(fra kommisjonsforordningen)

(1) Clear and harmonised reporting instructions for data to be transmitted to and disseminated by consolidated tape providers (‘CTPs’) is a key element for the orderly functioning of CTPs and effective and reliable data consolidation. 

(2) To achieve fast, secure and high-quality data transmission to CTPs, the transmission protocols used by data contributors should fulfil certain minimum requirements in terms of performance, security, reliability, and compatibility with other systems and applications supporting the reporting process. Upholding those standards is necessary to guarantee the integrity, accuracy, and timeliness of market data disseminated by CTPs. 

(3) To ensure timely availability of consolidated market data to investors, data contributors should be subject to strict submission latency requirements. Such requirements should however be calibrated to reflect the varying degrees of timesensitivity in market data. In particular, pre- and post-trade data for equities require tighter latency standards compared to bonds and derivatives, given higher timesensitivity of equities data. Furthermore, the latency thresholds should represent the maximum allowed limits, which means that a faster latency should be used whenever achievable. To meet the requirement to transmit the data as close to real time as technically possible, data should be transmitted to the data centres of CTPs without artificial delays compared to data transmission by data contributors for other purposes, including transmission of proprietary data feeds. 

(4) Harmonisation of data formats for the transmission of data to CTPs facilitates efficient reception and processing of input data. Harmonisation of data formats for the data transmission also streamlines the operations of CTPs in consolidating and disseminating data in a cost-efficient manner, reducing complexity, enhancing overall operational effectiveness and ensuring the consistency and quality of data for the users of a CTP. The ISO 20022 standard sets out a methodology that provides for harmonisation at three levels: the conceptual level specifying the semantics of data, the logical level specifying the message model without regard to technology, and the physical level describing the syntax of the message in a technology that is used for the transmission of data. Given the broad adoption of ISO 20022 by markets participants in the context of regulatory reporting, the use of that standard should facilitate the consistency and comparability of data. Therefore, any format used by data contributors for reporting under Article 22a of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 should adhere to the methodology laid down in that ISO standard. However, given the varying market practices and their level of maturity across different asset classes, adherence to a single syntax at a third level is not necessary where well-established market practice already exists, including in the case of the equity asset class. Adherence to the methodology laid down in the ISO 20022 standard is ensured where a mapping is provided between a data format and the ISO 20022 model at the conceptual and logical levels. 

(5) When determining the content of the data to be transmitted to CTPs, regard should be had to the aim of minimising reporting burden for data contributors while facilitating the dissemination of data essential for investors. Furthermore, when determining the input data fields necessary for the production of core market data, consistency should be ensured with the existing pre- and post-trade transparency requirements laid down in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/587 for equity instruments and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/583 for non-equity instruments. 

(6) To enable investors to be informed about the status of individual financial instruments traded on a given trading venue, the regulatory data to be transmitted to the CTPs should include information on trading suspensions, removals and halts and on the type of trading system on which the instrument is traded. Additionally, to enable investors to make well informed decisions in varying market conditions, the regulatory data to be transmitted to the CTPs should include information on the status of systems matching orders, in particular information on outages or normal trading phases. 

(7) The dissemination of output data should occur through presentation methods that ensure both machine and human readability, as required under Article 27h(1), point (e) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. To cater for diverse user needs, the dissemination of output data should be provided in multiple formats, including at least a format that adheres to the ISO 20022 methodology, a format for advanced analysis, the Commaseparated values format for less advanced users, and a graphical user interface to allow for human readability. 

(8) Article 27h(1), point (f) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 requires CTPs to have systems in place that can effectively check the completeness of the data transmitted by data contributors, identify obvious errors, and request the re-submission of data. That requirement should entail the obligation for CTPs to flag potential data quality issues to data users and to communicate with data contributors to facilitate the resubmission of corrected trade reports. To ensure data quality, CTPs should put in place mechanisms to confirm to data contributors that they have received the input data. A CTP should not be required to confirm receipt in real time. In the event of serious data quality breaches, CTPs should be able to apply enforcement standards in a nondiscriminatory manner. Enforcement measures that CTPs should be able to take include the suspension of revenue redistribution to data contributors and the notification of data quality issues to competent authorities. Additionally, CTPs should perform regular checks on the quality of output data, ensuring periodic reconciliation with the input data. 

(9) To avoid unnecessary operational costs on the entities subject to the requirement to synchronise their business clocks, it is necessary to calibrate the expected level of accuracy to the type of activities that such entities perform, and to the latency levels of the systems that they operate. 

(10) The number of orders that operators of trading venues and systematic internalisers receive every second can be very high and be much higher than that of executed transactions. Especially when using high-frequency trading techniques, the number of orders may extend to several thousands per second, depending on the trading venue, the systematic internaliser, the type of members, participants, or users and clients, and the financial instruments' volatility and liquidity. The minimum granularity requirements for recording the date and time of reportable events by operators of trading venues and systematic internalisers should therefore be proportionate to the speed at which they process and acknowledge orders. 

(11) Members, participants, or users of trading venues operate systems that tend to match the nature and complexity of the trading activity that they perform on a given trading venue. The applicable accuracy levels to which business clocks are to be synchronised should therefore be commensurate to the type of trading activity. 

(12) For certain trading models, increased accuracy to which business clocks are to be synchronised might not be relevant or feasible. Voice trading systems or request for quote trading systems, where the response requires human intervention or does not allow algorithmic trading, or systems which are used for concluding negotiated transactions, should thus be subject to different accuracy standards. Trading venues operating those trading systems are not typically susceptible to the high volume of events that can happen within the same second. Since it is less likely that there are multiple events occurring at the same time, it is not necessary to impose a finer granularity to time stamping of those events. In addition, trades on those trading venues may be agreed using manual methods which can take time. On those trading venues there is also an inherent delay between the moment the trade is executed and the moment the trade is recorded in the trading system. Imposing more stringent accuracy requirements would therefore not necessarily lead to more meaningful and accurate record keeping by the operator of the trading venue, its members, participants or users. 

