Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 as regards the scope of the rules for benchmarks, the use in the Union of benchmarks provided by an administrator located in a third country, and certain reporting requirements
Date: 2023-10-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, European Commission
Subjects: Euribor, consumer protection, disclosure of information, domestic market, exchange of information, financial control, financial legislation, financial market, price index

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.10.2023  COM(2023) 660 final 2023/0379 (COD)  Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 as regards the scope of the rules for benchmarks, the use in the Union of benchmarks provided by an administrator located in a third country, and certain reporting requirements (Text with EEA relevance)  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

• 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal 

This proposal is part of a package of measures to rationalise reporting requirements. It aims to 
rationalise  authorisation  and  registration  and  alleviate  the  burden  on  EU  companies,  in 
particular  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (‘SMEs’,  namely  smaller  benchmark 
administrators  and  benchmark  users).  The  regulatory  framework  that  applies  to  these 
companies is layered. Different rules and reporting requirements apply depending on the type 
of benchmark they provide. Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 (‘the Benchmark Regulation’ or ‘the 
BMR’) aims to address concerns about the accuracy and integrity of benchmarks regardless of 
the size and systemic nature of such benchmarks. The question is whether some of the BMR’s 
requirements  are  proportionate,  especially  for  administrators  offering  benchmarks  whose 
reference  value  in  instruments,  contracts  or  funds  is  low  or  who  provide  indices  only  to  a 
limited number of benchmark users in accordance with bilateral contracts (bespoke indices). 
Market participants have called for revising the BMR framework and making the regulatory 
requirements dependent on the systemic relevance of a benchmark or the significance of the 
role that a benchmark plays for the operation of markets in a Member State or across the EU. 
In  its  Communication  ‘Long-term  competitiveness  of  the  EU:  looking  beyond  2030’ (1),  the 
Commission  stressed  the  importance  of  a  regulatory  system  that  ensures  that  objectives  are 
reached  at  minimum  costs.  It  has  therefore  committed  to  a  fresh  push  to  rationalise  and 
simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim of reducing the administrative burdens 
by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives.  

Reporting  requirements  play  a  key  role  in  ensuring  proper  monitoring  and  correct 
enforcement  of  legislation.  Their  costs  are  largely  offset  by  the  benefit  they  bring,  in 
particular  in  monitoring  and  ensuring  compliance  with  key  policy  measures.  However,  it  is 
important to streamline those requirements, in order to ensure that they fulfil the purpose for 
which they were intended and to limit the administrative burden. Reporting requirements can 
impose disproportionate burdens on stakeholders, including SMEs and micro companies, also 
given  organisational  and  technological  developments  that  call  for  original  reporting 
requirements to be adjusted.  

Streamlining  reporting  obligations  and  reducing  the  administrative  burdens  is  therefore  a 
priority.  

This legislative proposal seeks to review the scope of the BMR and address its shortcomings, 
as well as bring targeted improvements to how the BMR functions.  

Political and legal context 

• 
A benchmark is an index (2) that is used as a reference to determine the price of a financial 
instrument or financial contract or to measure the performance of an investment fund. A wide 
range  of  benchmarks  is  currently  produced,  including  interest  rate  benchmarks,  such  as 
EURIBOR,  equity benchmarks, such  as the CAC 40, the DAX  or the S&P 500 indices  and 

1 
2 

COM(2023)168. 
An  index  is  a  statistical  measure,  typically  of  a  price  or  quantity,  calculated  or  determined  from  a 
representative set of underlying data. 

EN 

1 

  EN 

 
 
commodity benchmarks, e.g., energy benchmarks, such as West Texas Intermediate or Brent. 
The BMR covers several distinct underlying asset classes that comprise equities (and equity-
like instruments, such as exchange-traded funds), fixed income instruments, interest, credit or 
foreign exchange rates as well as various commodities.  

Tables 1-3 illustrate how the current BMR has organised the main benchmark types covering 
the  main  asset  classes  around  three  dimensions:  (1)  amount  of  assets  referencing  a 
benchmark;  (2)  underlying  asset  class  and  (3)  types  of  input  data  used  to  calculate  the 
benchmark. 

EN 

2 

  EN 

 
 
Table 1: Existing legislation: distinguishing benchmarks based on the extent of use in the EU 

Intervention 
needed 
classified 
such 

to  be 
as 

The 
Commission 
adopts 
implementing 
acts 
in 
accordance  with 
Article 
20(1) 
BMR 
(Commission 
implementing 
act4) 

The  competent 
authority 
responsible 
for 
the  supervision 
of 
the 
administrator 
to 
decides 
a 
classify 
as 
benchmark 
significant 
or 
non-significant.  

Category 

Quantitative threshold3 

Critical 
benchmarks 

- 
- 

- 

EUR 500 billion, or 
EUR 400 billion + 2 qualitative 
criteria in Art. 20(1)(c), or 
The benchmark is based on 
submissions by contributors the 
majority of which are located 
in one Member State and is 
recognised as being critical in 
that Member State 

Significant 
benchmarks 

- 

The benchmark is not a critical 
benchmark 

And meets either of the following criteria: 

- 
- 

EUR 50 billion, or 
The benchmark has no or very 
few appropriate market-led 
substitutes and, in the event 
that the benchmark ceases to be 
provided or is provided on the 
basis of input data no longer 
fully representative of the 
underlying market or economic 
reality or unreliable input data, 
there would be a significant 
and adverse impact on market 
integrity, financial stability, 
consumers, the real economy or 
the financing of households or 
businesses in one or more 
Member States. 

Non-
significant 
benchmarks6 

A  benchmark  which  does  not  qualify  as 
critical or significant 

Current 
population 

EURIBOR, 
WIBOR, 
STIBOR, 
NIBOR 

Legal consequences 

and 
(in 

continue 

publishing 

Additional rules (Art. 20-23) apply, 
including mandatory administration 
(the  competent  authority  has  the 
power  to  compel  the  administrator 
to 
the 
mandatory 
benchmark) 
the 
contribution 
case 
administrator 
the 
competent authority of the intention 
cease 
contributor 
of 
a 
the 
input 
contributing 
competent  authority  has  the  power 
to 
to 
contribute contributing input data). 

the  contributor 

to 
data 

notified 

require 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Targeted alleviations of 
requirements in BMR 
title II on a comply-or-
explain basis (see Art. 
25 BMR) 
Entities already under 
supervision require only 
registration to 
administer significant 
benchmarks 

of 

As 
September 
2022, 
an 
estimated  50 
significant 
benchmarks 
offered  by  6 
administrators 
were  in  scope 
of the BMR.5 

All 
benchmarks 

other 

Further-reaching 
alleviations of 
requirements in BMR 
title II on a comply-or-
explain basis (see Art. 
26 BMR) 
Administering a non-
significant benchmark 
requires only 
registration. 

Table 2: Existing legislation: distinguishing benchmarks based on the underlying asset class 

Underlying 
asset class 

Definition 

Intervention  needed 
to  be  classified  as 
such 

Legal consequences 

3 

4 
5 

6 

Calculation based on the total value of financial instruments, financial contracts or investment funds in 
the Union for which the benchmark is used as a reference determined by the benchmark administrator. 
Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2016/1368, as amended. 
This  excludes  an  unknown  number  of  significant  benchmarks  offered  by  non-EU  administrators  who 
had at that time not obtained recognition or endorsement. 
The shaded area corresponds to benchmarks for which the administrator would no longer be required to 
be registered; See below. 

EN 

3 

  EN 

 
 
 
Interest 
benchmarks 

rate 

‘a  benchmark  which  […]  is 
determined  on  the  basis  of  the 
rate  at  which  banks  may  lend 
to,  or  borrow 
from,  other 
banks,  or  agents  other  than 
banks, in the money market’ 

Commodity 
benchmarks 

benchmark  where 
[…] 

‘a 
underlying  asset 
commodity 
[…], 
emission allowances […].’ 

the 
is  a 
excluding 

No 
needed.  

intervention 

Interest rate benchmarks are subject to a specific regime 
set out in Annex I to the BMR 

competent 
The 
authority 
responsible 
for  the  supervision  of 
the 
administrator 
decides  to  classify  a 
benchmark  according 
to  the  asset  class  it 
measures. 

Commodity benchmarks, with the exception of: 

- 

- 

- 

Commodity benchmarks with a majority of 
supervised entities contributing input data; 
Commodity benchmarks which are also 
regulated data benchmarks; 
Critical commodity benchmarks with gold, 
silver or platinum as the underlying 

are  subject  to  a  specific  regime  set  out  in  Annex  II  to 
the BMR.  

Other 

[any other benchmark] 

Subject to the general regime of the BMR 

(includes: 
equity,  fixed 
income,  debt, 
exchange  rate 
…)  

Table 3: Existing legislation: distinguishing benchmarks based on the type of input data 

Type 
input data 

of 

Definition 

Intervention  needed 
to  be  classified  as 
such 

Legal consequences 

benchmarks 
Regulated-data 
significant 
benefit 
from 
requirements 
alleviations  of 
regarding  controls  on 
input 
data, reporting of infringements 
and  contribution  of  input  data 
(see Art. 17). 

Regulated-data 
benchmarks 
cannot be designated as critical 
they 
benchmarks, 
exceed 
quantitative 
the 
thresholds set in Art. 20. 

even 

if 

Regulated-
data 
benchmark 

A benchmark determined by the application of a formula 
from: 

No 
needed.  

intervention 

(a) input data contributed entirely from: 

(i)  a  trading  venue  […]  or  a  trading  venue  in  a  third 
country  for  which  the  Commission  has  adopted  an 
[equivalence decision][…]; 

(ii) an approved publication arrangement (APA) […] or a 
consolidated tape provider […]; 

(iii) an approved reporting mechanism (ARM) […]; 

competent 
The 
authority  responsible 
for  the  supervision  of 
the 
administrator 
decides  to  classify  a 
benchmark  according 
to  the  type  of  input 
data used. 

(iv) an electricity exchange […]; 

(v) a natural gas exchange[…]; 

(vi) an auction platform; 

to  which 

(vii)  a  service  provider 
the  benchmark 
administrator  has  outsourced  the  data  collection  […], 
provided  that  the  service  provider  receives  the  data 
entirely  from  an  entity  referred  to  in  points  (i)  to  (vi)  of 
this point; 

(b) net asset values of investment funds 

Any 
benchmark 

other 

Any input data that does not qualify as regulated data 

Subject  to  the  general  regime 
of the BMR 

EN 

4 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Financial markets are global markets, and benchmarks are produced and used internationally. 
European banks, investment funds and other benchmark users (7) reference EU and non-EU 
benchmarks for a variety of purposes from hedging their own risks, including interest, credit, 
and  foreign  exchange  risks,  and  offering  products  to  hedge  the  risk  of  their  clients,  to 
establishing an investment portfolio using the benchmark either as an investment template or 
as  a  performance  benchmark  for  an  investment  portfolio.  The  BMR  sets  out  the  list  of  use 
cases captured by the Regulation as follows:  

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

issuance  of  a  financial  instrument  that  references  an  index  or  a  combination  of 
indices; 

determination  of  the  amount  payable  under  a  financial  instrument  or  a  financial 
contract by referencing an index or a combination of indices; 

being a party to a financial contract which references an index or a combination of 
indices; 

providing a borrowing rate […] calculated as a spread or mark-up over an index or a 
combination of indices […]; 

measuring the performance of an investment fund through an index or a combination 
of indices […]. 

