Einde inhoudsopgave
EU Equity pre- and post-trade transparency regulation (LBF vol. 21) 2021/8.III.2.3
8.III.2.3 Background
mr. J.E.C. Gulyás, datum 01-02-2021
- Datum
01-02-2021
- Auteur
mr. J.E.C. Gulyás
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS267010:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Financieel recht / Bank- en effectenrecht
Financieel recht / Europees financieel recht
Financiële dienstverlening / Financieel toezicht
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
Commission, MiFID I Proposal, 19 October 2002(COM(2002) 625 final), p. 69; Explanatory Statement European Parliament, 4 September 2003(A5-0287/2003); and recital 43 Council, MiFID I Common Position, 8 December 2003(2004/C 60 E/01).
Reference is made to the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets(AFM), which gives a similar reasoning under MiFID II. See: http://www.digitaal.loket.afm.nl/NL-NL/DIENSTEN/BELEGGINGSONDERNEMINGEN/Pages/aanvraag-deferrals.aspx. Save for some changes, the situation under MiFID II has not changed compared to MiFID I (see chapter 9 below).
In drafting MiFID I, the Commission, European Parliament and Council considered equal conditions for deferral to be important, regardless whether authorised as an RM, MTF or investment firm trading outside such venues.1 The latter was reflected in the final MiFID I text. Under MiFID I the investment firm could defer publication in relation to (a) shares admitted to trading on a regulated for which (b) an RM was authorised to use a deferred publication arrangement.2 Accordingly, the same length and conditions for deferral applied to investment firms operating outside an RM or MTF. In addition, the approach could provide simplicity to the investment firm. The MiFID I deferral provisions enabled NCAs to permit the investment firm trading outside an RM/MTF not to request deferral at the NCA. MiFID I permitted NCAs to do so, since an RM was already authorized to provide deferred publication for the share in question.3