Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 102kWORD 15k
19 December 2016
Question for written answer E-009560-16
to the Commission
Rule 130
Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI)

 Subject:  Application of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID)
 Answer in writing 

In regulating the gambling market, Member States define gambling activities as those in which the result depends on chance.

Investment in financial instruments is also highly unpredictable, in particular on the market in derivative instruments — binary options, for example.

That being so, could the suppliers of instruments of that kind (listed under point 4 or 5 of section C of Annex 1 to MiFID) — if they so wish — be regulated not under MiFID rules, but under the rules governing the gambling market?

The above question is all the more relevant given that instruments such as binary options could easily be made more varied by visualising their lifespan and payout using symbols and animations, as in games of chance.

If a supplier of binary options declares that it wants to act like an online casino, could it be bound by the gambling market rules that apply in that Member State, or would it have to comply with the rules applicable to trade in financial instruments?

Original language of question: PL 
Legal notice - Privacy policy