The BMR also regulates the use of a benchmark within the EU (8). The BMR’s objective is 
therefore to ensure the proper functioning of the EU’s markets and a high degree of consumer 
and investor protection  with regard to benchmarks at EU level as underlined in Recital 6 of 
the BMR. Accordingly, Article 29 of the BMR regulates the uses of benchmarks in the Union.  

The BMR entered into application on 1 January 2018, with a transitional period for existing 
benchmarks  and  non-EU  benchmarks  until  31  December  2019.  The  deadline  for  non-EU 
benchmarks  was  later  postponed  twice;  in  July  2023  the  Commission  has  adopted  a  draft 
delegated  regulation  under  the  BMR  to  extend  the  transition  period  once  more  to  31 
December 2025 for third-country benchmarks used by EU supervised entities (9).  

The  BMR  draws  from  the  Principles  for  Financial  Benchmarks  of  the  International 
Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO principles) and the Principles for Oil Price 
Reporting  Agencies  of  the  International  Organization  of  Securities  Commissions  (IOSCO 
PRA  Principles).  These  two  sets  of  principles  were  developed  at  the  international  level  in 
2012-2013  in  response  to  various  revelations  about  benchmark  manipulation  and  are  an 
important  focal  point  for  benchmark  regulations  worldwide.  They  are  adhered  to  by  most 
professional benchmark administrators, mostly on a self-certification basis.  

• 

Overview of the proposal  

In line with the twofold objective of streamlining reporting and overall regulatory burden and 
responding to a mandate to review the BMR in terms of its scope and its rules for the use of 
non-EU benchmarks, this proposal aims to remedy the following two shortcomings: 

7 
8 

9 

Supervised entities are defined in Art. 3(1)(17) of the BMR. 
Article 2(1) BMR. The BMR regulates use of a benchmark by EU supervised entities, which we refer to 
as  ‘benchmark  users’.  The  clients  of  these  supervised  entities,  investors  and  businesses  seeking 
exposure to benchmarks through one of the use cases listed above will be referred to as ‘end users’ of 
benchmarks. 
See https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/regdel/#/delegatedActs/2036?lang=en  

EN 

5 

  EN 

 
(1) 

(2) 

Insufficient  proportionality  in  the  current  BMR,  notably  as  administrators  of  non-
significant benchmarks are subject to a registration requirement as of the first use of 
a benchmark they offer; 

Potential dissuasive effects of the requirement to obtain recognition or endorsement 
on willingness of third-country administrators to offer benchmarks in the EU. Non-
EU benchmark administrators, often not under supervision in their home jurisdiction, 
face significant additional compliance burden in seeking access to the EU market via 
recognition or endorsement. This presents a risk of reducing the number and variety 
of benchmarks available to EU benchmark users.  

The  policy  objectives  of  the  BMR  should  still  be  achieved  if  it  focuses  on  critical 
benchmarks,  significant  benchmarks,  EU  Climate  Transition  Benchmarks  and  EU  Paris-
Aligned Benchmarks.  Therefore, under this proposal  only  administrators of  those categories 
of  benchmarks  should  continue  to  be  subject  to  the  requirement  of  registration  or 
authorisation and to the majority of the substantive requirements.  

Benefits of rationalisation 

This proposal recalibrates the scope of the BMR. While the substantive rules remain the same, 
they will be applicable to lesser number of market participants following  an approach based 
on  the  systemic  importance  of  benchmarks.  Moreover,  the  proposal  entails  incremental 
improvements of procedural rules, clarifying certain aspects that were in practice conducive to 
legal uncertainty, in particular on the part of the benchmark users.  

This proposal will reduce the burden associated with the registration and related supervision 
of  administrators  of  non-significant  benchmarks.  These  administrators  make  up  the  large 
majority  (around  90  %)  of  the  total  number  of  administrators,  yet  their  benchmarks’  use  is 
less economically significant. 

The  BMR’s  track  record  further  shows  that  in  four  years  of  application,  only  one  fine  has 
been  imposed  by  a  national  competent  authority.  This  fine  was  imposed  by  BaFin,  the 
German Financial Services Supervisory Authority in 2021, in respect of a supervised entity’s 
controls  regarding  its  contribution  to  a  critical  benchmark  (10).  Under  this  proposal,  the 
activity  of  contributing  to  a  critical  benchmark  will  continue  to  be  subject  to  the  same 
supervisory scrutiny. 

For  EU  supervised  entities  using  benchmarks,  this  proposal  would  remove  the  usage 
restrictions contained in the third country chapter of the current BMR, that were identified as 
an impediment to the use of the majority of non-EU benchmarks (11).This proposal also aims 
to  streamline the current  compliance burdens for EU benchmarks users, such as the need to 
individually  verify  the  regulatory  status  of  indices  they  wish  to  use  as  benchmarks  by 
consulting websites and public registers. Currently, this burden reduction stems from the fact 
that benchmarks by default need to be approved for use. Under the proposal, it should suffice 
to  consult  the  Art.  36  register  to  verify  that  a  benchmark  is  not  subject  to  a  public  notice 
prohibiting  its  use.  To  enable  full  transparency,  all  relevant  decisions  by  supervisory 
authorities  should  be  made  public  and  gathered  in  the  Art.  36  register  as  well  as  in  the 
database  under  the  European  Single  Access  Point  Regulation  (‘ESAP’).  Moreover,  where  a 
competent  authority  or  ESMA  concludes  that  a  benchmark  administrator  has  not  complied 

10 

11 

EN 

See  ESMA’s  2021 
https://www.esma.europa.eu/document/report-sanctions-imposed-under-benchmarks-regulation-in-
2021. 
COM(2023) 455 final 

imposed  under 

report  on 

sanctions 

the  Benchmark  Regulation 

6 

  EN 

 
with  its  obligations,  a  public  notice  would  warn  EU  benchmark  users  that  a  particular 
benchmark  is  not  fit  for  use  in  the  Union  and  further  use  of  that  benchmark  would  be 
prohibited.  

Other policy options considered 

Alternative policy options could have included  a recalibration of the scope only for non-EU 
benchmarks,  or  a  reduction  of  the  substantive  requirements  on  all  administrators  without 
amending  the  scope  of  the  regulation.  The  former  was  discarded  on  the  basis  that  it  would 
have  skewed  the  playing  field  to  the  detriment  of  EU-based  administrators;  the  latter  might 
have  reduced  the  burden  on  EU  administrators  but  would  not  have  properly  addressed  the 
excessive administrative burden on EU administrators of non-significant benchmarks and the 
risk  the  third  country  rules  pose  for  EU  users’  access  to  non-EU  benchmarks,  and  it  could 
have put at risk the policy objective of ensuring safe and high quality benchmarks. 

Finally, in the absence of changes to the current regulatory framework, BMR would continue 
to apply to all benchmarks used by EU financial market participants, including third-country 
benchmarks.  As  described  in  the  Commission’s  report  published  on  14  July  2023  (12),  the 
rules  for  the  use  of  third-country  benchmarks  would  continue  to  act  as  a  disincentive  to 
offering  benchmarks  to  EU  customers  from  third  countries,  which  could  lead  to  limited 
availability of appropriate benchmarks, and potentially increased costs, for EU end users. As a 
result, EU benchmark users such as banks and investment firms would risk losing access to a 
large  part  of  the  world’s  indices  they  use  as  benchmarks  for  financial  instruments  or  as 
reference rates in financial contracts. This would mean that they would no longer be able to 
offer  investment  or  hedging  products  that  reference  even  very  mainstream  non-EU  indices. 
EU investors and companies would then have to turn to non-EU intermediaries for these basic 
services and risk paying a premium. The lesser availability of third country benchmarks in the 
EU could then result in limited competition and potential systemic risk. 

12 

Ibid 

EN 

7 

  EN 

 
 
Table 4 - Summary of the proposed reform 

Types of significant benchmarks 

Significant benchmarks by law - benchmarks where 
the administrator has concluded that the index is 
referenced by financial instruments and contracts, or 
used as a performance benchmark, by more than a total 
of EUR 50 billion in reference assets.  

Significant benchmarks by designation - 
benchmarks that have not reached the EUR 50 billion 
threshold but that play a significant role in the 
operation of one or several national (retail) markets 
(13). 

Who designates? 

Such benchmarks are automatically considered as 
significant (no need for a designation). Administrators 
have to notify their national competent authority when 
they reach the threshold. 

ESMA and national competent authorities can issue a 
statement indicating that a benchmark has surpassed 
the above threshold but its administrator has failed to 
notify its competent authority. 

EU benchmarks: the national competent authority  

ESMA is consulted before designation and issues an 
advice on the competent authority’s intended 
designation to ensure consistency of national 
designations. 

Non-EU benchmarks: ESMA, on request of a national 
competent authority (Article 24 BMR) 

Regulatory obligations 

• 

• 

for administrators located in the EU: authorisation or registration in accordance Article 34 BMR;  

for third-country administrators: recognition under Article 32 BMR with ESMA or endorsement under 
Article 33 BMR, except if an equivalence decision with the third country has been adopted. 

Transparency for benchmark users 

Who publishes the designation?  

Who publishes the designation? 

There is no formal designation.  

National competent authorities and ESMA issue a 
public statement where an administrator notifies its 
benchmark as significant, or where that competent 
authority or ESMA has clear and demonstrable 
grounds to consider a benchmark significant.  

In the ESMA register, the names of benchmarks 
subject to both types of statements are published, along 
with a link to that statement. 

The designation decision by a national competent 
authority is published according to that authority’s 
national laws. ESMA is notified of that designation 
and publishes that benchmark’s name and a link to the 
designation decision in the Art. 36 register. 

The designation decision by ESMA is published on the 
ESMA website. The benchmark’s name and a link to 
the designation decision is included in the Art. 36 
register. 

Information on the regulatory status on administrators of significant benchmarks 

The register kept by ESMA in accordance with Art. 36 (14) lists: 

- 
- 
- 

- 

administrators authorised or registered in the EU; 
non-EU administrators recognized or endorsed in the EU; 
benchmarks subject to a public statement by a competent authority or ESMA forbidding their use in the 
EU, along with links to such statements; 
a list of EU Climate Transition Benchmarks and EU Paris-Aligned Benchmarks available for use in the 
EU. 

13 
14 

An example of a relevant retail market could be mortgages or very popular investment funds.  
All information included in the Art. 36 register will also be accessible via the  European Single Access 
Point (ESAP). 

EN 

8 

  EN 

 
 
 
Under  the  proposal,  the  regulation  would  focus  on  critical  benchmarks,  significant 
benchmarks, PABs and CTBs, whether the administrator is in the Union or in a third country 
(15). 

The significance of a benchmark depends in first instance on its economic significance for the 
EU  market,  for  which  the  most  relevant  proxy  is  that  benchmark’s  aggregate  use.  The 
threshold  for  determining  significance  should  in  all  cases  be  calculated  based  on  a 
benchmark’s  use  ‘within  the  Union’,  without  distinction  between  EU-  and  non-EU 
benchmarks  (16).  That  threshold  should  continue  to  be  set  at  EUR  50  billion,  the  same 
threshold  distinguishing  between  non-significant  and  significant  benchmarks  under  the 
current BMR. 

