The ACPR's name crops up in the business press every time a bank is warned, an insurer is penalised or a broker's licence is withdrawn. Behind the acronym lies an authority with a dual mission: to ensure the soundness of the French financial system and to protect bank and insurance customers. Its scope of action is considerable - it supervises nearly 800 banks, 700 insurance companies and thousands of intermediaries - and its powers are among the most extensive in French administrative law.<\/p>\n
This guide is intended for managers preparing an authorisation application, professionals subject to a statement of objections and advisers wishing to understand how to defend themselves before the Enforcement Committee. It is organised around the four questions that systematically come up in consultation: who is the ACPR, what can it do, what procedure does it follow, and how to challenge its decisions.<\/p>\n
The Autorit\u00e9 de contr\u00f4le prudentiel et de r\u00e9solution - ACPR - is the French body responsible for supervising the banking and insurance sectors. It was created on 9 March 2010 from the merger of four pre-existing institutions: the Commission bancaire and the Comit\u00e9 des \u00e9tablissements de cr\u00e9dit et des entreprises d'investissement (CECEI) for banking, and the Autorit\u00e9 de contr\u00f4le des assurances et des mutuelles (ACAM) and the Comit\u00e9 des entreprises d'assurance (CEA) for insurance. This unification, decided in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, was in response to the observation that the dispersal of authorities had prevented a cross-sectoral approach to risk. Initially called the Autorit\u00e9 de contr\u00f4le prudentiel (ACP), in 2013 it was given the additional remit of banking resolution and became the ACPR we know today.<\/p>\n
Its status is atypical. It operates in close cooperation with the Banque de France, shares its technical resources and staff, and its board is chaired ex officio by the Governor of the Banque de France. For a long time, it was described as an independent administrative authority, but this formal status was lost in 2017 when the list of AAIs was tightened up by the legislature. It nevertheless remains an autonomous authority in its decisions. It does not have legal personality: it is the State that is liable before the administrative courts in the event of gross negligence in the performance of its duties.<\/p>\n
Nor is the ACPR a regulatory authority in the strict sense. It does not have general regulatory powers like the AMF - it does not, in principle, dictate the rules to which its supervised institutions are subject. Its role is to monitor their application: it checks that institutions comply with the Monetary and Financial Code, the Insurance Code, the Mutual Code and directly applicable European regulations. This is a fundamental difference from the AMF, which combines the functions of regulation and supervision.<\/p>\n
The ACPR's remit is set out in the\u2019Article L. 612-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code<\/a>, This article is worth reading for anyone who wants to understand what the ACPR does - and does not do -. This article deserves to be read in its entirety by anyone who wants to understand what the ACPR does - and what it does not do.<\/p>\n \u00ab I. - The Autorit\u00e9 de contr\u00f4le prudentiel et de r\u00e9solution shall ensure that the stability of the financial system is preserved and that the customers, policyholders, members and beneficiaries of persons subject to its supervision are protected.<\/p>\n II. - The Authority is responsible for: 1\u00b0 examining applications for authorisations or exemptions provided for by European and national provisions applicable to the banking and insurance sector (...); 2\u00b0 exercising ongoing supervision of the financial situation and operating conditions of the persons referred to in Article L. 612-2 (...); 3\u00b0 Ensuring that these persons comply with the rules designed to protect their customers (...); 4\u00b0 Ensuring that measures to prevent and resolve banking crises are drawn up and implemented (...)\u00bb.\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n This article structures the ACPR's action around two main objectives and a triptych of interventions. The two objectives are stability of the financial system<\/strong> - i.e. preventing the failure of institutions with systemic effects - and the customer protection<\/strong> - i.e. checking that institutions comply with the rules of good conduct with regard to their customers. These two objectives are not always aligned: an institution may be perfectly solvent but fail to meet its commercial obligations, or vice versa.<\/p>\n The three-pronged approach is broken down into three phases: day-to-day prudential supervision (ongoing monitoring of the balance sheet, solvency and liquidity ratios, governance and risk management systems); supervision of marketing and the conduct of business (distribution, advertising, claims management, commercial practices); and crisis management, which includes both prevention (recovery plans, stress tests) and curative treatment through resolution.