See Full Document Text
Official Journal EN
of the European Union L series
2026/1288 15.6.2026
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION(EU) 2026/1288
of 12 June 2026
on the stand-alone suspension of the trading obligation for derivatives in accordance with
Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets
in financial instruments and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012(1), and in particular Article 32a(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 requires financial counterparties and non-financial counterparties that
are subject to the clearing obligation under Title II of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and
of the Council(2) to conclude transactions with other such financial counterparties or other such non-financial
counterparties in derivatives pertaining to a class of derivative that has been declared subject to the trading
obligation in accordance with Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 only on regulated markets, multilateral
trading facilities (MTFs), organised trading facilities (OTFs), or third-country trading venues recognised as equivalent
under Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 (the ‘derivative trading obligation’). It follows that the derivative
trading obligation prohibits those counterparties from concluding transactions in those derivatives on a third-
country trading venue that is not recognised as equivalent under Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.
Regulation (EU) 2024/791 of the European Parliament and of the Council(3) amended Regulation (EU)
No 600/2014 by, inter alia, introducing a new Article 32a, which allows the Commission to suspend, by way of an
implementing act, the derivative trading obligation with respect to certain financial counterparties, upon the request
of a competent authority of a Member State, and provided that the conditions set out in that Article are met.
(2) On 8 November 2024, the Commission received a request from the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) to
suspend the derivative trading obligation pursuant to Article 32a(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014,
with respect to three financial counterparties within its jurisdiction: BNP Paribas SA, Société Générale SA and Crédit
Agricole CIB.
(3) On 14 March 2025, the Commission received a request from the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht
(BaFin) to suspend the derivative trading obligation pursuant to Article 32a(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU)
No 600/2014, with respect to one financial counterparty within its jurisdiction: Deutsche Bank AG.
(4) Pursuant to Article 32a(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the competent authority is to demonstrate that
a financial counterparty within its jurisdiction regularly acts as a market maker, within the meaning of Article 4(1),
point (7), of Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council(4), in an OTC derivative subject
to the derivative trading obligation. To that end, the AMF and BaFin provided written evidence confirming that the
requesting financial counterparties are members of certain EU MTFs and of certain US swap execution facilities
(1) OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 84, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/600/oj.
(2) Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central
counterparties and trade repositories (OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/648/oj).
(3) Regulation (EU) 2024/791 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 amending Regulation (EU)
No 600/2014 as regards enhancing data transparency, removing obstacles to the emergence of consolidated tapes, optimising the
trading obligations and prohibiting receiving payment for order flow (OJ L, 2024/791, 8.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/
2024/791/oj).
(4) Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and
amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 349, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/
65/oj).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1288/oj 1/15EN
OJ L, 15.6.2026
(SEFs) recognised as equivalent under Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, and that they provide quotes in
response to clients’ requests for quotes (RFQs) for derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation. The AMF
and BaFin also provided data on the trading activity of the requesting financial counterparties on certain EU MTFs
and on certain US SEFs recognised as equivalent under Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 indicating that,
in the years 2021 to 2024, they regularly received RFQs for derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation
and regularly executed transactions against their proprietary capital in those instruments on the basis of the quotes
that they provided in response to clients’ RFQs. After having reviewed the evidence presented by the AMF and BaFin,
the Commission concluded that the AMF and BaFin demonstrated that the requesting financial counterparties within
their jurisdiction hold themselves out on the financial markets on a continuous basis as being willing to deal on own
account by buying and selling OTC derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation against their proprietary
capital at prices defined by them and, therefore, regularly act as market makers in an OTC derivative subject to the
derivative trading obligation.
(5) Pursuant to Article 32a(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the competent authority is to demonstrate that
a financial counterparty within its jurisdiction regularly receives RFQs for the derivatives subject to the derivative
trading obligation from a non-EEA counterparty which has no active membership on an EEA trading venue that
offers trading in the OTC derivative subject to the derivative trading obligation. Since the requesting financial
counterparties are not allowed to conclude transactions in derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation on
trading venues of third country jurisdictions that are not recognised as equivalent under Article 28 of Regulation
(EU) No 600/2014, they are, to date, unable to receive RFQs for those derivatives from a non-EEA counterparty
within those non-equivalent jurisdictions. In particular, following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Union,
requesting financial counterparties have been unable to receive RFQs for derivatives subject to the derivative trading
obligation from non-EEA counterparties on trading venues in the United Kingdom. In view of that material
impossibility, the AMF and BaFin assessed the trading activity of the requesting financial counterparties on trading
venues in the United Kingdom before 2021. The AMF and BaFin provided evidence showing that, in the three years
prior to the effective date of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Union, the requesting financial
counterparties regularly received RFQs and executed transactions on the basis of the RFQs received in derivatives
subject to the derivative trading obligation on certain trading venues in the United Kingdom.