By  way  of  derogation  to  the  general  rule,  to  account  for  specific  situations,  competent 
authorities  (for  EU  benchmarks)  and  ESMA  (for  non-EU  benchmarks)  should  be  able  to 
designate  benchmarks  below  the  quantitative  threshold  where  they  meet  certain  qualitative 
criteria that demonstrate their impact in the Union.  

15 

16 

In  order  to  safeguard  the  integrity  and  reputation  of  the  associated  ’EU  labels’,  EU  Paris-aligned 
Benchmarks and EU Climate Transition Benchmarks would remain in scope and can only be provided 
by administrators authorised or registered in the Union. 
In line with the definition of ‘use of a benchmark’ in Article 2(1) BMR. 

EN 

9 

  EN 

 
 
To  ensure  the  coherence  of  national  designation  but  maintain  adequate  flexibility,  this 
proposal provides for  a  system  of  coordination between  designations by  national authorities 
and ESMA. Its main principles are the following: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

A competent authority can only designate a benchmark as significant where no other 
competent authority has designated it before. 

Prior  to  designation,  a  competent  authority  should  invite  the  administrator,  and,  in 
case  of  cross-border  designations,  the  national  competent  authority  of  the  Member 
State of the administrator to provide any useful information.  

Prior to designation, a competent authority should consult ESMA.  

ESMA  should  advise  on  the  correct  application  of  the  criteria  for  national 
designation and examine whether the benchmark might qualify as significant in other 
Member States. 

Where more than one authority could designate a benchmark, they should come to an 
agreement which authority will do so. 

Where no agreement is reached, ESMA is empowered to settle the disagreement. 

Finally,  this  proposal  takes  into  account  the  specificities  of  EU  Climate  Transition 
Benchmarks  (EU  CTBs)  and  EU  Paris-Aligned  Benchmarks  (EU  PABs).  Benchmark 
providers can voluntarily choose to label benchmarks as EU CTBs or EU PABs, but doing so 
comes  with  specific  requirements  under  the  BMR.  Therefore,  EU  CTBs  and  EU  PABs  can 
only  be  provided  by  EU-based  benchmark  administrators  that  are  authorised  or  registered. 
Furthermore,  the provision of EU CTBs  and EU PABs, irrespective of their size,  should be 
regulated identically to the provision of significant benchmarks under the BMR. 

EN 

10 

  EN 

• 

Impacts of rationalisation 

The proposed  amendments  seek  to  rationalise the BMR based on  the premise  that currently 
regulatory burden is evenly spread over all administrators subject to the BMR, irrespective of 
their  economic  significance.  By  contrast,  the  subset  of  administrators  that  provide  the 
benchmarks  which  are  economically  most  significant  is  limited.  Notably,  benchmark 
administrators  are  obliged  to  apply  for  registration  as  of  the  moment  a  single  benchmark  is 
used in a financial instrument or contract. 

recognition 

(third-country  administrators) 

the  requirement  of  authorisation  or  registration  (EU 
The  proposal  would  remove 
administrators)  or  endorsement  or 
for 
administrators  of  only  non-significant  benchmarks.  The  reference  asset  volumes  of  non-
significant  benchmarks  are  low,  so  that  these  types  of  benchmarks  do  not  present  any 
systemic risk. As a result, the mandatory compliance with organisational requirements, on (i) 
governance and conflicts of interest, (ii) oversight function and a hierarchy and monitoring of 
input  data;  (iii)  setting  up  of  codes  of  conduct  as  regards  input  data;  (iv)  reporting  of 
infringements, and (v) methodological and benchmark statement disclosures would no longer 
apply to administrators of non-significant benchmarks. It should be recalled, however, that the 
requirements provided  for  in Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 ('the Market Abuse  Regulation’ 
or ‘MAR’) would continue to apply (17). Finally, it should also be recognised that there is a 
firmly established market practice for benchmark administrators to operate in accordance with 
the relevant IOSCO Principles. 

Box 1 

Significant vs non-significant benchmarks 

The  ESMA  register  currently  lists  73  EU  benchmark  administrators.  Of  the  benchmarks 
currently in use in the EU, only one (EURIBOR) has been designated as a critical benchmark 
under  ESMA  supervision  (18).  Three  -  the  Stockholm  Interbank  Offered  Rate  (STIBOR),  the 
Norway Interbank Offered Rate (NIBOR) and the Warsaw Interbank Offered Rate (WIBOR) 
are  critical  benchmarks under  national  supervision  (19).  All  these  critical  benchmarks  are 
interest rate benchmarks, and each of them is administered by a different EU administrator.  

17 

18 

19 

The Market Abuse Regulation applies to the behaviour in relation to benchmarks pursuant to Article 2. 
Article 12 of MAR provides that market manipulation also comprises the activity of transmitting false 
or misleading information or providing false or misleading inputs in relation to a benchmark where the 
person who made the transmission or provided the input knew or ought to have known that it was false 
or  misleading,  or  any  other  behaviour  which  manipulates  the  calculation  of  a  benchmark.  In  the 
legislative proposal “Listing Act”, the Commission proposed to amend the Market Abuse Regulation to 
bring benchmark administrators and contributors into the scope of administrative sanctioning regime by 
amending Article 30(2) letter (e) to (g). The proposed amendments to Article 23 also enhance the power 
of competent authorities regarding benchmark administrators. 
Article  20(1)(a)  BMR,  which  requires  that  a  benchmark  is  referenced  by  a  total  amount  of  financial 
contracts and financial instruments of at least EUR 500 billion. 
Article 20(1)(b) BMR. 

EN 

11 

  EN 

 
An  informal  survey  of  national  supervisors  by  ESMA  revealed  that  in  September  2022,  6 
benchmark  administrators  under  European  supervision  (three  EU  and  three  non-EU  (20)) 
offer  either  one  or  several  significant  benchmarks  (21).  The  remaining  66  administrators 
provide only non-significant benchmarks.  

This  rationalisation  will  result  in  better  targeting  of  supervisory  efforts  on  the  relevant 
categories of critical or significant benchmarks, defined as benchmarks referencing financial 
instruments  and  financial  contracts  or  investment  funds  for  a  total  amount  more  than  EUR 
500 billion (critical) or EUR 50 billion (significant) or, benchmarks that, based on a national 
or  EU-wide  assessment,  play  a  significant  role  in  a  (retail)  market  in  a  particular  Member 
States or in a market across several Member States.  

The proposal is expected to reduce the number of EU entities falling within the scope of the 
BMR. Of the 73 EU administrators currently under supervision, 66 administrators would fall 
outside  the  scope,  unless  specifically  designated  as  significant.  This  corresponds  to  a 
reduction  of  the  population  subject  to  mandatory  compliance  by  up  to  90%.  For  cost 
implications, please see the section on REFIT below. 

• 

Implications for third country administrators 

Ensuring equal treatment of administrators regardless of their location is a guiding principle 
of this proposal. Therefore, the scope of application of the BMR as regards EU administrators 
should be identical with that applicable to third-country administrators.  
We estimate that there are around 273 third-country benchmark administrators (22). Under the 
current rules, as of 1 January 2026, they would all have to secure access to the EU market via 
equivalence, recognition or endorsement in order for their benchmarks to remain available for 
use  by  EU  supervised  entities.  Currently,  out  of  this  number,  two  are  covered  by  an 
equivalence decision (23), two more are recognised by an EU supervised entity (24) and ten are 
recognised by ESMA  (25). The remaining  259 administrators can  until  1 January 2026 offer 
their  benchmarks  without  restriction  in  the  EU  in  accordance  with  the  transitional  period 
under  Article  51(5)  of  the  BMR.  This  means  that  only  around  5%  of  third  country 
administrators  have  successfully  used  one  of  the  three  available  ‘access  routes’  to  the  EU 
market. 

As  regards  significant  benchmarks,  it  is  estimated  that  at  least  six  non-EU  administrators 
provide at least one benchmark surpassing the EUR 50 billion usage threshold in the EU. Of 
these six, three have currently obtained recognition or endorsement in the EU. In view of the 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 
25 

Having  obtained  access  to  the  EU  market  via  recognition  or  endorsement.  This  is  in  addition  to  an 
unknown  number  of  non-EU  administrators  offering  significant  benchmarks  in  the  EU  under  the 
transitional provisions. 
 Benchmarks referenced by a total amount of financial contracts and financial instruments in excess of 
EUR 50 billion, or [which have] no or very few appropriate market-led substitutes and [could cause] a 
significant and adverse impact on market integrity, financial  stability, consumers, the real economy or 
the financing of households or businesses in one or more Member States. 
All  data  in  this  section  was  reported  by  ESMA,  including  on  the  basis  of  a  commercial  database 
(www.rimes.com).  
ABS  Benchmarks  Administration  CO  PTE.  LTD.  (Singapore)  and  ASX  Benchmarks  Limited 
(Australia). 
S&P Dow Jones Indices, LLC (USA) and SIX Index AG (Switzerland). 
Hedge  Fund  Research,  Inc.  (USA),  ICAP  information  Services  Limited  (UK),  Invesco Indexing  LLC 
(USA),  JPX  Market  Innovation  &  Research,  Inc.  (Japan), Leonteq  Securities  AG  (Switzerland),  LPX 
AG (Switzerland), Nikkei Inc. (Japan), Scientific Infra Pte Ltd (Singapore), STOXX Ltd. (Switzerland), 
WisdomTree, Inc. (USA). 

EN 

12 

  EN 

 
fact  that  this  proposal  provides  for  the  possibility  of  ESMA  designating  additional  non-EU 
benchmarks as significant, these six non-EU administrators of significant benchmarks should 
be seen as the minimum population that will still be subject to the third country regime. 

• 

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area 

This proposal is part of a package of measures to rationalise reporting requirements. This is a 
step in a continuous process looking closely at existing reporting requirements, with a view to 
assessing their continued relevance and to making them more efficient.  

This proposal aims to significantly reduce the number of benchmarks in scope of EU law and 
consequently also the regulatory burden for the majority of benchmark administrators and on 
users. At the same time, the increased focus of compliance and supervisory efforts on those 
benchmarks  that  are  economically  the  most  significant  will  ensure  achieving  the  policy 
objectives that underpin the BMR. 

In  addition,  this  reform  of  the  BMR  will  contribute  to  the  general  objectives  of  the  EU’s 
financial services policies which aim at safeguarding financial stability. The proposal will also 
contribute to the objectives of the Capital Markets Union action plan which aims at deepening 
the  EU  capital  markets  and  making  the  European  economy  and  European  companies  more 
competitive.  

The  approach  taken  in  this  proposal  should  be  contrasted  with  that  proposed  by  the 
Commission  in  its  proposal  on  the  transparency  and  integrity  of  Environmental,  Social  and 
Governance  (ESG)  rating  activities  (26).  The  ESG  ratings  initiative  is  principle  based  and 
largely  based  on  recommendations  published  by  IOSCO  in  November  2021.  Other 
jurisdictions that are working on improving the transparency and integrity of ESG ratings are 
also  basing  their  work  on  the  IOSCO  recommendations,  which  should  result  in  broad 
alignment  globally  on  the  treatment  of  these  providers.  On  that  basis,  the  ESG  ratings 
proposal  does  take  an  encompassing  approach  to  the  regulation  of  ESG  rating  activities, 
including  a  third  country  regime,  but  differs  significantly  from  the  BMR  in  that  it  does  not 
regulate the use of ESG ratings. In addition, the market for ESG ratings is at a less developed 
stage,  and  users  of  ESG  ratings  are  less  subject  to  the  market  power  of  specific  providers, 
noting also that users of ESG ratings are mostly institutional investors that may complement 
the input received with their own analysis, before deciding on a specific investment strategy. 
For that reason, the ESG ratings regime should not be expected to lead to user detriment in the 
same way the third country regime in the BMR would have done in the absence of legislative 
intervention. 

