities that pose similar or greater risks.
The Supreme Court has said the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause does not require religious exemptions from neutral, generally applicable laws. But it also has said laws are presumptively unconstitutional when they discriminate against religion.
Cuomo’s rules clearly fall into the latter category. By denying that reality, Garaufis and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which upheld his decision, are, in effect, saying an emergency like the COVID-19 epidemic suspends the constitutional rights Americans otherwise enjoy, giving politicians like Cuomo unlimited discretion to respond as they see fit.
In a Federalist Society speech he delivered on the same day the diocese filed its application with the Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito warned that “laws giving an official so much discretion” can be abused. When that happens, he said, “the Supreme Court and other courts cannot close their eyes.”
The Court already has closed its eyes twice, turning away challenges to restrictions on religious services in California and Nevada — decisions from which Alito, joined by three other justices, dissented. The Nevada case was especially striking since the state’s rules for houses of worship were stricter than the rules for other venues — including casinos, bars, restaurants, gyms, arcades and bowling alleys — where the risk of virus transmission was arguably higher.
The contrast between the treatment of religious and secular establishments in New York is even starker, and the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett could make a crucial difference this time around. If the Court again declines to intervene, then it will send a dangerous signal at a dangerous time for the Constitution.
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @JacobSullum. To find out more about Jacob Sullum and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
BHUBANESWAR: Days after Jharkhand Assembly passed a resolution seeking separate religious code for tribals from the Central government, tribal leaders in Odisha are preparing for a mass movement to press for their demands to include a religion column as ‘tribal’ in the 2021 Census.
Until 2011 Census, people were classified under six religions – Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist and those who do not subscribe to these are clubbed under the ‘Other’ category.
Tribal bodies have expressed reservations as this time the Centre has dropped the ‘Other’ option for Census 2021. They fear tribals will be forced to either declare themselves members of one of the six specified religions or leave the column unfilled.
Secretary general of Odisha Adibasi Kalyan Mahasangha Niranjan Bishi said tribals do not belong to any religion specified in the Census document as they worship nature and have a distinct tradition and culture.
“Tribals were being categorised under a special tribal code till 1951, but later it was deleted. Our identity is being pushed to inexistence and we may lose our constitutional safeguards if our religious identity is not specified,” he pointed out.
The organisation has decided to submit its memoranda addressed to the Prime Minister and Chief Minister at district level on November 25 seeking a separate tribal code in the Census document. The members have planned to go for road blockade and rail roko on December 6 and intensify their agitation if no decision is taken by then.
A senior tribal leader Fagu Hansdah demanded Odisha government pass a special resolution on the lines of Jharkhand during the Winter session seeking separate tribal religion. “We have been demanding a separate Sarna religion since long. The government should include the option in the upcoming Census,” he said. In the resolution sent to the Centre, Jharkhand has demanded Sarna religion be listed separately. Andhra Pradesh had also included ‘tribal’ religion as the tenth option among the 12 options in a recent household survey.
BUDAPEST, HUNGARY: The European Union still hasn’t completely sorted out its messy post-divorce relationship with Britain, but it has already been plunged into another major crisis.
This time the 27-member union is being tested as Poland and Hungary block passage of its budget for the next seven years and an ambitious package aimed at rescuing economies ravaged by the coronavirus pandemic.
Their objection? A new “rule-of-law mechanism” that would allow the bloc to deny funds to countries that violate democratic norms _ something that both Poland and Hungary have been accused of doing for years.
Ahead of Thursday’s virtual EU summit, where leaders hope to end the stalemate, here is a look at the budget battle.
How much is at stake?
The proposed 1.8 trillion-euro ($2.1 trillion) budget covers the period from 2021 to 2027, including 750 billion euros ($887 billion) in emergency funding to help the continent recover economically from the blow dealt by the pandemic.
The budget is meant to take effect on Jan. 1, and officials are desperate to have the agreement approved within weeks so money can flow fast.
