CSSF MiFID II/MiFIR FAQ: The 13 July 2026 Transparency Rewrite

ByOfficer

On 13 July 2026 the CSSF published a new version of its CSSF MiFID II/MiFIR FAQ, the question-and-answer document that sets out how the regulator expects Luxembourg investment firms and credit institutions to run transaction reporting, transparency and commodity-derivative obligations in practice. Several answers carry a fresh 13 July 2026 stamp, and four are new to this version. The direction tracks the MiFIR Review, Regulation (EU) 2024/791 of 28 February 2024, which reshaped post-trade transparency, systematic internaliser status and the deferral regime across the EU.

For a Luxembourg firm the useful question is narrow: which revised answer touches an activity you actually run, and does it change a form, a mailbox or an approval you depend on. The FAQ explains the CSSF’s supervisory approach to MiFID II/MiFIR topics. It does not replace the obligations contained in MiFIR, MiFID II, Luxembourg legislation or applicable technical standards. Reading the changed answers against your CSSF permissions is the quickest way to spot a notification you now owe.

Related reading: our guide to MiFIR transaction reporting.

What the CSSF’s 13 July 2026 MiFID II/MiFIR FAQ changed

The revision is not a full rewrite, and the CSSF dates each answer, so you can see which questions moved. The items published or last updated on 13 July 2026 are:

  • Questions 3.1, 3.4 and 3.11 on commodity-derivative position limits, who they bind, and how a venue operator communicates its position management controls.
  • Question 4.1.1 on deferred publication of derivative transactions under MiFIR.
  • Question 4.1.2 on temporary suspension of post-trade transparency (new).
  • Question 4.1.3 on supplementary deferrals for Luxembourg sovereign debt (new).
  • Question 4.2.1 on opting in as a systematic internaliser (new).
  • Question 4.2.2 on opting in as a designated publishing entity (new).
  • Questions 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 on algorithmic trading and direct electronic access notifications.

Section 2 on transaction reporting was left alone. The identified FAQ changes primarily concern transparency, commodity-derivative and notification topics. Firms should assess relevance against their activities rather than assuming transaction-reporting processes are unaffected.

Systematic internaliser and designated publishing entity opt-ins

The clearest new content is a fresh Section 4.2 covering two status choices under the MiFIR Review. A firm that qualifies as, or wishes to opt in to, systematic internaliser status notifies the CSSF using a dedicated form, referencing Article 4(1)(20) of MiFID II, Article 1(27) of the MiFID II Law and Article 15.1 of MiFIR. Separately, under Article 21a of MiFIR the CSSF can grant a credit institution or investment firm the status of designated publishing entity for specific classes of financial instruments, again on request through a dedicated form.

The designated publishing entity, or DPE, is a MiFIR Review creation. It settles which counterparty carries the post-trade publication duty for an over-the-counter trade, anchoring that obligation with a single named counterparty. The DPE notification is a separate filing from the systematic internaliser notification. A watch point: both go to the CSSF mailbox mifid2@cssf.lu, while the commodity-derivative and transparency notifications below go to mmifid2@cssf.lu. The two addresses differ by one letter, and a form sent to the wrong one is a form the supervisor has not received.

The derivatives transparency deferrals were reworked

Answer 4.1.1 sets out the deferred-publication regime the CSSF authorises for derivative transactions, for trading venues and for firms trading outside a venue, under Articles 11 and 21.4 of MiFIR and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/583 (RTS 2). Large-in-scale trades, instruments without a liquid market, and trades above the size that would expose liquidity providers to undue risk can be deferred, with volume omission or aggregated publication over an extended period. Venue operators need the CSSF’s prior approval; firms trading outside a venue notify mmifid2@cssf.lu.

The answer then flags a transition. The CSSF notes that delegated acts adopted under MiFIR before 28 March 2024 continue to apply until their replacements do, under Article 54(3) of MiFIR, and that a Commission delegated regulation has inserted an Article 1a into RTS 2 to specify which provisions continue to apply only to derivatives. It states that answer 4.1.1 will become redundant once the modifications to RTS 2 for derivatives transparency under Article 11a of MiFIR enter into application. That is a status flag, not an effective change, so diarise it. Two new answers sit alongside it. Question 4.1.2 confirms the CSSF may temporarily suspend post-trade transparency for bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances or derivatives where liquidity falls below the relevant thresholds, under Articles 11.2 and 11a.2 of MiFIR. Question 4.1.3 extends the supplementary volume deferral for medium-size trades in Luxembourg Group 1 sovereign debt, those between EUR 15 million included and EUR 50 million excluded, from 15 minutes to the end of the trading day. The parallel debate runs through the onshored UK regime.

Commodity derivatives: position limits and controls

The commodity answers were refreshed rather than rewritten. Question 3.1 restates that position limits under Article 57 of MiFID II apply to the net position a person holds in agricultural and in critical or significant commodity derivatives traded on a venue, plus economically equivalent OTC contracts, with a contract treated as critical or significant where open interest reaches at least 300,000 lots on average over a one-year period. Question 3.4 confirms the limits reach beyond licensed firms: under Article 1.6 of MiFID II they also bind persons otherwise exempt from its scope, including collective investment undertakings and own-account commodity dealers.