• 

Consistency with other Union policies 

Under the regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT), the Commission ensures 
that its legislation is fit for purpose, targeted to the needs of stakeholders and minimizes the 
burdens  while  achieving  its  objectives.  These  proposals  are  therefore  part  of  the  REFIT 
programme,  reducing  the  complexity  of  the  reporting  burdens  arising  from  the  EU  legal 
environment. 

While  certain  reporting  requirements  are  essential,  they  need  to  be  as  efficient  as  possible. 
They  should  avoid  overlaps,  remove  unnecessary  burdens  and  use  digital  and  interoperable 
solutions as much as possible.  

26 

COM(2023) 314 final; ESG ratings are ‘opinions’ from a ratings provider that should not be interpreted 
as a form of labelling or certification. 

EN 

13 

  EN 

 
2. 

• 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis 

Art. 114 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).  

Regulation  (EU)  2016/1011  has  removed  obstacles  to  trade  on  the  basis of  Art.  114  TFEU. 
The EU legislature can therefore rely on the same legal basis to now adapt Regulation (EU) 
2016/1011.  This  is in  accordance with  the Court’s reasoning in  case  C-58/08  Vodafone and 
Others [2010] I-04999, paragraph 34, where the Court stated: ‘Where an act based on Article 
95  EC  has  already  removed  any  obstacle  to  trade  in  the  area  that  it  harmonises,  the 
Community legislature cannot be denied the possibility of adapting that act to any change in 
circumstances  or  development  of  knowledge  having  regard  to  its  task  of  safeguarding  the 
general  interests  recognised  by  the  Treaty  (see,  to  that  effect,  British  American  Tobacco 
(Investments) and Imperial Tobacco, paragraphs 77 and 78).’ 

• 

Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)  

This  proposal  respects  the  principle  of  subsidiarity.  The  designation  of  benchmarks  that  are 
relevant  for  a  market  in  a  Member  State  is  incumbent  on  the  competent  authority  that  is 
closest to that relevant market. For example, if a particular benchmark is most frequently used 
by operators in a particular (national) market, it is incumbent on that competent authority to 
designate  the  benchmark  as  significant,  irrespective  of  where  the  administrator  of  that 
benchmark  is  domiciled.  If  that  benchmark  is  administered  in  another  Member  State, 
cooperation  between  competent  authorities  should  ensure  seamless  supervision  of  such  a 
benchmark. In light of the financial stability risks and the complexity of the procedures and 
the  losses  that  could  occur  amidst  financial  instability,  these  costs  of  supervision  are 
considered  proportionate.  Further,  measures  to  avoid  fragmentation  and  legal  uncertainty 
include  the  coordinating  and  mediating  role  of  ESMA  prior  to  national  designations  and 
grandfathering  rules  concerning  benchmark  administrators  that  have  already  obtained  an 
authorization or are registered with a national competent authority.  

• 

Proportionality 

This proposal introduces a more streamlined and proportionate approach to the regulation of 
benchmarks.  The  proposal  is  limited  to  those  changes  that  are  necessary  to  achieve  a 
framework  that  works  for  EU  market  participants.  It  does  not  go  beyond  what  is  strictly 
necessary to achieve its objectives. It is compatible with the proportionality principle, taking 
into account the right balance between the preservation of financial stability and the integrity 
of European markets, and the cost-efficiency of the measure.  

The proposed regulatory amendments will reduce legal uncertainty for EU supervised entities 
and  ensure  that  they  can  make  use  of  the  broadest  possible  range  of  EU  and  non-EU 
benchmarks.  Furthermore,  there  is  a  clear  distribution  of  competences  between  relevant 
national  authorities,  ESMA  and  the  Commission  when  it  comes  to  the  designation  of  a 
benchmark as critical or significant. The proposal also sets out a clear delineation of the legal 
consequences incumbent  on the  administrators who provide benchmarks that  are designated 
as critical or significant. 

Compared  to  the  existing  BMR,  this  proposal  also  increases  legal  certainty  as  to  the 
regulatory  status  of  benchmarks  that  are  designated  as  significant  –  the  designating  entities 
(competent  authorities)  have  a  mandate  to  clearly  communicate  the  regulatory  status  of  a 

EN 

14 

  EN 

 
designated benchmark. Moreover, these decisions will be easily available on the ESAP and in 
the register maintained by ESMA. 

• 

Choice of the instrument 

The  proposal  introduces  amendments  to  the  existing  regulation  based  on  Article  114  TFEU 
and should therefore also be a regulation. 

3. 

• 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EX-POST 

EVALUATIONS, 

OF 

STAKEHOLDER 

Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation 

This targeted review focuses on: 

– 

– 

ensuring  that  EU  benchmark  users  can  make  use  of  the  broadest  possible  range  of 
EU and non-EU benchmarks and remain competitive in the global capital markets; 

reducing regulatory burden on EU administrators of  benchmarks that are of limited 
economic  impact  while  maintaining  adequate  supervision  of  critical  and  significant 
benchmarks,  EU  Climate  Transition  Benchmarks  and  EU  Paris-Aligned 
Benchmarks. 

The Commission services collected data directly from market participants and held meetings 
with stakeholders about their current situation, concerns, and ideas about how to improve and 
reform  the BMR and, in  particular,  on the third-country chapter.  It  also  published a  call for 
evidence for 4 weeks and collected market participants views.  

• 

Consultation of the Member States 

The  Commission  services  consulted  Member  States’  experts  on  the  future  shape  of  the 
European  benchmark  regulation  at  the  meetings  of  the  Expert  Group  of  the  European 
Securities Committee on 22 June 2023 and on 21 September 2023 respectively.  

Most  Member  States  agreed  that  only  significant  benchmarks  should  be  in  the  scope  of 
regulation and that benchmarks surpassing a usage threshold of EUR 50 billion should be in 
scope automatically. At the same time, some Member States argued in favour of the need for 
national discretion to deem certain indices significant, even if this benchmark is mainly in use 
in one Member State or if the agreed thresholds for designation as relevant for the EU were 
not  met. In a subsequent discussion on the contours of a national  designation  scheme, most 
Member  States  indicated  that  they  would  consider  designating  a  limited  number  of 
benchmarks, mainly provided by administrators located in that Member State.  

Most Member States consider it appropriate to apply the designation threshold or criteria in 
the same manner to both benchmarks administered within the EU and those outside of the EU.  

Irrespective  of  the  approach  chosen  for  determining  the  threshold  for  designating  a 
benchmark  as  significant,  most  Member  States  that  expressed  a  view  on  the  issue  wish  to 
retain  commodity  benchmarks  provided  by  price  reporting  agencies  within  the  scope  of  the 
BMR and apply the rules in Annex II of the BMR to this benchmark category. 

• 

Stakeholder consultations 

The targeted consultation on ‘the regime applicable to the use of benchmarks administered in 
a  third  country’,  was  carried  out  between  20  May  and  12  August  2022.  64  responses  were 

EN 

15 

  EN 

received  to  the  online  questionnaire.  A  detailed  summary  of  the  responses  received  was 
included in the Commission’s report on the use of third country benchmarks in the EU (27). 

• 

Collection and use of expertise 

These  proposals  have  been  identified  following  a  process  of  internal  scrutiny  of  existing 
reporting  obligations  and  are  based  on  the  experience  in  implementing  related  legislation. 
Since  this  is  one  step  in  the  process  of  continuous  assessment  of  reporting  requirements 
arising from EU legislation, the scrutiny of such burdens and of their impact on stakeholders 
will continue. 

• 

Impact assessment 

No impact assessment was prepared for this proposal since: 

– 

– 

– 

The  proposal  responds  to  two  specific  policy  objectives  which,  to  a  large  extent, 
predetermine the policy option presented in this proposal.  

This  proposal  consists  of  a  targeted  recalibration  of  the  scope  of  the  BMR  and  the 
enhancement of proportionality features; it does not modify the substantive rules or 
the mode of supervision. While it maintains the distinction between non-significant 
benchmarks  and  other  benchmarks,  along  lines  which  already  exist  in  the  BMR 
today, it aligns the regulatory framework more closely with benchmark regulation in 
other jurisdictions, which is generally based on designation of the most economically 
impactful indices.  

Moreover,  this  proposal  was  informed  by  an  impact  assessment  conducted  in  2020 
(28)  and  by  a  Commission  report  presented  to  the  co-legislators  in  2023  (29), 
including  two public consultations  (30).  The intention to  proceed with  this initiative 
without an impact assessment was announced in a call for evidence published from 1 
March to 29 March 2023 (31). 

• 

Regulatory fitness and simplification 

This  is  a  REFIT  proposal,  aimed  at  simplifying  legislation  and  reducing  the  burdens  for 
stakeholders.  This  legislative  proposal  is  expected  to  bring  cost  savings  for  EU  benchmark 
providers  that  do  not  provide  significant  benchmarks  as  well  as  all  European  benchmark 
users.  

27 
28 
29 
30 

31 

COM(2023) 455 final. 
SWD(2020) 147 final. 
COM(2023) 455 final. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12016-Report-pursuant-to-
Article-54-of-the-Benchmark-Regulation/public-consultation_en 
https://finance.ec.europa.eu/regulation-and-supervision/consultations/finance-2022-benchmarks-third-
country_en. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13762-Review-of-the-scope-
and-third-country-regime-of-the-Benchmark-Regulation_en.  

and 

EN 

16 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
Although  it  was  not  possible  to  produce  precise  estimates  (32),  this  proposal  is  expected  to 
generate cost savings for benchmark administrators, benchmark users and national competent 
authorities tasked with supervising benchmark administrators. 

– 

– 

– 

Benchmark  administrators  will  in  all  instances  save  on  compliance  costs,  in 
particular costs generated by reporting requirements. Those administrators providing 
only  non-significant  benchmarks  will  save  both  on  the  compliance  cost  to  ensure 
their organisational setup and that their provision of benchmarks meets the additional 
detailed requirements of the BMR over and above what is stipulated by the IOSCO 
Principles (33), and on annual supervisory fees (34). New entrants will moreover save 
on  the  initial  registration  fee.  For  administrators  providing  benchmarks  which  are 
significant, critical or EU CTBs or EU PABs, cost savings  are unlikely. Still, these 
administrators  may  also  benefit  from  savings  to  the  extent  they  also  provide  non-
significant benchmarks. 

Benchmark users are expected to  benefit from the increased  availability of EU  and 
non-EU benchmarks, from a regulatory environment that, through the rationalisation 
of  regulatory  requirements,  is  more  open  for  innovation,  and  from  increased 
competition  in  the market  for benchmarks.  Obviously, the continued availability of 
non-EU benchmarks could be an important cost saving. One major credit institution 
provided  an  estimate  that  revenue  related  to  providing  services  using  non-EU 
benchmarks is in the range of EUR 100 - 150 million. This is revenue which would 
be at risk if some or all non-EU benchmarks would become unavailable for use in the 
EU. 