<\/p>\n The scope of application is set out in Article L. 612-2 of the Monetary and Financial Code. The ACPR supervises all banking and similar institutions: credit institutions, finance companies, investment firms other than management companies (which are the responsibility of the AMF), payment institutions, electronic money institutions, bureaux de change, intermediaries in banking transactions and payment services. It also supervises the insurance sector: insurance and reinsurance companies, mutual insurers governed by Book II of the Mutual Code, provident institutions and insurance intermediaries. In all, several thousand entities are subject to supervision of varying nature and intensity.<\/p>\n We're talking about\u2019links with the European Central Bank<\/strong>. Since the introduction of the single supervisory mechanism in 2014, the ECB has had direct responsibility for the prudential supervision of the euro area's so-called significant banks - around 115 institutions, representing more than 80 % of the area's banking assets. For these banks, the ACPR plays the role of national authority within the joint supervision teams led by the ECB. For the other - less significant - banks, the ACPR remains directly responsible, but under the overall supervision of the ECB. In terms of anti-money laundering, on the other hand, the ACPR retains full jurisdiction over the entire French banking sector. This division of the field is one of the subtleties that must be mastered in order to know which authority to refer to and under which procedure.<\/p>\n The ACPR's internal structure is designed to avoid confusion of functions. The same case may result in very different decisions - a refusal of authorisation, a formal notice, a sanction - and each is the responsibility of a separate body, with its own composition and operating rules. This organic separation is an essential procedural safeguard: it conditions the formal legality of decisions and often opens up the first avenues of challenge.<\/p>\n The supervisory board is the ACPR's main body. It has nineteen members with varied backgrounds: the Governor of the Banque de France, who chairs it, the Chairman of the Autorit\u00e9 des normes comptables, two vice-chairmen chosen for their expertise in banking and insurance, a deputy governor of the Banque de France, a Conseiller d'\u00c9tat, a Conseiller \u00e0 la Cour de cassation, a Conseiller-ma\u00eetre \u00e0 la Cour des comptes, qualified individuals chosen for their financial expertise, and representatives appointed by the presidents of the Assembl\u00e9e nationale and the S\u00e9nat. It makes decisions in plenary session on general issues, in restricted sessions on individual decisions, and is subdivided into sectoral sub-committees - banking and insurance - for cases specific to each sector. It issues authorisations, takes administrative police measures and initiates disciplinary proceedings by referring cases to the Enforcement Committee.<\/p>\n Created by the Banking Separation and Regulation Act of 26 July 2013, the resolution college is responsible for anticipating and managing bank failures. Its membership has been tightened - to just eight members - to enable a rapid response in the event of a crisis: the Governor of the Banque de France or his representative, the Director General of the Treasury, the Chairman of the AMF, the Chairman of the Autorit\u00e9 des normes comptables, a Deputy Governor of the Banque de France, an adviser to the Cour de cassation, a Conseiller d'\u00c9tat and the Chairman of the Management Board of the Fonds de garantie des d\u00e9p\u00f4ts et de r\u00e9solution. It operates with a high degree of autonomy from the supervisory board and, in an emergency, can take decisions in a matter of hours. It decides whether to initiate a resolution procedure and what measures to apply.<\/p>\n The Enforcement Committee is the ACPR's disciplinary body. It is completely independent of the two colleges: none of its members sits on the supervisory or resolution bodies. It has six members appointed for five-year terms - two judges from the Conseil d'\u00c9tat, two judges from the Cour de cassation and two persons qualified for their expertise in the relevant areas - and its decisions are taken in plenary session after a fully adversarial procedure. This strict separation between the prosecuting authorities (the colleges) and the judging authority (the commission) is required by article 6 \u00a7 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the Constitutional Council and the European Court of Human Rights have repeatedly pointed out that the legality of administrative sanctions depends on this organic separation.