ESMA July 2026 Q&As: ESG Ratings, MiCA and Consolidated Tape

On 10 July 2026 ESMA announced thirteen Q&A repository items across the EU ESG Ratings Regulation, the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation and MiFIR secondary markets. All thirteen items carry published answers. The individual records also show that several answers pre-date 10 July 2026. None of the thirteen published answers creates a new reporting template or remittance date.

This ESMA Q&A update rewards a close read. An ESMA Q&A is not legally binding and does not extend the rights or obligations in the underlying legislation; only the Court of Justice can authoritatively interpret Union law. Treat published answers as supervisory-convergence guidance and document any resulting legal or compliance assessment. Map each answer to your own authorisation perimeter and disclosure duties, then decide whether anything you do needs to change.

Related reading: ESMA Q&As May 2026: ESG Ratings, MiCAR and MAR.

The dates that drive this batch

Three of the frameworks touched by this update carry hard calendar points. Put them on the compliance planner before reading the substance.

• 10 July 2026: publication date of the batch (eight ESG Ratings, three MiCA, two MiFIR).
• 2 July 2026: the date from which Regulation (EU) 2024/3005 applies. It entered into force on 1 January 2025, the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal on 12 December 2024.
• 2 August 2026 and 2 November 2026: incumbent providers other than small providers must notify ESMA by 2 August and, after notification, apply for authorisation or recognition by 2 November. Small providers using the Article 5 temporary regime must instead notify ESMA under that regime no later than 2 November.
• 28 March 2024: entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2024/791, the MiFIR review that built the consolidated tape framework now being clarified.

Read an ESMA Q&A update as interpretation, not as a filing change

Resist the reflex that a new answer means a new report. A Q&A explains how an existing article applies to a fact pattern firms kept asking about. It does not amend the regulation, add a data point to a supervisory return, or move a remittance date. The output of reading it is a decision, not a data-mapping exercise: for each answer, either confirm your practice matches ESMA’s reading, or log a dated gap and an owner against the Q&A reference.

ESG Ratings Regulation: eight answers as the regime goes live

Eight of the thirteen listed repository items concern Regulation (EU) 2024/3005. The Regulation applies from 2 July 2026 and ESMA directly supervises ESG rating providers offering services in the Union. Incumbent providers other than small providers must notify ESMA by 2 August 2026 and apply for authorisation or recognition by 2 November 2026; small providers follow the Article 5 temporary-regime notification route. Three ESG answers are dated 10 July 2026; the other five were answered in December 2025 or March 2026. The individual records do not identify the submitters as authorisation candidates.

The sharpest pair concerns the two-working-day notification requirement in Article 15(12). Q&A 2719 confirms the obligation applies to ESG ratings issued on or after 2 July 2026. Ratings issued before that date are pulled in only when they are subsequently updated or revised after the application date, including where the update or revision follows a material change to the methodology. Q&A 2890 addresses the scope of that period. The carve-out matters: a provider reading Article 15(12) as retroactively covering its entire legacy book would build a notification process the regulation does not require for static historical ratings.

The rest of the ESG cluster fills in the operating model: consulting activities provided to investors or rated undertakings (Q&A 2889), notifications made without a designated contact (Q&A 2717), the obligation to consider issuer feedback (Q&A 2716), access to the dataset for a factual-error review (Q&A 2891), ESG ratings used only for internal purposes or in in-house financial services (Q&A 2806), and the exemption for second-party-opinion providers (Q&A 2807). External reviews of European Green Bonds are always outside the ESG Ratings Regulation under Article 2(2)(h). Other sustainable-debt external reviews or second-party opinions can fall within scope where they contain a distinguishable ESG rating, are marketed as an ESG rating or are structured to circumvent the Regulation. Our guide to the EU green bond external reviewers register sets out that parallel regime.

MiCA: where crypto advice ends and lending begins

Three published answers clarify how MiCA, Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, applies to crypto-asset service providers. Read Q&A 2882 on the perimeter of advice first. ESMA states that the definition of advice on crypto-assets under MiCA is broader than investment advice under MiFID II: it captures personalised recommendations relating to transactions in crypto-assets and recommendations to use crypto-asset services. ESMA sets out five questions: whether the service constitutes a recommendation; whether it concerns a crypto-asset transaction or use of a crypto-asset service; whether it is presented as suitable or based on the person’s circumstances; whether it is issued otherwise than exclusively to the public; and whether it is made to a person as an investor, potential investor or agent.