Competent  authorities  in  the  EU  will  see  a  significant  reduction  in  the  number  of 
benchmarks  and  the  number  of  benchmark  administrators  under  their  supervision. 
Although  it  cannot  be  assumed  that  the  savings  will  be  linear  to  the  decrease  in 
population  under  supervision,  as  the  administrators  that  remain  under  supervision 
will be those responsible for more economically impactful benchmarks, there should 
be a significant cost reduction as well as an opportunity to focus supervisory capacity 
on critical benchmarks, significant benchmarks, EU CTBs and EU PABs. 

• 

Fundamental rights 

The proposal upholds fundamental rights and the principles recognised by the EU Charter of 
Fundamental  Rights,  in  particular  the  freedom  to  conduct  a  business  (Article  16).  This 
initiative  aims  to  ensure  that  EU  benchmark  users  can  use  the  widest  possible  range  of  EU 
and  non-EU  benchmarks  and  will  create  a  market  environment  for  EU  benchmark  users  to 
compete with their non-EU counterparts. It will therefore, help to improve the right to conduct 
business freely. The proposed amendments to the BMR are not  expected to have a negative 

32 

33 

34 

The  targeted  consultation  during  the  summer  of  2022  contained  questions  on  costs  but  yielded  only 
anecdotal information. 
One  major  benchmark  administrator  estimated  the  all-in  setup  cost  as  an  EU-authorised  benchmark 
administrator  at  EUR  2-3  million,  with  annual  ongoing  supervision  cost  between  EUR  1,5  and  2 
million. 
These fees vary significantly, from flat annual fees of a few hundred EUR charged by certain national 
authorities to fees based on actual time expenditure on supervision. 

EN 

17 

  EN 

 
 
 
impact  on  consumer  protection  as  the  review  will  keep  in  scope  critical  and  significant 
benchmarks that are the most widely used and relevant for consumer and investor protection. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

The  initiative  is  not  expected  to  have  any  financial  impact  on  the  EU  budget.  Initial 
indications  are  that  the  number  of  benchmarks  and  benchmark  administrators  under  the 
supervision  of  ESMA  would  decrease  or,  depending  on  the  exercise  of  the  designation 
powers,  stay  constant.  This  would  imply  that  ESMA,  depending  on  the  exercise  of  the 
designation  powers,  would  need  less  staff  for  its  direct  supervision  of  benchmark 
administrators. 

5. 

• 

OTHER ELEMENTS 

Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements 

An evaluation is envisaged 5 years after the implementation of the measure and in line with 
the Commission’s Better Regulation guidelines. The evaluation aims to assess, among other 
things, how effective and efficient the Regulation has been in achieving the policy objectives 
and to decide whether new measures or amendments are needed. 

• 

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 

Article 1 – Amendments to the Benchmark Regulation  

Article 2(1) of the Benchmark Regulation sets out the scope of the regulation. The proposal 
amends Article 1(1) to reflect the new approach and adds a new paragraph (1a). It also defines 
the type of benchmarks to which specific Titles in Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 apply. These 
are  critical  benchmarks,  significant  benchmarks,  EU  Paris-aligned  Benchmarks  and  EU 
Climate Transition Benchmarks. Administrators of benchmarks that are not considered critical 
in accordance with Article 20(1) of the Regulation are in scope once they offer one or more 
benchmarks  that  are  designated  as  significant  in  accordance  with  the  new  Article  24.  Non-
significant benchmarks are therefore no longer required to apply the requirements under Titles 
II (Benchmark integrity and reliability), III (Requirement for different types of benchmarks), 
IV  (Transparency  and  consumer  protection)  and  VI  (Authorisation,  Registration  and 
Supervision of Administrators) (new paragraph 3 in Article 2). 

In Article 3(1) point 26 the definition of what constitutes a significant benchmark is amended.  

To  safeguard  the  integrity  of  the  label  and  provide  for  effective  supervision,  the 
administrators of EU Paris-aligned Benchmark or EU Climate Transition Benchmarks remain 
in  scope  of  the  BMR,  irrespective  of  their  significance,  subject  to  them  obtaining 
authorisation or registration in the EU. 

In  line  with  the  adapted  scope,  special  ’negative  designation’  rules  for  foreign-exchange 
benchmarks and non-significant benchmarks are redundant and can be repealed. 

EU Paris-aligned Benchmarks and EU Climate Transition Benchmarks 

In Article 19a, a new paragraph 4 is added to safeguard the integrity of the label and provide 
for effective supervision. The administrators of EU Paris-aligned Benchmark or EU Climate 
Transition Benchmarks remain in scope of the BMR, irrespective of their significance, subject 
to them obtaining authorisation or registration in the EU. 

Significant benchmarks 

EN 

18 

  EN 

Amendments to Article 24 make up the core of this proposal. Its first paragraph governs the 
determination  of  whether  a  benchmark  is  significant  on  the  basis  of  a  simple  numerical 
threshold:  whether  such  benchmarks  are  used  as  a  reference  for  assets  whose  cumulative 
value exceeds EUR 50 billion.  

Article 24(2), sets out the obligation, incumbent on all administrators of benchmarks used by 
supervised  entities  in  the  EU,  to  notify  the  Commission  when  one  or  several  of  the 
benchmarks  they  administer  exceeds  a  usage  threshold  of  EUR  50  billion.  This  obligation 
applies  to  an  administrator  located  in  the  Union  and  to  an  administrator  located  in  a  third 
country. In line with Article 2(1) of the BMR, the usage threshold should be calculated on the 
use of a benchmark within the EU.  

Once  the  notification  is  received,  such  benchmarks  are  considered  as  significant  and  must 
comply with the requirements applicable to significant benchmarks (Article 24a, paragraph 1).  

According to Article 24, a national competent authority may also issue a decision stating that 
a  benchmark,  whose  usage  within  the  EU  does  not  exceed  EUR  50  billion  meets  the 
qualitative  conditions  for  significance  set  out  in  Article  24,  paragraph  1,  point  (b),  with 
respect  to  its  Member  State  (‘NCA  designation’).  Such  designations  should  remain  limited 
and should be motivated in a reasoned decision from the competent authority, setting out in 
clear terms the reasons why a benchmark is significant under point (b) in that Member State.  

The  competent  authorities  should  publish  designation  decisions,  and  ESMA  should  compile 
all  designation  decisions  issued  by  them.  This  allows  users  to  easily  verify  the  designation 
status  of  benchmarks  they  intend  to  use.  Supervised  entities  should  be  obliged  to  regularly 
consult these sources to check the designation status of any benchmarks they intend to use. 

A parallel system for the designation of non-EU benchmarks as significant in accordance with 
qualitative  criteria  is  laid  down  in  Art.  24(6).  The  responsibility  is  conferred  in  this  case  to 
ESMA, acting upon the request of one or more competent authorities. The qualitative criteria 
are similar to those for the designation of EU benchmarks, as are the measures to ensure the 
transparency of designations. 

Article  2  provides  that  entry  into  force  occurs  on  the  twentieth  day  following  that  of 
publication. Application of this act is deferred until 1 January 2026. 

EN 

19 

  EN 

2023/0379 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 as regards the scope of the rules for benchmarks, 
the use in the Union of benchmarks provided by an administrator located in a third 
country, and certain reporting requirements 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 114 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank35, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee36,  
Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure37, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

Reporting  requirements  play  a  key  role  in  ensuring  proper  monitoring  and  correct 
enforcement of legislation. However, it is important to streamline those requirements 
in order to ensure that they fulfil the purpose for which they were intended and to limit 
the administrative burden. 
Under Regulation (EU)  2016/1011 of the European  Parliament and of the Council38, 
all  administrators  of  benchmarks,  regardless  of  the  systemic  relevance  of  those 
benchmarks  or  of  the  amount  of  financial  instruments  or  contracts  that  use  those 
benchmarks  as  reference  rates  or  as  performance  benchmarks,  are  to  comply  with 
several  very  detailed  requirements,  including  requirements  on  their  organisation,  on 
the  governance  and  conflicts  of  interest,  on  oversight  functions,  on  input  data,  on 
codes  of  conduct,  on  reporting  of  infringements,  and  on  methodological  and 
benchmark  statement  disclosures.  Those  very  detailed  requirements  have  put  a 
disproportionate  regulatory  burden  on  administrators  of  smaller  benchmarks  in  the 
Union  considering  the  aims  of  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1011,  that  is  to  safeguard 

35 
36 
37 
38 

OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on indices 
used as benchmarks in financial instruments and financial contracts or to measure the performance of 
investment  funds  and  amending  Directives  2008/48/EC  and  2014/17/EU  and  Regulation  (EU) 
No 596/2014 (OJ L 171, 29.6.2016, p. 1). 

EN 

20 

  EN 

 
 
(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

financial  stability  and  to  avoid  negative  economic  consequences  that  result  from  the 
unreliability of benchmarks. It is therefore necessary to reduce that regulatory burden 
by focusing on those benchmarks with the greatest economic relevance for the Union 
market,  i.e.  significant  and  critical  benchmarks,  and  on  those  benchmarks  that 
contribute to the promotion of key Union policies, i.e. EU Climate Transition and EU 
Paris-aligned Benchmarks. For that reason, the scope of application of Titles II, III, IV 
and  VI  of  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1011  should  be  reduced  to  those  specific 
benchmarks. 

Under Article 18a of Regulation (EU) 2016/1011, the Commission can exempt certain 
spot  foreign  exchange  benchmarks  from  the  scope  of  that  Regulation  to  ensure  their 
continued  availability  for  use  in  the  Union.  In  view  of  the  need  for  a  revised  and 
narrower  focus  of  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1011  on  critical  benchmarks,  significant 
benchmarks, EU Climate Transition Benchmarks and EU Paris-Aligned Benchmarks, 
there is no longer a need for the specific exemption regime for spot foreign exchange 
benchmarks.. 

Pursuant  to  Article  19d  of  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1011,  administrators  of  significant 
benchmarks  are  required  to  endeavour  to  provide  an  EU  Climate  Transition 
Benchmark  or  an  EU  Paris-aligned  Benchmark  by  1  January  2022.  As  this  date  has 
elapsed, it is appropriate to delete this provision. 

The  criteria  for  assessing  whether  a  benchmark  is  a  significant  benchmark  are 
currently laid down in Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1011. Benchmarks will be 
considered  to  be  significant,  inter  alia  where  they  meet  the  threshold  laid  down  in 
Article 24(1), point (a), of that Regulation. 

Benchmark  administrators  are  best  placed  to  monitor  the  use  in  the  Union  of  the 
benchmarks  they  provide.  They  should  therefore  notify  the  competent  authority 
concerned or the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), depending on 
where that administrator is located, that the aggregate use of one of their benchmarks 
has exceeded the threshold  laid down in  Article 24(1), point (a), of Regulation  (EU) 
2016/1011. To ensure that benchmark administrators  have sufficient time to adapt to 
the requirements that apply to significant benchmarks, they should only be subject to 
those requirements within 60 working days after having submitted such a notification. 
In  addition,  benchmark  administrators  should  provide  the  competent  authorities 
concerned  or  ESMA,  upon  request,  with  all  information  necessary  to  assess  that 
benchmark’s aggregate use in the Union. Where a benchmark administrator omits or 
refuses  to  notify  that  the  usage  of  one  of  its  benchmarks  has  exceeded  the  threshold 
laid  down  in  Article 24(1),  point  (a),  of  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1011,  and  where 
competent  authorities  have  clear  and  demonstrable  grounds  to  consider  that  the 
threshold  has  been  exceeded,  the  competent  authorities  concerned  or  ESMA,  as 
appropriate,  should  be  able  to  declare  that  the  threshold  has  been  exceeded,  having 
first  given  the  administrator  the  opportunity  to  be  heard.  Such  declaration  should 
trigger the same obligations for the  benchmark administrator as  a notification  by the 
benchmark administrator. This should be without prejudice to the ability of ESMA or 
competent authorities to impose administrative sanctions on those administrators that 
fail to notify that one of their benchmarks has exceeded the applicable threshold. 

