Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser (NI) has submitted a parliamentary question to the European Commission regarding a leaked draft proposal by the so-called E6 group of Member States—Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Poland—that calls for a significant centralisation of financial market supervision at European level. The question, filed on 1 June 2026, raises concerns about the potential impact on financial centres such as Luxembourg and Ireland, and asks whether the Commission supports transforming the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) into a 'true European supervisor' with expanded direct powers.
Kartheiser's question references a 21 May 2026 report in The Irish Times on a leaked E6 working paper dated 30 April 2026. The proposal envisions ESMA gradually taking over supervisory responsibilities currently held by national competent authorities, including direct supervision of major trading venues, central securities depositories and clearing houses. The MEP asks three specific questions: when the Commission became aware of the working paper and whether it was formally consulted; whether the Commission supports the proposed centralisation and what assessment it has made of the impact on competitiveness of financial centres; and how the Commission intends to guarantee proportionality and avoid duplication between national authorities and ESMA.
Policy orientation and implications
The question signals a cleavage between EU-level integration and national sovereignty in financial supervision. Kartheiser, a non-attached MEP from Luxembourg—a major financial hub—appears to advocate against further centralisation, warning of potential harm to smaller Member States' financial sectors. The E6 proposal, if implemented, would shift significant power from national regulators to ESMA, potentially increasing regulatory uniformity but also raising concerns about disproportionate burdens on smaller markets and loss of national oversight.
Expected follow-up
The Commission is required to respond to the written question within approximately six weeks. Its answer will indicate whether it supports the E6 direction or favours maintaining the current balance of supervisory powers. The response will be closely watched by financial stakeholders, including ESMA, national regulators, and market infrastructure operators in Luxembourg, Ireland, and other smaller financial centres.
Stakeholder impacts
- EU regulatory bodies (ESMA): Would gain substantially expanded direct supervisory powers, increasing its influence and resources. - National authorities of smaller EU countries (e.g., Luxembourg, Ireland): Would lose supervisory control over major market infrastructure, potentially reducing their fiscal responsibility and regulatory autonomy. - EU financial market infrastructure operators (trading venues, CSDs, clearing houses): Would face dual oversight during transition and potentially higher compliance costs from a more centralised regime. - EU financial centres (Luxembourg, Ireland): Could see reduced competitiveness if centralisation leads to regulatory burden or loss of national-level flexibility that attracts business.
← Atlas › News › Economy & Taxation