(13) Approved publication arrangements (‘APAs’), designated publishing entities (‘DPEs’) and CTPs operate systems for data reporting, publication, consolidation and dissemination, and they have a weaker link to the origination of the order and to the transaction data they process. APAs, DPEs and CTPs should therefore be subject to absolute accuracy requirements. 

(14) Because of the complexity of the different systems and the number of alternative methods that can be used to synchronise to Coordinated Universal Time (‘UTC’), competent authorities need to understand how trading venues and their members, participants, or users ensure their traceability to the UTC. Therefore, trading venues and their members, participants or users should be able to demonstrate traceability to UTC by documenting the system design, functioning and specifications, to identify the exact point at which a timestamp is applied and to demonstrate that the point within the system where the timestamp is applied remains consistent. Given that clock drift can be affected by many different elements, it is also appropriate to determine an acceptance level for the maximum divergence from UTC. 

(15) The receipt of high-quality data is of the utmost importance for the functioning of the consolidated tapes and requires all data contributors and CTPs to timestamp their data in a synchronised manner. Regulation (EU) 2024/791 of the European Parliament and of the Council therefore amended Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 to extend the requirement to synchronise business clocks to DPEs, to APAs and to CTPs. Since that requirement is now laid down in Article 22c of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, Directive (EU) 2024/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council deleted Article 50 of Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/574 was adopted based on the empowerment set out in Article 50 of Directive 2014/65/EU. Following the deletion of that Article and the establishment of clock synchronisation requirements in Article 22c of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, it is necessary to update the regulatory framework to reflect that legislative change. Consequently, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/574 should be repealed, and references to that Regulation should be understood as references to this Regulation. 

(16) To ensure the fair treatment of all trading venues across the Union that contribute data to the CTP for shares and exchange traded funds (‘ETFs’), it is crucial to clearly specify the method that the CTP for shares and ETFs should apply when calculating the amount of its revenue to be redistributed to data contributors. It is therefore necessary to further specify the minimum frequency at which the CTP for shares and ETFs should determine the relative share of, or percentage of, revenue to be redistributed per eligible trading venue. The CTP for shares and ETFs should redistribute revenues at least annually, although it may opt for a more frequent redistribution. 

(17) To maximise the revenue for trading venues fulfilling all the criteria laid down in Article 27h(6) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, and the revenue for trading venues that opt-in, pursuant to Article 22a(3) of that Regulation, and to ensure that the weightings assigned to each criterion laid down in Article 27h(6) of that Regulation sum up to 10, with 10 being the equivalent of 100 %, those weightings should be 4,5 for the criterion laid down in Article 27h(6), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, 4,0 for the criterion laid down in Article 27h(6), point (b), of that Regulation, and 1,5 for the criterion laid down in Article 27h(6), point (c), of that Regulation. 

(18) To deter serious and repeated breaches of the data requirements laid down in Articles 22a, 22b, and 22c of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, it is necessary to ensure that, when taking a decision on the suspension of the revenue redistribution scheme, the CTP for shares and ETFs acts in an equitable manner. For that reason, the CTP for shares and ETFs should ensure that the decision to suspend the participation of a data contributor in the revenue redistribution scheme and the decision on the duration of that suspension take into consideration the seriousness of the breach, its impact on the revenue redistribution scheme, and any corrective actions put in place by the data contributor. 

(19) In order for the revenue redistribution scheme to foster an on-going dialogue between the CTP for shares and ETFs and each data contributor on the quality of data submitted, and thus to ensure that the suspension of the participation of a data contributor in that scheme is used as a measure of last resort, it is necessary to specify minimum requirements that ensure that the process for suspending a data contributor from that scheme is transparent, non-discriminatory, fair and efficient. In particular, to avoid that such a suspension decision is taken on the basis of incomplete or inaccurate information, the CTP for shares and ETFs should share with suspended data contributors the information supporting the decision on the suspension and allow data contributors to submit additional information both prior to and after the decision has been taken. 

(20) Where the CTP for shares and ETFs confirms its decision to suspend a data contributor from the revenue redistribution scheme, it should be able to redistribute the retained revenue to the other eligible data contributors in the redistribution window, either following the suspension decision or, where a review process is initiated, following the final suspension decision. 

(21) Where the CTP for shares and ETFs, based on the additional information shared by a data contributor, revises its decision to suspend a data contributor from the revenue redistribution scheme, it should redistribute retained revenue to that data contributor in the next redistribution window and within two weeks following the final decision, with interest corresponding to the average rate of the European Central Bank’s deposit facility during the suspension period.

(22) To provide market participants with sufficient time to prepare for the new requirements, the application of the requirements on the synchronisation of business clocks should be deferred. 

(23) This Regulation is based on the draft regulatory technical standards submitted by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to the Commission. 

(24) In accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council17, ESMA has conducted open public consultations on the draft regulatory technical standards on which this Regulation is based, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the advice of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group established in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 

(25) ESMA has taken into account the advice of the expert stakeholder group as required by Article 22b(3) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. 

(26) The draft regulatory technical standards to be adopted on the basis of the empowerments laid down in Articles 22b(3), 22c(2) and 27h(8) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 contain provisions that are substantively linked to each other, as they are all necessary to ensure the successful establishment and operation of the consolidated tapes. These regulatory technical standards should therefore be bundled into a single Commission Delegated Regulation,