Article 30 Administrative sanctions and other administrative measures
1. Without prejudice to any criminal sanctions and without prejudice to the supervisory powers of competent authorities under Article 23, Member States shall, in accordance with national law, provide for competent authorities to have the power to take appropriate administrative sanctions and other administrative measures in relation to at least the following infringements: (a) infringements of Articles 14 and 15, Article 16(1) and (2), Article 17(1), (2), (4) and (5), and (8), Article 18(1) to (6), Article 19(1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7) and (11) and Article 20(1); and (b) failure to cooperate or to comply with an investigation, with an inspection or with a request as referred to in Article 23(2). Member States may decide not to lay down rules for administrative sanctions as referred to in the first subparagraph where the infringements referred to in point (a) or point (b) of that subparagraph are already subject to criminal sanctions in their national law by 3 July 2016. Where they so decide, Member States shall notify, in detail, to the Commission and to ESMA, the relevant parts of their criminal law. By 3 July 2016, Member States shall notify, in detail, the rules referred to in the first and second subparagraph to the Commission and to ESMA. They shall notify the Commission and ESMA without delay of any subsequent amendments thereto. 2. Member States shall, in accordance with national law, ensure that competent authorities have the power to impose at least the following administrative sanctions and to take at least the following administrative measures in the event of the infringements referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1: (a) an order requiring the person responsible for the infringement to cease the conduct and to desist from a repetition of that conduct; (b) the disgorgement of the profits gained or losses avoided due to the infringement insofar as they can be determined; (c) a public warning which indicates the person responsible for the infringement and the nature of the infringement; (d) withdrawal or suspension of the authorisation of an investment firm; (e) a temporary ban of a person discharging managerial responsibilities within an investment firm or any other natural person, who is held responsible for the infringement, from exercising management functions in investment firms; (f) in the event of repeated infringements of Article 14 or 15, a permanent ban of any person discharging managerial responsibilities within an investment firm or any other natural person who is held responsible for the infringement, from exercising management functions in investment firms; (g) a temporary ban of a person discharging managerial responsibilities within an investment firm or another natural person who is held responsible for the infringement, from dealing on own account; (h) maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least three times the amount of the profits gained or losses avoided because of the infringement, where those can be determined; (i) in respect of a natural person, maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least: (i) for infringements of Articles 14 and 15, EUR 5 000 000 or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014; (ii) for infringements of Articles 16 and 17, EUR 1 000 000 or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014; and (iii) for infringements of Articles 18, 19 and 20, EUR 500 000 or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014; and (j) in respect of legal persons, maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least: (i) for infringements of Articles 14 and 15, EUR 15 000 000 or 15 % of the total annual turnover of the legal person according to the last available accounts approved by the management body, or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014; (ii) for infringements of Articles 16 and 17, EUR 2 500 000 or 2 % of its total annual turnover according to the last available accounts approved by the management body, or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014; and (iii) for infringements of Articles 18, 19 and 20, EUR 1 000 000 or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014. References to the competent authority in this paragraph are without prejudice to the ability of the competent authority to exercise its functions in any ways referred to in Article 23(1). For the purposes of points (j)(i) and (ii) of the first subparagraph, where the legal person is a parent undertaking or a subsidiary undertaking which is required to prepare consolidated financial accounts pursuant to Directive 2013/34/EU ( 28 ) , the relevant total annual turnover shall be the total annual turnover or the corresponding type of income in accordance with the relevant accounting directives – Council Directive 86/635/EEC ( 29 ) for banks and Council Directive 91/674/EEC ( 30 ) for insurance companies – according to the last available consolidated accounts approved by the management body of the ultimate parent undertaking. 3. Member States may provide that competent authorities have powers in addition to those referred to in paragraph 2 and may provide for higher levels of sanctions than those established in that paragraph.
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 the NCAs will be in a position to apply MiFID II as of 3 January 2017. This is as 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 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. Changing the date of applicability of MiFID II does however have consequences for the applicability of other legislation, in particular Regulation (EU) 596/2014 ('MAR') and Regulation (EU) 909/2014 ('CSDR'). The market abuse framework will apply to certain definitions and concepts of MiFID II. As MAR is set to enter into application on 3 July 2016, there is already a provision in it, which ensures that before the originally foreseen date of entry into application of MiFID II, concepts and rules of MiFID I will apply. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the originally foreseen date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify in MAR that the concepts and rules as set out in MiFID I should be used until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. MAR also refers to concepts that will be introduced by MiFID II, such as organised trading facilities ('OTFs'), small and medium-sized enterprises ('SME') growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon. MAR sets out that its provisions shall not apply to these concepts until the originally foreseen entry into application of MiFID II. It is therefore also necessary to clarify in MAR that provisions referring to OTFs, SME growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon shall not apply until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. The consequences for the CSDR are twofold. First, there are consequences for the application of the rules on settlement discipline to multilateral trading facilities ('MTFs') applying for registration as SME growth markets in accordance with Directive 2014/65/EU. Specifically, these rules allow MTFs meeting the criteria for an SME growth market under MiFID II to apply a longer extension period for the settlement of transactions whilst their registration as an SME growth market under MiFID II is still ongoing. Second, in order to have a clear and coherent legislative framework for trading and settlement, CSDR relies on many of the definitions and concepts of MiFID II. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the previous date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify that until the new date of entry into application, the rules set out in MiFID I should be used. 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 Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 should not impact adoption of delegated acts and technical standards under Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. 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 Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 .
Revised version (Article 30 Administrative sanctions and other administrative measures):
1. Without prejudice to any criminal sanctions and without prejudice to the supervisory powers of competent authorities under Article 23, Member States shall, in accordance with national law, provide for competent authorities to have the power to take appropriate administrative sanctions and other administrative measures in relation to at least the following infringements: (a) infringements of Articles 14 and 15, Article 16(1) and (2), Article 17(1), (2), (4) and (5), and (8), Article 18(1) to (6), Article 19(1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7) and (11) and Article 20(1); and (b) failure to cooperate or to comply with an investigation, with an inspection or with a request as referred to in Article 23(2). Member States may decide not to lay down rules for administrative sanctions as referred to in the first subparagraph where the infringements referred to in point (a) or point (b) of that subparagraph are already subject to criminal sanctions in their national law by 3 July 2016. Where they so decide, Member States shall notify, in detail, to the Commission and to ESMA, the relevant parts of their criminal law. By 3 July 2016, Member States shall notify, in detail, the rules referred to in the first and second subparagraph to the Commission and to ESMA. They shall notify the Commission and ESMA without delay of any subsequent amendments thereto. 2. Member States shall, in accordance with national law, ensure that competent authorities have the power to impose at least the following administrative sanctions and to take at least the following administrative measures in the event of the infringements referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1: (a) an order requiring the person responsible for the infringement to cease the conduct and to desist from a repetition of that conduct; (b) the disgorgement of the profits gained or losses avoided due to the infringement insofar as they can be determined; (c) a public warning which indicates the person responsible for the infringement and the nature of the infringement; (d) withdrawal or suspension of the authorisation of an investment firm; (e) a temporary ban of a person discharging managerial responsibilities within an investment firm or any other natural person, who is held responsible for the infringement, from exercising management functions in investment firms; (f) in the event of repeated infringements of Article 14 or 15, a permanent ban of any person discharging managerial responsibilities within an investment firm or any other natural person who is held responsible for the infringement, from exercising management functions in investment firms; (g) a temporary ban of a person discharging managerial responsibilities within an investment firm or another natural person who is held responsible for the infringement, from dealing on own account; (h) maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least three times the amount of the profits gained or losses avoided because of the infringement, where those can be determined; (i) in respect of a natural person, maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least: (i) for infringements of Articles 14 and 15, EUR 5 000 000 or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014; (ii) for infringements of Articles 16 and 17, EUR 1 000 000 or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014; and (iii) for infringements of Articles 18, 19 and 20, EUR 500 000 or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014; and (i) in respect of a natural person, maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least: (i) for infringements of Articles 14 and 15, EUR 5 000 000 or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014; (ii) for infringements of Articles 16 and 17, EUR 1 000 000 or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014; and (iii) for infringements of Articles 18, 19 and 20, EUR 500 000 or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014; and (j) in respect of legal persons, maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least: (i) for infringements of Articles 14 and 15, EUR 15 000 000 or 15 % of the total annual turnover of the legal person according to the last available accounts approved by the management body, or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014; (ii) for infringements of Articles 16 and 17, EUR 2 500 000 or 2 % of its total annual turnover according to the last available accounts approved by the management body, or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014; and (iii) for infringements of Articles 18, 19 and 20, EUR 1 000 000 or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014. (j) in respect of legal persons, maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least: (i) for infringements of Articles 14 and 15, EUR 15 000 000 or 15 % of the total annual turnover of the legal person according to the last available accounts approved by the management body, or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014; (ii) for infringements of Articles 16 and 17, EUR 2 500 000 or 2 % of its total annual turnover according to the last available accounts approved by the management body, or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014; and (iii) for infringements of Articles 18, 19 and 20, EUR 1 000 000 or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 2 July 2014. References to the competent authority in this paragraph are without prejudice to the ability of the competent authority to exercise its functions in any ways referred to in Article 23(1). For the purposes of points (j)(i) and (ii) of the first subparagraph, where the legal person is a parent undertaking or a subsidiary undertaking which is required to prepare consolidated financial accounts pursuant to Directive 2013/34/EU ( 11 ), the relevant total annual turnover shall be the total annual turnover or the corresponding type of income in accordance with the relevant accounting directives – Council Directive 86/635/EEC ( 12 ) for banks and Council Directive 91/674/EEC ( 13 ) for insurance companies – according to the last available consolidated accounts approved by the management body of the ultimate parent undertaking. 3. Member States may provide that competent authorities have powers in addition to those referred to in paragraph 2 and may provide for higher levels of sanctions than those established in that paragraph.