<\/p>\n Alongside these three decision-making bodies, the general secretariat<\/strong> The ACPR's administration is headed by the Secretary General, who is appointed by ministerial decree. It is these teams that carry out off-site and on-site inspections, prepare the files submitted to the colleges, draft the grievance notices and bring the proceedings before the Enforcement Committee. In practice, the first point of contact for an inspected institution is always a member of the General Secretariat, never a member of a college.<\/p>\n The ACPR has a range of powers that cover the entire life cycle of a supervised institution, from its creation to its eventual demise. This range is so broad that it is easy to lose sight of the overall logic. However, it can be reduced to five main categories, which correspond to different stages in the life of the institution and distinct procedural regimes.<\/p>\n Access to banking and insurance activities is subject to prior authorisation. The ACPR - or the ECB in the case of major banks - examines each application, checking that the applicant meets the conditions laid down by law (sufficient capital, appropriate governance, good repute and competence of management, coherent programme of operations, internal control system, anti-money laundering measures) and decides whether to grant, refuse or attach special conditions to the authorisation. Approval applications generally take between six and twelve months to process. This is the first major interaction, and often the most decisive, between an institution and the ACPR. The ACPR can also withdraw authorisation: either at the request of the institution, which ceases its activity, or automatically in the event of non-compliance with the conditions, absence of use for more than twelve months, fraudulent obtaining, or as a disciplinary sanction.<\/p>\n There are two forms of control, governed by article L. 612-23 of the French Monetary and Financial Code. The documentary evidence check<\/strong> is permanent. Institutions send the ACPR regular reports, standardised under the SURFI system for banking and the Solvency II framework for insurance, which enable the authority to monitor their financial situation on an ongoing basis. The on-site inspection<\/strong>, The latter consists of inspections at the institution's premises. Staff authorised by the ACPR have extensive powers of investigation, including access to all documents, information systems and internal correspondence; interviewing any relevant person; and copying and taking away documents. An inspection charter governs their practices and guarantees the adversarial principle: the institution receives a draft report, may respond in writing, and the final report incorporates its observations. On receipt of the final report, the future of the institution is decided: either the ACPR leaves it at that, or it opens an administrative police procedure, or it forwards the case to the college, which will decide whether or not to refer the matter to the Enforcement Committee.<\/p>\n Between simple supervision and disciplinary sanctions, the ACPR has an intermediate arsenal, the administrative police, which enables it to intervene quickly to correct a risk situation without going through a litigation procedure. This power is based on Articles L. 612-30 to L. 612-34 of the Monetary and Financial Code. It includes, in order of increasing seriousness warning<\/strong> (informal warning), the formal notice<\/strong> (formal reminder to comply with an obligation), the\u2019injunction<\/strong> to take corrective action within a set timeframe, possibly subject to a penalty payment, and, where the situation so requires, to take appropriate measures. precautionary measures<\/strong> These measures include the restriction or prohibition of activities, restrictions on the free disposal of assets, the suspension or compulsory resignation of managers, and the appointment of a provisional administrator to take temporary control of the institution. These measures are administrative in nature: they do not qualify as sanctions and can be taken by the supervisory board without the involvement of the Enforcement Committee. They are nonetheless cumbersome - in practice, a provisional administrator is a prerequisite for liquidation - and can be challenged before the Conseil d'\u00c9tat.<\/p>\n When the ACPR considers that a breach warrants a sanction, the supervisory board initiates disciplinary proceedings by notifying the institution concerned of the grievances and referring the matter to the Enforcement Committee. Disciplinary sanctions, listed in Article L. 612-39 of the Monetary and Financial Code, fall into two categories. The professional sanctions<\/strong> The following sanctions may be imposed: warnings, reprimands, bans on certain operations or services for a specified period, temporary suspension of directors, compulsory resignation of directors, partial or total withdrawal of authorisation. The financial penalties<\/strong>, The penalties can be considerable: up to 100 million euros or 10 % of net annual turnover for legal entities, and up to 5 million euros for individual directors. In principle, these sanctions are public - the decision is published on the ACPR website in the form of a name - which makes them a reputational issue at least as important as their financial weight.