(6) The AMF and BaFin also assessed more recent trading activity of the requesting financial counterparties on trading
venues in the United Kingdom and on US SEFs that are recognised as equivalent under Article 28 of Regulation (EU)
No 600/2014. First, the AMF and BaFin provided evidence showing that the requesting financial counterparties
remained active on certain trading venues in the United Kingdom after 2021, given that they continued to receive
RFQs and execute transactions on the basis of the RFQs received in derivatives not subject to the derivative trading
obligation. Second, the AMF and BaFin provided evidence showing that, in the years 2021 to 2024, the requesting
financial counterparties regularly received RFQs and executed transactions on the basis of RFQs received in
derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation on certain US SEFs recognised as equivalent under Article 28
of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, including with respect to non-EEA counterparties with whom the requesting
financial counterparties did not interact on EEA trading venues. Furthermore, the AMF and BaFin provided evidence
showing that the requesting financial counterparties committed to implement measures, following the suspension of
the derivative trading obligation, to ensure that, when concluding transactions under that suspension, they would
only respond to RFQs from non-EEA counterparties that have no active membership on an EEA trading venue that
offers trading in the OTC derivative subject to the derivative trading obligation.
(7) The evidence presented by the AMF and BaFin shows that it is reasonable to assume that, should the suspension of the
derivative trading obligation be granted pursuant to Article 32a(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the
requesting financial counterparties would regularly receive RFQs for the derivatives subject to the derivative trading
obligation from non-EEA counterparties which have no active membership on an EEA trading venue that offers
trading in the OTC derivative subject to the derivative trading obligation. In view of the fact that requesting financial
counterparties are, to date, unable to receive RFQs for derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation from a
non-EEA counterparty within a jurisdiction that is not recognised as equivalent under Article 28 of Regulation (EU)
No 600/2014, and considering that the suspension of the derivative trading obligation should be possible where the
activities of an EEA financial counterparty with a non-EEA counterparty are unduly affected by the scope of the
derivative trading obligation, the Commission concluded that the evidence presented by the AMF and BaFin
demonstrates the fulfilment of the condition laid down in Article 32a(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.
2/15 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1288/ojEN
OJ L, 15.6.2026
(8) On 8 November 2024, the Commission also received a request from the AMF to suspend the derivative trading
obligation pursuant to Article 32a(1), point (b), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 with respect to BNP Paribas SA.
(9) Pursuant to Article 32a(1), point (b), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the competent authority is to demonstrate
that a financial counterparty within its jurisdiction regularly acts as a market maker in a credit default swap subject
to the derivative trading obligation. The AMF presented written evidence confirming that the requesting financial
counterparty is a member of certain EU MTFs and of certain US SEFs recognised as equivalent under Article 28 of
Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, and that it responds to clients’ RFQs for derivatives subject to the derivative trading
obligation, including credit default swaps. The AMF also provided data on the trading activity of the requesting
financial counterparty on certain EU MTFs and on certain US SEFs recognised as equivalent under Article 28 of
Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, indicating that, in the years 2021 to 2024, it regularly received RFQs for credit
default swaps subject to the derivative trading obligation and regularly executed transactions against its proprietary
capital in those instruments on the basis of the quotes that it provided in response to clients’ RFQs. After having
reviewed the evidence submitted by the AMF, the Commission concluded that the AMF demonstrated that the
requesting financial counterparty within its jurisdiction holds itself out on the financial markets on a continuous
basis as being willing to deal on own account by buying and selling credit default swaps subject to the derivative
trading obligation against its proprietary capital at prices defined by that counterparty and that, therefore, it
regularly acts as a market maker in a credit default swap subject to the derivative trading obligation.