Article 31 Exercise of supervisory powers and imposition of sanctions
1. Member States shall ensure that when determining the type and level of administrative sanctions, competent authorities take into account all relevant circumstances, including, where appropriate: (a) the gravity and duration of the infringement; (b) the degree of responsibility of the person responsible for the infringement; (c) the financial strength of the person responsible for the infringement, as indicated, for example, by the total turnover of a legal person or the annual income of a natural person; (d) the importance of the profits gained or losses avoided by the person responsible for the infringement, insofar as they can be determined; (e) the level of cooperation of the person responsible for the infringement with the competent authority, without prejudice to the need to ensure disgorgement of profits gained or losses avoided by that person; (f) previous infringements by the person responsible for the infringement; and (g) measures taken by the person responsible for the infringement to prevent its repetition. 2. In the exercise of their powers to impose administrative sanctions and other administrative measures under Article 30, competent authorities shall cooperate closely to ensure that the exercise of their supervisory and investigative powers, and the administrative sanctions that they impose, and the other administrative measures that they take, are effective and appropriate under this Regulation. They shall coordinate their actions in accordance with Article 25 in order to avoid duplication and overlaps when exercising their supervisory and investigative powers and when imposing administrative sanctions in respect of cross-border cases.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Political context This proposal is part of the Listing Act package, a set of measures to make public markets more attractive for EU companies and facilitate access to capital for small and medium-sized companies (SMEs). It is in line with the Capital Markets Union (CMU) core aim to improve access to market-based sources of financing for EU companies at each stage of their development, including for smaller companies. L isted companies , including recently listed ones, often outpace privately owned companies in terms of annual revenue growth and job creation 1 . By listing on public markets, companies can diversify their investor base, reduce their dependency on bank financing, gain easier and cheaper access to additional equity capital and debt finance (through secondary offers), raise their public profile and increase brand recognition . Since the publication of the first CMU Action Plan in 2015, progress has been made to make it easier and cheaper for companies, in particular SMEs, to access public markets. In January 2018, the Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, or ‘ MiFID II ’ ) 2 introduced a new category of Multilateral Trading Facilities (MTFs), the SME growth markets , 3 to incenti vise SMEs access to capital markets. In 2019, new EU rules were put forward by Regulation (EU) 2019/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council 4 (SME Listing Act) to cut red tape and reduce regulatory burden for companies listing on SME growth markets while preserving a high level of investor protection and market integrity . Nevertheless, despite this progress, stakeholders argue that further regulatory action is needed to streamline the listing process and make it more flexible for issuers. The new CMU Action Plan adopted in September 2020 announced that ‘ in order to promote and diversify small and innovative companies’ access to funding, the Commission will seek to simplify the listing rules for public markets ’ . Following up on this and building on the 2019 SME Listing Act, the Commission set up a Technical Expert Stakeholder Group (TESG) on SMEs which confirmed stakeholders’ concerns that further legislative action is needed to support listing of companies and especially of SMEs. In its final report of May 2021 5 , the TESG made 12 recommendations to amend the listing framework both on regulated markets, as well as on SME growth markets . On 15 September 2021 , President Von der Leyen announced in her letter of intent 6 addressed to the Parliament and the Presidency of the Council a legislative proposal to facilitate SMEs’ access to capital, which has been included in the 2022 Commission work programme 7 . A company’s decision to list is a complex one and is influenced by a multitude of factors, many of which are outside the reach of regulators and therefore cannot be addressed directly by a legislative intervention. For instance, the features of the ecosystem that determine the cost of listing services, and more broadly geopolitical instability, Brexit, Covid-19, and inflation, have all had (and will continue to have) an impact on the decision to list, on the timing of listing, and on whether to remain listed in the EU. Regulatory requirements and the associated costs and burden, however, are also an important factor in a company’s decision to list and remain listed. The Listing Act package represents a targeted set of measures aiming to reduce the regulatory burden where it is considered to be excessive (i.e., where regulation could ensure investor protection/market integrity in a more cost efficient manner for stakeholders) and to increase the flexibility accorded under company law to a company’s founder(s) or controlling shareholder(s) to choose how to distribute voting rights after the admission to trading of shares. The regulatory framework applying to the listing process is multifaceted. Companies must comply with regulatory requirements before, during and after the i nitial p ublic o ffering (IPO). This proposal focuses specifically on the regulatory burden that emerges at two moments: the IPO stage and the post-IPO stage. It addresses regulatory burden at the IPO stage by introducing targeted amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council 8 (the Prospectus Regulation ) and it addresses regulatory burden at the post-IPO stage by introducing targeted amendments to Regulation No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 9 ( the Market Abuse Regulation or ‘ MAR ’ ). It also contains limited technical amendments to Regulation No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation or ‘ MiFIR ’ ) 10 . The proposed regulation is accompanied by two other legislative proposals: · a proposal for a d irective amending MiFID II and repealing Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 11 ( the Listing Directive), which aims to both (i) streamline and clarify listing requirements and (ii) to increase the low level of investment research on SMEs; · a proposal for a new d irective on multiple-vote share structures, which aims to address the regulatory barriers that emerge at the pre-IPO phase and, in particular, the unequal opportunities faced by companies across the EU when choos ing the appropriate governance structures when they list . Reasons for the proposal When making a decision on whether or not to list, companies weigh expected benefits against the costs. If costs prevail, or if alternative sources of financing offer a less costly and easier option, companies will not seek access to public markets. Feedback from the market indicates that the initial and ongoing costs of becoming a public company have risen considerably in recent decades, both in absolute terms and relative to private equity funding, in particular for SMEs. The regulatory environment impacts all stages of the listing process and is among the driving forces of the high costs of listing and staying listed. Companies are required to comply with several disclosure and reporting requirements under EU law, especially the Prospectus Regulation and MAR. The aim of the Prospectus Regulation is to enhanc e the internal market for capital by ensur ing investor protection and market efficiency while helping companies, including SMEs, access different forms of finance in the EU 12 . The Prospectus Regulation lays down requirements for the drawing up, approval and distribution of the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market . A prospectus is a document presenting information about a company and the securities that such company offers to the public or seeks to admit to trading on a regulated market. This information should be the basis on which investors can decide whether to invest in securities issued by that company. The Prospectus Regulation does not apply under certain circumstances, such as for non-equity securities issued by certain sovereign or supranational entities, or for offers of securities to the public with a total consideration in the Union below EUR 1 million over a period of 12 months. It also includes several exemptions from the obligation to publish a prospectus for offers of securities to the public or admission to trading on a regulated market. In particular, Member States may exempt from the obligation to publish a prospectus offers of securities to the public of up to EUR 8 million over a period of 12 months, provided that they do not require notification (a ‘passport’). For offers below EUR 1 million or the relevant threshold set at national level, Member States may require national disclosure documents, provided that they do not constitute a disproportionate or unnecessary burden. Hence, issuers willing to offer securities cross-border need to comply with the threshold and disclosure requirements set out by the concerned Member States, unless those issuers draw up a prospectus on a voluntary basis in order to benefit from the EU single passport. Under the CMU Action Plan, progress has already been made to make it easier and cheaper for co mpanies, in particular smaller ones, to draw-up a prospectus. The Prospectus Regulation introduced the EU Growth prospectus – an alleviated form of a standard prospectus - for SMEs listed on SME growth markets. It aimed to reduce the costs of preparing a prospectus by smaller issuers, while providing investors with material information to assess the offer and take an informed investment decision. The Prospectus Regulation also introduced a simplified prospectus for companies whose securities are admitted to trading continuously and for at least the last 18 months on a regulated market or an SME growth market and wishing to issue additional shares or raise debt ( follow-on or secondary issuance s ). Issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on an SME growth market can also use this simplified prospectus to transfer subsequently to regulated markets. Finally, Regulation (EU) 2021/337 of the European Parliament and of the Council 13 introduced, as part of the Capital Markets Recovery Package (CMRP), a new type of short-form prospectus (the “EU Recovery prospectus”) . The EU Recovery prospectus is available to issuers that have shares already admitted to trading o n a regulated market or an SME g rowth market continuously for at least the last 18 months and that issue additional shares to overcome the negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis and contain excessive indebtedness. Th e EU Recovery prospectus regime will however expire on 31 December 2022. Despite the alleviations introduced, feedback from stakeholders indicated that the requirement to produce a