Article 92 Amendments to Directive 2011/61/EU
Directive 2011/61/EU is amended as follows: (1) in point (r) of Article 4(1), the following point is added: ‘(vii) a Member State, other than the home Member State, in which an EU AIFM provides the services referred to in Article 6(4);’; (2) Article 33 is amended as follows: (a) the title is replaced by the following: ‘ Conditions for managing EU AIFs established in other Member States and for providing services in other Member States ’; (b) paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that an authorised EU AIFM may, directly or by establishing a branch: (a) manage EU AIFs established in another Member State, provided that the AIFM is authorised to manage that type of AIF; (b) provide in another Member State the services referred to in Article 6(4) for which it has been authorised. 2. An AIFM intending to provide the activities and services referred to in paragraph 1 for the first time shall communicate the following information to the competent authorities of its home Member State: (a) the Member State in which it intends to manage AIFs directly or to establish a branch, and/or to provide the services referred to in Article 6(4); (b) a programme of operations stating in particular the services which it intends to perform and/or identifying the AIFs that it intends to manage.’. (2) Article 33 is amended as follows: (a) the title is replaced by the following: ‘ Conditions for managing EU AIFs established in other Member States and for providing services in other Member States ’; (b) paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that an authorised EU AIFM may, directly or by establishing a branch: (a) manage EU AIFs established in another Member State, provided that the AIFM is authorised to manage that type of AIF; (b) provide in another Member State the services referred to in Article 6(4) for which it has been authorised. 2. An AIFM intending to provide the activities and services referred to in paragraph 1 for the first time shall communicate the following information to the competent authorities of its home Member State: (a) the Member State in which it intends to manage AIFs directly or to establish a branch, and/or to provide the services referred to in Article 6(4); (b) a programme of operations stating in particular the services which it intends to perform and/or identifying the AIFs that it intends to manage.’. (b) paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that an authorised EU AIFM may, directly or by establishing a branch: (a) manage EU AIFs established in another Member State, provided that the AIFM is authorised to manage that type of AIF; (b) provide in another Member State the services referred to in Article 6(4) for which it has been authorised. 2. An AIFM intending to provide the activities and services referred to in paragraph 1 for the first time shall communicate the following information to the competent authorities of its home Member State: (a) the Member State in which it intends to manage AIFs directly or to establish a branch, and/or to provide the services referred to in Article 6(4); (b) a programme of operations stating in particular the services which it intends to perform and/or identifying the AIFs that it intends to manage.’.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for the proposal Directive 2014/65/EU (‘MiFID’) together with Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 (‘MiFIR’) was adopted in the wake of the financial crisis. MiFID and MiFIR, collectively referred to as MiFID II, covers securities markets, investment intermediaries and trading venues. The new framework reinforces and replaces the current MiFID framework. MiFID II extends the number of financial instruments covered by trading rules and ensures that trading takes place on regulated platforms. It introduces rules on high frequency trading. It improves the transparency and oversight of financial markets – including derivatives markets - and addresses the issue of price volatility in commodity derivatives. The new framework improves conditions for competition in the trading and clearing of financial instruments. Building on the rules already in place, the revised MiFID rules also strengthen the protection of investors by introducing robust organisational and conduct of business requirements. The MiFID II package consists of a Directive and a Regulation. Member States need to transpose the Directive by 3 July 2016. Both MiFID and MiFIR are scheduled to apply as of 3 January 2017. The purpose of the draft proposal is to extend the entry into application of both instruments that are comprised in the MIFID II package as a result of the technical implementation challenges met by the European Securities and Markets Authority ('ESMA'), national competent authorities ('NCAs') and stakeholders. These challenges are of such magnitude that essential data infrastructures will not be in place in time for 3 January 2017. During the legislative process, the very