Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission Finds No Breach of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 596/2014 and Closes the Case

The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (the “CySEC”) has concluded the administrative proceedings initiated against our client for an alleged breach of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 596/2014 on market abuse (the “Market Abuse Regulation” or “MAR”), determining that no breach has occurred and deciding not to take any further action.

By its decision, CySEC held that, having taken into account the written and oral representations submitted on behalf of our client, the requirements for establishing a breach of Article 15 MAR were not met and, accordingly, the matter was considered closed.

The proceedings concerned the examination of transactions carried out on the Emerging Companies Market of the Cyprus Stock Exchange, in the context of allegations of potential market manipulation. CySEC’s assessment focused on whether, in the specific circumstances, the transactions could be regarded as practices capable of misleading the market or of artificially influencing the formation of prices in a manner contrary to the MAR framework.

Our firm undertook the full representation and defence of the client before CySEC, advancing substantiated submissions on both the factual background and the applicable regulatory framework. The representations highlighted, inter alia, that the transactions were conducted in the context of ordinary investment activity and that there were no elements indicating an intention to manipulate the market, coordinated conduct, or any pursuit of creating misleading signals as to the supply, demand, or price of financial instruments.

Following its overall assessment of the factual circumstances and the legal arguments placed before it, CySEC concluded that the objective and subjective conditions required for the application of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 596/2014 were not satisfied and that, consequently, no breach could be established on the part of our client.

This decision underscores the importance of comprehensive and well-founded regulatory defence in the context of administrative investigations and confirms that the absence of elements evidencing intent or conduct capable of artificially affecting market functioning is a decisive factor in determining whether MAR infringements have occurred. At the same time, it enhances legal certainty and transparency in the enforcement of the capital markets regulatory framework.