(10) Pursuant to Article 32a(1), point (b)(i), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the competent authority is to demonstrate
that the requesting financial counterparty within its jurisdiction intends to trade credit default swaps subject to the
derivative trading obligation on own account on a trading venue open only to counterparties that are CCP clearing
members, as defined in Article 2, point (14), of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (‘dealer-to-dealer’ venue). The AMF
provided the list of trading venues where the requesting financial counterparty intends to trade credit default swaps
subject to the derivative trading obligation on own account, confirmation from the requesting financial
counterparty that all members of those trading venues are CCP clearing members, and a commitment from the
requesting financial counterparty to notify the AMF of the CCP clearing member status of any new members on
those trading venues. After having reviewed the evidence presented by the AMF, the Commission concluded that the
AMF demonstrated that the requesting financial counterparty intends to trade credit default swaps subject to the
derivative trading obligation on own account on a dealer-to-dealer venue.
(11) Pursuant to Article 32a(1), point (b)(ii), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the competent authority is to demonstrate
that the requesting financial counterparty within its jurisdiction intends to trade on own account credit default swaps
subject to the derivative trading obligation with a counterparty which is a market maker and which has no active
membership on an EEA dealer-to-dealer venue that offers trading in the OTC derivatives subject to the derivative
trading obligation. The AMF received confirmation from the requesting financial counterparty that all members of
the dealer-to-dealer venues with whom the requesting financial counterparty intends to trade have active market
maker status. The AMF also provided a commitment from the requesting financial counterparty to notify the AMF
of the market maker status of any new participants in those venues, and written confirmation that, to the best of the
AMF knowledge, there is currently no dealer-to-dealer venue in the EEA that offers trading in credit default swaps
subject to the derivative trading obligation. After having reviewed the evidence presented by the AMF, the
Commission concluded that the AMF demonstrated that the requesting financial counterparty intends to trade credit
default swaps subject to the derivative trading obligation on own account with a counterparty which is a market
maker and which has no active membership on an EEA dealer-to-dealer venue that offers trading in the OTC
derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation.
(12) Pursuant to Article 32a(1), point (b)(iii), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the competent authority is to demonstrate
that the requesting financial counterparty within its jurisdiction clears the credit default swaps referred to in that
provision in a CCP authorised or recognised pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. The AMF provided a list of
CCPs authorised or recognised pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 where the requesting financial
counterparty intends to clear those credit default swaps. After having reviewed the evidence presented by the AMF,
the Commission concluded that the AMF demonstrated that the requesting financial counterparty will clear credit
default swaps in a CCP authorised or recognised pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1288/oj 3/15EN
OJ L, 15.6.2026
(13) In accordance with Article 32a(1) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the Commission consulted the European
Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). On 9 October 2025, ESMA submitted its opinion to the Commission,
concurring with the assessment performed by the relevant competent authorities that the requesting financial
counterparties satisfy the conditions laid down in that Article.
(14) When assessing whether to suspend the derivative trading obligation, the Commission also considered whether such
suspension could have a distortive effect on the clearing obligation under Title II of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.
Given that the clearing obligation will continue to apply with respect to the financial counterparties that make use of
the suspension of the derivative trading obligation, irrespective of whether the derivatives that those financial
counterparties trade are subject to the derivative trading obligation, the Commission considered that the suspension
of the derivative trading obligation would not have a distortive effect on the clearing obligation under Title II of
Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.
(15) Considering that the AMF and BaFin demonstrated that the requesting financial counterparties within their
jurisdictions fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 32a(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, and that
the suspension of the derivative trading obligation would not have a distortive effect on the clearing obligation
under Title II of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, it is appropriate to suspend the derivative trading obligation for the
purposes of that Article with respect to BNP Paribas SA, Société Générale SA, Crédit Agricole CIB, and Deutsche
Bank AG. Given that the evidence presented by the AMF and BaFin shows that the conditions laid down in
Article 32a(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 are fulfilled with respect to trading venues in the United
Kingdom, it is appropriate to suspend the derivative trading obligation only with respect to the United Kingdom.
(16) Considering that the AMF demonstrated that the requesting financial counterparty within its jurisdiction fulfils the
conditions laid down in Article 32a(1), point (b), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, and that the suspension of the
derivative trading obligation would not have a distortive effect on the clearing obligation under Title II of Regulation
(EU) No 648/2012, it is appropriate to suspend the derivative trading obligation for the purposes of that Article with
respect to BNP Paribas SA. Given that the evidence presented by the AMF shows that the conditions laid down in
Article 32a(1), point (b), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 are fulfilled with respect to trading venues in the United
Kingdom, it is appropriate to suspend the derivative trading obligation only with respect to the United Kingdom.