high level of complexity of the MiFID II package and the need for a significant number of implementing measures were recognised. To this end, a period of 30 months was foreseen between the adoption and the entry into application, instead of the usual 18-24 months. Despite this unusually long period, ESMA has made clear to the Commission that the technical implementing challenges are of such magnitude that essential data infrastructures will not be in place in time for 3 January 2017. If the date of entry into application remains unchanged, this would mean, in practice, that neither competent authorities, nor market participants, would be in a position to apply the new rules on 3 January 2017. This would lead to legal uncertainty and potential market disruption. In light of these exceptional circumstances and the particular technical implementation challenges faced by ESMA and the competent authorities in this specific case, the Commission deems it necessary to extend the entry into application of both instruments that are comprised in MIFID II. Such extension shall be strictly limited to what is necessary to allow the technical implementation work to be finalised. 1.2 The 'data' challenge ESMA have informed the Commission that neither they nor NCAs will be in a position to apply MiFID II as of 3 January 2017. This is a result of significant challenges in collecting the data that is necessary for the operation of the MiFID II rules. In order to ensure legal certainty and avoid potential market disruption, urgent action is therefore needed to adjust the date of entry into application for MiFID II. The reasons for the urgency are linked to the need to establish new and extensive electronic data collection networks between trading venues, national regulators and ESMA. The new framework requires trading venues and systematic internalisers to provide competent authorities with financial instrument reference data that describes in a uniform manner the characteristics of every financial instrument subject to the scope of MiFID II. Additional data are also used for other purposes, in particular for the calculation of various liquidity and transparency thresholds used for on-venue trading of all financial instruments covered by MiFID as well as for positions reporting of commodity derivatives. In order to collect data in an efficient and harmonised manner, a new data collection infrastructure must be developed. This obliges ESMA, in conjunction with competent national authorities, to establish a Financial Instruments Reference Data System ('FIRDS'). FIRDS will need to cover the entire range of financial instruments that are included in the increased scope of MiFID II. In accomplishing this task, FIRDS will necessitate linking of data feeds between ESMA, NCAs and around 300 trading venues across the European Union. The vast majority of the new IT-systems underpinning FIRDS will need to be built from the ground, based on new parameters. The Commission recognises that as a result of the size and complexity of the data needed to be collected and processed for MiFID II to become operational, in particular for transaction reporting, transparency calculations and reporting of positions in commodity derivatives, neither stakeholders, such as trading platforms, nor NCAs nor ESMA are in a position to ensure that the necessary data collection infrastructures would be in place and become operational by 3 January 2017. Therefore, on 2 October 2015 ESMA informed the Commission that a delay in the technical implementation of MiFID II was unavoidable. 1.3. The scope of the proposal The absence of data has ramifications across multiple areas of MIFID II. As regards market regulation, it is clear that without the foundation of reference data (instrument ID) and the additional data infrastructures for transparency calculations and position reporting in place, it will not be possible to apply the majority of the market rules. In particular:  Transaction reporting : without reference data, there will be challenges to determine what instruments are within the scope. In addition, the necessary infrastructure for market participants to report to their competent authorities will not be available.  Transparency framework : the trade transparency rules for all financial instruments (equity as well as non-equity) cannot be established and applied. In addition, the calculations and thresholds for the liquidity assessment, waivers, deferred publication and, in the equity area, the double volume cap (which limits dark trading) cannot be established.  Commodity derivatives : in the absence of position reporting for commodity derivatives it will be very difficult to enforce position limits on such commodity derivative contracts. With no position reporting, there is a limited ability to effectively detect breaches of positon limits.  