2. Scope of clients covered by Article 7d(1) EMIR
Article 7d(1) also introduces reporting obligations for clients that clear contracts through a CCP recognised under Article 25, but does not further specify the level of the client relationship concerned.
In particular, it is unclear whether the term “clients” in Article 7d(1) should be understood as:
• only direct clients of clearing members; or
• both direct clients and indirect clients (i.e. clients accessing clearing services through intermediaries in a client clearing chain).

2. Which clients are covered by the reporting obligation in Article 7d of EMIR?

Which contracts are referred to in Article 7d(1) EMIR?

Can a second-party opinion provider producing and using an ESG rating for its second-party opinion, without publishing or distributing it on a standalone basis, benefit from the exemption set out in Article 2(2)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2024/3005?  

What types of activities are considered “internal purposes” or “in-house” or “intragroup financial services or products” for the purposes of Article 2(2)(b)?

Under MiFID II, investment advice is defined as a personal recommendation to a client in relation to transactions in financial instruments. In practice, the personal recommendation, the suitability assessment, the documentation and the technical generation/transmission of the suitability statement may be performed by different persons and/or partly automated systems.

Could ESMA clarify the following points:

1. For determining whether and by whom investment advice was provided, is it primarily relevant who gave/communicated the personal recommendation to the client, rather than who merely prepared/generated/transmitted the suitability statement through IT systems?

2. Should the suitability statement under MiFID II / Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 be understood as documentation and rationale of a recommendation that has already been made, rather than as a constitutive element of “investment advice”?

3. Is it necessary, for the attribution of investment advice to a specific staff member, that the same staff member is technically able to create/approve/transmit the suitability statement, or can these steps be separated without changing the attribution of who “advised”?