(17) Pursuant to Article 32a(4) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the implementing act suspending the derivative trading
obligation is to be accompanied by the evidence presented by the competent authorities requesting the suspension.
The evidence provided by the competent authorities to demonstrate compliance with the conditions laid down in
Article 32a(1) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 includes trading data that constitute proprietary business data and
written exchanges that contain personal data. Therefore, it is necessary to present that evidence in a way that
protects financial counterparties from undue commercial risks and safeguards personal data, while also ensuring
consistency and enabling the assessment of the evidence in light of the conditions laid down in Article 32a(1) of that
Regulation.
(18) To allow the Commission to regularly review whether the grounds for the suspension of the derivative trading
obligation continue to apply, every five years, the competent authorities of the financial counterparties should
provide the Commission with updated evidence on the grounds for the suspension of the derivative trading
obligation.
(19) To allow the Commission to promptly assess whether the suspension of the derivative trading obligation should be
revoked, the competent authorities of the financial counterparties should have effective supervisory arrangements in
place to promptly identify breaches of compliance with the conditions set out in Article 32a(1), points (a) and (b), of
Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 and immediately inform the Commission about those identified breaches.
(20) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Securities
Committee,
4/15 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1288/ojEN
OJ L, 15.6.2026
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Suspension of the derivative trading obligation pursuant to Article 32a(1), points (a) and (b), of Regulation (EU)
No 600/2014
1. For the purposes of Article 32a(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, in view of the evidence presented in
Section 1 of the Annex to this Regulation, the derivative trading obligation is suspended with respect to the following
financial counterparties and the following specific market:
(a) financial counterparties:
(i) BNP Paribas SA;
(ii) Crédit Agricole CIB;
(iii) Deutsche Bank AG;
(iv) Société Générale SA;
(b) specific market:
United Kingdom.
2. For the purposes of Article 32a(1), point (b), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, in view of the evidence presented in
Section 2 of the Annex to this Regulation, the derivative trading obligation is suspended with respect to the following
financial counterparty and the following specific market:
(a) financial counterparty:
BNP Paribas SA;
(b) specific market:
United Kingdom.
Article 2
Review of the grounds for the suspension of the derivative trading obligation
1. The Commission shall review whether the grounds for the suspension of the derivative trading obligation continue to
apply every five years from 18 June 2026.
For the purposes of carrying out the review referred to in the first subparagraph, the competent authorities of the financial
counterparties referred to in Article 1 shall provide the Commission with updated evidence on the grounds for the
suspension of the derivative trading obligation at the latest six months before the date by which the Commission is to
carry out that review.
2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1 of this Article, where the competent authorities of the financial counterparties
referred to in Article 1 deem that the conditions set out in Article 32a(1), points (a) or (b), of Regulation (EU)
No 600/2014 are no longer complied with, they shall notify the Commission without undue delay.
For the purposes of the first subparagraph, the competent authorities shall regularly monitor the compliance of the
financial counterparties referred to in Article 1 of this Regulation with the conditions set out in Article 32a(1), points (a)
or (b), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1288/oj 5/15EN
OJ L, 15.6.2026
3. Following the review carried out in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, or following the notification by a
competent authority pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article, or after having otherwise obtained knowledge that a financial
counterparty referred to in Article 1 no longer satisfies the grounds for the suspension of the derivative trading obligation,
the Commission may revoke the suspension of the derivative trading obligation with respect to that financial counterparty.
4. Before revoking the suspension of the derivative trading obligation pursuant to paragraph 3, the Commission shall
notify the competent authority of the financial counterparty concerned of its intention to revoke the suspension of the
derivative trading obligation and the reasons thereof. Within six weeks from the date of the notification, the competent
authority of the financial counterparty concerned may submit to the Commission a reasoned statement with any relevant
information for the purposes of assessing the grounds for the suspension of the derivative trading obligation.
Article 3
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European
Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 June 2026.
For the Commission
The President
Ursula VON DER LEYEN
6/15 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1288/ojEN
OJ L, 15.6.2026
ANNEX
The data contained in this Annex are anonymised, since they constitute proprietary business data. The order in which
financial counterparties appear in the Tables in Section 1 neither reflects the order in which they are listed in Article 1, nor
is it necessarily consistent across those Tables.