Microstructural regulation: many of the requirements in relation to algorithmic trading/high frequency trading are by their nature dependent on data. In particular, the key provisions on tick-size regime and the obligations in relation to market making obligations and schemes are also tailored on there being a liquid market as determined under the transparency framework. The investor protection rules, the conduct of business rules and certain associated organisational requirements under MIFID II will not be directly affected by the lack of data. The important exception is the rules on best execution , where the scope of the disclosure is designed by reference to there being a liquid market and other transparency concepts. For other investor protection rules, aside from issues relating to the definition of financial instruments or the scope of the legislation, data inter-linkages generally do not exist, as these rules directly concern distribution and not trading. It is, therefore, recognised that an alternative approach would be to extend the date of entry into application only for the parts of the legislation directly relating to data collection. However, after a careful analysis of that option, it appears that an extension for the whole package, including investor protection rules, as opposed to a staggered approach is preferable:  It avoids the risk of causing confusion and unnecessary costs that stakeholders would incur through a staggered implementation. Building various infrastructures simultaneously – as opposed to doing so in stages - would make the process more cost effective. For example, it avoids situations, where investment firms, involved in execution of orders, would have to set up organisational requirements/conduct rules in stages, which would be complicated, expensive and costly;  It avoids having to delineate between the areas that can be immediately implemented and those that cannot be, and, therefore, avoids the risk of causing unintended consequences which may not have been foreseen or sufficiently considered; and  It avoids the need for transitional rules, which by themselves would create new issues and divert resources of ESMA, NCAs and stakeholders from building the permanent framework. On the basis of the above considerations, extending the entry into application for the entire MiFID II rulebook is therefore necessary and justified. 1.4. Length of the extension An extension of one year should provide sufficient and reasonable time for ESMA, NCAs and operators to put in place the infrastructure for data collection, reporting and the transparency threshold calculations. There are five steps in the implementation process: (1) business requirements (which in this case are the necessary regulatory technical standards/implementing technical standards), (2) specifications, (3) development (4) testing and (5) deployment. ESMA estimates that it should complete these steps in relation to the reference data, transparency calculations and position reporting systems by January 2018. This assumes that there is sufficient legal clarity on the final requirements under the relevant regulatory technical standards by mid-2016. On this basis, the draft proposal therefore extends the entry into application of the whole framework until 3 January 2018 by one year. The extension of entry into application of the measures of the Member States transposing Directive 2014/65/EU should not impact adoption of delegated acts and technical standards to be developed under Directive 2014/65/EU. The Commission should adopt these measures in accordance with the procedure envisaged in order to allow the industry to set up and adjust internal systems to ensure compliance with new requirements on the date of entry into application of Directive 2014/65/EU.
Revised version (Article 92 Amendments to Directive 2011/61/EU):
Directive 2011/61/EU is amended as follows: (1) in point (r) of Article 4(1), the following point is added: ‘(vii) a Member State, other than the home Member State, in which an EU AIFM provides the services referred to in Article 6(4);’; (2) Article 33 is amended as follows: (a) the title is replaced by the following: ‘ Conditions for managing EU AIFs established in other Member States and for providing services in other Member States ’; (b) paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that an authorised EU AIFM may, directly or by establishing a branch: (a) manage EU AIFs established in another Member State, provided that the AIFM is authorised to manage that type of AIF; (b) provide in another Member State the services referred to in Article 6(4) for which it has been authorised. 2. An AIFM intending to provide the activities and services referred to in paragraph 1 for the first time shall communicate the following information to the competent authorities of its home Member State: (a) the Member State in which it intends to manage AIFs directly or to establish a branch, and/or to provide the services referred to in Article 6(4); (b) a programme of operations stating in particular the services which it intends to perform and/or identifying the AIFs that it intends to manage.’.
