Search

In the ever-evolving landscape of modern finance, virtual assets have emerged as transformative elements, propelled by blockchain technology. This article delves into the European system of regulation governing virtual assets, exploring the roles played by both supranational and state authorities in fostering innovation and mitigating risks. The European Union (EU) has responded to the challenges posed by virtual assets through a harmonized regulatory framework, with directives and regulations shaping its approach. The EU’s regulatory landscape is characterized by the proactive stance of the European Commission, which introduced the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD5) and the Digital Finance Package, encompassing proposals like the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation. These initiatives aim to provide comprehensive regulation for crypto-assets, enhance transparency, and ensure operational resilience within the financial sector. Supranational entities like the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) contribute by offering guidelines and overseeing compliance. The EBA, in particular, emphasizes the risks associated with virtual currencies, urging consumers to remain vigilant. ESMA’s role extends to supervising the application of MiCA across member states, ensuring a consistent interpretation of regulations. National authorities retain autonomy in implementing EU directives, transposing them into national law to address local circumstances. Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) and prudential supervisory bodies collaborate to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and oversee financial institutions involved in virtual asset activities. Challenges persist, including technological complexity, cross-border transactions, and regulatory fragmentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the ever-evolving landscape of modern finance, virtual assets have emerged as transformative elements, propelled by blockchain technology. Looking forward, the article proposes strategic considerations for effective regulation, emphasizing dynamic updates, global coordination, technologyagnostic approaches, enhanced surveillance, stakeholder education, regulatory sandboxes, collaboration with industry players, and staying abreast of technological innovation. The European regulatory framework for virtual assets represents a dynamic and evolving approach. While the MiCA Regulation and oversight by ESMA and EBA provide a foundation, collaboration between supranational and state authorities remains paramount for an effective and balanced regulatory environment. As virtual assets continue to evolve, regulators must strike the right balance between fostering innovation and ensuring market integrity and investor protection within the EU. In the complex landscape of virtual assets, it is clear that anticipating and addressing future challenges is essential for effective pan-European regulation. The dynamic nature of blockchain technology and its applications requires regulators to take a progressive approach. In the pursuit of a sustainable regulatory framework, certain considerations arise that shape the future trajectory of virtual asset regulation. As virtual assets continue to evolve, regulators must remain vigilant, fostering innovation while safeguarding against risks. Regulatory frameworks must be agile, globally coordinated, and adaptable to technological advancements to strike the right balance between fostering innovation and ensuring market integrity and investor protection. The collaboration between supranational and state authorities is paramount to achieving a balanced and effective regulatory environment that promotes the responsible and secure use of virtual assets within the European Union. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The difficult situation of the agricultural and food supply chainin the European Union, regarding both commercial practices and the differentbargain powers of the parties to the chain, led to the enactment of Directive2019/633. The Directive provides for minimum harmonization and its transpositioninto the Spanish legal order has been complex and fragmentary. Parts of thattransposition raise doubts as per their pertinence and seem to lack ambition.This article discusses the difficulties in assessing the extent to which the Spanishtransposition of the Directive remained within its goals and objectives. It arguesthat the Spanish legislator might have gone beyond the objectives of theDirectives and entered other regulatory areas.