prospectus remains overly burdensome. This refers to both instances where companies seek access to public markets for the first time (IPO) and where they access public markets for follow-on of equity or non-equity securities. The current rules in particular contribute to overly lengthy prospectuses. For example, in some cases, the Prospectus Regulation requires information that may not be indispensable for investors to make an informed investment decision (i.e., not justified from the investor protection point of view). Feedback to the public consultation (echoed during the stakeholders’ meetings) confirmed the view that neither the standard prospectus nor the EU Growth prospectus strikes an appropriate balance between effective investor protection and the proportionate administrative burden for issuers, especially SMEs. In other cases, a prospectus is required when a lot of information is already available in the public domain (in particular, in the case of follow-on issuances). The excessive length of the prospectus can also discourage some, in particular smaller, investors from consulting it and translate into a higher cost of investing for larger investors. It also requires a longer period of time for the national competent authority (NCA) to scrutinise and approve the prospectus. The current rules also contribute to very divergent prospectuses across the EU. D ata reported by Oxera 14 and by the European Securities and Markets Authorities ( ES MA ) 15 shows a large discrepancy between Member States regarding the l ength of prospectuses, which is indicative of a lack of uniformity of prospectuses in the EU . This discrepancy stems also from the fact that the current rules do not sufficiently frame supervisory scrutiny by NCAs. Feedback from stakeholders highlighted that the EU regulatory framework places overly burdensome requirements also on already listed issuers, in particular under MAR. Since its entry into application on 1 July 2016, MAR has been extended to MTFs, including SME growth markets. MAR aims to increase market integrity and investor confidence. It prohibits from: (i) engaging or attempting to engage in insider dealing 16 ; (ii) recommending that another person engages in insider dealing or induces another person to engage in insider dealing; (iii) unlawfully disclosing inside information 17 ; or (iv) engaging in or attempting to engage in market manipulation. Issuers are also subject to several disclosure and record-keeping obligations under MAR. In particular, issuers are under a general obligation to disclose all inside information to the public as soon as possible 18 . Feedback from stakeholders indicated that some aspects of the MAR disclosure regime place a disproportionately high burden on issuers. In particular, stakeholders perceive as burdensome the obligation to disclose as soon as possible all inside information. This is due to the broadness of the notion of inside information (which gives rise to difficulties for issuers when delineating between what is and what is not inside information), as well as to the fact that the same notion applies both for the purpose of the prohibition of insider dealing and for the purpose of disclosure. While the broadness of the notion of inside information allows to cater for a wide and very early prohibition of insider dealing, it also implies that issuers are required to disclose information at a very early stage, when information on circumstances or events have not yet reached a high degree of certainty. The notion of inside information covers not only events that have already occurred but also events which are “reasonably expected to occur” (i.e., for which there is a realistic prospect to occur) and, in the context of protracted processes (such as a merger), the intermediate steps which are connected with bringing about a future event. As a consequence, issuers incur high compliance costs to understand which steps of a protracted process may constitute inside information and when a certain piece of information is mature enough to be disclosed. At the same time, the effectiveness of disclosure in reducing information asymmetries between issuers and investors is limited if information is too preliminary, incomplete and still potentially subject to fundamental changes. Too early disclosure of information could mislead investors and trigger action on his/her part that could prove to be suboptimal in hindsight (e.g., divesting the stock too soon or not divesting soon enough), thus increasing the opportunity cost for investors. Furthermore, issuers face a lack of legal clarity around the conditions that need to be met to delay disclosure when immediate disclosure would be likely to prejudice the legitimate interests of the issuers (e.g., by jeopardising the successful conclusion of ongoing negotiations). A few additional reporting and disclosure requirements under MAR place a disproportionately high burden on issuers, such as the provisions on managers’ transactions, insider lists, and market sounding. Current MAR rules also create a disproportionate sanctioning regime for disclosure-related infringements, in particular for SMEs, which may potentially be sanctioned at the same level as large companies. Objectives of the proposal The overall objective of this initiative is to introduce technical adjustments to the EU rulebook in order to reduce regulatory and compliance costs for companies seeking to list or already listed with a view to streamlining the listing process and enhancing legal clarity, while ensuring an appropriate level of investor protection and market integrity. This, in turn, is expected to help diversify funding sources for companies in the EU and increase investments, economic growth, job creation and innovation in the EU. The proposed targeted amendments to the Prospectus Regulation aim in particular to make it easier and cheaper for issuers to draw up a prospectus, while enabling investors to make the right investment decision by providing comprehensible, easy to analyse and concise information. They also seek to introduce sizable simplifications to, or even exemptions from, the prospectus requirements in cases where the issuer is already known to investors and a lot of information is already publicly available (follow-on issuances). These amendments are accompanied by amendments aimed at fostering the convergence of and streamlining the scrutiny and approval process by NCAs (for example, by narrowly frame the ability of NCAs to request issuers to include additional information in the prospectus). In the case of an offer of securities to the public or the admission to trading on a regulated market, the proposal streamlines and further standardises the standard prospectus (referring to a non-alleviated prospectus type, irrespective of whether it relates to equity or non-equity securities, or whether is drawn up as a single document or consists of separate documents). The proposal aligns the level of disclosure of the standard prospectus to the level of disclosure currently required under the EU Growth prospectus regime, introduces a fixed order of disclosure and makes incorporation by reference a legal requirement. The proposal also introduces the possibility for issuers to draw up the prospectus in English only as the language customary in the sphere of international finance (except for the summary which in practice is the only document that most retail investors consult), and to publish it in an electronic format only (i.e., no paper copies on request). At the same time, only for shares or other transferable securities equivalent to shares in companies, a limit number of pages (300 pages) is introduced to avoid overly lengthy prospectuses for companies that do not have a complex financial history. Jointly, these amendments seek to provide a tangible cost and burden reduction for issuers, while ensuring that investors can take advantage of a document that is easier to read and navigate and more easily compare financial instruments and issuers. The proposal also seeks to make it easier for SMEs to raise funds on public markets, in particular on SME growth markets, by generating further cost savings for SMEs and better tailoring disclosure to the needs of investors. For companies offering securities to the public and listing on SME growth markets (as well as for offers of securities to the public by smaller companies), the EU Growth prospectus is replaced by a mandatory new short-form EU Growth issuance document. This document builds on the level of disclosure currently required under the EU Recovery prospectus regime and existing admission documents required by SME growth markets (where the obligation to publish a prospectus does not apply), follows a fixed order of disclosure and is subject, in the case of shares and other equivalent transferable securities, to a page limit. While the proposal exempts, under certain conditions, from the prospectus requirement offers of securities fungible with securities already admitted to trading (for which the publication of a summary document will suffice), it subjects follow-on issuances of non-fungible securities to the approval and publication of a new mandatory short-form EU Follow-on prospectus, largely building on the current EU Recovery prospectus regime. These amendments seek to ensure that companies can fully benefit from the advantages of accessing public capital markets, including easier and quicker access to additional equity capital and debt finance through follow-on offers. At the same time, they safeguard investor protection as these companies are already subject to periodic and ongoing disclosure and reporting requirements and, in addition, issuers will be required to publish the most relevant information for investors. Finally, the amendments to the Prospectus Regulation aim to foster cross-border offers by harmonising and increasing to EUR 12 million the threshold for exempting small offers of securities to the public from the obligation to publish a prospectus. This amendment also seeks to benefit smaller issuers, including SMEs, as in certain cases they will no longer have to produce a prospectus, lowering substantially their regulatory costs and incentivising them to access public capital markets. The proposal also introduces amendments to the rules on equivalence for third countries prospectuses to make them workable. The proposed targeted amendments to MAR aim to reduce legal uncertainty on what constitutes inside information for the purpose of disclosure as well as on the timing of disclosure. While the proposal maintains the current broad notion of inside information for the purposes of the insider dealing regulation, it narrows down the scope of the disclosure obligation. The proposal clarifies in particular that the obligation to disclose all inside information to the public does not cover the information relating to the intermediate steps of a protracted process, as this information is too preliminary and hence not mature enough for disclosure. At the same time, the proposal introduces an empowerment for the Commission to establish, by way of a delegated act a non-exhaustive list of the relevant information as well as, for each information, an indication of the timing when issuers are expected to disclose it. Jointly, these amendments seek to make the MAR disclosure regime less costly to comply with by issuers, more