Following the adoption of the negotiating position of the Council, the legislative review of the Market Integration and Supervision Package (MISP) is progressing in the European Parliament as well. The European Parliament Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) Committee is currently reviewing the European Commission’s proposals. Following the publication of proposed amendments over the summer, the ECON rapporteurs responsible for the MISP are currently negotiating compromise amendments with the so-called shadow rapporteurs from the other political groups. Over the course of September and October 2026, rapporteurs Markus Ferber (European People’s Party) and Eero Heinäluoma (Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats) circulated proposed compromises ahead of meetings with the ECON shadow rapporteurs.
As a reminder, the MISP legislative package proposes changes to different pieces of European Union (EU) legislation. These changes are contained in three proposals, namely:
- A proposed Regulation amending the:
- Regulation establishing the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)
- European Markets Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR)
- Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR)
- Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR)
- Distributed Ledger Technology Pilot Regulation (DLTPR)
- Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA)
- Cross-Border Distribution of Funds Regulation (CBDR)
The proposed Regulation also makes certain targeted amendments to other pieces of EU legislation to align them with the proposed changes to the ESMA Regulation. This includes the Benchmark Regulation and the Securities Financing Transactions Regulation.
- A proposed Directive amending the:
- Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) Directive
- Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD)
- Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II)
- A proposed Regulation replacing the Settlement Finality Directive and amending the Financial Collateral Directive.
Please refer to our earlier blog post for an overview of the proposals’ content, as well as our blog post on the Council negotiating position.
The remainder of this article provides a selected overview of the amendments to the original proposals we understand are suggested by the ECON rapporteurs. Please note that the described amendments do not provide a full view of the amendments, and that these are subject to change.
- Trading: amendments to MiFIR
- Pan-European Market Operators (PEMOs): Under the draft compromise proposal, ESMA’s supervision of PEMOs would be streamlined by removing the possibility of concurrent supervision by Member State competent authorities (NCAs). A further amendment is made to the new provision prohibiting Member States from imposing any additional regulatory or administrative requirements on individual trading venues belonging to a PEMO.
- Trading venue supervision: The draft compromise text endorses the Commission proposal to designate ESMA as the competent authority for PEMOs and for market operators and investment firms operating at least one significant trading venue. It also includes text ensuring that NCAs have no supervisory role over, and may not impose additional requirements on, trading venues for which ESMA is the competent authority.
- Amendments to MiFIR Consolidated tapes: The rapporteur proposes no change to the data to be disseminated by the equities consolidated tape, and would not extend pre-trade transparency to the five best bids and offers. Under the draft compromise amendments, systematic internaliser (SI) quotes would also be excluded from the equities consolidated tape. Instead, the draft compromise includes a new mandate for ESMA and the Commission to assess whether further features should be added to the consolidated tape.
- Frequent batch auctions: In contrast to the Council general approach, the European Parliament draft compromise text does not establish a framework requiring trading venues to notify NCAs of their frequent batch auction mechanisms.
- SIs (equity): The compromise proposal introduces a new provision requiring SIs to provide their NCA with the information needed for effective supervision, including by preparing and publishing a document describing the rules governing their SI activity. As regards order execution, rapporteur Ferber proposes an exemption from the obligation to execute at the price quoted when the order is received. SIs could instead execute at a better price, provided that the execution price improves on the best bid and offer at the time of execution by at least one tick size and that they immediately update their public quotes to reflect that improvement. This exemption is broader than the Commission proposal.
- Post-trade transparency (investment firms and SIs): The draft compromise text introduces a new requirement that post-trade transparency disclosures for transactions executed through an SI be flagged so as to identify the relevant SI.
- Report-once principle: The draft compromise text introduces a new provision establishing the report-once principle, under which a transaction reportable under MiFIR, EMIR and the Securities Financing Transactions Regulation should be reported only once. ESMA would be mandated to develop RTS setting out an integrated reporting template.
- Review clause: Besides the review clauses referred to above, the draft compromise introduces a new mandate for ESMA to assess both the contribution of trading venues, SIs and other bilateral execution methods to price formation and the transparency requirements in light of developments in different trading models.
- Amendments to EMIR
- Supervision: All central counterparties (CCPs) would be brought under ESMA supervision, and the compromise text makes numerous amendments accordingly. By contrast, the Council general approach follows the Commission proposal, under which ESMA would supervise significant CCPs only.
- Reporting: The draft compromise text includes, among other changes, new text in Article 9 EMIR applying the report-once principle to over-the-counter derivative transactions that are also reportable under the MiFIR transaction reporting regime.
- Amendments to CSDR
- Supervision: All central securities depositories (CSDs) would be brought under ESMA supervision, and the compromise text makes numerous amendments accordingly. By contrast, the Council general approach follows the Commission proposal, under which ESMA would supervise significant CSDs only.
- Distributed ledger technology (DLT) operators of a settlement system: A new Article 16a CSDR would provide a simplified authorisation procedure for operators of DLT settlement systems under the DLT Pilot Regime wishing to transition to CSD status.
- Outsourcing of core services within a CSD group: The draft compromise text proposes to remove new Article 19a CSDR, which the Commission had proposed to set out a procedure for CSDs to seek approval to outsource a core service within their own group.
- Amendments to MiCA
- Supervision: The draft compromise text would confine ESMA’s supervision of crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) to significant CASPs, introducing a new Article 59a MiCA setting out the methodology for designating a CASP as significant. This is consistent with the Council general approach but narrower than the Commission’s original proposal, under which ESMA would supervise all CASPs. Under a newly added provision, CASPs not considered significant could nonetheless opt for direct ESMA supervision.
- Multi-issuance of e-money tokens (EMTs): The draft compromise introduces a new provision in MiCA setting out conditions that EMT issuers must satisfy in order to operate a multi-issuance arrangement involving third-country entities. Permission would be granted by the Commission upon request from an NCA.
- Market abuse: The draft compromise text includes a new provision giving ESMA sole responsibility for enforcing the MiCA market abuse rules, irrespective of whether the CASP under investigation or subject to enforcement action is significant. A new provision would confer market monitoring powers on ESMA.
- Asset management: amendments to AIFMD and the UCITS Directive
- Definitions: The compromise text extends the definition of “EU group of an AIFM and management company” to cover holding companies of management companies and alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs).
- Portfolio management techniques: The draft compromise introduces a new Article setting out requirements on efficient portfolio management techniques. AIFMs would be required, for each alternative investment fund (AIF) they manage, to inform investors of their intention to use efficient portfolio management techniques and instruments, including the associated risks and potential conflicts of interest.
- Delegation: The compromise text adds a new paragraph to the AIFMD provision on delegation of functions, requiring AIFMs that rely on intragroup resources to retain effective decision-making capacity, adequate substance of their own and responsibility for compliance. It further provides that, when authorising and supervising both the AIFM and the entity performing functions on its behalf, NCAs should verify compliance with the organisational substance requirements and the anti-letterbox principle. ESMA is mandated to develop RTS defining “letterbox” entities.
- Supervision: A new provision would confer on ESMA direct supervisory powers over depositories. This departs from the draft report, in which rapporteur Heinäluoma had proposed placing asset managers under direct ESMA supervision.
- Remuneration: Heinäluoma’s proposed limits on variable remuneration for asset managers have been dropped from the draft compromise.
Next steps
The ECON rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs have discussed the compromise proposals at a series of meetings held in September and October and will continue to do so over the next weeks. The ECON is scheduled to vote on its negotiating position on 1 December 2026.