The useful boundary is the non-example. An introductory service that recommends a crypto-asset service may amount to advice under MiCA, with or without naming a specific CASP and even without recommending a particular transaction, depending on the circumstances. Providing only an equally accessible reference to a CASP, without further indications, should not constitute advice. A firm running a referral or onboarding funnel should test that funnel against Q&A 2882 rather than assume that “we do not recommend trades” keeps it outside the advice perimeter. The same MiCA-versus-MiFID line is playing out nationally, as our note on the BaFin view of the tokenised-securities perimeter shows.

Q&A 2883 (published 18 June 2026) confirms that CASPs may offer crypto-asset lending services under MiCA, subject to specific conditions. ESMA requires prior express and specific consent before client crypto-assets may be used for lending; generic terms and conditions do not meet the prominence standard. Revenues from lending should accrue to clients, who bear the associated risks; CASPs may retain only a fair and proportionate fee covering operational costs. CASPs must verify adequate collateral and clearly communicate material risks, including counterparty risk, collateral shortfall risk, and the fact that MiCA safeguarding arrangements do not protect lent assets. Q&A 2417 states that an issuer transferring newly issued crypto-assets from the issuance smart contract to purchasers’ wallets is not providing custody or transfer services on behalf of another person and therefore does not require CASP authorisation solely for that transfer. For the wider filing picture, see our MiCAR reporting obligations guide and the treatment of CASP client assets at the end of the transitional period.

MiFIR consolidated tape: opt-in is narrower than it looks

The two remaining answers sit under MiFIR, Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 as amended by the MiFIR review, and both concern the consolidated tape rather than transaction reporting. Get that distinction right first. A consolidated tape provider aggregates market data across venues; it is not the Article 26 transaction-reporting channel. A team that files transaction reports gains no new obligation here unless it also contributes market data. Our MiFIR transaction reporting explainer covers the separate Article 26 regime these answers do not touch.

Q&A 2825 answers who may benefit from the opt-in regime in Article 22a(2) and (3) of MiFIR. ESMA confirms the opt-in applies only to the equities consolidated tape. Two categories qualify: investment firms that operate an SME growth market, and market operators, provided they meet the Article 22a(2) conditions. Every other multilateral trading facility operator, and all contributors to the bonds and OTC-derivatives tapes, contribute mandatorily. Reading the opt-in as a general escape from tape contribution is the error it exists to prevent. Q&A 2881 interprets Article 3(2) of the already-in-force Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1155. The relevant order timestamp is the matching-engine timestamp applied when the order is registered in the order book and sequenced for potential execution.

Frequently asked questions

Does the July 2026 Q&A batch change any reporting template or remittance date?

No. The thirteen published answers are interpretive and do not create a reporting template or change a remittance date.

The ESG Ratings Regulation started to apply on 2 July 2026. Do the two-working-day notifications cover ratings we issued in 2025?

Under Q&A 2719 the Article 15(12) obligation applies to ratings issued on or after 2 July 2026. A 2025 rating is caught only if it is later updated or revised after the application date, including where the update or revision follows a material methodology change. A static legacy rating that is not touched again does not trigger the notification.

We run a referral funnel that points clients to a licensed exchange. Is that advice under MiCA?

It can be. Q&A 2882 says an introductory service recommending a crypto-asset service may amount to advice, with or without recommending a specific CASP and even without recommending a transaction, depending on the circumstances. Providing solely a reference to a CASP, without further indications and equally accessible to all potential investors, should not be regarded as advice. Check the funnel against ESMA’s five questions, including whether the communication is a recommendation about a transaction or crypto-asset service, is presented as suitable or based on the person’s circumstances, is not exclusively public, and is addressed to a person as an investor, potential investor or agent.

Can a CASP offer crypto-asset lending under MiCA?

Yes, subject to conditions set out in Q&A 2883 (published 18 June 2026). ESMA requires prior express and specific consent from clients before their crypto-assets may be used for lending; generic terms and conditions are not sufficiently prominent. Revenues from lending should accrue to clients, since they bear the associated risks; CASPs may retain a fair and proportionate fee covering operational costs. CASPs must clearly disclose counterparty risk, collateral shortfall risk, and the fact that MiCA safeguarding arrangements do not protect lent assets.