predictable from the investors’ point of view and more conducive to effective price formation. The amendments to the disclosure obligation are accompanied by improvements to the regime for the exchange of information among NCAs to enable them to better identify cases of market manipulation by setting up a cross market order book surveillance (CMOBS) mechanism , 19 thus increasing the integrity of EU markets and enhancing their appeal for investors. In the same vein, the proposal introduces a possibility for ESMA to establish collaboration platforms, in particular for the purpose of monitoring wholesale commodity markets, to address concerns about market integrity and the good functioning of financial and, in particular, spot markets . Finally, the proposal seeks to make the sanctioning regime for MAR disclosure-related infringements more proportionate for SMEs to avoid discouraging smaller issuers from listing or remaining listed. The proposal also aims at alleviating the regulatory hurdles resulting from the application of the managers’ transactions, insider list and market sounding regimes while ensuring that these alleviations do not impair investor protection and market integrity. The creation of a CMOBS mechanism requires also targeted amendments to the MiFIR framework to specify that a competent authority can request order book data on an ongoing basis to a trading venue under its supervision, and to confer to ESMA the role to harmonise the format of the template used to store such data. The proposed targeted amendments aim to build the necessary conditions for structural improvements in EU public capital markets to occur over time. A more favourable regulatory regime would encourage the development of a more favourable ecosystem, contributing in a multi-faceted manner to the CMU objective of improving access to financing by companies. Furthermore, this proposal should be analysed in conjunction with other proposed and upcoming initiatives. The proposed amendments are part of a broader package of measures outlined in the CMU Action Plan, which aim to address other issues currently preventing companies from raising capital on public markets.
Revised version (Article 31 Exercise of supervisory powers and imposition of sanctions):
2. In the exercise of their powers to impose administrative sanctions and other administrative measures under Article 30, competent authorities shall cooperate closely to ensure that the exercise of their supervisory and investigative powers, and the administrative sanctions that they impose, and the other administrative measures that they take, are effective and appropriate under this Regulation. They shall coordinate their actions in accordance with Article 25 in order to avoid duplication and overlaps when exercising their supervisory and investigative powers and when imposing administrative sanctions in respect of cross-border cases.
Article 32 Reporting of infringements
1. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities establish effective mechanisms to enable reporting of actual or potential infringements of this Regulation to competent authorities. 2. The mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 shall include at least: (a) specific procedures for the receipt of reports of infringements and their follow-up, including the establishment of secure communication channels for such reports; (b) within their employment, appropriate protection for persons working under a contract of employment, who report infringements or are accused of infringements, against retaliation, discrimination or other types of unfair treatment at a minimum; and (c) protection of personal data both of the person who reports the infringement and the natural person who allegedly committed the infringement, including protection in relation to preserving the confidentiality of their identity, at all stages of the procedure without prejudice to disclosure of information being required by national law in the context of investigations or subsequent judicial proceedings. 3. Member States shall require employers who carry out activities that are regulated by financial services regulation to have in place appropriate internal procedures for their employees to report infringements of this Regulation. 4. Member States may provide for financial incentives to persons who offer relevant information about potential infringements of this Regulation to be granted in accordance with national law where such persons do not have other pre-existing legal or contractual duties to report such information, and provided that the information is new, and that it results in the imposition of an administrative or criminal sanction, or the taking of another administrative measure, for an infringement of this Regulation. 5. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts to specify the procedures referred to in paragraph 1, including the arrangements for reporting and for following-up reports, and measures for the protection of persons working under a contract of employment and measures for the protection of personal data. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 36(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Political context This proposal is part of the Listing Act package, a set of measures to make public markets more attractive for EU companies and facilitate access to capital for small and medium-sized companies (SMEs). It is in line with the Capital Markets Union (CMU) core aim to improve access to market-based sources of financing for EU companies at each stage of their development, including for smaller companies. L isted companies , including recently listed ones, often outpace privately owned companies in terms of annual revenue growth and job creation 1 . By listing on public markets, companies can diversify their investor base, reduce their dependency on bank financing, gain easier and cheaper access to additional equity capital and debt finance (through secondary offers), raise their public profile and increase brand recognition . Since the publication of the first CMU Action Plan in 2015, progress has been made to make it easier and cheaper for companies, in particular SMEs, to access public markets. In January 2018, the Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, or ‘ MiFID II ’ ) 2 introduced a new category of Multilateral Trading Facilities (MTFs), the SME growth markets , 3 to incenti vise SMEs access to capital markets. In 2019, new EU rules were put forward by Regulation (EU) 2019/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council 4 (SME Listing Act) to cut red tape and reduce regulatory burden for companies listing on SME growth markets while preserving a high level of investor protection and market integrity . Nevertheless, despite this progress, stakeholders argue that further regulatory action is needed to streamline the listing process and make it more flexible for issuers. The new CMU Action Plan adopted in September 2020 announced that ‘ in order to promote and diversify small and innovative companies’ access to funding, the Commission will seek to simplify the listing rules for public markets ’ . Following up on this and building on the 2019 SME Listing Act, the Commission set up a Technical Expert Stakeholder Group (TESG) on SMEs which confirmed stakeholders’ concerns that further legislative action is needed to support listing of companies and especially of SMEs. In its final report of May 2021 5 , the TESG made 12 recommendations to amend the listing framework both on regulated markets, as well as on SME growth markets . On 15 September 2021 , President Von der Leyen announced in her letter of intent 6 addressed to the Parliament and the Presidency of the Council a legislative proposal to facilitate SMEs’ access to capital, which has been included in the 2022 Commission work programme 7 . A company’s decision to list is a complex one and is influenced by a multitude of factors, many of which are outside the reach of regulators and therefore cannot be addressed directly by a legislative intervention. For instance, the features of the ecosystem that determine the cost of listing services, and more broadly geopolitical instability, Brexit, Covid-19, and inflation, have all had (and will continue to have) an impact on the decision to list, on the timing of listing, and on whether to remain listed in the EU. Regulatory requirements and the associated costs and burden, however, are also an important factor in a company’s decision to list and remain listed. The Listing Act package represents a targeted set of measures aiming to reduce the regulatory burden where it is considered to be excessive (i.e., where regulation could ensure investor protection/market integrity in a more cost efficient manner for stakeholders) and to increase the flexibility accorded under company law to a company’s founder(s) or controlling shareholder(s) to choose how to distribute voting rights after the admission to trading of shares. The regulatory framework applying to the listing process is multifaceted. Companies must comply with regulatory requirements before, during and after the i nitial p ublic o ffering (IPO). This proposal focuses specifically on the regulatory burden that emerges at two moments: the IPO stage and the post-IPO stage. It addresses regulatory burden at the IPO stage by introducing targeted amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council 8 (the Prospectus Regulation ) and it addresses regulatory burden at the post-IPO stage by introducing targeted amendments to Regulation No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 9 ( the Market Abuse Regulation or ‘ MAR ’ ). It also contains limited technical amendments to Regulation No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation or ‘ MiFIR ’ ) 10 . The proposed regulation is accompanied by two other legislative proposals: · a proposal for a d irective amending MiFID II and repealing Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 11 ( the Listing Directive), which aims to both (i) streamline and clarify listing requirements and (ii) to increase the low level of investment research on SMEs; · a proposal for a new d irective on multiple-vote share structures, which aims to address the regulatory barriers that emerge at the pre-IPO phase and, in particular, the unequal opportunities faced by companies across the EU when choos ing the appropriate governance structures when they list . Reasons for the proposal When making a decision on whether or not to list, companies weigh expected benefits against the costs. If costs prevail, or if alternative sources of financing offer a less costly and easier option, companies will not seek access to public markets. Feedback from the market indicates that the initial and ongoing costs of becoming a public company have risen considerably in recent decades, both in absolute terms and relative to private equity funding, in particular for SMEs. The regulatory environment impacts all stages of the listing process and is among the driving forces of the high costs of listing and staying listed. Companies are required to comply with several disclosure and reporting requirements under EU law, especially the Prospectus Regulation and MAR. The aim of the Prospectus Regulation is to enhanc e the internal market for capital by ensur ing investor protection and market efficiency while helping