Pari-Mutuel Betting Supervision Regulations [ Regulations respecting the supervision and operation of pari-mutuel betting at race-courses and the prohibition, restriction and regulation of the possession of drugs and equipment used in the administering of drugs at race-courses | Race Track Supervision ]

Pari-Mutuel Levy Regulation

Agricultural Societies Pari-Mutuel Levy Exemption Regulation

while stressing the need to increase worldwide access to financial services given their importance for growth and the economy, to exclude cross-border financial services from the EU’s commitments, including portfolio management, until there is convergence in financial regulation at the highest level, except in very limited and duly justified cases, such as those reinsurance services provided in a business-to-business context; to consider, in particular, that clear and sound rules and procedures for authorising companies established i ...[+++]n third countries to provide such services in the EU and, where appropriate, the explicit recognition by the EU that these companies’ country of origin have an enforceable regulatory and supervisory framework equivalent to the EU’s are indispensable to ensure that no unsupervised entity is able to act in the Union and that a level-playing field between European and foreign companies, irrespective of their jurisdiction of establishment, is achieved; to take immediate action, in parallel to TiSA, to narrow the gap between the different ways in which countries currently recognise the equivalence of regulatory and supervisory regimes of other jurisdictions, which is currently causing fragmentation of global financial services markets, by achieving a common understanding that an equivalence decision should be the result of a transparent assessment of whether each jurisdiction’s rules achieve the same objectives and understanding that, though such a decision should follow early and frequent bilateral dialogues, it can be unilateral when mutual recognition is not possible;

v. while stressing the need to increase worldwide access to financial services given their importance for growth and the economy, to exclude cross-border financial services from the EU’s commitments, including portfolio management, until there is convergence in financial regulation at the highest level, except in very limited and duly justified cases, such as those reinsurance services provided in a business-to-business context; to consider, in particular, that clear and sound rules and procedures for authorising companies establishe ...[+++]d in third countries to provide such services in the EU and, where appropriate, the explicit recognition by the EU that these companies' country of origin have an enforceable regulatory and supervisory framework equivalent to the EU’s are indispensable to ensure that no unsupervised entity is able to act in the Union and that a level-playing field between European and foreign companies, irrespective of their jurisdiction of establishment, is achieved; to take immediate action, in parallel to TiSA, to narrow the gap between the different ways in which countries currently recognise the equivalence of regulatory and supervisory regimes of other jurisdictions, which is currently causing fragmentation of global financial services markets, by achieving a common understanding that an equivalence decision should be the result of a transparent assessment of whether each jurisdiction’s rules achieve the same objectives and understanding that, though such a decision should follow early and frequent bilateral dialogues, it can be unilateral when mutual recognition is not possible;

j. to lay down in the regulatory chapter applying to financial services strong transversal rules on regulatory transparency, which should increase the capacity of all stakeholders to analyse and prepare for laws, rules and public decisions and boost the confidence of financial services providers to establish themselves abroad or to provide services to third-country customers, without undermining due and established democratic processes, and to also set out solutions for ensuring respect for national treatment of cross-border suppliers of financial services; to that end, to take immediate action to narrow the gap between the different ways in which countries currently recognise the equivalence of regulatory and supervisory regimes of other ...[+++]jurisdictions, which is currently causing fragmentation of global financial services markets, by achieving a common understanding that an equivalence decision should be the result of a transparent assessment of whether each jurisdiction’s rules achieve the same objectives and that, though such a decision should follow early and frequent bilateral dialogues, it can be unilateral when mutual recognition is not possible;

Addressing the issue requires concerted and coordinated efforts from public authorities, sport organisations and gambling operators.[30] A number of regulatory (gambling licensing conditions, statutes of sport federations) and self-regulatory mechanisms (codes of conduct) are in place in the EU as well as educational campaigns, conflict of interest rules, bet monitoring systems and alert tools (whistle blowing, hot lines etc.).