A common misread is to treat every commodity-linked instrument as in scope. Securitised derivatives sit outside the position-limit and position-management provisions under Articles 57.1 and 58.1 of MiFID II, and physically settled wholesale energy products traded on an OTF are not financial instruments under point (6) of Section C of Annex I to MiFID II, so they escape Articles 57 and 58 entirely. Question 3.11 confirms a venue operator documents its position management controls on a dedicated CSSF form to mmifid2@cssf.lu, and resubmits whenever those controls change.

Algorithmic trading and direct electronic access notifications

Answers 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 were updated to confirm the current route. A firm engaging in algorithmic trading notifies both its home Member State authority and the venue authority under Article 17.2 of MiFID II and Article 60(2) of the Law of 30 May 2018; a firm providing direct electronic access does the same under Article 17.5 of MiFID II and Article 60(6). For the CSSF, both now run through a dedicated form to mifid2@cssf.lu. The cross-border reach is the part reporting teams underestimate: a firm incorporated in another Member State that trades as a member of a Luxembourg venue, or provides direct electronic access to one, notifies the CSSF as well as its home regulator.

The transaction-reporting reconciliation route did not change

Transaction reporting is one of the FAQ’s headline keywords, and the July 2026 version left the data-sample process untouched. Under Article 26(7) of MiFIR a firm stays responsible for the completeness, accuracy and timely submission of its reports whether it reports directly, through an approved reporting mechanism or via a venue, and Article 15(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/590 requires arrangements to keep those reports complete and accurate. To reconcile front-office records, a Luxembourg-incorporated firm, or a Luxembourg branch of a third-country firm named as the executing entity, requests data samples through its Compliance Officer on a signed form, delivered as ISO 20022 XML and capped at three months of data or ten reporting files. A team that built its reconciliation workflow on the 2019 answers does not need to touch it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the 13 July 2026 FAQ create new obligations, or restate existing ones?

It is guidance. The underlying obligations flow from the MiFIR Review and its technical standards, not the FAQ. What the revision changes in practice is routing: which form to use, which mailbox to send it to, and which approval a venue operator needs first.

Which CSSF mailbox handles a systematic internaliser or DPE opt-in?

SI and DPE opt-in forms go to mifid2@cssf.lu using the dedicated form. Commodity-derivative and transparency notifications go to mmifid2@cssf.lu. The two addresses differ by one letter.

What is a designated publishing entity and do we need to become one?

A DPE is a status the CSSF grants under Article 21a of MiFIR for specific classes of financial instruments, fixing which counterparty publishes an OTC trade. A firm needs it only if it wants to carry that publication role; it is a request, not an automatic designation.

What exactly changed for Luxembourg sovereign debt deferrals?

For medium-size trades in Luxembourg Group 1 sovereign debt, between EUR 15 million included and EUR 50 million excluded, the CSSF extended the supplementary volume deferral from 15 minutes to the end of the trading day. ESMA maintains the current list of supplementary deferrals.

Will the derivatives deferral answer 4.1.1 stay relevant?

The CSSF states it will become redundant once the RTS 2 changes for derivatives transparency under Article 11a of MiFIR enter into application. Until then it remains the operative guidance, so treat it as current and diarise the transition.

Do algorithmic trading and DEA notifications still go to the CSSF directly?

Yes. A Luxembourg-incorporated firm notifies through the dedicated form to mifid2@cssf.lu. A firm incorporated in another Member State that is a member of, or provides direct electronic access to, a Luxembourg venue also notifies the CSSF, on top of its home authority.

Related Articles

Key Takeaways

  • The CSSF issued a new MiFID II/MiFIR FAQ dated 13 July 2026; each answer is date-stamped, so scope your review by the eight changed items.
  • The core changes are transparency-side and MiFIR Review driven: new opt-in routes for systematic internaliser and designated publishing entity status, and a reworked derivatives deferral section.
  • The Luxembourg Group 1 sovereign-debt supplementary volume deferral for medium-size trades moved from 15 minutes to the end of the trading day.
  • Notifications split across two near-identical CSSF mailboxes, mifid2@cssf.lu and mmifid2@cssf.lu, so route each filing deliberately.
  • The transaction-reporting data-sample answers were untouched, so reconciliation workflows built on the 2019 guidance still hold.

Sources and References

Turning the 13 July 2026 revision into a desk checklist

A date-stamped FAQ lets you scope a short review instead of a full re-read. Map the eight changed answers to what your firm does: if you operate or trade on a venue, or hold a systematic internaliser or designated publishing entity role, the transparency and deferral answers are yours; if you run a commodity-derivatives book, check the position-limit and control answers; if you trade algorithmically or offer direct electronic access, confirm your notification reaches the CSSF and not only your home authority. Slot the actions into the same cycle as your CSSF reporting calendar.

Last updated: July 2026

Disclaimer: The information on RegReportingDesk.com is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or compliance advice. Always consult your compliance officer, legal counsel, or the relevant supervisory authority for guidance specific to your institution.

Similar Posts