ESMA publishes report on cross-border investment services supervision 20 July 2026 Supervisory convergence The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, today published its follow-up report to the Peer Review on the supervision of cross-border activities of investment firms. The report assesses the progress made by national competent authorities (NCAs) in implementing recommendations issued in 2022 and covers the Netherlands, German...
ESMA’s report does **not introduce new binding rules**, but it does confirm that NCAs are being pushed to supervise cross-border investment services more intensively and in a more risk-based way. For compliance teams, this matters because firms with cross-border passports should expect tougher scrutiny of their business plans, stronger information requests, more targeted inspections, and closer coordination between home and host supervisors.
What Changed
- - ESMA reports that NCAs have strengthened authorisation assessments by placing greater emphasis on firms’ cross-border business plans and intentions before granting or maintaining permissions.
- NCAs are increasingly using data-driven and risk-based supervision to monitor cross-border activity and calibrate supervisory attention to the scale, nature, and complexity of the activity.
- NCAs have expanded cooperation and enforcement, including more targeted supervisory actions and reporting of enforcement cases where relevant.
- ESMA expects NCAs with significant outbound cross-border activity to ensure that their supervisory and enforcement approaches are proportionate to the level of risk and business volume.
- The report reinforces that cross-border activity should be treated as a distinct supervisory risk area, not merely as an incidental extension of domestic supervision.
Suggested Considerations
- Review cross-border business plans for all passported investment services and ensure they are supported by clear governance, staffing, systems, and client-service arrangements.
- Map all outbound cross-border activities by jurisdiction, client type, product type, and distribution channel so that compliance can identify where supervisory risk is highest.
- Strengthen controls over retail cross-border activity, including marketing, suitability/appropriateness, complaints handling, and local conduct requirements in each host market.
- Prepare to provide supervisors with more granular evidence of how cross-border risks are identified, monitored, escalated, and mitigated.
- Ensure internal reporting can distinguish cross-border revenue, complaints, incidents, and enforcement exposure from domestic business lines.
Key Dates
- ESMA’s original peer review identified shortcomings in the supervision of cross-border activities and issued recommendations to strengthen authorisation, supervision, cooperation, and enforcement
- ESMA’s 2026 work programme says the follow-up on the peer review of cross-border provision activities of investment firms was expected to be launched around this time
- ESMA published the follow-up report on the supervision of cross-border activities of investment firms
- ESMA indicated in the earlier peer review context that it expected to carry out a follow-up assessment in two years to review improvements, which aligns with a later-stage review cycle
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is medium to high because the report raises supervisory expectations without creating a new standalone rulebook, but it clearly signals more intense scrutiny of firms active across borders. Non-compliance can lead to inspections, enforcement action, remedial directives, and reputational harm, especially for firms whose cross-border footprint is large or retail-facing.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ESMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager Joint Board of Appeal dismisses appeal against the EBA 16 July 2026 Board of Appeal The Joint Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA – the ESAs) has issued a decision stating that an appeal brought by an individual against the European Banking Authority (EBA) is inadmissible. The appeal concerned a response by the EBA to a complaint regarding the closure of a bank account by a credit institution and the handling of the matter by the Finnish National Compe...
The Joint Board of Appeal of the ESAs has dismissed as inadmissible an individual’s appeal against the EBA’s decision not to open a breach‑of‑Union‑law investigation into the Finnish supervisory authority’s handling of a bank account closure. This confirms that EBA’s decision whether to initiate a Union law breach investigation is a discretionary act that is not reviewable by the Board of Appeal and, in practice, offers very limited avenues for customers or firms to challenge an EBA non‑investigation decision.
For compliance teams, this reinforces that supervisory recourse routes for disputes over account closures and similar conduct are primarily at national level and in national courts, with EBA’s Article 17 “breach of Union law” mechanism remaining a high‑threshold, discretionary tool rather than a complaint or appeal channel.
What Changed
- - The decision clarifies that EBA’s decision whether or not to initiate an investigation into a possible breach or non‑application of Union law under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 is a...
- The Board of Appeal confirms that a decision not to open a Union law breach investigation does not constitute a reviewable “decision” for the purposes of Article 60(1)–(2) of the ESA Regulations and...
- The Board of Appeal confirms that individual complaints about account closures and associated supervisory handling remain primarily within the remit of national competent authorities and national...
- The decision reiterates that only certain categories of ESA acts that produce binding legal effects (for example, decisions adopted under Articles 17, 18 or 19 of the ESA Regulations, and acts within...
- The outcome aligns with prior Board of Appeal and EU court case law confirming that persons outside the specific categories listed in Article 17(2) of the ESA Regulations have no right of appeal to...
Suggested Considerations
- Review internal complaints‑handling and escalation procedures to ensure that disputes over account closures and related supervisory decisions are managed through national complaint bodies and courts, rather than assuming EBA or Board of Appeal review will be available.
