When an off-the-shelf software license (e.g. operating systems, database) is purchased through a distributor, is the distributor qualifying as “ICT third-party service provider” in case if the distributor itself is not providing any additional services in addition to the distribution, and its contractual tasks are completed with the successful intermediation of the license agreement? Is the software company qualifying as a direct “ICT third-party service provider” based on the end-user license agreement (EULA) accepted by the financial entity?

Can an investment firm which is licensed under the MiFID II Directive, conduct it business such that it is carrying out an investment activity and not providing an investment service?

For RTS28 report, we classify the instruments using:

• the cficode of Firds to classify the instruments in Equities – Shares & Depositary Receipts, Debt instruments, Interest rates derivatives …
• the volumes of Fitrs to classify the Equities – Shares & Depositary Receipts in subassets ( (i) Tick size liquidity bands 5 and 6 (from 2000 trades per day), (ii) Tick size liquidity bands 3 and 4 (from 80 to 1999 trades per day) (iii), Tick size liquidity band 1 and 2 (from 0 to 79 trades per day))

How should we classify non – EU instruments that are not present in Firds and Fitrs?

ESMA is requested to provide interpretation on whether:
— it is appropriate that the Home Member State Authority of these Branches registered as MIFID investment firms expects them to comply with the complete set of legislation regime of MiFID2, MIFIR and EMIR in the same way as any investment firm in the legal form of an EU credit institution;
— these Branches registered as MIFID investment firms may freely provide cross-border investment services to per se professional clients and eligible counterparties in an EU Member State different from their Home Member State based on their investment license issued by their Home Member state, subject to complying with the notification requirements described in paragraph 2 of Article 34 of MIFID2.

Per article 54(3) in Delegated Regulation, for Investment Services offered to a professional client you are entitled to assume client has the necessary level of knowledge and experience. However per article 54(6), knowledge and experience is required from the natural person representing the legal entity on the Suitability Questionnaire. Isn't that contradicting as the professional clients per Annex II of MiFID II Directive are legal entities and is interpreted that 54(3) is never applicable and all parts of Suitability Questionnaire in one way or another need to be completed?