Art. 30 (1) & (2) of DORA demand that financial institutions have signed contractual agreements with all their ICT service providers, in particular in Art. 30(2) &(3) the elements that shall be included in the contractual arrangements are listed.

Are ICT service providers permitted under DORA to charge the financial institutions "merely for signing" a DORA addendum or updated contractual arrangements in the framework of Art. 30, DORA?

In light of the first subparagraph of Article 16(5) of Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II), as well as Article 2(3) and Article 30(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565, can it be affirmed that where a management company has delegated to an entity the performance of crucial elements of the marketing of UCITS funds, including their registration and listing for marketing purposes, the activity of that entity in entering into brokerage and distribution agreements with third-party intermediaries for the purpose of marketing such funds constitutes outsourcing of a critical and important function?

Furthermore, and in the light of the EBA Guidelines on Outsourcing Arrangements (EBA/GL/2019/02), to what extent does the principle of proportionality guide the assessment carried out during the risk evaluation of such outsourcing arrangements? In particular, do factors such as the continuity and duration of the agreement with third-party intermediaries, the scope and materiality of the delegated tasks, and the frequency and regularity of such delegation have an impact on whether the relationship should be qualified as the outsourcing of a critical or important function under the above-mentioned instruments?

We are currently exploring the possibility of presenting future performance in percentage terms within our robo-advisory application. The app provides automated investment recommendations based on client profiling and risk tolerance, and may in the future include visual projections of potential returns.

These projections would be expressed as percentages, clearly labeled as hypothetical, and accompanied by appropriate disclaimers and risk warnings. The format would follow the structure and methodology of performance scenarios as outlined in Annex IV of the PRIIPs Regulation.

In this context, we would like to clarify:

Is it permissible to present future performance in percentage terms if the format aligns with the performance scenarios described in PRIIPs Annex IV?
Would such a presentation be compliant with Article 44 of MiFID II, particularly in digital interfaces?

In order to comply with the duty to obtain the necessary information regarding the client's knowledge and experience, financial situation, and investment objectives, shall the Investment firms questionnaire/approach follow this exact sequence, i.e., shall the investment firm inquire the client, in a first moment, about its Knowledge and Experience on a specific instrument/ service, and then about the client's financial situation and his investment objectives ?

What is the submission format for the incident reports (initial notification, intermediate and final) that CTPPs and Financial Entities need to submit to the CA?