- Update legal and compliance guidance notes to reflect that EBA’s decision whether to initiate a breach‑of‑Union‑law investigation is discretionary and generally not subject to appeal before the Board of Appeal, limiting external escalation avenues.
- Train front‑office, customer‑service and complaints staff to provide accurate information to customers about available redress routes, emphasising national ombudsman, national competent authority and judicial mechanisms rather than ESMA/EBA appeals.
- For groups operating across the EU, map national complaint and judicial mechanisms for account closures in each jurisdiction and integrate them into group‑wide conduct risk frameworks and customer communication templates.
- Monitor further ESA and EU court case law on which ESA acts are susceptible to appeal before the Board of Appeal, and adjust litigation and escalation strategies accordingly.
Key Dates
– Earlier ESA Board of Appeal case law clarifies that appeals are reserved for “decisions” that produce binding legal effects and that the Board lacks jurisdiction over acts that are not such decisions, including certain complaints‑handling outcomes
– In Decision BoA‑D‑2022‑01 (appeal “C” v EBA), the Board of Appeal holds that an appeal against EBA’s decision not to initiate an investigation into alleged non‑application of EU law in relation to payment accounts is inadmissible under Article 60(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010
– The ESAs’ Joint Board of Appeal issues the present decision dismissing, as inadmissible, an individual’s appeal against EBA’s decision not to open an investigation into a possible breach of Union law by the Finnish FIN‑FSA in relation to a bank account closure
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with national rules on account closures and customer treatment can lead to supervisory sanctions, civil liability and reputational damage, and firms should not rely on ESA‑level appeals as a corrective mechanism. The inability to challenge EBA’s non‑investigation decisions heightens the importance of robust conduct, documentation and national‑level redress management.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ESMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankPayment Provider
ESMA publishes technical standards on CCP admission criteria elements 08 July 2026 CCP Guidelines and Technical standards The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published its Final Report on the Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) concerning the central counterparties’ (CCPs) admission criteria elements , following the review of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR 3). EMIR 3 introduces amendments to the p...
ESMA’s Final Report on the RTS for CCP admission criteria elements clarifies the factors CCPs must assess when determining who can become a clearing member, with specific attention to **non-financial counterparties** and **sponsored membership**. For compliance teams, the practical impact is that CCPs will need to evidence that their admission criteria are risk-based, proportionate, transparent, and aligned with EMIR 3, while clearing members—especially NFCs—should expect more structured scrutiny of financial resources, operational capability, and membership model fit.
What Changed
- - CCPs must base admission criteria on a comprehensive risk assessment of the risks posed by clearing members and ensure the criteria reflect those risks.
- CCPs must consider whether clearing members have sufficient financial resources to meet obligations arising from participation in the CCP.
- CCPs must assess whether clearing members have access to reliable credit, liquidity, and foreign exchange facilities commensurate with the scale and nature of their clearing activity.
- CCPs must examine the clearing member’s operational capacity to meet CCP obligations, including readiness to support clearing operations and margin obligations.
- CCPs must take account of the client clearing activity of a clearing member, including the relative importance of that activity and the member’s ability to meet margin requirements if clients default.
Suggested Considerations
- CCPs should review their current admission criteria to ensure they are explicitly tied to a documented assessment of risks posed by each clearing member type.
- CCPs should update membership rulebooks and onboarding procedures to reflect the RTS requirement to consider financial resources, operational capacity, and liquidity support arrangements.
- CCPs should build or refine documented methodologies for assessing NFC clearing members’ ability to meet margin and default fund obligations.
- CCPs should ensure sponsored membership frameworks clearly define how the sponsor’s support, the sponsored member’s profile, and relevant risk controls are assessed for eligibility purposes.
- CCPs should prepare to publish clear admission criteria, application steps, timelines, required documentation, and explanations for any category-specific requirements.
Key Dates
- ESMA conducted a public consultation on the draft RTS
- ESMA held a public hearing on the draft RTS
- The consultation period referenced in ESMA’s prior consultation paper closed
- ESMA published the Final Report on the RTS concerning CCP admission criteria elements
08 July 2026); - The RTS will be submitted to the European Commission for endorsement
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is moderate to high because the RTS will shape how CCPs admit or exclude clearing members and how those decisions must be justified, documented, and disclosed. Failure to align admission frameworks with the final RTS could expose CCPs to supervisory challenge, remediation requirements, and operational delays in onboarding members or updating access terms.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ESMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager Moody’s Germany fined EUR 2,145,000 for misreporting to ESMA 02 July 2026 Press Releases Securities Financing Transactions Supervision Trade Repositories The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has fined Moody’s Deutschland GmbH (Moody’s Germany) a total of EUR 2,145,000, for committing four breaches of the Credit Rating Agencies Regulation (CRA Regulation), and issued a public notice. Verena Ross, ESMA’s Chair said: "Moody’s ...
