General in European Union

Key dates

2026-03-04

The European Commission issued its call for technical advice to the European Supervisory Authorities on targeted simplification of the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act.

2026-07-01

ESMA launched its consultation on selected Taxonomy KPIs and proposed simplification measures.

2026-08-12 Deadline

ESMA’s consultation period closed.

2026-10-29

ESMA submitted its Final Report and technical advice to the European Commission for consideration in the review of the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should continue applying the currently effective Taxonomy Regulation and Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act until any Commission amendment enters into force.
• Firms should monitor the Commission’s review of the Disclosures Delegated Act and assess any subsequent delegated act, scrutiny period, entry-into-force date and transitional provisions before changing reporting controls.
• Corporate reporting teams may wish to model the effect of an R&D-only mandatory OpEx KPI, including the IAS 38 or national-GAAP population, numerator mapping and interaction with existing materiality reliefs.
• Groups should inventory parent and subsidiary business lines, assess whether secondary businesses could exceed a cumulative 10% consolidated-turnover threshold, and prepare for possible parent-regime and simplified secondary-business templates.
• Asset managers and other financial undertakings should avoid treating the proposed absence of voluntary OpEx reporting as current law and should document the basis for any voluntary Taxonomy metrics under existing disclosure and anti-greenwashing controls.
• Issuers and sustainability-reporting teams should review sustainable-bond, internal-sales, contextual-information and CapEx Type C data processes so they can adapt if the Commission adopts ESMA’s recommendations.
• Reporting governance should track whether any future voluntary alternative metric is reconciled to the mandatory KPI and subject to applicable ESMA Guidelines on Alternative Performance Measures.

What changed

ESMA recommends that the mandatory Article 8 Taxonomy Regulation OpEx KPI focus on non-capitalised R&D expenditure, with the denominator based on expenditure recognised under IAS 38 or relevant national GAAP and the numerator drawn from the existing Annex I categories. It does not recommend introducing a mandatory voluntary OpEx+ metric, and advises against allowing financial undertakings, including asset managers, to use an OpEx KPI voluntarily for Taxonomy disclosures.

Key dates

2026-10-16

ESMA publishes the final revised Guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols used between investment firms and their professional clients.

2026-12-07 Deadline

First regulatory milestone: the new allocation and confirmation requirements apply, including mandatory electronic, standardised and machine-readable communication methods, subject to temporary technical-disruption exceptions.

2027-10-11 Deadline

EU securities markets move from T+2 to T+1 settlement; the final phase of the amended settlement-discipline implementation is expected to apply, including settlement-layer process and CSD functionality changes.

Suggested considerations

• Map the firm's transactions, clients, counterparties and settlement venues against CSDR Article 5(2), including the scope for transferable securities traded on an EU trading venue and settling in an EU-registered CSD.
• Assess whether the firm is directly subject to the amended RTS on Settlement Discipline or must implement equivalent controls contractually or operationally for clients and counterparties.
• Complete a gap assessment of allocation and confirmation workflows against the 7 December 2026 requirements for electronic, standardised, international and machine-readable communications.
• Replace manual, oral, email-based or non-machine-readable processes where they are not justified by a temporary technical disruption, and document the disruption, compensating controls, duration and remediation.
• Configure systems to support continuous same-day processing and, taking account of the industry roadmap, completion of allocations and confirmations no later than 23:00 CET on trade date.
• Validate the capture and exchange of critical static data, including place of settlement, BIC, ISIN, MIC and standing settlement instruction data, and establish controls over data quality and versioning.
• Test end-to-end processing with investment firms, professional clients, custodians, brokers, clearing members, CSDs, settlement systems, FX providers and technology vendors rather than testing only internal systems.
• Review client and counterparty agreements, service descriptions, operating memoranda and escalation procedures for the compressed T+1 timetable and cross-border time-zone dependencies.

What changed

The revised ESMA Guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols clarify how investment firms and their professional clients must meet the allocation and confirmation requirements in the amended RTS on Settlement Discipline. From 7 December 2026, firms must use electronic, standardised communication channels and international messaging standards, with machine-readable communication required except during temporary technical disruptions.

Key dates

2026-10-15

ESMA published the updated transparency manual and added the OTC derivative reference-data guidance, tick-size Q&As and recommendations.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map OTC derivatives currently treated as subject to transparency against the identifying reference-data requirements in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1003.
• Firms should consider reviewing instrument-master, transaction-reporting and transparency-publication workflows to ensure OTC derivative identifiers and related reference data can be supplied consistently to relevant publication and consolidated-tape processes.
• Trading venues may wish to assess tick-size logic for subscription rights and verify that the liquidity band applied is aligned with the underlying share, while documenting any intervention or exception decisions against the manual's recommendations.
• Investment firms and trading venues should consider reviewing existing MiFID II/MiFIR transparency procedures, controls and vendor specifications in light of the manual's Q&As and the distinction between current guidance and draft OTC reference-data guidance.
• Firms should monitor the entry into force of the related RTS 2 and consolidated tape provider input/output standards and be prepared to refresh implementation plans, testing and contractual data specifications when those standards become applicable.
• Nationally supervised firms may wish to retain evidence showing how tick-size decisions, venue interventions and escalation to competent authorities were assessed against the updated supervisory-convergence material.

What changed

The manual clarifies that OTC derivatives subject to transparency must be identified using the identifying reference data specified by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1003, supporting consistent reporting and publication through the consolidated tape. It also explains how that reference data should be provided for transparency purposes; ESMA states this part should be treated as draft until the related RTS 2 and RTS on consolidated tape provider input/output data enter into force.

Key dates

2026-10-12

ESMA published the thematic notes on impact claims and climate transition claims.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory all impact and climate transition claims appearing in websites, fund marketing, factsheets, presentations, social media, bond materials and benchmark communications.
• Firms should consider documenting the causal theory behind each positive impact claim, including the investment or financing activity expected to generate the impact and the distinction between intended, expected and achieved outcomes.
• Firms should consider establishing measurable impact indicators, calculation methodologies, baselines, monitoring frequency and governance for reviewing whether claimed outcomes have occurred.
• Firms making transition claims should consider documenting the transition objective, eligibility criteria, milestones, target dates, implementation actions, dependencies on investee companies or other parties, and the process for reporting slippage.
• Marketing and product-governance reviews may wish to require prominent explanation of material assumptions, data gaps, estimates, methodological limitations and uncertainty surrounding forward-looking claims.
• Firms should consider checking that claims are consistent across regulatory disclosures, marketing communications, portfolio holdings, bond frameworks, benchmark methodologies and public sustainability reports.
• Compliance teams may wish to retain evidence supporting each claim and to review whether qualifying information is sufficiently clear, balanced and proximate to the claim rather than hidden in technical documentation.
• Firms should consider assessing whether product names, labels, comparisons, impact figures and transition terminology could create an impression of guaranteed or already-achieved environmental or social outcomes.

What changed

ESMA has provided practical do's and don'ts for non-regulatory communications containing impact or climate transition claims, based on observed market practices. Firms communicating positive impact claims should explain the intended difference, the mechanism through which impact is expected to arise, and how outcomes will be measured. Firms making climate transition claims should describe the transition ambition, implementation approach, assessment of progress, relevant assumptions, data limitations and external dependencies.

Key dates

2027-01-17 Deadline

The current transitional regime for certain third-country CSD notary and central maintenance services is scheduled to expire; ESMA says access should nevertheless not be prevented after this date pending finalisation of the legislative extension.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify securities, issuer programmes, custody chains and settlement arrangements that depend directly or indirectly on a third-country CSD, including arrangements involving DTC or other non-EU infrastructure.
• Compliance and operations teams may wish to document reliance on the transitional regime and assess the consequences of a delayed or unsuccessful legislative extension, including possible suspension, removal of securities from a CSD system, settlement disruption and trading interruption.
• Issuers should consider confirming with their third-country CSD, depositary, registrar, paying agent, custodian and trading venues how access is expected to be maintained after 17 January 2027 and what contingency arrangements exist.
• Firms should distinguish ESMA's policy statement from a binding legislative amendment or formal recognition decision and avoid treating it as confirmation that every third-country CSD may provide services indefinitely without satisfying CSDR requirements.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to monitor the final text and commencement date of the Market Integration and Supervision Package, together with any European Commission equivalence decisions and ESMA recognition decisions relevant to the CSDs used by the firm.
• Firms should review contractual, disclosure and operational-resilience documentation so that any dependency on third-country CSD access, alternative settlement routes or potential service suspension is appropriately reflected.

What changed

ESMA has provided a supervisory and market-access clarification that EU market participants should not be prevented from accessing the relevant notary and central maintenance services of third-country CSDs solely because the current transitional regime reaches its scheduled end on 17 January 2027. The clarification is intended to apply during the period after that date and until the EU finalises the proposed legislative extension under the Market Integration and Supervision Package.

Key dates

2026-08-03

ESAs publish final report and draft RTS proposing amendments to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 bilateral margin requirements

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current EMIR margin frameworks and inventories of uncleared OTC derivatives to identify portfolios and counterparties that are below the €8 billion initial margin threshold and could be affected by the proposed phase-out of initial margin exchange.
• Risk and collateral management functions should consider assessing the operational processes, documentation and systems currently used to calculate, call and exchange initial margin on legacy uncleared OTC derivative contracts, to understand the potential impact of a removal of these obligations on collateral flows and counterparty risk management.
• Legal and documentation teams may wish to map existing credit support annexes (CSAs) and collateral agreements to EMIR margin requirements, evaluating whether standard terms referencing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 would need amendment if the RTS are endorsed and the obligation to exchange initial margin for below-threshold portfolios is removed.
• Regulatory affairs and policy teams should consider monitoring the European Commission’s endorsement process and subsequent scrutiny by the European Parliament and Council, tracking any changes to the draft RTS text that could affect scope, thresholds or transitional arrangements.
• Firms subject to EMIR in multiple jurisdictions may wish to compare the proposed EU treatment of below-threshold initial margin portfolios with requirements in other key jurisdictions (e.g. US, UK) to ensure consistent cross-border collateral and margin policies and avoid regulatory arbitrage or misalignment.
• Compliance teams may wish to prepare briefing materials for senior management and boards outlining the anticipated simplification and burden reduction, alongside any residual risks or supervisory expectations that could accompany the phase-out of initial margin for below-threshold counterparties.

What changed

Under the current EU bilateral margin framework in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251, counterparties with an aggregate average notional amount of non-centrally cleared derivatives below the €8 billion initial margin threshold specified in Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR) are exempt from exchanging initial margin on new uncleared OTC derivative contracts, but must continue to exchange initial margin on existing contracts.