The Belgian insurance sector has been subject to the MiFID
I1 conduct of business rules since 1 May 2015.
This roll-out of MiFID to the insurance sector, commonly known
as AssurMiFID, was one of the objectives of the Twin Peaks II Law
of 30 July 2013, by which the Belgian legislator wanted to create a
level playing field for the selling practices of all investment
products and for consumer protection rules. As such, the Law of
2013 and its implementing Royal Decrees (see text box), expand the
scope of the MiFID I conduct of business requirements to insurance
companies (including their tied agents) and insurance
intermediaries acting in Belgium.
It was clear from the start that the impact of this legislation
on the strategy, products and operations of insurance companies and
intermediaries would be very high (see further). The impact in
practice was increased by the very challenging timeline through
which the new regulatory framework was imposed on the insurance
sector (i.e. implementation of the new framework by 30 April 2014,
merely a couple of months following the publication of the Royal
Decrees). This also led to a decision2 of the
Constitutional Court delaying the entry into force with one year
(to 1 May 2015).
The Twin Peaks II law (TP II), dated 30 July 2013
Part IV of the Insurance Law of 2014
The three implementing Royal Decrees, dated 21 February
The Circular Letter of the Financial Services and Markets
Authority (FSMA), dated 16th of April 2014, and revised in
September 2015, to include additional guidelines with regard to
record keeping requirements.
Following an appeal of a sector association against the AssurMiFID
regulation, the Constitutional Court delayed the entry into force
with one year to 1 May 2015.
On the date of this article, we are awaiting the finalisation of
the regulatory framework, as certain aspects, included in
AssurMiFID, relating to reporting and cost and charges
transparency, still have to be implemented further. For these
areas, the legislator aims to align with other European regulatory
initiatives like PRIIPs.
A court in the United Kingdom refused to remove an arbitrator for perceived bias where the arbitrator was appointed to arbitrate multiple disputes arising from the same underlying incident triggering insurance coverage.
This is the March edition of the Arthur Cox Insurance Regulatory Update, the monthly bulletin of the Arthur Cox Insurance Group focused on recent developments in insurance regulation, law and practice.
The MFSA has issued new guidelines on Product Oversight and Governance arrangements by insurance undertakings and insurance distributors as required by the Insurance Distribution Directive ("IDD") to be implemented by manufacturers of insurance products.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).