SECTION 1
Evidence presented by the relevant competent authorities to demonstrate that the requesting financial
counterparties within their jurisdiction fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 32a(1), point (a), of
Regulation (EU) No 600/2014
1.1. Evidence presented to demonstrate that the requesting financial counterparties regularly act as market makers in an OTC
derivative subject to the derivative trading obligation
The competent authorities confirmed that requesting entities are financial counterparties as defined in Article 2,
point (8), of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.
The competent authorities used the following evidence to demonstrate that the requesting financial counterparties
regularly act as market makers in an OTC derivative subject to the derivative trading obligation:
(1) written evidence confirming that the requesting financial counterparties act as market makers in OTC
derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation on certain EU multilateral trading facilities (MTFs) and
on certain US swap execution facilities (SEFs) recognised as equivalent under Article 28 of Regulation (EU)
No 600/2014 (see Table 1);
(2) data showing the trading activity of the requesting financial counterparties on EU MTFs and on US SEFs
recognised as equivalent under Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 in OTC derivatives subject to the
derivative trading obligation (see Tables 2 and 3).
Table 1
Financial
Evidence presented by the relevant competent authority
counterparty
Financial Written confirmation issued by two firms, each operating an EU MTF and a US SEF recognised
counterparty 1 as equivalent for the purposes of Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, that financial
counterparty 1 is a participant in those facilities and provides quotes in response to clients’
requests for quotes (RFQs) for OTC derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation.
Financial The competent authority confirmed that financial counterparty 2 had provided it with a
counterparty 2 ‘dealer subscriber agreement’ and a ‘liquidity provider agreement’, both confirming that
financial counterparty 2 is a liquidity provider in OTC derivatives subject to the derivative
trading obligation on an EU MTF and a US SEF recognised as equivalent under Article 28 of
Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.
The competent authority also confirmed that financial counterparty 2 had provided it with
certification from a firm that operates an EU MTF and a US SEF recognised as equivalent
under Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, confirming that financial counterparty 2 is
a liquidity provider in OTC derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation in both
facilities.
Financial The competent authority confirmed that financial counterparty 3 had provided it with a
counterparty 3 ‘dealer subscriber agreement’ and a ‘liquidity provider agreement’, both confirming that
financial counterparty 3 is a liquidity provider in OTC derivatives subject to the derivative
trading obligation on an EU MTF and a US SEF recognised as equivalent under Article 28 of
Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1288/oj 7/15EN
OJ L, 15.6.2026
Financial
Evidence presented by the relevant competent authority
counterparty
The competent authority also confirmed that financial counterparty 3 had provided it with
certification from a firm that operates an EU MTF and a US SEF recognised as equivalent
under Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, confirming that financial counterparty 3 is
a liquidity provider in OTC derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation in both
facilities.
Financial The competent authority confirmed that financial counterparty 4 had provided it with a
counterparty 4 ‘dealer subscriber agreement’ and a ‘liquidity provider agreement’, both confirming that
financial counterparty 4 is a liquidity provider in OTC derivatives subject to the derivative
trading obligation on an EU MTF and a US SEF recognised as equivalent under Article 28 of
Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.
The competent authority also confirmed that financial counterparty 4 had provided it with a
certification from a firm that operates an EU MTF and a US SEF recognised as equivalent
under Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, confirming that financial counterparty 4 is
a liquidity provider in OTC derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation in both
facilities.
Table 2
Table 2 shows the trading activity of each financial counterparty in the years 2021 to 2024 on EU MTFs, as
represented by the average daily number of RFQs received and transactions executed on the basis of RFQs received
for OTC derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation. Since the data constitute proprietary business data,
this Table indicates trading activity using ranges.