Article 93 Transposition
1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 3 July 2016, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those measures. Members States shall apply those measures from 3 January 2017 except for the provisions transposing Article 65(2) which shall apply from 3 September 2018. When Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made. They shall also include a statement that references in existing laws, regulations and administrative provisions to the directives repealed by this Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made and how that statement is to be formulated. 2. Member States shall apply the measures referred to in Article 92 from 3 July 2015. 3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission and to ESMA the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for the proposal Directive 2014/65/EU (‘MiFID’) together with Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 (‘MiFIR’) was adopted in the wake of the financial crisis. MiFID and MiFIR, collectively referred to as MiFID II, covers securities markets, investment intermediaries and trading venues. The new framework reinforces and replaces the current MiFID framework. MiFID II extends the number of financial instruments covered by trading rules and ensures that trading takes place on regulated platforms. It introduces rules on high frequency trading. It improves the transparency and oversight of financial markets – including derivatives markets - and addresses the issue of price volatility in commodity derivatives. The new framework improves conditions for competition in the trading and clearing of financial instruments. Building on the rules already in place, the revised MiFID rules also strengthen the protection of investors by introducing robust organisational and conduct of business requirements. The MiFID II package consists of a Directive and a Regulation. Member States need to transpose the Directive by 3 July 2016. Both MiFID and MiFIR are scheduled to apply as of 3 January 2017. The purpose of the draft proposal is to extend the entry into application of both instruments that are comprised in the MIFID II package as a result of the technical implementation challenges met by the European Securities and Markets Authority ('ESMA'), national competent authorities ('NCAs') and stakeholders. These challenges are of such magnitude that essential data infrastructures will not be in place in time for 3 January 2017. During the legislative process, the very high level of complexity of the MiFID II package and the need for a significant number of implementing measures were recognised. To this end, a period of 30 months was foreseen between the adoption and the entry into application, instead of the usual 18-24 months. Despite this unusually long period, ESMA has made clear to the Commission that the technical implementing challenges are of such magnitude that essential data infrastructures will not be in place in time for 3 January 2017. If the date of entry into application remains unchanged, this would mean, in practice, that neither competent authorities, nor market participants, would be in a position to apply the new rules on 3 January 2017. This would lead to legal uncertainty and potential market disruption. In light of these exceptional circumstances and the particular technical implementation challenges faced by ESMA and the competent authorities in this specific case, the Commission deems it necessary to extend the entry into application of both instruments that are comprised in MIFID II. Such extension shall be strictly limited to what is necessary to allow the technical implementation work to be finalised. 1.2 The 'data' challenge ESMA have informed the Commission that neither they nor NCAs will be in a position to apply MiFID II as of 3 January 2017. This is a result of significant challenges in collecting the data that is necessary for the operation of the MiFID II rules. In order to ensure legal certainty and avoid potential market disruption, urgent action is therefore needed to adjust the date of entry into application for MiFID II. The reasons for the urgency are linked to the need to establish new and extensive electronic data collection networks between trading venues, national regulators and ESMA. The new framework requires trading venues and systematic internalisers to provide competent authorities with financial instrument reference data that describes in a uniform manner the characteristics of every financial instrument subject to the scope of MiFID II. Additional data are also used for other purposes, in particular for the calculation of various liquidity and transparency thresholds used for on-venue trading of all financial instruments covered by MiFID as well as for positions reporting of commodity derivatives. In order to collect data in an efficient and harmonised manner, a new data collection infrastructure must be developed. This obliges ESMA, in conjunction with competent national authorities, to establish a Financial Instruments Reference Data System ('FIRDS'). FIRDS will need to cover the entire range of financial instruments that are included in the increased scope of MiFID II. In accomplishing this task, FIRDS will necessitate linking of data feeds between ESMA, NCAs and around 300 trading venues across the European Union. The vast majority of the new IT-systems underpinning FIRDS will need to be built from the ground, based on new parameters. The Commission recognises that as a result of the size and complexity of the data needed to be collected and processed for MiFID II to become operational, in particular for transaction reporting, transparency calculations and reporting of positions in commodity derivatives, neither stakeholders, such as trading platforms, nor NCAs nor ESMA are in a position to ensure that the necessary data collection infrastructures would be in place and become operational by 3 January 2017. Therefore, on 2 October 2015 ESMA informed the Commission that a delay in the technical implementation of MiFID II was unavoidable. 