<\/p>\n The power of resolution is the European response to the most costly lesson of the 2008 crisis: when systemic banks are in difficulty, ordinary insolvency law does not work. Winding up a bank under the rules of Book VI of the French Commercial Code means risking a domino effect on the entire financial system. The solution adopted was to create a parallel regime: the resolution<\/strong>, which allows the failure of an institution to be dealt with without going to court, preserving critical functions and imposing losses on shareholders and creditors rather than on the taxpayer.<\/p>\n The legal framework is based on two 2014 European texts transposed into Articles L. 613-34 et seq. of the Monetary and Financial Code: Directive 2014\/59\/EU known as the BRRD (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive<\/em>) and Regulation (EU) 806\/2014, which created the Single Resolution Mechanism and the Single Resolution Board for the eurozone. In this architecture, the Single Resolution Board is directly competent for large banks, and the ACPR's resolution college plays the role of national enforcement authority. For other institutions, the ACPR is fully competent.<\/p>\n Three conditions must all be met for resolution to be triggered: the institution is in actual or foreseeable default, no ordinary law measure (private recapitalisation, internal recovery measure) appears capable of restoring its situation within a reasonable timeframe, and resolution is necessary in the public interest - typically to avoid a systemic effect. When these three conditions are met, the resolution college can use, alone or in combination, four instruments: the transfer of business<\/strong> (sale of all or part of the establishment to a buyer), the creation of a relay centre<\/strong> (bridge bank<\/em>) which takes over the essential functions while a lasting solution is found, the asset segregation<\/strong> (transfer of toxic assets to a bad bank), bad bank<\/em>), and above all the internal refloating<\/strong> or bail-in<\/em>, which allows certain of the institution's debts to be reduced or converted into capital in order to reconstitute its equity capital at the expense of senior creditors.<\/p>\n Resolution suspends or sets aside the rules of ordinary insolvency law and deprives creditors of legal remedies equivalent to those available in a judicial liquidation. Remedies do exist, but they are limited to short deadlines and are referred to the Conseil d'\u00c9tat, in the context of specific administrative litigation. This is one of the most technical points in contemporary banking law.<\/p>\n When the ACPR initiates disciplinary proceedings, it enters into a procedural framework, compliance with which conditions the validity of any sanction. For the institution concerned, this is the moment when legal preparation becomes decisive.<\/p>\n The procedure begins with a notification of grievances<\/strong>, This document crystallises the scope of the dispute. This document crystallises the scope of the dispute: the Enforcement Committee can only rule on the complaints that appear in it. The drafting of this document is therefore a major challenge, and reading it critically is the first step in the defence. From the date of notification, the institution has a period of time - two months in principle - in which to submit its written observations. It may consult the entire file at the secretariat of the Enforcement Committee, and each document in the file must have been communicated to it before it can be used against it.<\/p>\n The procedure continues with a audience<\/strong> before the Enforcement Committee, which is normally held in camera but may be open to the public if the defendant so requests. The hearing is strictly adversarial: a representative of the supervisory board, who acts as the prosecuting authority, presents his or her conclusions, then the person being prosecuted - assisted by his or her lawyer - presents his or her defence. The commission deliberates without the presence of the parties and renders its decision, which may be to dismiss the case, close it without further action, or impose a penalty. Unless a reasoned decision is taken to the contrary, the decision is published by name on the ACPR website.<\/p>\n The remedies<\/strong> are governed by article L. 612-16 of the Monetary and Financial Code. The decisions of the Enforcement Committee can be appealed before the French Supreme Court. Council of State<\/strong>, The decision is final. The time limit for appeals is two months from notification or publication. A full appeal allows the judge not only to annul the sanction but also to reform it - to reduce it, for example, if the quantum appears disproportionate. The ACPR's other individual decisions - refusal to grant authorisation, administrative police measures, resolution decisions - also come under the jurisdiction of the Conseil d'\u00c9tat, but by way of appeal on grounds of ultra vires, also within two months. This dualism (full litigation for sanctions, misuse of powers for the rest) has practical consequences: the scope of the review, the grounds on which it can be based and the powers of the judge differ according to the means of appeal used.