Financial
Trading activity on EU MTFs 2021 2022 2023 2024
counterparty
Financial Average daily number of RFQs [50–75] [100–125] [100–125] [100–125]
counterparty 1 received for OTC derivatives subject
to the derivative trading obligation
Average daily number of ]0–25] [25–50] ]0–25] [25–50]
transactions in OTC derivatives
subject to the derivative trading
obligation on the basis of RFQs
received
Financial Average daily number of RFQs [225–250] [325–350] [275–300] [275–300]
counterparty 2 received for OTC derivatives subject
to the derivative trading obligation
Average daily number of [50–75] [75–100] [50–75] [50–75]
transactions in OTC derivatives
subject to the derivative trading
obligation executed on the basis of
RFQs received
Financial Average daily number of RFQs [100–125] [125–150] [75–100] [50–75]
counterparty 3 received for OTC derivatives subject
to the derivative trading obligation
Average daily number of ]0–25] [25–50] ]0–25] ]0–25]
transactions in OTC derivatives
subject to the derivative trading
obligation executed on the basis of
RFQs received
8/15 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1288/ojEN
OJ L, 15.6.2026
Financial
Trading activity on EU MTFs 2021 2022 2023 2024
counterparty
Financial Average daily number of RFQs [50–75] [50–75] [25–50] [50–75]
counterparty 4 received for OTC derivatives subject
to the derivative trading obligation
Average daily number of ]0–25] ]0–25] ]0–25] ]0–25]
transactions in OTC derivatives
subject to the derivative trading
obligation executed on the basis of
RFQs received
Table 3
Table 3 shows the trading activity of each financial counterparty in the years 2021 to 2024 on US SEFs recognised as
equivalent under Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, as represented by the average daily number of RFQs
received and transactions executed on the basis of RFQs received for OTC derivatives subject to the derivative
trading obligation. Since the data constitute proprietary business data, this Table indicates trading activity using
ranges.
Financial
Trading activity on US SEFs 2021 2022 2023 2024
counterparty
Financial Average daily number of RFQs [100–125] [175–200] [150–175] [150–175]
counterparty 1 received for OTC derivatives subject
to the derivative trading obligation
Average daily number of [25–50] [50–75] [25–50] [50–75]
transactions in OTC derivatives
subject to the derivative trading
obligation executed on the basis of
RFQs received
Financial Average daily number of RFQs [800–825] [800–825] [650–675] [725–750]
counterparty 2 received for OTC derivatives subject
to the derivative trading obligation
Average daily number of [150–175] [225–250] [150–175] [150–175]
transactions in OTC derivatives
subject to the derivative trading
obligation executed on the basis of
RFQs received
Financial Average daily number of RFQs [75–100] [50–75] [25–50] [25–50]
counterparty 3 received for OTC derivatives subject
to the derivative trading obligation
Average daily number of ]0–25] ]0–25] ]0–25] ]0–25]
transactions in OTC derivatives
subject to the derivative trading
obligation executed on the basis of
RFQs received
Financial Average daily number of RFQs [50–75] [50–75] [25–50] [25–50]
counterparty 4 received for OTC derivatives subject
to the derivative trading obligation
Average daily number of ]0–25] ]0–25] ]0–25] ]0–25]
transactions in OTC derivatives
subject to the derivative trading
obligation executed on the basis of
RFQs received
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1288/oj 9/15EN
OJ L, 15.6.2026
1.2. Evidence presented to demonstrate that the requesting financial counterparties regularly receive RFQs for OTC derivatives subject
to the derivative trading obligation from non-EEA counterparties which have no active membership on an EEA trading venue
The competent authorities used the following evidence to demonstrate that the requesting financial counterparties
regularly receive RFQs for OTC derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation from non-EEA counterparties
which have no active membership on an EEA trading venue:
(1) data showing that, in the three years prior to the effective date of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the
Union, the requesting financial counterparties regularly received RFQs for OTC derivatives subject to the
derivative trading obligation and executed transactions on the basis of RFQs received on UK trading venues
(see Table 4);
(2) written confirmation issued by two firms that operate UK trading venues that the requesting financial
counterparties have, to date, been participants in those trading facilities and could respond to clients’ RFQs for
OTC derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation on those venues, if allowed to do so;
(3) data showing that, in the years 2022 to 2024, the requesting financial counterparties continued to receive
RFQs for OTC derivatives not subject to the derivative trading obligation and to execute transactions on the
basis of RFQs received on UK trading venues and that, therefore, they remained active on those venues after
2021 with respect to OTC derivatives not subject to the derivative trading obligation (see Table 5);
(4) data showing that, in the years 2021 to 2024, the requesting financial counterparties regularly received RFQs
for OTC derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation both on EU MTFs and on US SEFs (see Tables 2
and 3);
(5) confirmation that, in the years 2021 to 2024, the requesting financial counterparties responded to RFQs
received from non-EEA counterparties on US SEFs, including from non-EEA counterparties with whom the
requesting financial counterparties did not interact on EEA trading venues;
(6) a description of the measures that the requesting financial counterparties committed to implement to ensure
that, when concluding transactions under the suspension of the derivative trading obligation, they would
exclusively respond to RFQs received from non-EEA counterparties which have no active membership on an
EEA trading venue that offers trading in OTC derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation (see
Table 6).
