The reading of several NCAs of the article 23 of ELTIF Regulation is that, as far as prospectus EU legal framework is concerned (Directive 2003/71 and Regulation 809/2004), solely the provisions of such framework that are explicitly mentioned by the ELTIF Regulation shall be applied.
Hence, since the provision concerning the prospectus authorization is not quoted in the ELTIF Regulation, such an authorization is not due for the prospectus of an ELTIF.

The prospectus of the ELTIF is however scrutinized by these NCAs before its publication; such scrutiny is conducted in the context of the marketing procedure laid down in Article 31(4) of the ELTIF Regulation (marketing of units or shares of ELTIFs).

It is however unclear whether a different approach is adopted by other Member States, pursuant to which the authorization of the prospectus is put in place.

The difference between the two approaches is also relevant in the context of the update of the information included in the prospectus. Indeed, at the time of the update of the prospectus:

• if the authorization is not due, the updated version of the prospectus can be published and the NCA can put in place an ex post supervision;
• if the authorization is due, the updated version of the prospectus shall be authorized by the NCA before being published.

Which of these two possible legal interpretations should be considered as the correct one?

Where one authority attends a resolution college in multiple roles pursuant to Article 4(2) of CCP RRR, would it have the corresponding number of votes?

How should votes be distributed in the case of two or more authorities in a particular Member State sharing one of the roles specified in Article 4(2) of CCP RRR?

Could the competent authority of the CCP’s parent undertaking be invited to participate in the resolution college, if the parent undertaking is not a CCP and operates in a third country?

In accordance with Article 4(2)(c) of CCP RRR, competent authorities and resolution authorities of clearing members referred to in Article 18(2)(c) of EMIR should be voting members of the resolution college. Art. 18(2)(c) of EMIR refers to the three Member States with the largest contributions to the default fund of the CCP. Where not all clearing members of the CCP are subject to supervision by competent authorities, should the calculation exclude default fund contributions from not supervised clearing members?