(7)  Markets,  prices  and  the  regulatory  environment  evolve  over  time.  To  take  those 
evolutions into account, the Commission should be empowered to  further specify the 
methodology  to  be  used  by  administrators  and  competent  authorities  to  calculate  the 

EN 

21 

  EN 

(8) 

(9) 

total value of financial instruments, financial contracts or investment funds referencing 
a benchmark. 

However, in exceptional cases, there may be benchmarks with an aggregate use below 
the  threshold  laid  down  in  Article  24(1),  point  (a),  of  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1011 
which, due to the specific situation in the market of a Member State, are nevertheless 
of  such  importance  to  that  Member  State  that  any  lack  of  reliability  would  be  of 
comparable impact as that of a benchmark the usage of which exceeds that threshold. 
For  that  reason,  the  competent  authority  of  that  Member  State  should  be  able  to 
designate  such  a  benchmark,  where  that  benchmark  is  provided  by  an  EU 
administrator,  as  significant  on  the  basis  of  a  set  of  qualitative  criteria.  For 
benchmarks  provided  by  a  non-EU  administrator,  it  should  be  ESMA  that,  on  the 
request  of  one  or  more  competent  authorities,  designates  such  a  benchmark  as  a 
significant benchmark. 

To ensure the consistency and coordination of national designations of benchmarks as 
significant  benchmarks,  competent  authorities intending  to  designate a benchmark as 
significant  should  consult  ESMA.  For  the  same  reason,  a  competent  authority  of  a 
Member State that intends to designate as significant a benchmark that is provided by 
an  administrator  that  is  located  in  another  Member  State  should  also  consult  the 
competent authority of that other Member State. Where competent authorities disagree 
which among them should designate and supervise a benchmark, ESMA should settle 
that disagreement in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council39. 

(10)  To  respect  the  right  to  be  heard,  a  competent  authority  or  ESMA  should,  before 
designating a benchmark as significant, allow the administrator of that benchmark to 
provide any useful information relevant to its designation. 

(11)  For  the  designation  as  a  significant  benchmark  to  be  as  transparent  as  possible, 
competent  authorities  or  ESMA  should  issue  a  designation  decision  containing  the 
reasons  why  that  benchmark  is  considered  significant.  Competent  authorities  should 
publish  the  designation  decision  on  their  website  and  should  notify  that  decision  to 
ESMA.  For  the  same  reasons,  where  ESMA  designates  a  benchmark  as  significant 
upon  a  request  of  a  competent  authority,  ESMA  should  publish  the  designation 
decision on its website and should notify the requesting competent authority thereof. 

(12)  EU  Climate  Transition  Benchmarks  and  EU  Paris-aligned  Benchmarks  are  specific 
categories  of  benchmarks,  defined  by  their  compliance  with  rules  governing  their 
methodology and the disclosures their administrator are to make. For that reason, and 
to  prevent  claims  that  could  lead  users  to  think  that  such  benchmarks  are  compliant 
with the standards attached to those labels, it is necessary to subject those benchmarks 
to mandatory registration or authorisation, as appropriate, and to supervision.  

(13)  To ensure the timely start of the supervision of significant benchmarks, administrators 
of  benchmarks  that  have  become  significant  either  by  reaching  the  applicable 
quantitative threshold or by designation, should be required to seek, within 60 working 
days,  authorisation  or  registration  or,  in  the  case  of  benchmarks  provided  by  an 
administrator located in a third-country, endorsement or recognition. 

39 

Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 
establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), amending 
Decision  No  716/2009/EC  and  repealing  Commission  Decision  2009/77/EC  (OJ  L  331,  15.12.2010, 
p. 84). 

EN 

22 

  EN 

 
(14)  To mitigate the risks linked to the use of benchmarks that are potentially not safe for 
use in the Union, and to warn potential users, competent authorities and ESMA should 
be able to issue a warning under the form of a public notice that the administrator of a 
significant benchmark does not comply with the applicable requirements, in particular 
as  regards  the  compliance  with  the  obligation  for  the  benchmark  administrator  to  be 
authorised, registered, endorsed or recognised, as applicable. Once such a warning has 
been issued, supervised entities should no longer be able to add new references to such 
benchmarks or combination of benchmarks. Similarly, to prevent the risks entailed by 
the use of benchmarks that claim compliance with the EU Climate Transition and EU 
Paris-aligned labels without being subject to adequate supervision, supervised entities 
should neither be able to add new references to an EU Climate Transition Benchmark 
or an EU Paris-aligned Benchmark or combination of such benchmarks in the Union 
where  the  administrator  of  those  benchmarks  is  not  included  in  ESMA’s  register  of 
administrators and benchmarks.  

(15)  To avoid potentially excessive market disruptions following the prohibition of the use 
of a benchmark, competent authorities or ESMA should be able to allow the temporary 
continued use of such a benchmark.  To ensure a sufficient  level  of transparency  and 
protection  vis-à-vis  end-investors,  users  of  those  benchmarks  that  are  subject  to  a 
warning  under  the  form  of  a  public  notice  should  identify  a  suitable  alternative  to 
replace  those  benchmarks  within  6  months  following  the  publication  of  that  public 
notice,  or  otherwise  ensure  that  clients  are  appropriately  informed  of  the  lack  of  an 
alternative benchmark. 

(16)  Under  Article  32  of  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1011,  recognition  of  benchmark 
administrators located in a third country serves as a temporary means of access to the 
Union  market  pending  the  adoption  of  an  equivalence  decision  by  the  Commission. 
However,  given  the  very  limited  number  of  third-country  benchmarks  covered  by 
equivalence decisions, such recognition should become a permanent means of access 
to the Union market for such benchmark administrators. 

(17)  Benchmarks  covered  by  an  equivalence  decision  are  considered  to  be  equivalently 
regulated and supervised to Union benchmarks. The obligation to seek endorsement or 
recognition  should  therefore  not  apply  to  administrators  of  significant  benchmarks 
located in a third country that benefit from an equivalence decision. 

(18) 

In the interest of transparency and to ensure legal certainty, competent authorities that 
designate a benchmark as significant should specify the potential use restrictions that 
arise where the administrator of such a benchmark fails to be authorised or registered 
or fails to comply with the endorsement or recognition requirements, as applicable.  

(19)  To  mitigate  the  risks  linked  to  the  use  of  inadequately  supervised  significant 
benchmarks,  where  the  administrator  of  a  benchmark  that  becomes  significant  does 
not seek authorisation, registration, recognition or endorsement within the prescribed 
time  limit,  or  where  the  authorisation,  registration,  recognition  or  endorsement  for 
such  benchmark  administrator  fails,  or  where  an  administrator  is  withdrawn  its 
authorisation,  registration,  endorsement  or  recognition,  the  competent  authority  or 
ESMA,  as  applicable,  should  issue  a  public  notice  stating  that  the  significant 
benchmarks provided by that administrator are not suitable for use in the Union.  

(20)  Benchmark users rely on transparency  regarding the regulatory status of benchmarks 
they  use  or  intend  to  use.  For  that  reason,  ESMA  should  list  in  the  register  of 
administrators and benchmarks those benchmarks that are subject to the most detailed 
requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/1011, either because their use in the 

EN 

23 

  EN 

Union  is  above  the  set  threshold  for  significant  benchmarks,  because  they  are 
designated  as  significant  by  a  national  supervisor  or  by  ESMA,  or  because  they  are 
critical  benchmarks.  For the same  reason,  ESMA should also  list  in  that register  EU 
Climate  Transition  Benchmarks  and  EU  Paris-aligned  Benchmarks  provided  by 
administrators that are authorised or registered. Finally, ESMA should also list in the 
register the benchmarks for which a competent authority or ESMA has issued a public 
notice prohibiting the further use of that benchmark. To further reduce the burden on 
users,  all  such  information  should  also  be  made  readily  available  on  the  European 
Single Access Point (ESAP). 

(21)  To  ensure  a  seamless  transition  to  the  rules  introduced  under  this  Regulation  and  to 
avoid  that  administrators  have  to  go  through  a  procedure  for  registration  or 
authorisation  more  than  once,  competent  authorities  and  ESMA  should  provide  less 
burdensome  application  procedures  for  administrators  that  are  already  authorised, 
registered, endorsed or recognised and that apply for a new authorisation, registration, 
endorsement  or  recognition  within  two  years  from  the  date  of  application  of  this 
amending Regulation. 

(22) 

In  order  to  give  competent  authorities  and  ESMA  the  necessary  time  to  gather 
information on potential significant benchmarks and to adapt existing infrastructure to 
the new framework proposed under this amending Regulation, the date of application 
of this Regulation should be deferred. 

(23)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 should therefore be amended accordingly, 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

Amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 

Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 is amended as follows: 

(1) 

Article 2 is amended as follows: 

(a) 

the following paragraph 1a is inserted:  

‘1a.  Titles  II,  III,  IV  and  VI  .apply  only  in  respect  of  critical  benchmarks, 
significant benchmarks, EU Climate Transition Benchmarks and EU Paris-aligned 
Benchmarks.’; 

(b) 

in paragraph 2, points (g) and (i) are deleted; 

(2) 

in Article 3, paragraph 1 is amended as follows: 

(a) 

point (22a) is deleted; 

(b)  point (27) is deleted; 

(3) 

Article 5 is amended as follows: 

(a) 

in paragraph 5, second subparagraph, the last sentence is deleted ; 

(b)  paragraph 6 is deleted; 

(4) 

Article 11 is amended as follows: 

(a) 

in paragraph 5, first subparagraph, the last sentence is deleted; 

(b)  paragraph 6 is deleted; 

(5) 

Article 13 is amended as follows: 

EN 

24 

  EN 

(a) 

in paragraph 3, first subparagraph, the last sentence is deleted; 

(b)  paragraph 4 is deleted; 

(6) 

Article 16 is amended as follows: 

(a) 

in paragraph 5, second subparagraph, the last sentence is deleted; 

(b)  paragraph 6 is deleted; 

(7) 

in Title III, the title of Chapter 2 is replaced by the following: 

(8) 

(9) 

‘Interest rate benchmarks’; 

Article 18a is deleted; 

in Article 19a, the following paragraph 4 is added:  

‘4.  Administrators  that  are  not  authorised  or  registered  pursuant  to  Article  34  shall 
not : 

(a) provide EU Climate Transition Benchmarks or Paris-aligned Benchmarks;  

(b) indicate or suggest, in the name of the benchmarks they make available for the use 
in the Union or in the legal or marketing documentation for those benchmarks, that the 
benchmarks  they  make  available  comply  with  the  requirements  applicable  to  the 
provision of EU Climate Transition Benchmarks or EU Paris-aligned Benchmarks.’; 

(10) 

(11) 

Article 19d is deleted; 

Article 24 is replaced by the following:  

‘Article 24 

Significant benchmarks 

1.  A benchmark which is not a critical benchmark shall be significant where either of 

the following conditions is met: 

(a)  the  benchmark  is  used  directly  or  indirectly  within  a  combination  of 
benchmarks  within  the  Union  as  a  reference  for  financial  instruments  or 
financial contracts or for measuring the performance of investments funds, that 
have  a  total  average  value  of  at  least  EUR  50  billion  on  the  basis  of  all  the 
range of maturities or tenors of the benchmark, where applicable, over a period 
of six months; 

(b)  the  benchmark  has  been  designated  as  significant  in  accordance  with  the 
procedure  laid  down  in  paragraphs  3,  4  and  5  or  the  procedure  laid  down  in 
paragraph 6. 