companies, including SMEs, access different forms of finance in the EU 12 . The Prospectus Regulation lays down requirements for the drawing up, approval and distribution of the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market . A prospectus is a document presenting information about a company and the securities that such company offers to the public or seeks to admit to trading on a regulated market. This information should be the basis on which investors can decide whether to invest in securities issued by that company. The Prospectus Regulation does not apply under certain circumstances, such as for non-equity securities issued by certain sovereign or supranational entities, or for offers of securities to the public with a total consideration in the Union below EUR 1 million over a period of 12 months. It also includes several exemptions from the obligation to publish a prospectus for offers of securities to the public or admission to trading on a regulated market. In particular, Member States may exempt from the obligation to publish a prospectus offers of securities to the public of up to EUR 8 million over a period of 12 months, provided that they do not require notification (a ‘passport’). For offers below EUR 1 million or the relevant threshold set at national level, Member States may require national disclosure documents, provided that they do not constitute a disproportionate or unnecessary burden. Hence, issuers willing to offer securities cross-border need to comply with the threshold and disclosure requirements set out by the concerned Member States, unless those issuers draw up a prospectus on a voluntary basis in order to benefit from the EU single passport. Under the CMU Action Plan, progress has already been made to make it easier and cheaper for co mpanies, in particular smaller ones, to draw-up a prospectus. The Prospectus Regulation introduced the EU Growth prospectus – an alleviated form of a standard prospectus - for SMEs listed on SME growth markets. It aimed to reduce the costs of preparing a prospectus by smaller issuers, while providing investors with material information to assess the offer and take an informed investment decision. The Prospectus Regulation also introduced a simplified prospectus for companies whose securities are admitted to trading continuously and for at least the last 18 months on a regulated market or an SME growth market and wishing to issue additional shares or raise debt ( follow-on or secondary issuance s ). Issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on an SME growth market can also use this simplified prospectus to transfer subsequently to regulated markets. Finally, Regulation (EU) 2021/337 of the European Parliament and of the Council 13 introduced, as part of the Capital Markets Recovery Package (CMRP), a new type of short-form prospectus (the “EU Recovery prospectus”) . The EU Recovery prospectus is available to issuers that have shares already admitted to trading o n a regulated market or an SME g rowth market continuously for at least the last 18 months and that issue additional shares to overcome the negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis and contain excessive indebtedness. Th e EU Recovery prospectus regime will however expire on 31 December 2022. Despite the alleviations introduced, feedback from stakeholders indicated that the requirement to produce a prospectus remains overly burdensome. This refers to both instances where companies seek access to public markets for the first time (IPO) and where they access public markets for follow-on of equity or non-equity securities. The current rules in particular contribute to overly lengthy prospectuses. For example, in some cases, the Prospectus Regulation requires information that may not be indispensable for investors to make an informed investment decision (i.e., not justified from the investor protection point of view). Feedback to the public consultation (echoed during the stakeholders’ meetings) confirmed the view that neither the standard prospectus nor the EU Growth prospectus strikes an appropriate balance between effective investor protection and the proportionate administrative burden for issuers, especially SMEs. In other cases, a prospectus is required when a lot of information is already available in the public domain (in particular, in the case of follow-on issuances). The excessive length of the prospectus can also discourage some, in particular smaller, investors from consulting it and translate into a higher cost of investing for larger investors. It also requires a longer period of time for the national competent authority (NCA) to scrutinise and approve the prospectus. The current rules also contribute to very divergent prospectuses across the EU. D ata reported by Oxera 14 and by the European Securities and Markets Authorities ( ES MA ) 15 shows a large discrepancy between Member States regarding the l ength of prospectuses, which is indicative of a lack of uniformity of prospectuses in the EU . This discrepancy stems also from the fact that the current rules do not sufficiently frame supervisory scrutiny by NCAs. Feedback from stakeholders highlighted that the EU regulatory framework places overly burdensome requirements also on already listed issuers, in particular under MAR. Since its entry into application on 1 July 2016, MAR has been extended to MTFs, including SME growth markets. MAR aims to increase market integrity and investor confidence. It prohibits from: (i) engaging or attempting to engage in insider dealing 16 ; (ii) recommending that another person engages in insider dealing or induces another person to engage in insider dealing; (iii) unlawfully disclosing inside information 17 ; or (iv) engaging in or attempting to engage in market manipulation. Issuers are also subject to several disclosure and record-keeping obligations under MAR. In particular, issuers are under a general obligation to disclose all inside information to the public as soon as possible 18 . Feedback from stakeholders indicated that some aspects of the MAR disclosure regime place a disproportionately high burden on issuers. In particular, stakeholders perceive as burdensome the obligation to disclose as soon as possible all inside information. This is due to the broadness of the notion of inside information (which gives rise to difficulties for issuers when delineating between what is and what is not inside information), as well as to the fact that the same notion applies both for the purpose of the prohibition of insider dealing and for the purpose of disclosure. While the broadness of the notion of inside information allows to cater for a wide and very early prohibition of insider dealing, it also implies that issuers are required to disclose information at a very early stage, when information on circumstances or events have not yet reached a high degree of certainty. The notion of inside information covers not only events that have already occurred but also events which are “reasonably expected to occur” (i.e., for which there is a realistic prospect to occur) and, in the context of protracted processes (such as a merger), the intermediate steps which are connected with bringing about a future event. As a consequence, issuers incur high compliance costs to understand which steps of a protracted process may constitute inside information and when a certain piece of information is mature enough to be disclosed. At the same time, the effectiveness of disclosure in reducing information asymmetries between issuers and investors is limited if information is too preliminary, incomplete and still potentially subject to fundamental changes. Too early disclosure of information could mislead investors and trigger action on his/her part that could prove to be suboptimal in hindsight (e.g., divesting the stock too soon or not divesting soon enough), thus increasing the opportunity cost for investors. Furthermore, issuers face a lack of legal clarity around the conditions that need to be met to delay disclosure when immediate disclosure would be likely to prejudice the legitimate interests of the issuers (e.g., by jeopardising the successful conclusion of ongoing negotiations). A few additional reporting and disclosure requirements under MAR place a disproportionately high burden on issuers, such as the provisions on managers’ transactions, insider lists, and market sounding. Current MAR rules also create a disproportionate sanctioning regime for disclosure-related infringements, in particular for SMEs, which may potentially be sanctioned at the same level as large companies. Objectives of the proposal The overall objective of this initiative is to introduce technical adjustments to the EU rulebook in order to reduce regulatory and compliance costs for companies seeking to list or already listed with a view to streamlining the listing process and enhancing legal clarity, while ensuring an appropriate level of investor protection and market integrity. This, in turn, is expected to help diversify funding sources for companies in the EU and increase investments, economic growth, job creation and innovation in the EU. The proposed targeted amendments to the Prospectus Regulation aim in particular to make it easier and cheaper for issuers to draw up a prospectus, while enabling investors to make the right investment decision by providing comprehensible, easy to analyse and concise information. They also seek to introduce sizable simplifications to, or even exemptions from, the prospectus requirements in cases where the issuer is already known to investors and a lot of information is already publicly available (follow-on issuances). These amendments are accompanied by amendments aimed at fostering the convergence of and streamlining the scrutiny and approval process by NCAs (for example, by narrowly frame the ability of NCAs to request issuers to include additional information in the prospectus). In the case of an offer of securities to the public or the admission to trading on a regulated market, the proposal streamlines and further standardises the standard prospectus (referring to a non-alleviated prospectus type, irrespective of whether it relates to equity or non-equity securities, or whether is drawn up as a single document or consists of separate documents). The proposal aligns the level of disclosure of the standard prospectus to the level of disclosure currently required under the EU Growth prospectus regime, introduces a fixed order of disclosure and makes incorporation by reference a legal requirement. The proposal also introduces the possibility for issuers to draw up the prospectus in English only as the language customary in the sphere of international finance (except for the summary which in practice is the only document that most retail investors consult), and to publish it in an electronic format only (i.e., no paper copies on request). At the same time, only for shares or other transferable securities equivalent to shares in companies, a limit number of pages (300 pages) is introduced to avoid overly lengthy prospectuses for companies that do not have a complex financial history. Jointly, these amendments seek to provide a tangible cost and burden reduction for issuers, while ensuring that investors can take advantage of a document that is easier to read and navigate and more easily compare financial instruments