ESMA has fined Moody’s Deutschland GmbH EUR 2,145,000 for four negligent breaches of the EU Credit Rating Agencies Regulation (CRA Regulation), all relating to incomplete, inaccurate and outdated regulatory data reported to ESMA and published on ESMA’s central platforms. This enforcement action underscores that ESMA now treats **data quality in regulatory reporting by credit rating agencies (CRAs)** as a core supervisory priority, with failures in reporting frameworks, policies, procedures and internal controls attracting significant financial penalties and public censure.
What Changed
- - ESMA has clarified, through enforcement, that CRAs must ensure complete, accurate and up‑to‑date data is reported to ESMA across all relevant CRA reporting channels (including the European Rating...
- ESMA has reinforced that errors limited to regulatory reporting data (and not directly affecting published ratings) can still constitute material breaches of the CRA Regulation, demonstrating that...
- ESMA has indicated that group reporting arrangements (where one CRA entity reports on behalf of others in the group) must have clear documentation of responsibilities, validation processes, and...
- ESMA has emphasized that regulatory reporting frameworks must include robust policies, procedures and internal control mechanisms, and that deficiencies in these frameworks constitute distinct...
- ESMA has signalled that negligence, rather than intentional misconduct, is sufficient to trigger significant fines under the CRA Regulation, and that both aggravating and mitigating factors will be...
Suggested Considerations
- Conduct a comprehensive review of all ESMA‑related reporting processes to ensure that data submitted to ESMA (including rating information, historical performance data, rating changes, and other CRA regulatory reports) is complete, accurate, and kept up‑to‑date at all times.
- Map and document all responsibilities for ESMA reporting within the CRA group, ensuring that where one entity reports on behalf of others, the allocation of roles, ownership of data, and validation steps is explicitly defined, approved, and regularly reviewed.
- Perform a gap analysis of existing regulatory reporting policies, procedures, and internal control mechanisms against CRA Regulation requirements and ESMA supervisory expectations, and update documentation to remove ambiguities and outdated provisions.
- Implement or strengthen data validation and reconciliation controls over submissions to the European Rating Platform and ESMA’s central repositories, including automated checks for missing ratings, non‑withdrawn ratings, incorrect rating actions, and inconsistencies in historical performance data.
- Establish a formal governance process for changes to regulatory reporting frameworks, ensuring regular review, independent challenge by compliance or risk functions, and clear escalation routes for identified data quality issues or control failures.
Key Dates
– ESMA has been responsible for the supervision and registration of credit rating agencies in the EU under the CRA Regulation, including enforcement actions for breaches
– Potential appeal window for Moody’s Germany to bring the case before the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities; any appeal does not have automatic suspensive effect, though suspension can be granted by the Board of Appeal on request
– ESMA Board of Supervisors adopts supervisory measures and imposes fines on Moody’s Deutschland GmbH for four negligent breaches of the CRA Regulation, and publishes a public notice and press release
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is high: ESMA has imposed a multi‑million euro fine on Moody’s Germany for negligent data reporting failures that did not affect the underlying ratings, indicating that poor regulatory reporting alone can trigger significant financial and reputational consequences, and that persistent or systemic weaknesses in CRA reporting frameworks could ultimately risk sanctions up to withdrawal of registration.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ESMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
All FirmsAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
ESMA recognises the Clearing Corporation of India Limited as a Tier 1 third-country CCP 01 July 2026 CCP The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s securities markets regulator, has recognised The Clearing Corporation of India Limited (CCIL) as a Tier 1 third-country central counterparty (CCP) under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR). The recognition allows CCIL to provide clearing services to EU clearing members and trading venues, including banks, inves...
ESMA has recognised The Clearing Corporation of India Limited (CCIL) as a **Tier 1 third‑country CCP** under EMIR, with the recognition effective from **30 June 2026**, allowing CCIL to provide clearing services to EU clearing members and trading venues. This restores and regularises EU firms’ ability to clear eligible Indian markets through CCIL under EMIR Article 25, subject to equivalence, cooperation, and oversight conditions tied to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Indian CCP regime.
What Changed
- - CCIL is formally recognised as a Tier 1 third‑country central counterparty (TC‑CCP) under Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR), allowing it to offer clearing services to EU clearing members and EU...
- The recognition is contingent on an equivalence decision adopted by the European Commission for the Indian regulatory framework applicable to CCPs under EMIR Article 25.
- ESMA has assessed and confirmed effective supervision and enforcement by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) over CCIL as a prerequisite for recognition.
- ESMA and RBI have put in place cooperation arrangements, formalised through a Memorandum of Understanding, to support ongoing supervisory coordination over CCIL’s activities that affect EU...
- CCIL is now included in ESMA’s updated list of recognised third‑country CCPs, clarifying that EU firms may use CCIL’s clearing services while complying with EMIR’s clearing and risk‑management...
Suggested Considerations
- Confirm and document that CCIL now appears on ESMA’s official list of recognised third‑country CCPs and that its status is Tier 1 under EMIR, updating internal CCP eligibility lists and counterparty approval registers accordingly.