Guy Verhofstadt, a member of European Parliament and a former Belgian prime minister, accused the Hungarian and Polish leaders of putting at risk lives and livelihoods threatened by COVID-19, “only because they want the EU to continue to fund their increasingly corrupt power grab.”
What triggered the dispute?
The governments of Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary and Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki of Poland have for years been accused of eroding the rule of law, by weakening democratic institutions like an independent judiciary and a free press.
Both Poland and Hungary are ex-communist nations that were hailed as models of democratic transition after the Iron Curtain fell in 1989. Today, however, they are more often associated with the democratic backsliding of their right-wing populist governments.
At the heart of the crisis is the question of what the EU is _ primarily a zone of free trade made up of independent nations or a union that shares common democratic values? Many in the bloc are keen to protect those norms. But they have been unable, within existing rules, to alter the course of Warsaw or Budapest. Hence the proposal for a way to cut off the money.
Vera Jourova, vice president of the European Commission, which ensures that EU law is applied in the bloc’s 27 nations, explained in September: “The taxpayers of many member states _ they are fed up (with) funding the projects in countries where fundamental rights are violated.”
But the debate has raised another recurring, thorny question: How much power should the EU have to impose its will on member-states?
“This is about whether our fate is to be in our hands, whether we will decide about our affairs ourselves, or whether it will be in the hands of others,” Morawiecki said in the Polish parliament Wednesday evening.
The Polish and Hungarian view
The Orban and Morawiecki governments say they are being punished for having a worldview that is more conservative than the western European mainstream. They note they were elected by their people in democratic votes and that any accusations of undemocratic behavior are false.
Orban on Wednesday said that linking funding to the rule of law is a “political and ideological weapon” that was being used to blackmail and penalize countries that reject immigration.
“In Brussels today, they only view countries which let migrants in as those governed by the rule of law. Those who protect their borders cannot qualify as countries where rule of law prevails,” Orban said in a statement to the state news agency MTI.
The Polish government has also slammed the proposal, expressing fears that it will be used arbitrarily to punish Poland on a range of issues, including the anti-LGBT views of its leaders.
Morawiecki said Poland rejects a mechanism that would “rebuke us like children.”
Allegations of Hungarian corruption
Some of Orban’s critics say that linking funding to the rule of law could threaten the very functioning of his government.
Under Orban, EU-funded public contracts have often been awarded to companies owned by his allies or family members, and details of these contracts have sometimes been kept secret _ leading to frequent allegations of corruption.
In 2018, the EU agency that investigates how the bloc’s money is spent carried out more investigations in Hungary than in any other EU country.
George Soros, the Hungarian-American philanthropist and Orban critic, alleged Thursday that Orban “has constructed an elaborate kleptocratic system to rob the country blind.”
Orban has dismissed the corruption allegations.
Dissidents at home
While the Hungarian and Polish governments insist they won’t back down, there are many people in both countries who firmly side with the EU. Among them are opposition politicians and political activists who have been on the streets demonstrating for free courts and free media.
Amid the standoff, six Hungarian opposition parties banded together to issue a statement this week saying “the selfishness of the Orban government” was harming the nation’s interests.
Meanwhile, in the Polish parliament on Wednesday, Borys Budka, the leader of the main opposition party, Civic Platform, urged Morawiecki to adopt the EU budget, saying not to do so amounts to treason.
“Today, anyone who threatens to veto a good budget for Poland is betraying the Polish national interest,” Budka said.
How can this stalemate be resolved?
There is no easy way out. Michael Roth, the German minister for European Affairs, whose country currently holds the EU Council presidency, said this week there is no alternative to the package, and EU leaders say they will not abandon the mechanism.
However, they could give Poland and Hungary guarantees that its implementation will be limited. Nobody should fear anything, the EU’s budget commissioner Johannes Hahn said.
If that strategy does not work, some leaders have suggested that the other countries could band together to at least pass the coronavirus aid package.