Our firm submits MiFIR transaction reports. Does the consolidated tape opt-in change anything for us?

Not by itself. The consolidated tape is a market-data regime under Article 22a, separate from Article 26 transaction reporting. The opt-in in Q&A 2825 only affects who must contribute market data to the equities tape, and it reaches only investment firms operating an SME growth market and qualifying market operators.

Related Articles

• ESMA Q&As May 2026: ESG Ratings, MiCAR and MAR – the previous batch across the same frameworks.
• MiCAR Reporting Obligations – what CASPs and token issuers report under MiCA.
• BaFin on Tokenised Securities: the MiCA/MiFID Perimeter – a national view of the boundary.
• MiFIR Transaction Reporting – the Article 26 regime the tape answers do not change.
• EU Green Bond External Reviewers Register – the second-party-opinion regime nearby.
• MiCA CASP Transitional Period: Client Assets – safeguarding, the pressure point for crypto lending.

Key Takeaways

• ESMA’s 10 July 2026 announcement listed thirteen repository items: eight under the ESG Ratings Regulation, three under MiCA and two under MiFIR. All thirteen items carry published answers. The individual answer dates show that several items pre-date 10 July 2026.
• The ESG Ratings Regulation applies from 2 July 2026, with ESMA as direct supervisor. Incumbent providers other than small providers must notify ESMA by 2 August 2026 and apply for authorisation or recognition by 2 November 2026; small incumbent providers use the Article 5 temporary-regime notification route.
• The Article 15(12) two-working-day notification applies to ratings issued on or after 2 July 2026; earlier ratings are caught only when updated or revised after that date, including where the update or revision follows a material methodology change (Q&A 2719).
• MiCA advice is broader than MiFID II advice: recommending a crypto-asset service may amount to advice, with or without recommending a specific CASP and even without a transaction recommendation, while a bare CASP reference equally accessible to all potential investors should not constitute advice (Q&A 2882).
• Q&A 2883 (published 18 June 2026) confirms CASPs may lend client crypto-assets under MiCA subject to conditions: prior express and specific consent, revenue allocation to clients, adequate collateral verification, and clear disclosure of counterparty risk, collateral shortfall risk and the fact that MiCA safeguarding does not cover lent assets.
• The MiFIR Article 22a opt-in covers only the equities tape and only SME-growth-market investment firms and qualifying market operators; it is a market-data regime, separate from Article 26 transaction reporting (Q&A 2825).

Sources and References

• ESMA, “New Q&As available”, 10 July 2026: esma.europa.eu
• ESMA Q&A 2719, two-working-day notification, Article 15(12) ESG Ratings Regulation: questions-answers/2719
• ESMA Q&A 2882, perimeter of advice under MiCA compared to MiFID II: questions-answers/2882
• ESMA Q&A 2883, crypto-asset lending under MiCA: conditions for CASPs using client crypto-assets (Answer Published 18 June 2026): questions-answers/2883
• ESMA Q&A 2825, opt-in regime under Article 22a(2) and (3) of MiFIR: questions-answers/2825
• ESMA Q&A 2881, order timestamp under Article 3(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1155: questions-answers/2881
• Regulation (EU) 2024/3005 on the transparency and integrity of ESG rating activities: EUR-Lex
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1155 (consolidated tape providers, input/output data): EUR-Lex
• Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA): EUR-Lex
• Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 (MiFIR): EUR-Lex
• Regulation (EU) 2024/791 amending MiFIR (the MiFIR review, consolidated tape): EUR-Lex
• ESMA, ESG Rating Providers (supervision and registration): esma.europa.eu

What to put on the desk this week

Clear this batch by routing it by owner. The eight ESG answers go to whoever holds the Regulation (EU) 2024/3005 registration file, since they arrive alongside the application window. Q&A 2882 goes to the team that signs off crypto referral and onboarding flows. Q&A 2883 (crypto-asset lending) goes to the team responsible for custody and lending assessments: the published answer sets conditions that a compliance note should address, covering consent mechanics, fee arrangements, revenue allocation and risk disclosure obligations. The two MiFIR answers go to a data-contribution function only; the transaction-reporting desk can be told Article 26 is untouched. Close each with a dated interpretation note, and the batch becomes a short, auditable set of decisions.

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.