- Review and update internal clearing policies, procedures and governance documents to reflect that EU entities may again clear eligible products through CCIL, subject to EMIR and firm‑specific risk appetite.
- Reassess and formally approve CCIL within the firm’s CCP due‑diligence framework, including credit risk, operational risk, legal risk and jurisdictional risk assessments, taking account of the RMU with RBI and the Tier 1 classification.
- Update EMIR compliance mappings to ensure that trades cleared via CCIL are correctly treated for clearing obligation, risk‑management, reporting and collateral requirements, and that no activity is undertaken through non‑recognised CCPs in India.
- Coordinate with front‑office, clearing operations and collateral management teams to re‑open or adjust clearing access to CCIL (e.g. membership arrangements, client clearing channels, account structures, margin and collateral workflows).
Key Dates
- ESMA’s withdrawal of recognition decisions for six Indian CCPs, including CCIL, took effect under EMIR, prohibiting EU clearing members and trading venues from using those CCPs for EU‑regulated clearing activity
- ESMA and the Reserve Bank of India sign a Memorandum of Understanding establishing supervisory cooperation arrangements for Indian CCPs, including CCIL
- ESMA’s decision recognising CCIL as a Tier 1 third‑country CCP under EMIR takes effect, and CCIL is added to ESMA’s updated list of recognised TC‑CCPs
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with EMIR’s requirement to use only recognised third‑country CCPs for clearing in scope activities could expose firms to supervisory action, including potential enforcement, fines and restrictions on clearing activities. The recognition of CCIL materially reduces legal and regulatory risk for EU firms clearing Indian markets, but firms must still ensure their governance, risk and operational controls are aligned with EMIR and the Tier 1 TC‑CCP framework.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ESMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager ESAs publish the first report on DORA major ICT-related incidents 03 June 2026 Digital Finance and Innovation Joint Committee The European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA) today published their first annual overview of major ICT-related incidents in the EU financial sector based on a reporting mechanism established by the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA). It shows that ICT risks are increasingly borderless and interconnected. The authorities also note that the recent evo...
The ESAs (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA) have published their first annual report under Article 22(2) DORA, aggregating 3,383 **major ICT‑related incidents** reported by EU financial entities and highlighting that roughly one third had a cross‑border impact. This is an early supervisory “heat map” of DORA incident reporting and sends a clear signal that competent authorities will focus on cross‑border ICT risk, third‑party/outsourcing failures and the adequacy of firms’ incident classification and reporting frameworks.
What Changed
- - The ESAs have operationalised Article 22(2) DORA by issuing the first annual overview of major ICT‑related incidents, confirming that yearly ESA‑level aggregation and analysis of incident data is...
- Incident reporting under DORA is now demonstrably harmonised and centralised, with major ICT‑related incidents being notified to all competent authorities involved and then aggregated by the ESAs for...
- The report confirms that cross‑border incidents are prevalent (around one third of major incidents), reinforcing that the “borderless and interconnected” nature of ICT risk is a key supervisory...
- System failures and external events, rather than pure cyber‑attacks, are identified as the main drivers of major incidents, placing regulatory emphasis on ICT change management, resilience of core...
- The ESAs highlight third‑party and outsourcing risk as a core theme, stressing the need for robust oversight of ICT service providers and close coordination with them during incident response and...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and, where necessary, recalibrate internal incident classification criteria against the DORA definition of “ICT‑related incident” and “major ICT‑related incident”, ensuring consistency with applicable RTS on classification and materiality thresholds.
- Validate that your firm’s incident management and escalation processes can identify, assess and classify incidents “without undue delay” and trigger major‑incident reporting within the prescribed timelines (initial, intermediate and final reports).
- Conduct a gap analysis of cross‑border incident handling, ensuring that governance, communication and coordination arrangements adequately address incidents affecting multiple Member States or shared cross‑border infrastructures.
- Strengthen third‑party and outsourcing risk management by mapping critical and important functions to their supporting ICT service providers, and ensuring contracts, SLAs and incident‑response clauses support DORA reporting and cooperation obligations.
- Test and, if needed, enhance incident response runbooks to ensure close coordination with ICT service providers during incident containment, remediation and recovery, including clear roles for data provision required for regulatory reporting.
Key Dates
– DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554) applies, and financial entities become obliged to report major ICT‑related incidents to their competent authority once classification thresholds are met
– Under Article 22(2) DORA, the ESAs must issue a yearly report covering number, nature, impact, remedial actions and costs of major ICT‑related incidents; the publication in early June 2026 is the first such report and sets the expectation for future annual cycles
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with DORA incident management and reporting obligations can lead to supervisory findings, administrative sanctions, and heightened intrusive supervision, especially where cross‑border incidents or third‑party failures are not properly reported or managed. Given the ESAs are now publicly benchmarking the sector, firms whose reporting patterns appear inconsistent with peers face increased risk of challenge on classification practices and operational resilience adequacy.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ESMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAsset ManagerInsurance ESMA publishes latest edition of its newsletter 01 June 2026 ESMA newsletter The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published today the latest edition of its Spotlight on Markets newsletter , covering ESMA’s key activities and publications from April and May 2026. This edition opens with key takeaways from ESMA’s conference “A New Era for EU Capital Markets” , marking ESMA’s 15th anniversary and focusing on the ambition t...