Table 4
Table 4 shows the trading activity of each financial counterparty in the years 2018 to 2020 on UK trading venues, as
represented by the average daily number of RFQs received and transactions executed on the basis of RFQs received for
OTC derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation. Since the data constitute proprietary business data, this
Table indicates trading activity using ranges.
Financial Trading activity on UK
2018 2019 2020
counterparty trading venues
Financial Average daily number [50–75] [50–75] [100–125]
counterparty 1 of RFQs received for
OTC derivatives
subject to the
derivative trading
obligation
Average daily number ]0–25] ]0–25] [25–50]
of transactions in
OTC derivatives
subject to the
derivative trading
obligation executed
on the basis of RFQs
received
10/15 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1288/ojEN
OJ L, 15.6.2026
Financial Trading activity on UK
2018 2019 2020
counterparty trading venues
Financial Average daily number [125–150] [175–200] [300–325]
counterparty 2 of RFQs received for
OTC derivatives
subject to the
derivative trading
obligation
Average daily number [25–50] [25–50] [50–75]
of transactions in
OTC derivatives
subject to the
derivative trading
obligation executed
on the basis of RFQs
received
Financial Average daily number [50–75] [50–75] [75–100]
counterparty 3 of RFQs received for
OTC derivatives
subject to the
derivative trading
obligation
Average daily number ]0–25] ]0–25] ]0–25]
of transactions in
OTC derivatives
subject to the
derivative trading
obligation executed
on the basis of RFQs
received
Financial Average daily number ]0–25] [50–75] [25–50]
counterparty 4 of RFQs received for
OTC derivatives
subject to the
derivative trading
obligation
Average daily number ]0–25] ]0–25] ]0–25]
of transactions in
OTC derivatives
subject to the
derivative trading
obligation executed
on the basis of RFQs
received
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1288/oj 11/15EN
OJ L, 15.6.2026
Table 5
Table 5 shows the trading activity of each financial counterparty in the years 2022 to 2024 on UK trading venues, as
represented by the average daily number of RFQs received and transactions executed on the basis of RFQs received for
OTC derivatives not subject to the derivative trading obligation. Since the data constitute proprietary business data,
this Table indicates trading activity using ranges.
Financial Trading activity on UK
2022 2023 2024
counterparty trading venues
Financial Average daily number [25–50] [25–50] [50–75]
counterparty 1 of RFQs received for
OTC derivatives not
subject to the
derivative trading
obligation
Average daily number ]0–25] ]0–25] ]0–25]
of transactions in
OTC derivatives not
subject to the
derivative trading
obligation executed
on the basis of RFQs
received
Financial Average daily number [225–250] [275–300] [325–350]
counterparty 2 of RFQs received for
OTC derivatives not
subject to the
derivative trading
obligation
Average daily number [50–75] [50–75] [50–75]
of transactions in
OTC derivatives not
subject to the
derivative trading
obligation executed
on the basis of RFQs
received
Financial Average daily number [50–75] [75–100] [100–125]
counterparty 3 of RFQs received for
OTC derivatives not
subject to the
derivative trading
obligation
Average daily number ]0–25] ]0–25] ]0–25]
of transactions in
OTC derivatives not
subject to the
derivative trading
obligation executed
on the basis of RFQs
received
12/15 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1288/ojEN
OJ L, 15.6.2026
Financial Trading activity on UK
2022 2023 2024
counterparty trading venues
Financial Average daily of [75–100] [25–50] [25–50]
counterparty 4 number of RFQs
received for OTC
derivatives not subject
to the derivative
trading obligation
Average daily number ]0–25] ]0–25] ]0–25]
of transactions in
OTC derivatives not
subject to the
derivative trading
obligation executed
on the basis of RFQs
received
Table 6
Financial counterparty Evidence presented by the relevant competent authorities
All requesting financial Requesting financial counterparties committed to put in place compliance procedures
counterparties to ensure that, when providing liquidity in in derivatives subject to the derivative
trading obligation on UK trading venues, they will exclusively respond to RFQs
received from non-EEA counterparties which have no active membership on an EEA
trading venue that offers trading in the OTC derivative subject to the derivative
trading obligation. More specifically, requesting financial counterparties committed to
undertake the following actions.
(1) Before onboarding new clients for trading instruments subject to the derivative
trading obligation on the UK trading venues, they will verify the clients’ domicile.