1.3. The scope of the proposal The absence of data has ramifications across multiple areas of MIFID II. As regards market regulation, it is clear that without the foundation of reference data (instrument ID) and the additional data infrastructures for transparency calculations and position reporting in place, it will not be possible to apply the majority of the market rules. In particular:  Transaction reporting : without reference data, there will be challenges to determine what instruments are within the scope. In addition, the necessary infrastructure for market participants to report to their competent authorities will not be available.  Transparency framework : the trade transparency rules for all financial instruments (equity as well as non-equity) cannot be established and applied. In addition, the calculations and thresholds for the liquidity assessment, waivers, deferred publication and, in the equity area, the double volume cap (which limits dark trading) cannot be established.  Commodity derivatives : in the absence of position reporting for commodity derivatives it will be very difficult to enforce position limits on such commodity derivative contracts. With no position reporting, there is a limited ability to effectively detect breaches of positon limits.  Microstructural regulation: many of the requirements in relation to algorithmic trading/high frequency trading are by their nature dependent on data. In particular, the key provisions on tick-size regime and the obligations in relation to market making obligations and schemes are also tailored on there being a liquid market as determined under the transparency framework. The investor protection rules, the conduct of business rules and certain associated organisational requirements under MIFID II will not be directly affected by the lack of data. The important exception is the rules on best execution , where the scope of the disclosure is designed by reference to there being a liquid market and other transparency concepts. For other investor protection rules, aside from issues relating to the definition of financial instruments or the scope of the legislation, data inter-linkages generally do not exist, as these rules directly concern distribution and not trading. It is, therefore, recognised that an alternative approach would be to extend the date of entry into application only for the parts of the legislation directly relating to data collection. However, after a careful analysis of that option, it appears that an extension for the whole package, including investor protection rules, as opposed to a staggered approach is preferable:  It avoids the risk of causing confusion and unnecessary costs that stakeholders would incur through a staggered implementation. Building various infrastructures simultaneously – as opposed to doing so in stages - would make the process more cost effective. For example, it avoids situations, where investment firms, involved in execution of orders, would have to set up organisational requirements/conduct rules in stages, which would be complicated, expensive and costly;  It avoids having to delineate between the areas that can be immediately implemented and those that cannot be, and, therefore, avoids the risk of causing unintended consequences which may not have been foreseen or sufficiently considered; and  It avoids the need for transitional rules, which by themselves would create new issues and divert resources of ESMA, NCAs and stakeholders from building the permanent framework. On the basis of the above considerations, extending the entry into application for the entire MiFID II rulebook is therefore necessary and justified. 1.4. Length of the extension An extension of one year should provide sufficient and reasonable time for ESMA, NCAs and operators to put in place the infrastructure for data collection, reporting and the transparency threshold calculations. There are five steps in the implementation process: (1) business requirements (which in this case are the necessary regulatory technical standards/implementing technical standards), (2) specifications, (3) development (4) testing and (5) deployment. ESMA estimates that it should complete these steps in relation to the reference data, transparency calculations and position reporting systems by January 2018. This assumes that there is sufficient legal clarity on the final requirements under the relevant regulatory technical standards by mid-2016. On this basis, the draft proposal therefore extends the entry into application of the whole framework until 3 January 2018 by one year. The extension of entry into application of the measures of the Member States transposing Directive 2014/65/EU should not impact adoption of delegated acts and technical standards to be developed under Directive 2014/65/EU. The Commission should adopt these measures in accordance with the procedure envisaged in order to allow the industry to set up and adjust internal systems to ensure compliance with new requirements on the date of entry into application of Directive 2014/65/EU.
Revised version (Article 93 Transposition):
1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 3 July 2017 , the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those measures. Members States shall apply those measures from 3 January 2018 except for the provisions transposing Article 65(2) which shall apply from 3 September 2019 . When Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made. They shall also include a statement that references in existing laws, regulations and administrative provisions to the directives repealed by this Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made and how that statement is to be formulated. 2. Member States shall apply the measures referred to in Article 92 from 3 July 2015. 3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission and to ESMA the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Article 94 Repeal
Directive 2004/39/EC, as amended by the acts listed in Annex III, Part A of this Directive, is repealed with effect from 3 January 2017, without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex III, Part B of this Directive. References to Directive 2004/39/EC or to Directive 93/22/EEC shall be construed as references to this Directive or to Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex IV of this Directive. References to terms defined in, or Articles of, Directive 2004/39/EC or Directive 93/22/EEC shall be construed as references to the equivalent term defined in, or Article of, this Directive.