ESMA’s latest *Spotlight on Markets* newsletter (covering April–May 2026 activity) signals a coordinated push on reporting simplification, CCP resilience, EMIR 3 implementation and enhanced enforcement of corporate and digital reporting standards. For compliance teams, the newsletter is a consolidated forward‑looking risk map: it highlights where ESMA and NCAs will focus supervision and enforcement in the next cycle, especially around fund/transaction reporting, CCP crisis planning, ESEF taxonomy use and internal control functions in the funds sector.
What Changed
- - ESMA is advancing the simplification of EU reporting frameworks for funds and transaction reporting, indicating upcoming changes to reporting templates, data fields and/or reporting channels under...
- ESMA has launched its sixth EU‑wide stress test exercise for Central Counterparties (CCPs), expanding supervisory scrutiny of CCP risk management, default management processes and resilience to...
- ESMA has published guidance on the effective use of resolution tools in CCP crisis planning, clarifying expectations for CCP resolution planning, coordination with resolution authorities and use of...
- ESMA has issued reporting templates and instructions for the Active Account Requirement under EMIR 3, operationalising new obligations for counterparties and CCPs to maintain and report active...
- ESMA has published a call for evidence on the structure of European equity markets, opening a policy workstream that may lead to changes in market structure, transparency, and best execution...
Suggested Considerations
- Map your firm’s current EMIR, MiFIR and fund reporting obligations against ESMA’s stated objective of simplifying EU reporting frameworks and begin scenario‑planning for changes to templates, data models and validation rules.
- For CCPs and clearing members, review participation in the sixth ESMA CCP stress test, ensure timely and accurate data delivery, and assess internal implications of potential stress test findings for risk management frameworks.
- CCPs should compare existing recovery and resolution plans and playbooks against ESMA’s new guidance on effective use of resolution tools, updating governance, triggers, communications and coordination arrangements with resolution authorities.
- Counterparties and CCPs in scope of EMIR 3 should identify products and business lines affected by the Active Account Requirement and begin implementing systems, processes and controls to populate ESMA’s reporting templates and instructions.
- Investment firms active in equity markets should respond to ESMA’s call for evidence on European equity market structure where appropriate, and internally assess potential impacts on best execution, order routing, internalisation and transparency obligations.
Key Dates
– ESMA and NCAs conduct the 2025 Common Supervisory Action on compliance and internal audit functions of fund managers, establishing benchmarks for good and poor practices in the funds sector
– First year of enforcement of European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and application of ESMA Guidelines on Enforcement of Sustainability Information for in‑scope issuers’ 2025 reporting
– ESMA and NCAs carry out corporate reporting enforcement across the EEA, including financial, sustainability and digital (ESEF) reporting, feeding into ESMA’s 2025 corporate reporting enforcement report
– ESMA launches the sixth CCP stress test exercise, with follow‑up supervisory actions by ESMA and NCAs expected after results are analysed
– ESMA publishes reporting templates and instructions for the EMIR 3 Active Account Requirement, enabling firms and CCPs to begin design and implementation work ahead of EMIR 3 go‑live
Compliance Impact
The overall impact is medium to high: while the newsletter itself does not create new binding obligations, it consolidates ESMA priorities that will drive supervisory focus and future technical standards, particularly in EMIR 3, CCP oversight, ESEF and sustainability reporting. Failure to anticipate and align with these priorities can lead to enforcement actions, remediation mandates, higher supervisory scrutiny and reputational risk once the related rules and guidance are fully applied.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ESMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank New Q&As available 28 May 2026 Digital Finance and Innovation Market Abuse Sustainable finance The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU's securities markets regulator, has published the following question and answer: EU ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR) Defined ranking system (2853) Transitional provisions (2854) ESG rating providers established after date of entry into force (2855) Material changes to registration information (2856) Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) Regulation A...
ESMA has released new Q&As clarifying several operational aspects of the EU ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR), the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) delegated audit requirements, and an exemption from MiCA white paper obligations for certain crypto-asset offerings. These Q&As materially affect how ESG rating providers structure their methodologies and registrations, how firms plan and evidence MAR compliance audits, and when MiCA white papers are required, and therefore should immediately be integrated into internal compliance frameworks.
What Changed
- - ESMA clarifies what constitutes a “defined ranking system” under the EU ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR), including when rating scales, score bands or league tables will be regarded as a ranking...
- ESMA sets out transitional provisions for existing ESG rating providers active before ESGRR application, detailing conditions and timelines under which they may continue operating while completing...
- ESMA explains how ESG rating providers established after the ESGRR date of entry into force must comply, including the need to obtain authorisation/registration before commencing activity in the EU...