Only clients with a domicile outside the EEA will be able to submit RFQs for
instruments subject to the derivative trading obligation to the requesting
financial counterparties.
(2) For existing and new non-EEA clients, those financial counterparties will ask
relevant EEA trading venues whether those clients have an active membership on
those venues. A non-EEA client will be able to send RFQs for instruments to the
derivative trading obligation to the requesting financial counterparties only
following confirmation from those venues that the client is not among their
active members.
(3) They will contact non-EEA clients that have an active membership on an EEA
trading venue and inquire as to the nature of the membership. The client will be
able to send RFQs for instruments subject to the derivative trading obligation to
the requesting financial counterparties only where it is confirmed that:
— it is a non-EEA asset manager that trades on EEA trading venues on behalf of
the EEA investment funds that it manages;
— the RFQs are exclusively sent on behalf of the non-EEA investment funds
that the non-EEA asset manager manages (as, in that case, the counterparty
to the transaction is the non-EEA fund).
(4) They will provide their competent authority with a list of all non-EEA
counterparties with whom they intend to trade instruments subject to the
derivative trading obligation on the UK venues and any updates to the list.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1288/oj 13/15EN
OJ L, 15.6.2026
SECTION 2
Evidence presented by the relevant competent authority to demonstrate that the requesting financial
counterparty within its jurisdiction fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 32a(1), point (b), of
Regulation (EU) No 600/2014
2.1. Evidence presented to demonstrate that the requesting financial counterparty acts as a market maker in a credit default swap
subject to the derivative trading obligation
The competent authority confirmed that the requesting entity is a financial counterparty as defined in Article 2, point
(8), of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. The competent authority also confirmed that the trading activity of the
requesting financial counterparty, as shown in Section 1.1, also covers credit default swaps subject to the derivative
trading obligation and that, therefore, the financial counterparty regularly acts as a market maker in those
instruments (see Section 1.1 of the annex).
2.2. Evidence presented to demonstrate that the requesting financial counterparty intends to trade credit default swaps subject to the
derivative trading obligation on own account on a trading venue open only to counterparties that are central counterparties (CCP)
clearing members, as defined in Article 2, point (14), of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (‘dealer-to-dealer’ venue)
Table 7
Financial counterparty Evidence presented by the relevant competent authority
Financial counterparty The competent authority received from the requesting financial counterparty a list of
three UK-based ‘dealer-to-dealer’ venues of which the requesting financial
counterparty is a member and on which it intends to trade on own account credit
default swaps subject to the derivative trading obligation. The competent authority
also received confirmation in writing from the requesting financial counterparty that
all members of those three trading venues are CCP clearing members, as defined in
Article 2, point (14), of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. The requesting financial
counterparty committed to notify its competent authority as soon as possible when it
becomes aware of any new participants in those three trading venues to confirm that
the new participants are CCP clearing members, as defined in Article 2, point (14), of
that Regulation.
2.3. Evidence presented to demonstrate that the requesting financial counterparty intends to trade credit default swaps subject to the
derivative trading obligation on own account with a counterparty which is a market maker and which has no active membership
on an EEA ‘dealer-to-dealer’ venue that offers trading in the OTC derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation
Table 8
Financial counterparty Evidence presented by the competent authority
Financial counterparty The competent authority received confirmation from the requesting financial
counterparty that the members of the three UK-based ‘dealer-to-dealer’ venues with
whom the requesting financial counterparty intends to trade have active market
maker status. The requesting financial counterparty also committed to notify its
competent authority of the market maker status of any new participants in those
venues.
The competent authority confirmed in writing that, to the best of its knowledge, there
is currently no ‘dealer-to-dealer’ venue in the EEA that offers trading in credit default
swaps subject to the derivative trading obligation. The competent authority will
continuously monitor whether any ‘dealer-to-dealer’ venue starts operating in the
EEA.
14/15 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1288/ojEN
OJ L, 15.6.2026
2.4. Evidence presented to demonstrate that the requesting financial counterparty clears the credit default swaps in a CCP authorised or
recognised pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012
Table 9
Financial counterparty Evidence presented by the competent authority
Financial counterparty For each UK-based ‘dealer-to-dealer’ venue where the requesting financial
counterparty intends to trade credit default swaps subject to the derivative trading
obligation, the competent authority received a list of CCPs where it will clear those
credit default swaps. Those CCPs are CCPs authorised or recognised pursuant to
Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1288/oj 15/15