<\/p>\n In practice, these appeals rarely result in the pure and simple annulment of the sanction: the Conseil d'\u00c9tat gives the ACPR a wide margin of technical discretion. The annulments or reformations most often concern procedural irregularities (lack of adversarial process, confusion of roles within the ACPR, incomplete file), errors in the legal qualification of the complaints, or a manifest disproportion in the quantum. Hence the importance of a technical defence as early as the inspection phase, well before the notification of grievances: the procedural flaws on which the appeal is based are created upstream, when the institution responds to the inspection report and the first requests from the General Secretariat.<\/p>\n The ACPR is a technical body that speaks the language of administrative law and prudential banking and financial law. In four situations, the assistance of a lawyer is not a comfort but a prerequisite.<\/p>\n The first is the preparing an approval file<\/strong>. Putting together an application for authorisation as a bank, investment firm, payment institution or insurance company means filling in an extensive form, producing a variety of documents - programme of operations, three-year business plan, description of corporate governance, internal control system, anti-money laundering policy, statements of good repute for directors - and anticipating questions from the General Secretariat. An incomplete or badly structured application can add several months to the investigation, or even lead to a refusal. The lawyer intervenes upstream to structure the application, draft the legal documents and negotiate with the general secretariat during the investigation.<\/p>\n The second is the the occurrence of an on-site inspection<\/strong>. An ACPR inspection involves the bank for several weeks or months. The officers ask precise questions, request numerous documents and question staff. The most common mistake is to leave the operational staff to answer without any legal preparation: a poorly calibrated answer to an apparently innocent question can end up being cited as an accusation in the inspection report. The lawyer's role is to organise the response chain, secure the internal procedures for passing on information, attend critical interviews and prepare the response to the draft report.<\/p>\n The third is the notification of an administrative police measure<\/strong> (injunction, precautionary measure, appointment of a provisional administrator) or the notification of grievances opening disciplinary proceedings. From that point onwards, every written document will have a bearing on the final decision; every deadline is a cut-off point; every procedural irregularity is an opportunity for appeal. The lawyer prepares the formal and substantive defence, prepares the hearing before the sanctions committee and, if necessary, lodges an appeal with the Conseil d'\u00c9tat within the two-month time limit.<\/p>\n The fourth is the litigation against ACPR decisions<\/strong> before the Council of State. Litigation before the Conseil d'\u00c9tat is governed by its own rules - written submissions, briefs, electronic submissions, public hearings - which require representation by a lawyer admitted to the Conseil d'\u00c9tat and the Cour de cassation for procedural acts in the strict sense. However, the lawyer who has been working with the institution since the start of the review is responsible for building up the arguments for the appeal, working on the case and linking the administrative phase with the judicial phase.<\/p>\n Solent Avocats assists banks, investment firms, finance companies and insurance companies dealing with the ACPR at every stage. For an in-depth analysis of your situation, contact our team. To place this matter in the wider context of banking law, see our complete guide to banking law<\/a> or our page dedicated to our work in banking and finance law<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Autorit\u00e9 de contr\u00f4le prudentiel et de r\u00e9solution is the French body responsible for supervising banks, investment firms, payment institutions, insurance companies, mutual insurers and provident institutions. It ensures the stability of the financial system and the protection of customers. Backed by the Banque de France, it has no legal personality and works in close cooperation with the ECB as part of the single supervisory mechanism. Its remit is defined in Article L. 612-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n All credit institutions, investment firms (excluding management companies, which come under the authority of the AMF), finance companies, payment institutions, electronic money institutions, bureaux de change, banking intermediaries, insurance and reinsurance companies, mutual insurers governed by Book II of the Mutual Insurance Code, provident institutions and insurance intermediaries. The European Central Bank is responsible for prudential supervision of significant banks in the eurozone. However, the ACPR retains responsibility for anti-money laundering and customer protection.