2.  An administrator shall immediately notify the competent authority of the Member 
State  where  it  is  located  or,  if  located  in  a  third  country,  ESMA,  where  one  or 
several  of  that  administrator’s  benchmarks  exceed  the  threshold  referred  to  in 
paragraph  1,  point  (a).  Following  receipt  of  that  notification,  the  competent 
authority or ESMA, as appropriate, shall publish a statement on its website stating 
that that benchmark is significant. 

An  administrator  shall,  upon  request,  provide  the  competent  authority  of  the 
Member  State  where  it  is  located  or,  if  located  in  a  third  country,  ESMA,  with 
information as regards whether the threshold referred to in paragraph 1, point (a) 
has been effectively exceeded. 

EN 

25 

  EN 

Where  a  competent  authority  or,  in  the  case  of  a  third-country  administrator, 
ESMA, has clear and demonstrable grounds to consider that a benchmark exceeds 
the  threshold  referred  to  in  paragraph  1,  point  (a),  the  competent  authority  or 
ESMA  may  issue  a  notice  stating  that  fact.  Such  a  notice  shall  trigger  the  same 
obligations  for  the  benchmark  administrator  as  a  notification  as  referred  to  in 
paragraph 2. At least 10 working days before issuing such notice, the competent 
authority or ESMA shall inform the administrator of the benchmark concerned of 
its findings, and invite that administrator to submit any observation. 

3.  A  competent  authority  may,  having  consulted  ESMA  in  accordance  with 
paragraph  4  and  taking  into  account  its  advice,  designate  a  benchmark  provided 
by  an  administrator  located  in  the  Union  that  does  not  meet  the  condition  laid 
down in paragraph 1, point (a), as significant where that benchmark fulfils all of 
the following conditions: 

(a) the benchmark has no, or very few, appropriate market-led substitutes;  

(b) in the event that the benchmark ceases to be provided, or is provided on the 
basis of input data no longer fully  representative of the underlying market  or 
economic  reality  or  on  the  basis  of  unreliable  input  data,  there  would  be 
significant  and  adverse  impacts  on  market  integrity,  financial  stability, 
consumers, the real economy, or the financing of households and businesses in 
its Member State; 

(c) the benchmark has not been designated by a competent authority of another 
Member State. 

Where a competent authority concludes that a benchmark fulfils the criteria set out 
in the first subparagraph, the competent authority shall prepare a draft decision to 
designate  the  benchmark  as  significant  and  notify  that  draft  decision  to  the 
administrator  concerned  and  to  the  competent  authority  of  the  administrator’s 
home Member State where relevant. The competent authority concerned shall also 
consult ESMA on the draft decision. 

The administrators  concerned  and  the  competent authority of the administrator’s 
home Member State shall have 15 working days from the date of notification of 
the  draft  decision  of  the  designating  competent  authority  concerned  to  provide 
observations  and  comments  in  writing.  The  designating  competent  authority 
concerned  shall  inform  ESMA  of  the  observations  and  comments  received  and 
shall  duly  consider  those  observations  and  comments  before  adopting  a  final 
decision.  

The  designating  competent  authority  shall  notify  ESMA  of  its  decision,  and 
publish  the  decision,  including  the  reasons  for  which  it  was  made  and  the 
consequences of this designation, on its website without undue delay.’; 

4.   When  consulted  by  a  competent  authority  on  the  intended  designation  of  a 
benchmark  as  significant  in  accordance  with  paragraph  3,  first  subparagraph, 
ESMA  shall,  within  3  months,  issue  an  advice  that  takes  into  account  the 
following  factors,  in  light  of  the  specific  characteristics  of  the  benchmark 
concerned: 

(a) whether the consulting competent authority has sufficiently substantiated its 
assessment that the conditions referred to in paragraph 3, first subparagraph are 
met; 

EN 

26 

  EN 

(b)  whether,  in  the  event  that  the  benchmark  ceases  to  be  provided,  or  is 
provided on the basis of input data that are no longer fully representative of the 
underlying  market  or  economic  reality  or  that  are  unreliable,  there  would  be 
significant  and  adverse  impacts  on  market  integrity,  financial  stability, 
consumers, the real economy, or the financing of households and businesses in 
in  Member  States  other  than  the  Member  State  of  the  consulting  competent 
authority.  

For the purposes of point (b), ESMA shall take due account, where relevant, of the 
third 
information  provided  by 
subparagraph of paragraph 3. 

the  consulting  authority  pursuant 

the 

to 

5.   Where ESMA finds that a benchmark meets the conditions under paragraph 3, 1st 
paragraph,  points  (a)  to  (c),  in  more  than  one  Member  State,  it  shall  inform  the 
competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States  concerned  thereof.  They  shall  agree 
which among them designates the benchmark concerned as significant benchmark. 

Where  competent  authorities  disagree  on  the  matter  referred  to  in  the  first 
subparagraph,  they  shall  refer  the  matter  to  ESMA,  ESMA  shall  settle  that 
disagreement in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.  

6.   ESMA  may,  upon  the  request  of  a  competent  authority,  designate  a  benchmark 
provided  by  an  administrator  located  in  a  third  country  that  does  not  meet  the 
threshold laid down in paragraph 1, point (a), as significant where that benchmark 
fulfils all of the following conditions: 

(a) the benchmark has no, or very few, appropriate market-led substitutes;  

(b) in  the event  that the benchmark  would cease  to  be provided, or  would be 
provided on the basis of input data that are no longer fully representative of the 
underlying  market  or  economic  reality  or  that  are  unreliable,  there  would  be 
significant  and  adverse  impacts  on  market  integrity,  financial  stability, 
consumers, the real economy, or the financing of households and businesses in 
one or more Member States. 

ESMA shall, prior to the designation decision and as soon as possible, inform the 
administrator  of  the  benchmark  of  its  intention,  and  invite  that  administrator  to 
provide ESMA within 15 working days with a reasoned statement containing any 
relevant information for the purposes of the assessment related to the designation 
of the benchmark as significant.  

Where applicable, ESMA shall invite, as soon as possible, the competent authority 
of  the  jurisdiction  where  the  administrator  is  located  to  provide  any  relevant 
information  for  the  purposes  of  the  assessment  related  to  the  designation  of  the 
benchmark. 

ESMA shall motivate any designation decision, taking into account whether there 
is  sufficient  evidence  that  the  conditions  referred  to  in  the  first  subparagraph  of 
this  paragraph  are  met,  in  light  of  the  specific  characteristics  of  the  benchmark 
concerned. 

ESMA  shall  publish  its  reasoned  decision  on  its  website  and  shall  notify  the 
requesting competent authority or authorities without undue delay. 

7.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with 
Article  49  to  further  specify  the  calculation  method  to  be  used  to  determine  the 

EN 

27 

  EN 

threshold referred to in paragraph 1, point (a) of this Article in the light of market, 
price and regulatory developments.  

(12) 

the following Article 24a is inserted:  

‘Article 24a 

Requirements for administrators of significant benchmarks 

(1)  Within 60 working days following the notification referred to in Article 24(2), 
the  administrator  of  a  benchmark  satisfying  the  criterion  referred  to  in 
paragraph (1), point (a), of that Article, shall seek authorisation or registration 
with  the competent  authority  of the Member State where it is  located.  Where 
that  administrator  is  located  in  a  third  country  and  unless  the  benchmark 
concerned  is  covered  by  an  equivalence  decision  adopted  pursuant  to  Article 
30, that administrator shall, within 60 working days following the notification 
referred to in Article 24(2), seek either of the following:  

(a) 

recognition with ESMA pursuant to the procedure set out in Article 32; 

(b) 

endorsement pursuant to the procedure set out in Article 33. 

(2)  Within  60  working  days  following  a  designation  referred  to  in  Article  24(3), 
the  administrator  of  the  benchmark  concerned,  unless  that  administrator  is 
already  authorised  or  registered,  shall  seek  authorisation  or  registration  with 
the designating competent authority in accordance with Article 34.  

(3)  Withing 60 working days following a designation referred to in Article 24(6), 
the  administrator  of  the  benchmark  concerned,  unless  the  benchmark 
concerned  is  covered  by  an  equivalence  decision  adopted  pursuant  to  Article 
30, shall seek either of the following: 

(a) 

 recognition with ESMA pursuant to the procedure set out in Article 32; 

(b) 

endorsement pursuant to the procedure set out in Article 33. 

(4)  ESMA or competent authorities shall make use of the supervisory and sanction 
powers they are entrusted with under this Regulation to ensure that the relevant 
administrators comply with their obligations. 

(5)  The  competent  authority  or  ESMA  shall  issue  a  public  notice  stating  that  a 
significant benchmark provided by an administrator does not comply with this 
Regulation and that users should refrain from using that benchmark where any 
of the following conditions is met:  

(a)  within  60  working  days  following  the  notification  referred  to  in  Article 
24(2)  the  designation  referred  to  in  Article  24(3)  or  the  designation 
referred to in Article 24(6), the administrator concerned has not initiated 
procedures to comply with paragraph 2 of this Article; 

(b) 

the  authorisation,  registration,  recognition  or  endorsement  procedures 
have failed; 

(c)  ESMA has withdrawn the registration of the administrator in accordance 

with Article 31; 

(d)  ESMA has withdrawn or suspended the recognition of the administrator 

concerned in accordance with Article 34(6); 

EN 

28 

  EN 

 
(e) 

(f) 

the endorsement of the administrator concerned has ceased;  

the competent authority has withdrawn or suspended the authorisation or 
registration of the administrator concerned. 

Competent  authorities  shall  notify  ESMA  of  all  issued  public  notices  without 
undue delay. ESMA shall publish all issued public notices on its website. ESMA 
or the competent authority shall remove the public notice without undue delay as 
soon as the reason for which it was issued is no longer valid. 

(13) 

(14) 

in Title III, Chapter 6 is deleted; 

Article 29 is amended as follows: 

(a) 

the title is replaced by the following:  

‘Use of significant benchmarks, EU Climate Transition Benchmarks and EU 
Paris-aligned Benchmarks’; 

(b)  paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:  

‘1. A supervised entity shall not add new references to a significant benchmark or 
a  combination  of  such  benchmarks  in  the  Union  where  that  benchmark  or 
combination of benchmarks is the object of a public notice issued by ESMA or a 
competent  authority in  accordance with  Article 24a(5).  A supervised entity  shall 
not add new references to an EU Climate Transition Benchmark or an EU Paris-
aligned  Benchmark  or  combination  of  such  benchmarks  in  the  Union  where  the 
administrator  of  those  benchmarks  is  not  included  in  the  register  referred  to  in 
Article 36. 