and issuers. The proposal also seeks to make it easier for SMEs to raise funds on public markets, in particular on SME growth markets, by generating further cost savings for SMEs and better tailoring disclosure to the needs of investors. For companies offering securities to the public and listing on SME growth markets (as well as for offers of securities to the public by smaller companies), the EU Growth prospectus is replaced by a mandatory new short-form EU Growth issuance document. This document builds on the level of disclosure currently required under the EU Recovery prospectus regime and existing admission documents required by SME growth markets (where the obligation to publish a prospectus does not apply), follows a fixed order of disclosure and is subject, in the case of shares and other equivalent transferable securities, to a page limit. While the proposal exempts, under certain conditions, from the prospectus requirement offers of securities fungible with securities already admitted to trading (for which the publication of a summary document will suffice), it subjects follow-on issuances of non-fungible securities to the approval and publication of a new mandatory short-form EU Follow-on prospectus, largely building on the current EU Recovery prospectus regime. These amendments seek to ensure that companies can fully benefit from the advantages of accessing public capital markets, including easier and quicker access to additional equity capital and debt finance through follow-on offers. At the same time, they safeguard investor protection as these companies are already subject to periodic and ongoing disclosure and reporting requirements and, in addition, issuers will be required to publish the most relevant information for investors. Finally, the amendments to the Prospectus Regulation aim to foster cross-border offers by harmonising and increasing to EUR 12 million the threshold for exempting small offers of securities to the public from the obligation to publish a prospectus. This amendment also seeks to benefit smaller issuers, including SMEs, as in certain cases they will no longer have to produce a prospectus, lowering substantially their regulatory costs and incentivising them to access public capital markets. The proposal also introduces amendments to the rules on equivalence for third countries prospectuses to make them workable. The proposed targeted amendments to MAR aim to reduce legal uncertainty on what constitutes inside information for the purpose of disclosure as well as on the timing of disclosure. While the proposal maintains the current broad notion of inside information for the purposes of the insider dealing regulation, it narrows down the scope of the disclosure obligation. The proposal clarifies in particular that the obligation to disclose all inside information to the public does not cover the information relating to the intermediate steps of a protracted process, as this information is too preliminary and hence not mature enough for disclosure. At the same time, the proposal introduces an empowerment for the Commission to establish, by way of a delegated act a non-exhaustive list of the relevant information as well as, for each information, an indication of the timing when issuers are expected to disclose it. Jointly, these amendments seek to make the MAR disclosure regime less costly to comply with by issuers, more predictable from the investors’ point of view and more conducive to effective price formation. The amendments to the disclosure obligation are accompanied by improvements to the regime for the exchange of information among NCAs to enable them to better identify cases of market manipulation by setting up a cross market order book surveillance (CMOBS) mechanism , 19 thus increasing the integrity of EU markets and enhancing their appeal for investors. In the same vein, the proposal introduces a possibility for ESMA to establish collaboration platforms, in particular for the purpose of monitoring wholesale commodity markets, to address concerns about market integrity and the good functioning of financial and, in particular, spot markets . Finally, the proposal seeks to make the sanctioning regime for MAR disclosure-related infringements more proportionate for SMEs to avoid discouraging smaller issuers from listing or remaining listed. The proposal also aims at alleviating the regulatory hurdles resulting from the application of the managers’ transactions, insider list and market sounding regimes while ensuring that these alleviations do not impair investor protection and market integrity. The creation of a CMOBS mechanism requires also targeted amendments to the MiFIR framework to specify that a competent authority can request order book data on an ongoing basis to a trading venue under its supervision, and to confer to ESMA the role to harmonise the format of the template used to store such data. The proposed targeted amendments aim to build the necessary conditions for structural improvements in EU public capital markets to occur over time. A more favourable regulatory regime would encourage the development of a more favourable ecosystem, contributing in a multi-faceted manner to the CMU objective of improving access to financing by companies. Furthermore, this proposal should be analysed in conjunction with other proposed and upcoming initiatives. The proposed amendments are part of a broader package of measures outlined in the CMU Action Plan, which aim to address other issues currently preventing companies from raising capital on public markets.
Revised version (Article 32 Reporting of infringements):
1. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities establish effective mechanisms to enable reporting of actual or potential infringements of this Regulation to competent authorities. 3. Member States shall require employers who carry out activities that are regulated by financial services regulation to have in place appropriate internal procedures for their employees to report infringements of this Regulation. 4. Member States may provide for financial incentives to persons who offer relevant information about potential infringements of this Regulation to be granted in accordance with national law where such persons do not have other pre-existing legal or contractual duties to report such information, and provided that the information is new, and that it results in the imposition of an administrative or criminal sanction, or the taking of another administrative measure, for an infringement of this Regulation. 5. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts to specify the procedures referred to in paragraph 1, including the arrangements for reporting and for following-up reports, and measures for the protection of persons working under a contract of employment and measures for the protection of personal data. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 36(2).
Article 33 Exchange of information with ESMA
1. Competent authorities shall provide ESMA annually with aggregated information regarding all administrative sanctions and other administrative measures imposed by the competent authority in accordance with Articles 30, 31 and 32. ESMA shall publish that information in an annual report. Competent authorities shall also provide ESMA annually with anonymised and aggregated data regarding all administrative investigations undertaken in accordance with those Articles. 2. Where Member States have, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 30(1), laid down criminal sanctions for the infringements referred to in that Article, their competent authorities shall provide ESMA annually with anonymised and aggregated data regarding all criminal investigations undertaken and criminal penalties imposed by the judicial authorities in accordance with Articles 30, 31 and 32. ESMA shall publish data on criminal sanctions imposed in an annual report. 3. Where the competent authority has disclosed administrative or criminal sanctions or other administrative measures to the public, it shall simultaneously notify ESMA thereof. 4. Where a published administrative or criminal sanction or other administrative measure relates to an investment firm authorised in accordance with Directive 2014/65/EU, ESMA shall add a reference to that published sanction or measure in the register of investment firms established under Article 5(3) of that Directive. 5. In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the procedures and forms for exchange of information as referred to in this Article. ESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2016. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Article 34 Publication of decisions
1. Subject to the third subparagraph, competent authorities shall publish any decision imposing an administrative sanction or other administrative measure in relation to an infringement of this Regulation on their website immediately after the person subject to that decision has been informed of that decision. Such publication shall include at least information on the type and nature of the infringement and the identity of the person subject to the decision. The first subparagraph does not apply to decisions imposing measures that are of an investigatory nature. Where a competent authority considers that the publication of the identity of the legal person subject to the decision, or of the personal data of a natural person, would be disproportionate following a case-by-case assessment conducted on the proportionality of the publication of such data, or where such publication would jeopardise an ongoing investigation or the stability of the financial markets, it shall do any of the following: (a) defer publication of the decision until the reasons for that deferral cease to exist; (b) publish the decision on an anonymous basis in accordance with national law where such publication ensures the effective protection of the personal data concerned; (c) not publish the decision in the event that the competent authority is of the opinion that publication in accordance with point (a) or (b) will be insufficient to ensure: (i) that the stability of financial markets is not jeopardised; or (ii) the proportionality of the publication of such decisions with regard to measures which are deemed to be of a minor nature. Where a competent authority takes a decision to publish a decision on an anonymous basis as referred to in point (b) of the third subparagraph, it may postpone the publication of the relevant data for a reasonable period of time where it is foreseeable that the reasons for anonymous publication will cease to exist during that period. 2. Where the decision is subject to an appeal before a national judicial, administrative or other authority, competent authorities shall also publish immediately on their website such information and any subsequent information on the outcome of such an appeal. Moreover, any decision annulling a decision subject to appeal shall also be published. 3. Competent authorities shall ensure that any decision that is published in accordance with this Article shall remain accessible on their website for a period of at least five years after its publication. Personal data contained in such publications shall be kept on the website of the competent authority for the period which is necessary in accordance with the applicable data protection rules.