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n The ACPR's Enforcement Committee can impose professional sanctions (warnings, reprimands, bans on certain transactions, suspension of managers, withdrawal of authorisation) and financial penalties of up to 100 million euros or 10 % of net annual turnover for legal entities, and 5 million euros for managers who are natural persons. In principle, decisions are made public by name, which adds a reputational dimension to the financial penalty.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n The type of appeal depends on the nature of the decision. Decisions by the Enforcement Committee can be appealed before the Conseil d'\u00c9tat, which can annul or reform the sanction (including reducing the quantum). Other individual decisions, such as refusals to grant authorisation, administrative police measures and termination decisions, may be appealed on grounds of ultra vires, also before the Conseil d'\u00c9tat. In both cases, the time limit is two months from notification or publication of the decision.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n The ACPR is an autonomous authority whose decisions are subject to judicial review by the Conseil d'\u00c9tat. It reports to Parliament in an annual report and its accounts are audited by the Cour des Comptes. At European level, it operates within the framework of the Single Supervisory Mechanism led by the ECB and the Single Resolution Mechanism led by the Single Resolution Board, which ensure peer-to-peer coordination and control between national authorities.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n The two authorities share supervision of the financial sector, but their remits are distinct. The AMF - Autorit\u00e9 des march\u00e9s financiers - regulates and supervises financial markets, UCITS and FIA management companies, and protects savings invested in financial instruments. It has general regulatory powers. The ACPR supervises banks, insurance companies and their intermediaries from a prudential and customer protection perspective. The two authorities cooperate within a joint unit dedicated to public protection and jointly organise controls on the cross-marketing of banking and financial products.<\/p>\n<\/details><\/div>\n<\/section>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" L’ACPR supervise les banques, les assurances, les mutuelles et les institutions de pr\u00e9voyance qui op\u00e8rent en France. Elle d\u00e9livre les agr\u00e9ments, contr\u00f4le la solvabilit\u00e9 et la conduite des affaires, organise la r\u00e9solution des \u00e9tablissements d\u00e9faillants et sanctionne les manquements. Ses d\u00e9cisions se jouent en coulisses, mais leurs effets sont spectaculaires : un retrait d’agr\u00e9ment ferme une banque du jour au lendemain, une amende peut atteindre 100 millions d’euros, une injonction peut geler l’activit\u00e9 d’un courtier en assurance. Pour un \u00e9tablissement contr\u00f4l\u00e9, l’ACPR n’est pas un interlocuteur parmi d’autres \u2014 c’est celui dont la d\u00e9cision peut mettre fin \u00e0 l’exploitation.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"parent":18287,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"page-templates\/template-guide-enfant.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"solent_domaine":[424,410],"class_list":["post-18332","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/18332","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18332"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/18332\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18333,"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/18332\/revisions\/18333"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/18287"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"solent_domaine","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/solent_domaine?post=18332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Organisation: three separate bodies<\/h2>\n
The supervisory board<\/h3>\n
The resolution college<\/h3>\n
The Sanctions Committee<\/h3>\n
Powers: from approval to sanctions<\/h2>\n
The power of approval<\/h3>\n
The power of control<\/h3>\n
Administrative police powers<\/h3>\n
The power to impose disciplinary sanctions<\/h3>\n
Bank resolution<\/h2>\n
Penalty procedure and appeals<\/h2>\n
When to call a lawyer<\/h2>\n
Sources<\/summary>\n
Legal texts<\/h3>\n
\n
Case law<\/h3>\n
\n
Doctrine<\/h3>\n
\n
Frequently asked questions about the ACPR<\/h2>\n
What exactly is the ACPR?<\/summary>\n
Who is subject to ACPR supervision?<\/summary>\n
What sanctions can the ACPR impose?<\/summary>\n
How can I challenge an ACPR decision?<\/summary>\n
Who supervises the ACPR itself?<\/summary>\n
What is the difference between the ACPR and the AMF?<\/summary>\n