- ESMA defines what qualifies as “material changes to registration information” for ESG rating providers under ESGRR, indicating the types of changes (e.g.
- Under MAR and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/957, ESMA clarifies expectations regarding the annually conducted audit of market soundings arrangements, including scope, independence of the...
Suggested Considerations
- Map all existing and planned ESG rating products against ESMA’s clarified concept of a “defined ranking system” and update methodologies, scales, and disclosures to ensure they meet ESGRR and Q&A expectations.
- For ESG rating providers operating before 02 July 2026, develop and execute a documented transitional compliance plan that aligns governance, methodologies, data controls and transparency with ESGRR, ensuring timely notification to ESMA within one month from 02 July 2026.
- For entities intending to launch ESG rating activities after ESGRR entry into force, prepare and submit complete authorisation or registration files to ESMA before commencing rating activity, incorporating the Q&A guidance on initial registration requirements.
- Establish or enhance a formal process to identify, assess and record “material changes to registration information” for ESG rating providers, and implement controls to ensure ESMA is notified within required timelines before or immediately after such changes, as specified in the Q&A.
- Review and update MAR compliance frameworks, with particular focus on market soundings procedures, to incorporate ESMA’s expectations on the scope, independence, and documentation of the annually conducted audit required under Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/957.
Key Dates
– ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR) enters into force, starting the formal legislative timeline and triggering preparatory obligations for future ESG rating providers
– ESGRR applies and the main substantive requirements become effective; from this date entities have one month to notify ESMA of their intention to apply for authorisation or registration as ESG rating providers
Compliance Impact
Non-compliance with ESGRR, MAR and MiCA as interpreted in ESMA’s Q&As may lead to authorisation refusals or withdrawals, administrative fines, product restrictions, and heightened supervisory scrutiny. Given the enforcement nature of ESG ratings supervision and MAR/MiCA regimes, firms face significant conduct, reputational and business model risks if they fail to align promptly with this guidance.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ESMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerBroker DealerCrypto Exchange ESMA issues guidance on effective use of resolution tools in CCP crisis planning 13 May 2026 CCP The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has today published a resolution briefing for Central Counterparties (CCPs). The briefing provides practical guidance to National Resolution Authorities (NRAs) on how to operationalise the write-down and conversion of instruments tool (WDCI). Marking an important step in ESMA’s wider efforts ...
All Firms
ESMA identifies areas for further supervisory convergence on compliance and internal audit in the funds sector 11 May 2026 Audit Fund Management The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published the results of its 2025 Common Supervisory Action (CSA) on the compliance and internal audit functions of fund managers , carried out in with the participation of all EU and EEA national supervisors. The EU-wide review found that m...
Asset Manager
ESMA outlines enforcement activities for corporate reporting across the EEA in 2025 07 May 2026 Corporate Finance Electronic reporting Financial reporting Sustainable finance The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has today published its Report on 2025 Corporate reporting enforcement and regulatory activities . The report provides an overview of how national enforcers and ESMA supervised corporate reporting across the Europea...
All Firms
ESMA consults on a new simplified approach to updating MMF stress test parameters 05 May 2026 Fund Management Simplification and Burden Reduction The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has today launched a consultation on a new approach to updating the parameters for stress test scenarios under the Money Market Funds framework. ESMA proposes replacing the current annual amendments to Section 5 of the Guidelines with an annual...
All Firms
ESMA promotes proportionate supervision of MiFID II sustainability requirements 06 May 2026 Investor protection The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has issued a statement presenting the results of its Common Supervisory Action (CSA) on how sustainability is integrated into firms’ suitability assessment as well as into processes and procedures for product governance. The statement highlights key themes emerging from the sup...
All Firms
ESMA publishes latest edition of its newsletter 10 April 2026 ESMA newsletter The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published today its latest edition of the Spotlight on Markets newsletter. This edition opens with ESMA’s actions to simplify the retail investor journey and make investing more accessible, setting out steps to support retail participation in capital markets. Top news highlights include the publication of t...
ESMA's latest *Spotlight on Markets* newsletter (edition 42, published 10 April 2026) summarizes recent supervisory, enforcement, and policy actions, emphasizing simplification of retail investor access, high market risks per the first 2026 TRV report, and key publications on transparency, suitability, MiFID II/MiFIR data, and Listing Act compliance.[User Query] This matters for compliance teams as it signals ESMA's priorities in reducing regulatory burdens while enhancing investor protection and market transparency amid a high-risk environment.
What Changed
- The newsletter highlights no immediate binding rules but flags forthcoming or proposed changes via publications:
- Trends, Risks and Vulnerabilities (TRV) Report 2026: Identifies high-risk EU financial markets, urging heightened risk monitoring.[User Query]
- Annual transparency calculations for equity and equity-like instruments: Updates pre- and post-trade transparency thresholds, published 27 February 2026.[User Query]
- Joint EBA-ESMA consultation on revised suitability assessment: Proposes updates to requirements for banks and investment firms on assessing client knowledge and needs under MiFID II.[User Query]
- ESMA proposals to simplify MiFID II/MiFIR obligations on market data: Aims to streamline reporting and data access burdens.[User Query]
Suggested Considerations
- Review and implement transparency calculations: Adjust trading systems and disclosures for equity/equity-like instruments per 27 February 2026 publication.