Article 95 Transitional provisions
1. Until 3 July 2020: (a) the clearing obligation set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 and the risk mitigation techniques set out in Article 11(3) thereof shall not apply to C6 energy derivative contracts entered into by non-financial counterparties that meet the conditions in Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 or by non-financial counterparties that shall be authorised for the first time as investment firms as from 3 January 2017; and (b) such C6 energy derivative contracts shall not be considered to be OTC derivative contracts for the purposes of the clearing threshold set out in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. C6 energy derivative contracts benefiting from the transitional regime set out in the first subparagraph shall be subject to all other requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. 2. The exemption referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted by the relevant competent authority. The competent authority shall notify ESMA of the C6 energy derivative contracts which have been granted an exemption in accordance with paragraph 1 and ESMA shall publish on its website a list of those C6 energy derivative contracts.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Broadening access to market-based sources of financing for European companies at each stage of their development is at the heart of the Capital Markets Union (CMU). Since the launch of the Capital Markets Union Action Plan, the EU has made considerable progress to increase the sources of funding as firms gradually scale up, and make market-based finance more widely available across the EU. New rules are already in place to boost EU venture capital funds’ (EuVECA) investment in start-ups and medium-sized companies. Together with the European Investment Fund, the Commission has also launched a Pan-European Venture Capital Funds-of-Funds programme (VentureEU) to boost investment in innovative start-up and scale-up companies across Europe. New rules on prospectuses have already been adopted to support companies raising money on public markets for equity and debt. For small companies and mid-caps wishing to raise money across the EU, a new EU growth prospectus is being created. In addition, to increase access to finance for start-ups and entrepreneurs, the Commission has proposed a European label for investment-based and lending-based crowdfunding platforms ('European Crowdfunding Service Providers for Business'). However, more needs to be done to develop a more conducive regulatory framework supporting access to public funding for Small and Mid-sized Enterprises ( SMEs). This should be achieved in particular by promoting the SME Growth Market label created by the Markets in Financial Instrument Directive II (MiFID II) 1 and striking the right balance between investor protection and market integrity on the one hand, and avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens on the other. In the Mid-term Review of the Capital Markets Union Action Plan 2 of June 2017, the Commission strengthened the focus on SME access to public markets. In this context, the Commission committed to publishing 'an impact assessment that will explore whether targeted amendments to relevant EU legislation could deliver a more proportionate regulatory environment to support SME listing on public markets' . Newly listed Small and Mid-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are a key motor of investment and job creation. Recently listed companies often outstrip privately-owned companies in terms of annual growth and workforce increase. Listed companies are less dependent on bank financing and benefit from a more diversified investment-base, easier access to additional equity capital and debt finance (through secondary offers), and a higher public profile and brand recognition. However, despite the benefits, EU public markets for SMEs are struggling to attract new issuers. The number of Initial Public Offerings on SME-dedicated markets steeply declined in the European Union in the wake of the crisis, and did not significantly pick up since. As a result, Europe is producing only half of the SME Initial Public Offerings that it generated before the financial crisis (478 Initial Public Offerings on average per year in 2006-2007 vs. 218 between 2009 and 2017 on EU SME MTFs). Between 2006 and 2007, an average of EUR 13.8 billion was raised annually on European SME-dedicated MTFs through Initial Public Offerings. This amount fell to EUR 2.55 billion on average from 2009 to 2017. There are many factors driving SMEs' decision to go public and investors' decision to invest in SME financial instruments. The impact assessment 3 shows that public markets for SMEs face two groups of regulatory challenges: (i) on the supply side, issuers face high compliance costs to list on public markets; (ii) on the demand side, insufficient liquidity can weigh on issuers (due to higher costs of capital), on investors (that can be reluctant to invest in SME in the first place due to low liquidity levels and related volatility risks) and on market intermediaries (whose business models rely on customers order flow in liquid markets). Scope of the initiative: SME Growth Markets This initiative is strictly confined to SME Growth Markets 4 and companies listed on those trading venues. SME Growth Markets are a new category of multilateral trading venues (MTFs) that were introduced by the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II in January 2018. When assessing whether SME issuers admitted to trading on regulated markets should benefit from equivalent regulatory alleviations, the decision was made to limit the beneficiaries of the relief to issuers admitted to