Can the exemption in Article 3(2) of the PR be combined with the exemptions in Article 1(4) PR?

Which annexes to the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/980, i.e. Annex 3 and Annex 12 or Annex 1 and Annex 11, should be used to prepare the simplified prospectus referred to in Article 14 of the Prospectus Regulation in the case specified in Article 14(1)(d) of the Prospectus Regulation?

Explanation: Pursuant to Article 14(1)(d) of the Prospectus Regulation a simplified prospectus under simplified disclosure regime for secondary regime may be drawn up by, among others, issuers whose securities have been offered to the public and admitted to trading on an SME growth market continuously for at least two years, and who have fully complied with reporting and disclosure obligations throughout the period of being admitted to trading, and who seek admission to trading on a regulated market of securities fungible with existing securities which have been previously issued.
However, we note that certain competent authorities in the EU require that a simplified prospectus in the case referred to in Article 14(1)(d) of the Prospectus Regulation, i.e. the issuers transitioning from the SME Growth Market and meeting conditions specified therein shall prepare the Prospectus in accordance with Annex 1 and Annex 11, i.e. in accordance with full disclosure regime with the exception that only financial information would be limited as in the simplified prospectus.

Therefore, we kindly request the European Securities Market Authority to clarify which annexes to the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/980 should be required to prepare a simplified prospectus referred to in Article 14 of the Prospectus Regulation in the case specified in Article 14(1)(d) of the Prospectus Regulation.

Recital 5 of RTS 15 MiFIR sets out that charging fees in a discriminatory way so as to deter access should not be permitted. Where a trading venue has close links to a CCP, should additional considerations be taken into account when considering whether fees are discriminatory, and if so, which considerations?

Article 11 of RTS 15 MiFIR permits a trading venue to charge fees to a CCP accessing the trading venue provided that it is the same schedule of fees and rebates for each CCP with regard to the same or similar financial instruments, unless a different fee schedule can be objectively justified. Where (a) a CCP has close links to a trading venue, (b) such CCP does not pass on the fees charged to it by that trading venue, and (c) the aggregated trading and clearing fees for trades executed and cleared by such trading venue and its linked CCP are therefore lower relative to the fees for the same trades cleared with non-affiliated CCPs, would the schedule of fees and rebates applicable to all CCPs accessing the trading venue be considered to be the same schedule of fees and rebates?

Since most of the (potential) applicants aim to settle the “cash leg” of transactions with or as a DLT-SS / DLT-TSS using e-money tokens the question arises if Article 12(1) b) CSDR regarding the relevant authorities is applicable (“the central banks in the Union issuing the most relevant currencies in which settlement takes place”).