- Respond to consultations: Submit feedback on suitability (by 25 May 2026), EMIR 3 (20 April), MAR delays (29 April), CCP collateral (30 April); attend 15 April hearing.
- Assess TRV risks: Conduct internal risk reviews aligning with high-risk market warnings; update policies on retail investor journeys and fund costs.[User Query]
- Update compliance programs: Incorporate MiFID II/MiFIR simplification proposals, Listing Act statement, market abuse guidelines, EMIR 3, sustainability reporting, and new Q&As.[User Query]
- Monitor enforcement: Review supervisory actions for peer benchmarks (e.g., similar to prior MFSA review).
Key Dates
Publication of annual transparency calculations for equity and equity-like instruments
Release of first 2026 TRV report and newsletter; .
Public hearing on EBA-ESMA joint guidelines on suitability of management body and key function holders
Consultation deadline on regulatory standards for post-trade risk reduction services under EMIR 3
Consultation on MAR Guidelines on delay in disclosure of inside information
Compliance Impact
Urgency: Medium. This newsletter compiles ongoing developments rather than enacting immediate rules, but tied consultations (e.g., suitability by 25 May 2026) and recent publications (e.g., transparency calculations) require prompt review to avoid enforcement risks in a high-risk market flagged by TRV.[User Query] It matters for aligning with ESMA's simplification push while preparing for stricter suitability, data, and risk rules, potentially reducing costs but increasing scrutiny on retail protection and transparency.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ESMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank ESMA sanctions Regis-TR for serious breaches of organisational obligations 19 February 2026 Press Releases Securities Financing Transactions Supervision Trade Repositories The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the European Union’s (EU) financial markets regulator and supervisor, has fined the trade repository (TR) REGIS-TR, S.A. a total of EUR 1,374,000 for seven infringements under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) and the Securities Financing Transactions ...
ESMA has fined REGIS-TR, S.A. €1,374,000 for seven negligent breaches of organisational obligations under EMIR and SFTR, marking the first SFTR enforcement action and ESMA's highest fine against a trade repository. The breaches involved deficiencies in policies, procedures, organisational structure, operational risk management, and data confidentiality, compromising SFTR reporting and market data integrity. This underscores ESMA's intensified enforcement on trade repositories (TRs) to ensure high-quality data for market surveillance and financial stability.
What Changed
- This is an enforcement decision, not new legislation, but it reinforces existing EMIR and SFTR requirements on TRs, particularly:
- Policies and procedures: Must be adequate to ensure compliance, with clear roles and responsibilities for governing bodies (breaches under EMIR Art. 78(3) and SFTR Art.
- Organisational structure: Must ensure business continuity and orderly functioning, especially for SFTR services (breach under SFTR).
- Operational risk management: Identify and minimise risks via systems, controls, and procedures (breaches under EMIR and SFTR, Point (a) Section II Annex I EMIR).
- Data confidentiality and integrity: Protect information received under EMIR and prevent misuse (breaches under EMIR).
Fines were calculated per EMIR Art.
Suggested Considerations
- For REGIS-TR specifically: Cease three ongoing breaches (policies/procedures under EMIR/SFTR; SFTR organisational structure for business continuity) per ESMA supervisory measures (EMIR Art. 73).
- For all TRs:
- Review and strengthen policies/procedures for clarity on governance roles/responsibilities.
- Audit organisational structure for SFTR business continuity and orderly functioning.
- Conduct operational risk assessments, implementing controls/systems to minimise risks under EMIR/SFTR.
- Enhance data confidentiality/integrity protections and misuse prevention measures.
Key Dates
- REGIS-TR initial registration with ESMA under EMIR
- REGIS-TR registration extended to SFTR reporting
- ESMA Supervisory Report identifying serious indications of breaches
- Public notice references investigations leading to findings (dated in decision docs)
- ESMA Board of Supervisors meeting discussing the case
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – As the first SFTR enforcement and record TR fine (€1.374M), it demonstrates ESMA's commitment to punitive action on negligence causing systemic data risks, directly threatening market integrity and surveillance. TRs face immediate remediation pressure (three breaches ongoing), with fines amplified by duration/systemic factors; non-TRs using TRs risk indirect exposure via poor data quality. Firms should prioritise audits now to avoid similar "negligent" findings.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ESMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
All Firms
ESMA supports the simplified European Sustainability Reporting Standards and suggests targeted adjustments 18 February 2026 Issuer disclosure Press Releases Sustainable finance The European Securities and Markets Authority, the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has delivered its opinion on the draft revised European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) developed by EFRAG. ESMA strongly supports the European Commission’s goal of enhancing competitiveness and growth through ...
