>
eurocrim
>
Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on in...
Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse)
See also OJ series C no. 328 of 25/09/2002, p. 19-33
Laws
|
Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse),
OJ 2003 L 96 of 2003-04-11, p. 16-25
(
 )
See also COM(2001)281 final and OJ series C no. 228E of 25/09/2002, p. 19-33
|
Bills, preliminary documents
|
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse),
COM(2001) 281 of 2001-05-29
(
)
See also OJ series C no. 281 of 25/09/2002, p. 19-33
|
Judicial Decisions
|
ECJ (Second Chamber),
Judgment of 2012-06-27, Case C-19/11 (Markus Geltl v Daimler AG)
·
External sources:
InfoCuria
1. Point 1 of Article 1 of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) and Article 1(1) of Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6 as regards the definition and public disclosure of inside information and the definition of market manipulation must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a protracted process intended to bring about a particular circumstance or to generate a particular event, not only may that future circumstance or future event be regarded as precise information within the meaning of those provisions, but also the intermediate steps of that process which are connected with bringing about that future circumstance or event.
2. Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/124 must be interpreted as meaning that the notion of ‘a set of circumstances which exists or may reasonably be expected to come into existence or an event which has occurred or may reasonably be expected to do so’ refers to future circumstances or events from which it appears, on the basis of an overall assessment of the factors existing at the relevant time, that there is a realistic prospect that they will come into existence or occur. However, that notion should not be interpreted as meaning that the magnitude of the effect of that set of circumstances or that event on the prices of the financial instruments concerned must be taken into consideration.
|
|
ECJ (Second Chamber),
Judgment of 2012-03-21, Case C-248/11 (Rareş Doralin Nilaş)
·
External sources:
InfoCuria
1. Article 4(1)(14) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC, as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that a market in financial instruments which does not satisfy the requirements in Title III of that directive does not fall within the concept of ‘regulated market’, as defined in that provision, notwithstanding the fact that its operator merged with the operator of such a regulated market.
2. Article 47 of Directive 2004/39, as amended by Directive 2007/44, must be interpreted as meaning that the inclusion of a market on the list of regulated markets referred to in that article is not a precondition for the classification of that market as a regulated market within the meaning of that directive.
|
Topics affected by this act:
