|
|
FESE disagrees with CESR over the question whether the requirement relating to the “appropriate trading mechanism” has its place in CESR’s advice. According to the Federation the implementation measures for Art. 40 are not the legitimate place to deal with this issue. This requirement is covered by Art. 39(d) MiFID where no level II work is foreseen.
FESE also demands a further clarification that the more general responsibility for ensuring the issuer’s compliance with all disclosure obligations (initial, ongoing and ad-hoc) lies also exclusively with the competent authority.
The Federation also has still the impression that some of CESR’s proposed measures duplicate or interfere with other Directives and EU Regulations although CESR commited itself that “generally” level 2 proposals (on the MiFID) should not cover topics already dealt with by other Directives.