trading on SME Growth Markets. Requirements imposed on regulated market issuers should apply in a similar way regardless of the size of the company. Different requirements for SMEs compared to large caps are likely to confuse stakeholders (in particular investors). Current regulatory context Companies listed on an SME Growth Market are required to comply with some EU rules, especially the Market Abuse Regulation 5 (MAR) and the Prospectus Regulation 6 . Since its entry into application on 1 July 2016, the Market Abuse Regulation has been extended to MTFs, including SME Growth Markets. This regulation aims to increase market integrity and investor confidence. It prohibits from: (i) engaging or attempting to engage in insider dealing; (ii) recommending that another person engage in insider dealing or induce another person to engage in insider dealing; (iii) unlawfully disclosing inside information 7 ; or (iv) engaging in or attempting to engage in market manipulation. Issuers are also subject to several disclosure and record-keeping obligations under the regulation. In particular, concerned issuers are under a general obligation to disclose inside information to the public as soon as possible. By strengthening market integrity and by extending the market abuse regime to MTFs, the Market Abuse Regulation was crucial in restoring investor confidence in financial markets. However, this piece of legislation is a 'one-size-fits-all' regulation. Almost all its requirements apply in the same manner to all issuers irrespective of their size or the trading venues where their financial instruments are admitted to trading. The regulation contains only two limited adaptations to issuers listed on SME Growth Markets. The first allows trading venues operating an SME Growth Market to post inside information on the trading venue's website (instead of the issuer's website). The second allows issuers listed on SME Growth Markets to produce insider lists only upon request from a national competent authority (NCA). However, the effect of this alleviation is limited because companies are still required to gather and store all relevant information to be able to produce insider lists on request. A prospectus is a legally required document presenting information about a company when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market. Under the CMU Action Plan, the European Union has already made it easier and cheaper for smaller companies to access public markets, notably with the creation of the alleviated 'EU Growth Prospectus' in the revised Prospectus Regulation. An issuer may seek an admission to trading on a regulated market after having floated its shares on an SME Growth Market for a few years. It may do so to benefit from greater liquidity and a larger investor pool. However, if that issuer wants to transfer its shares from an SME Growth Market to a regulated market, it needs to produce a full prospectus as no alleviated prospectus schedule is available for companies in such a situation. The take-up of the SME Growth Market 'brand' is constrained by the limited number of alleviations currently envisaged in EU legislation for the issuers listed on this new type of trading venues. The overall objectives of this initiative is therefore to introduce technical adjustments to the EU rulebook in order to: (i) reduce the administrative burden and the regulatory compliance costs faced by SMEs when their financial instruments are admitted to trading on an SME Growth Market, while ensuring a high level of investor protection and market integrity; and (ii) increase the liquidity of equity instruments listed on SME Growth Markets. These targeted regulatory changes foreseen in this proposal will not fully revive access to public markets for SMEs on their own. Nevertheless, they address regulatory barriers flagged by various stakeholders as inhibiting capital-raising by SMEs on public markets. They do so whilst preserving the highest standards of investor protection and market integrity . Any changes should therefore be understood as a first step in the right direction, and not as a single remedy in itself. Besides, this proposal for a Regulation is not an overhaul of the Market Abuse Regulation (which has been into application for less than two years) or the Prospectus Regulation (which has been recently agreed by the co-legislators and which will enter into application as of July 2019). This proposal (together with the modifications envisaged in the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565) only brings technical amendments to make the EU legal framework applying to listed SMEs more proportionate. It will ensure that the 'SME Growth Market' label, created by MiFID II as of January 2018, is used by the various MTFs with a focus on SMEs across the EU. 
Revised version (Article 95 Transitional provisions):
1. Until 3 January 2021 : (b) such C6 energy derivative contracts shall not be considered to be OTC derivative contracts for the purposes of the clearing threshold set out in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. C6 energy derivative contracts benefiting from the transitional regime set out in the first subparagraph shall be subject to all other requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. 2. The exemption referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted by the relevant competent authority. The competent authority shall notify ESMA of the C6 energy derivative contracts which have been granted an exemption in accordance with paragraph 1 and ESMA shall publish on its website a list of those C6 energy derivative contracts.
Article 96 Entry into force
This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union .
Article 97 Addressees
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.