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 the NCAs will be in a position to apply MiFID II as of 3 January 2017. This is as 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 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. Changing the date of applicability of MiFID II does however have consequences for the applicability of other legislation, in particular Regulation (EU) 596/2014 ('MAR') and Regulation (EU) 909/2014 ('CSDR'). The market abuse framework will apply to certain definitions and concepts of MiFID II. As MAR is set to enter into application on 3 July 2016, there is already a provision in it, which ensures that before the originally foreseen date of entry into application of MiFID II, concepts and rules of MiFID I will apply. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the originally foreseen date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify in MAR that the concepts and rules as set out in MiFID I should be used until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. MAR also refers to concepts that will be introduced by MiFID II, such as organised trading facilities ('OTFs'), small and medium-sized enterprises ('SME') growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon. MAR sets out that its provisions shall not apply to these concepts until the originally foreseen entry into application of MiFID II. It is therefore also necessary to clarify in MAR that provisions referring to OTFs, SME growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon shall not apply until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. The consequences for the CSDR are twofold. First, there are consequences for the application of the rules on settlement discipline to multilateral trading facilities ('MTFs') applying for registration as SME growth markets in accordance with Directive 2014/65/EU. Specifically, these rules allow MTFs meeting the criteria for an SME growth market under MiFID II to apply a longer extension period for the settlement of transactions whilst their registration as an SME growth market under MiFID II is still ongoing. Second, in order to have a clear and coherent legislative framework for trading and settlement, CSDR relies on many of the definitions and concepts of MiFID II. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the previous date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify that until the new date of entry into application, the rules set out in MiFID I should be used. 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 Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 should not impact adoption of delegated acts and technical standards under Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. 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 Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 .
Revised version (Article 34 Publication of decisions):
1. Subject to the third subparagraph, competent authorities shall publish any decision imposing an administrative sanction or other administrative measure in relation to an infringement of this Regulation on their website immediately after the person subject to that decision has been informed of that decision. Such publication shall include at least information on the type and nature of the infringement and the identity of the person subject to the decision. The first subparagraph does not apply to decisions imposing measures that are of an investigatory nature. Where a competent authority considers that the publication of the identity of the legal person subject to the decision, or of the personal data of a natural person, would be disproportionate following a case-by-case assessment conducted on the proportionality of the publication of such data, or where such publication would jeopardise an ongoing investigation or the stability of the financial markets, it shall do any of the following: (a) defer publication of the decision until the reasons for that deferral cease to exist; (b) publish the decision on an anonymous basis in accordance with national law where such publication ensures the effective protection of the personal data concerned; (c) not publish the decision in the event that the competent authority is of the opinion that publication in accordance with point (a) or (b) will be insufficient to ensure: (i) that the stability of financial markets is not jeopardised; or (ii) the proportionality of the publication of such decisions with regard to measures which are deemed to be of a minor nature. (c) not publish the decision in the event that the competent authority is of the opinion that publication in accordance with point (a) or (b) will be insufficient to ensure: (i) that the stability of financial markets is not jeopardised; or (ii) the proportionality of the publication of such decisions with regard to measures which are deemed to be of a minor nature. Where a competent authority takes a decision to publish a decision on an anonymous basis as referred to in point (b) of the third subparagraph, it may postpone the publication of the relevant data for a reasonable period of time where it is foreseeable that the reasons for anonymous publication will cease to exist during that period. 2. Where the decision is subject to an appeal before a national judicial, administrative or other authority, competent authorities shall also publish immediately on their website such information and any subsequent information on the outcome of such an appeal. Moreover, any decision annulling a decision subject to appeal shall also be published. 3. Competent authorities shall ensure that any decision that is published in accordance with this Article shall remain accessible on their website for a period of at least five years after its publication. Personal data contained in such publications shall be kept on the website of the competent authority for the period which is necessary in accordance with the applicable data protection rules.
Article 35 Exercise of the delegation
1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 6(5) and (6), Article 12(5), the third subparagraph of Article 17(2), Article 17(3), and Article 19(13) and (14) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from 2 July 2014. 3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 6(5) and (6), Article 12(5), the third subparagraph of Article 17(2), Article 17(3), and Article 19(13) and (14), may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to referred to Article 6(5) and (6), Article 12(5), the third subparagraph of Article 17(2), Article 17(3), or Article 19(13) or (14), shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of three months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and 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 the Council.
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 the NCAs will be in a position to apply MiFID II as of 3 January 2017. This is as 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 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. Changing the date of applicability of MiFID II does however have consequences for the applicability of other legislation, in particular Regulation (EU) 596/2014 ('MAR') and Regulation (EU) 909/2014 ('CSDR'). The market abuse framework will apply to certain definitions and concepts of MiFID II. As MAR is set to enter into application on 3 July 2016, there is already a provision in it, which ensures that before the originally foreseen date of entry into application of MiFID II, concepts and rules of MiFID I will apply. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the originally foreseen date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify in MAR that the concepts and rules as set out in MiFID I should be used until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. MAR also refers to concepts that will be introduced by MiFID II, such as organised trading facilities ('OTFs'), small and medium-sized enterprises ('SME') growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon. MAR sets out that its provisions shall not apply to these concepts until the originally foreseen entry into application of MiFID II. It is therefore also necessary to clarify in MAR that provisions referring to OTFs, SME growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon shall not apply until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. The consequences for the CSDR are twofold. First, there are consequences for the application of the rules on settlement discipline to multilateral trading facilities ('MTFs') applying for registration as SME growth markets in accordance with Directive 2014/65/EU. Specifically, these rules allow MTFs meeting the criteria for an SME growth market under MiFID II to apply a longer extension period for the settlement of transactions whilst their registration as an SME growth market under MiFID II is still ongoing. Second, in order to have a clear and coherent legislative framework for trading and settlement, CSDR relies on many of the definitions and concepts of MiFID II. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the previous date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify that until the new date of entry into application, the rules set out in MiFID I should be used. 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 Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 should not impact adoption of delegated acts and technical standards under Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. 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 Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 .
Revised version (Article 35 Exercise of the delegation):
1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 6(5) and (6), Article 12(5), the third subparagraph of Article 17(2), Article 17(3) , Article 19(13) and (14) and Article 38 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from 2 July 2014. 3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 6(5) and (6), Article 12(5), the third subparagraph of Article 17(2), Article 17(3) , Article 19(13) and (14) and Article 38 , may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 6(5) or (6), Article 12(5), the third subparagraph of Article 17(2), Article 17(3), Article 19(13) or (14) or Article 38, shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of three months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and 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 the Council.
Article 36 Committee procedure
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the European Securities Committee established by Commission Decision 2001/528/EC ( 31 ) . That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. 2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.
Article 37 Repeal of Directive 2003/6/EC and its implementing measures
Directive 2003/6/EC and Commission Directives 2004/72/EC ( 32 ) , 2003/125/EC ( 33 ) and 2003/124/EC ( 34 ) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2273/2003 ( 35 ) shall be repealed with effect from 3 July 2016. References to Directive 2003/6/EC shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex II to this Regulation.