ESMA has issued an opinion supporting EFRAG's draft simplified European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) under the CSRD, praising improvements in readability and materiality focus while recommending targeted adjustments to enhance investor protection and financial stability. This matters for compliance professionals as it signals upcoming refinements to sustainability disclosures, with pragmatic supervision promised during the transition, potentially reducing short-term burdens but requiring monitoring of final delegated act adoption by summer 2026.
What Changed
- The draft revised ESRS introduce simplifications such as improved readability, language, format, reduced volume of requirements, and a focus on material matters.
- Introduce time limits to certain permanent reliefs (e.g., reliefs #3, #4, #9, #11 on quantitative information for anticipated financial effects until FY 2029, and metrics).
- Refine requirements on transition plans (e.g., consistent disclosure of absolute financed emissions and contextual information).
- Strengthen reporting on sustainability competences of administrative, management, and supervisory bodies.
- Enhance transparency on financial resources allocated to sustainability actions.
Suggested Considerations
- Monitor Commission process: Track final delegated act by summer 2026, incorporating ESMA/EBA/EIOPA/ECB opinions; review full ESMA opinion PDF for detailed recommendations.
- Assess current reporting: Evaluate use of permanent/temporary reliefs (e.g., #3/#4 on quantitative data, #9/#11 on metrics) and prepare for time limits; refine transition plans for emissions/targets.
- Enhance governance disclosures: Strengthen reporting on sustainability competences in management/supervisory bodies and financial resources for actions.
- Review subsidiary exemptions: Check materiality exclusions for sustainability risks/opportunities in consolidated statements.
- Prepare for supervision: Leverage NCAs flexibility during transition; integrate into data governance and risk systems per CSRD implementation trends.
Key Dates
- European Commission aims to adopt revised ESRS into a delegated act, considering ESMA, EBA, EIOPA, ECB opinions
- End of certain temporary reliefs on quantitative information for anticipated financial effects (if ESMA recommendations adopted)
adoption (2026+); - Learning curve period with pragmatic NCAs supervision and flexibility in examinations
Compliance Impact
Urgency: Medium - Not yet finalized (pending summer 2026 adoption), with pragmatic supervision promised, reducing immediate pressure; however, matters due to potential tightening of reliefs and disclosures impacting FY2026+ reporting, investor protection focus, and interoperability needs. Firms should prioritize if heavily using reliefs or with complex transition plans, as non-adjustment risks supervisory scrutiny post-learning curve.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ESMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerBankInsurance ESMA promotes clarity in communications on ESG strategies 14 January 2026 Sustainable finance The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, published today a second thematic note on sustainability-related claims, focusing on ESG strategies. The note concentrates on ESG integration and ESG exclusions, as references to these strategies are often made by market participants and widely referenced in marketing communications directed to ...
ESMA published a thematic note on January 14, 2026, providing guidance on clear, fair, and not misleading communications regarding ESG strategies, specifically ESG integration and ESG exclusions, to mitigate greenwashing risks in non-regulatory materials like marketing. This matters because sustainability claims heavily influence investor decisions, and misleading communications can lead to supervisory actions, reputational damage, and loss of trust, aligning with existing EU rules under SFDR and related frameworks without imposing new disclosures.
What Changed
- This is not a formal regulatory change but supervisory guidance reinforcing four principles for non-regulatory communications (e.g., marketing materials, websites, investor presentations, voluntary...
- Accurate: Claims must fairly represent sustainability profiles without exaggeration, falsehoods, omissions, cherry-picking, vagueness, or misleading ESG terminology/imagery.
- Accessible: Information must be easy to understand and navigate, with layered substantiation in electronic formats for retail materials.
- Substantiated: Backed by clear reasoning, facts, processes, and methodologies; disclose data limitations and comparison bases.
- Up to date: Reflect current data, with timely disclosure of material changes and analysis dates.
Practical do's/don'ts include explaining ESG processes in plain language, disclosing portfolio...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and update all non-regulatory ESG communications (marketing, websites, presentations, DDQs, PPMs) against the four principles and do's/don'ts.
- Define and clearly explain ESG integration/exclusions (e.g., processes, criteria, thresholds, portfolio impact, materiality).
- Ensure consistency across channels, substantiate claims with accessible evidence, and avoid vagueness or overstatements.
- Train compliance/marketing teams; monitor for updates as further thematic notes may follow.
- Cross-reference with first note and regulations like SFDR, Cross-Border Distribution Regulation.
Key Dates
- Publication of ESMA's first thematic note on ESG credentials (to be read in combination)
- Publication date of the thematic note on ESG strategies (second in series)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – Immediate risk of enforcement for greenwashing in high-visibility ESG marketing, amid rising supervisory scrutiny; non-compliance threatens fines, remediation, and reputational harm as investor focus on sustainability grows. Proactive alignment builds trust and differentiates firms.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ESMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerAll Firms