Supervised  entities  shall  regularly  consult  the  European  Single  Access  Point 
(ESAP) as referred to in Article 28a, or the ESMA register as referred to in Article 
36, to verify the regulatory status of the administrators of significant benchmarks, 
EU Climate Transition Benchmarks or EU Paris-Aligned Benchmarks they intend 
to use.  

By  way  of  derogation  from  the  first  subparagraph,  ESMA  or  the  competent 
authority,  as  appropriate,  may  allow  the  use  of  a  benchmark  subject  to  a  public 
notice issued in accordance with Article 24a(5) for a period of 6 months following 
the  publication  of  the  public  notice,  renewable  once,  where  necessary  to  avoid 
serious market disruption.’ 

(c) 

a new paragraph 1a is inserted: 

‘1a.  A  supervised  entity  that  uses  a  benchmark  in  existing  financial  contracts  or 
financial instruments  that  is  subject  to  a public notice under Article 24a(5) shall 
replace that benchmark with an appropriate alternative within 6 months following 
the  publication  of  that  notice,  or  issue  and  publish  a  statement  on  its  website 
informing clients of the absence of an appropriate alternative.’;  

(15) 

Article 32 is amended as follows:  

(a) 

paragraph 1 is deleted; 

(b)  paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following: 

‘2.  An administrator located in a third country that intends to obtain recognition 
as  referred  to  in  Article  24a(1)  and  (3)  shall  comply  with  this  Regulation, 
with  the  exception  of  Article  11(4)  and  Articles  16,  20,  21  and  23.  The 
administrator located in a third country may fulfil that condition by applying 

EN 

29 

  EN 

 
the IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks or the IOSCO principles for 
PRAs,  as  applicable,  provided  that  such  application  is  equivalent  to 
compliance  with  this  Regulation,  with  the  exception  of  Article  11(4),  and 
Articles 16, 20, 21 and 23.  

the  first 
When  determining  whether 
subparagraph  is  fulfilled  and  assessing  the  compliance  with  the  IOSCO 
principles  for  financial  benchmarks  or  the  IOSCO  principles  for  PRAs,  as 
applicable, ESMA may take into account: 

the  condition  referred 

to 

in 

(a) 

(b) 

an  assessment  of  the  administrator  located  in  a  third  country  by  an 
independent external auditor; 

a  certification  provided  by  the  competent  authority  of  the  third  country 
where that administrator is located.  

Where,  and  to  the  extent  that,  a  third  country  administrator  is  able  to 
demonstrate that a benchmark it provides is a regulated-data benchmark or a 
commodity benchmark that is not based on submissions by contributors the 
majority  of  which  are  supervised  entities,  the  administrator  shall  not  be 
obliged to comply with the requirements which, pursuant to Article 17 and 
Article  19(1),  are  not  applicable  to  the  provision  of  regulated-data 
benchmarks and of commodity benchmarks. 

3.  An administrator located in  a third country intending  to  obtain recognition 
shall have a legal representative. The legal representative shall be a natural 
or  legal  person  located  in  the  Union  and  expressly  appointed  by  that 
administrator  to  act  on  behalf  of  that  administrator  with  regard  to  the 
administrator’s  obligations  under  this  Regulation.  The  legal  representative 
shall,  together  with  the  administrator,  perform  the  oversight  function 
relating  to  the  provision  of  benchmarks  performed  by  the  administrator 
under this Regulation and, in that respect, be accountable to ESMA.’; 

(c) 

in paragraph 5, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following: 

‘An  administrator  located  in  a  third  country  intending  to  obtain  recognition  as 
referred  to  in  paragraph  2  shall  apply  for  recognition  with  ESMA.  The 
applicant  administrator  shall  provide  all  information  necessary  to  satisfy 
ESMA  that  it  has  established,  at  the  time  of  recognition,  all  the  necessary 
arrangements  to  meet  the  requirements  laid  down  in  paragraph  2  with 
respect  to  its  benchmark  or  benchmarks  that  have  been  designated  in 
accordance  with  Article  24.  Where  applicable,  the  applicant  administrator 
shall indicate the competent authority in the third country responsible for its 
supervision. 

Within  15  working  days  of  receipt  of  the  application,  ESMA  shall  assess 
whether  the  application  is  complete  and  shall  notify  the  applicant 
accordingly. Where the application is incomplete, the applicant shall submit 
the additional information required by ESMA. The time limit referred to in 
this  subparagraph  shall  apply  from  the  date  on  which  the  applicant  has 
provided such additional information.’; 

(16) 

Article 34 is amended as follows,  

(a) 

paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: 

EN 

30 

  EN 

 
 
‘1. A natural or legal person located in the Union that acts or intends to act as an 
administrator shall apply to  the competent authority designated under Article 40 
of the Member State in which that person is located in order to receive: 

(a) 

(b) 

authorisation  where  it  provides  or  intends  to  provide  indices  which  are 
used  or  intended  to  be  used  as  critical  benchmarks,  as  significant 
benchmarks,  as  EU  Climate  Transition  Benchmarks  or  as  EU  Paris-
aligned Benchmarks; 

registration  where  it  is  a  supervised  entity,  other  than  an  administrator, 
that provides or intends to provide indices which are used or intended to 
be  used  as  significant  benchmarks,  as  EU  Climate  Transition 
Benchmarks or EU Paris-aligned Benchmarks, provided that the activity 
of  provision  of  a  benchmark  is  not  prevented  by  the  sectoral  discipline 
applying  to  the  supervised  entity  and  that  none  of  the  indices  provided 
would qualify as a critical benchmark.’; 

(b)  paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: 

‘3.  The  application  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  shall  be  made  within  30  working 
days  of  any  agreement  entered  into  by  a  supervised  entity  to  use  an  index 
provided  by  the  applicant  as  a  reference  to  a  financial  instrument  or  financial 
contract or to measure the performance of an investment fund, or within the time 
limits set out in Article 24a(2) and (3), as applicable.’; 

(17) 

in Article 36(1), the following points (e) to (j) are added:  

‘(e) 

the  benchmarks  subject  to  a  statement  published  by  ESMA  or  a  competent 
authority pursuant to Article 24(2), and the hyperlinks to such statements; 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

the  benchmarks  subject  to  designations  by  competent  authorities  notified  to 
ESMA pursuant to Article 24(4), and the hyperlinks to such designations; 

the  benchmarks  subject  to  designations  by  ESMA,  and  the  hyperlinks  to  such 
designations;  

the  benchmarks  subject  to  public  notices  issued  by  ESMA  and  competent 
authorities pursuant to Article 24a(5), and the hyperlinks to such public notices.; 

the list of EU Climate Transition Benchmarks and EU Paris-aligned Benchmarks 
available for use in the Union; 

(j) 

the list of critical benchmarks.’; 

(18) 

in Article 41(1), the following points (k) and (l) are added:  

‘(k)  designate a benchmark as significant pursuant to Article 24(3);  

(l) 

in case of reasonable grounds to suspect a breach of any of the requirements laid 
down in Chapter 3A, require that an administrator ceases, for a maximum period 
of 12 months:  

(i) 

(ii) 

to  provide  EU  Climate  Transition  Benchmarks  or  EU  Paris-aligned 
Benchmarks;  

to  refer  to  EU  Climate  Transition  Benchmarks  or  EU  Paris-aligned 
Benchmarks in the name of the benchmarks they make available for use 
in  the  Union,  or  in  the  legal  or  marketing  documentation  for  those 
benchmarks; 

EN 

31 

  EN 

 
(iii) 

to refer to compliance with the requirements applicable to the provision 
of such benchmarks in the name of the benchmarks they make available 
for  use  in  the  Union,  or  in  the  legal  or  marketing  documentation  for 
those benchmarks;’; 

(19) 

Article 42 is amended as follows:  

(a) 

in paragraph 1, point (a) is replaced by the following: 

‘(a) any  infringement  of  Articles  4  to  16,  of  Articles  19a,  19b,  19c  and  21,  of 
Articles 23 to 29 or of Article 34 where those Articles apply; and’; 

(b)  paragraph 2 is amended as follows 

(i) 

in point (g), point (i) is replaced by the following: 

‘(i) 
for  infringements  of  Articles  4  to  10,  of  Article  11(1),  points  (a),  (b), 
(c)  and  (e),  of  Article  11(2)  and  (3),  of  Articles  12  to  16,  of  Article  21,  of 
Articles  23  to  29  and  of  Article  34,  EUR  500  000  or  in  the  Member  States 
whose official currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national 
currency on 31 December 2023; or’; 

(ii) 

in point (h), point (i) is replaced by the following: 

for  infringements  of  Articles  4  to  10,  of  Article 11(1),  points  (a),  (b), 
‘(i) 
(c)  and  (e),  of  ,  Article  11(2)  and  (3),  of  Articles  12  to  16,  of  Article  21,  of 
Articles 23 to 29 and of Article 34, either EUR 1 000 000 or, in the Member 
States  whose  official  currency  is  not  the  euro,  the  corresponding  value  in  the 
national  currency on 31  December 2023, or 10  % of its total  annual  turnover 
according  to  the  last  available  accounts  approved  by  the  management  body, 
whichever is the higher; or’; 

(20) 

Article 49 is amended as follows: 

(a) 

paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following: 

‘2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 3(2), 13(2a), 19a(2), 
19c(1),  20(6),  24(7),  27(2b),  33(7),  51(6)  and  54(3)  shall  be  conferred  on  the 
Commission for a period of five years from 30 June 2024. The Commission shall 
draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power no later than 31 December 
2028.  The  delegation  of  power  shall  be  tacitly  extended  for  further  periods  of 
identical  duration,  unless  the  European  Parliament  or  the  Council  opposes  such 
extension not later than three months before the end of each period. 

‘3. The  delegation  of  power  referred  to  in  Articles  3(2),  13(2a),  19a(2),  19c(1), 
20(6), 24(7), 27(2b), 30(2a), 30(3a), 33(7), 48i(10), 48l(3), 51(6) and 54(3) may 
be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision 
to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of power specified in that decision. It 
shall  take  effect  on  the  day  following  the  publication  of  the  decision  in  the 
Official Journal of the European Union or on a later date specified therein. It shall 
not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.’; 

(b)  paragraph 6 is replaced by the following: 

‘6. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 3(2), 13(2a), 19a(2), 19c(1), 20(6), 
24(7), 27(2b), 30(2a), 30(3a), 33(7), 48i(10), 48l(3), 51(6) or 54(3) shall enter into 
force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or 
by  the  Council  within  a  period  of  three  months  of  notification  of  that  act  to  the 

EN 

32 

  EN 

European Parliament and to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  have  both  informed  the  Commission  that 
they will not object. That period shall be extended by three months at the initiative 
of the European Parliament or of the Council.’. 

(21) 

in Article 51, the following paragraph 4c is inserted: 

‘4c. Competent authorities and ESMA shall ensure  that benchmark administrators that 
were authorised, registered, endorsed or recognised on [PO please insert the date = date 
of  application  of  this  amending  Regulation]  can  benefit  from  a  simplified  procedure 
where they apply for authorisation registration, recognition, or endorsement pursuant to 
Article  24a(1),  (2),  or  (3),  as  applicable,  by  …  [PO  please  insert  the  date  =  date  of 
application of this amending Regulation + two years]’; 

Article 2 

Entry into force and application 

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Union. 

It shall apply from 1 January 2026  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

33 

  EN