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 the NCAs will be in a position to apply MiFID II as of 3 January 2017. This is as 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 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. Changing the date of applicability of MiFID II does however have consequences for the applicability of other legislation, in particular Regulation (EU) 596/2014 ('MAR') and Regulation (EU) 909/2014 ('CSDR'). The market abuse framework will apply to certain definitions and concepts of MiFID II. As MAR is set to enter into application on 3 July 2016, there is already a provision in it, which ensures that before the originally foreseen date of entry into application of MiFID II, concepts and rules of MiFID I will apply. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the originally foreseen date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify in MAR that the concepts and rules as set out in MiFID I should be used until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. MAR also refers to concepts that will be introduced by MiFID II, such as organised trading facilities ('OTFs'), small and medium-sized enterprises ('SME') growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon. MAR sets out that its provisions shall not apply to these concepts until the originally foreseen entry into application of MiFID II. It is therefore also necessary to clarify in MAR that provisions referring to OTFs, SME growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon shall not apply until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. The consequences for the CSDR are twofold. First, there are consequences for the application of the rules on settlement discipline to multilateral trading facilities ('MTFs') applying for registration as SME growth markets in accordance with Directive 2014/65/EU. Specifically, these rules allow MTFs meeting the criteria for an SME growth market under MiFID II to apply a longer extension period for the settlement of transactions whilst their registration as an SME growth market under MiFID II is still ongoing. Second, in order to have a clear and coherent legislative framework for trading and settlement, CSDR relies on many of the definitions and concepts of MiFID II. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the previous date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify that until the new date of entry into application, the rules set out in MiFID I should be used. 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 Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 should not impact adoption of delegated acts and technical standards under Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. 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 Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 .
Revised version (Article 37 Repeal of Directive 2003/6/EC and its implementing measures):
Directive 2003/6/EC and Commission Directives 2004/72/EC, 2003/125/EC ( 15 ) and 2003/124/EC ( 16 ) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2273/2003 ( 17 ) shall be repealed with effect from 3 July 2016. References to Directive 2003/6/EC shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex II to this Regulation.
Article 38 Report
By 3 July 2019, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Regulation, together with a legislative proposal to amend it if appropriate. That report shall assess, inter alia: (a) the appropriateness of introducing common rules on the need for all Member States to provide for administrative sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation; (b) whether the definition of inside information is sufficient to cover all information relevant for competent authorities to effectively combat market abuse; (c) the appropriateness of the conditions under which the prohibition on trading is mandated in accordance with Article 19(11) with a view to identifying whether there are any further circumstances under which the prohibition should apply; (d) the possibility of establishing a Union framework for cross-market order book surveillance in relation to market abuse, including recommendations for such a framework; and (e) the scope of the application of the benchmark provisions. For the purposes of point (a) of the first subparagraph, ESMA shall undertake a mapping exercise of the application of administrative sanctions and, where Member States have decided, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 30(1), to lay down criminal sanctions as referred to therein for infringements of this Regulation, of the application of such criminal sanctions within Member States. That exercise shall also include any data made available under Article 33(1) and (2).
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 the NCAs will be in a position to apply MiFID II as of 3 January 2017. This is as 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 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. Changing the date of applicability of MiFID II does however have consequences for the applicability of other legislation, in particular Regulation (EU) 596/2014 ('MAR') and Regulation (EU) 909/2014 ('CSDR'). The market abuse framework will apply to certain definitions and concepts of MiFID II. As MAR is set to enter into application on 3 July 2016, there is already a provision in it, which ensures that before the originally foreseen date of entry into application of MiFID II, concepts and rules of MiFID I will apply. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the originally foreseen date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify in MAR that the concepts and rules as set out in MiFID I should be used until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. MAR also refers to concepts that will be introduced by MiFID II, such as organised trading facilities ('OTFs'), small and medium-sized enterprises ('SME') growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon. MAR sets out that its provisions shall not apply to these concepts until the originally foreseen entry into application of MiFID II. It is therefore also necessary to clarify in MAR that provisions referring to OTFs, SME growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon shall not apply until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. The consequences for the CSDR are twofold. First, there are consequences for the application of the rules on settlement discipline to multilateral trading facilities ('MTFs') applying for registration as SME growth markets in accordance with Directive 2014/65/EU. Specifically, these rules allow MTFs meeting the criteria for an SME growth market under MiFID II to apply a longer extension period for the settlement of transactions whilst their registration as an SME growth market under MiFID II is still ongoing. Second, in order to have a clear and coherent legislative framework for trading and settlement, CSDR relies on many of the definitions and concepts of MiFID II. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the previous date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify that until the new date of entry into application, the rules set out in MiFID I should be used. 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 Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 should not impact adoption of delegated acts and technical standards under Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. 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 Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 .
Revised version (Article 38 Report):
By 3 July 2019, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Regulation, together with a legislative proposal to amend it if appropriate. That report shall assess, inter alia: (a) the appropriateness of introducing common rules on the need for all Member States to provide for administrative sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation; (b) whether the definition of inside information is sufficient to cover all information relevant for competent authorities to effectively combat market abuse; (c) the appropriateness of the conditions under which the prohibition on trading is mandated in accordance with Article 19(11) with a view to identifying whether there are any further circumstances under which the prohibition should apply; (d) the possibility of establishing a Union framework for cross-market order book surveillance in relation to market abuse, including recommendations for such a framework; and (e) the scope of the application of the benchmark provisions. For the purposes of point (a) of the first subparagraph, ESMA shall undertake a mapping exercise of the application of administrative sanctions and, where Member States have decided, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 30(1), to lay down criminal sanctions as referred to therein for infringements of this Regulation, of the application of such criminal sanctions within Member States. That exercise shall also include any data made available under Article 33(1) and (2). By 3 July 2019, the Commission shall, after consulting ESMA, submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the level of the thresholds set out in Article 19(1a)(a) and (b) in relation to managers' transactions where the issuer's shares or debt instruments form part of a collective investment undertaking or provide exposure to a portfolio of assets, with a view to assessing whether that level is appropriate or should be adjusted. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 35 adjusting the thresholds in Article 19(1a)(a) and (b), if it determines in that report that those thresholds should be adjusted.
Article 39 Entry into force and application
1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union .
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 the NCAs will be in a position to apply MiFID II as of 3 January 2017. This is as 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 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. Changing the date of applicability of MiFID II does however have consequences for the applicability of other legislation, in particular Regulation (EU) 596/2014 ('MAR') and Regulation (EU) 909/2014 ('CSDR'). The market abuse framework will apply to certain definitions and concepts of MiFID II. As MAR is set to enter into application on 3 July 2016, there is already a provision in it, which ensures that before the originally foreseen date of entry into application of MiFID II, concepts and rules of MiFID I will apply. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the originally foreseen date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify in MAR that the concepts and rules as set out in MiFID I should be used until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. MAR also refers to concepts that will be introduced by MiFID II, such as organised trading facilities ('OTFs'), small and medium-sized enterprises ('SME') growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon. MAR sets out that its provisions shall not apply to these concepts until the originally foreseen entry into application of MiFID II. It is therefore also necessary to clarify in MAR that provisions referring to OTFs, SME growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon shall not apply until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. The consequences for the CSDR are twofold. First, there are consequences for the application of the rules on settlement discipline to multilateral trading facilities ('MTFs') applying for registration as SME growth markets in accordance with Directive 2014/65/EU. Specifically, these rules allow MTFs meeting the criteria for an SME growth market under MiFID II to apply a longer extension period for the settlement of transactions whilst their registration as an SME growth market under MiFID II is still ongoing. Second, in order to have a clear and coherent legislative framework for trading and settlement, CSDR relies on many of the definitions and concepts of MiFID II. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the previous date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify that until the new date of entry into application, the rules set out in MiFID I should be used. 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 Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 should not impact adoption of delegated acts and technical standards under Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. 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 Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 .
Revised version (Article 39 Entry into force and application):
1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union . 2. It shall apply from 3 July 2016 except for: (a) Article 4(2) and (3), which shall apply from 3 January 2018; and (b) Article 4(4) and (5), Article 5(6), Article 6(5) and (6), Article 7(5), Article 11(9), (10) and (11), Article 12(5), Article 13(7) and (11), Article 16(5), the third subparagraph of Article 17(2), Article 17(3), (10) and (11), Article 18(9), Article 19(13), (14) and (15), Article 20(3), Article 24(3), Article 25(9), the second, third and fourth subparagraphs of Article 26(2), Article 32(5) and Article 33(5), which shall apply from 2 July 2014. 3. Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with Articles 22, 23 and 30, Article 31(1) and Articles 32 and 34 by 3 July 2016. 4. References in this Regulation to Directive 2014/65/EU and Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 shall, before 3 January 2018 , be read as references to Directive 2004/39/EC in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex IV to Directive 2014/65/EU in so far as that correlation table contains provisions referring to Directive 2004/39/EC. Where reference in the provisions of this Regulation is made to OTFs, SME growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon, those provisions shall not apply to OTFs, SME growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon until 3 January 2018 . This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.