EU · MiFID II · TITLE IV POSITION LIMITS AND POSITION MANAGEMENT CONTROLS IN COMMODITY DERIVATIVES AND REPORTING
Article 57 MiFID IIPosition limits in commodity derivatives and position management controls in commodity derivatives and derivatives of emission allowances
Requires competent authorities to set position limits, using ESMA's methodology, on net positions in agricultural and critical or significant commodity derivatives (at least 300,000 lots average open interest) and economically equivalent OTC contracts, aggregated at group level, with exemptions for hedging by commercial groups and mandatory liquidity provision. Trading venues must apply position management controls, and the article covers same-contract limits across venues, ESMA's role and the related RTS.
Amendments and application dates
| Amending act | Change | Applies from |
|---|---|---|
| Directive (EU) 2021/338 | Text amended | by 28 Feb 2022 |
| Directive (EU) 2024/790 | Text amended | 29 Sept 2025 |
Level 2: delegated and implementing acts
- RTSIn forceLegal basis
AI summaryCorrects the Swedish language version of Article 9(1) of Delegated Regulation 2022/1302 on position limits, which referred to the wrong derogation in Article 57(1) MiFID II; other language versions are unaffected.
- RTSIn forceLegal basis
AI summaryRTS on position management controls by trading venues trading commodity derivatives under Article 57 MiFID II as amended in 2021: sets general monitoring obligations and requires venues to set accountability levels, review them and report them to their competent authority.
- RTSIn forceLegal basis
AI summaryRTS 21a on applying position limits to commodity derivatives under the 2021 MiFID II amendments: covers aggregation and netting of positions, group positions, economically equivalent OTC contracts, hedging and mandatory liquidity provision exemptions and how to apply for them, and the methodology competent authorities use to set spot month and other months' limits. Replaced RTS 21 (Delegated Regulation 2017/591).
- RTSReplaced (historical)Legal basis
AI summaryFormer RTS 21 on applying position limits to commodity derivatives, covering aggregation and netting, group positions, economically equivalent OTC contracts, the hedging exemption and the methodology for spot and other months' limits. Repealed and replaced by Delegated Regulation 2022/1302; valid until 14 August 2022.
Level 3: ESMA Q&As, guidelines and opinions
- Q&AAnsweredESMA rulebook
AI summaryTo convert lot-based open interest thresholds (10,000 lots in Article 83(1)(b) of Delegated Regulation 2017/565, 300,000 lots in Article 57(1) MiFID II) into energy units, ESMA uses the monthly contract as one lot: 720 MWh for gas and base-load power and 264 MWh for peak-load power, with MMBTU and therm equivalents worked out.
- Q&AAnsweredESMA rulebook
AI summaryBecause gas derivative lot sizes differ between market areas (for example a monthly TTF lot is 720 MWh but a PEG or PVB lot only 30 MWh), ESMA sets a consistent way to calculate open interest in lots for the 300,000-lot position limit threshold in Article 57(1) MiFID II, so that small-lot contracts are not caught merely by convention.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 90%
AI summaryAn agricultural commodity derivative keeps the default 10,000-lot limit under Article 17 of RTS 21a until its open interest exceeds 20,000 lots on every day, at end of day, for three consecutive months; only then must an individual position limit be set.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 90%
AI summaryPositions approved as risk-reducing under a hedging exemption fall outside the position limit regime and cannot also be netted against speculative positions, which would count their benefit twice.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 95%
AI summaryPosition limits for cash-settled inter-commodity spread or 'diff' contracts apply to the outright legs, with positions in the spread's disaggregated components counted towards net positions under RTS 21a; where a leg is not itself admitted to trading, the spread gets its own limit based on its open interest, as for C10 derivatives with no physical underlying.
- Q&AAnsweredExplicit reference · 90%
AI summaryFor power and gas derivatives whose lot size varies with the delivery period, ESMA says the monthly contract should be the reference period: its lot size, from the venue's specified days and hours, is used to measure open interest under Article 57(1) MiFID II and to set position limits under RTS 21a.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 95%
AI summaryFutures and options on the same commodity derivative share one position limit: options are converted into delta-equivalent futures positions, using the venue's or CCP's published delta where available, and delta-adjusted open interest of options is added to futures open interest when assessing criticality and setting limits.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 90%
AI summaryPosition limits apply to all positions in agricultural and critical or significant commodity derivatives on EU venues and in economically equivalent OTC contracts, including contracts entered into before 3 January 2018 or before the instrument became a financial instrument.
- Q&AAnsweredExplicit reference · 90%
AI summaryWhere an OTC contract is economically equivalent to several EU venue-traded contracts outside the Article 57(6) coordination procedure, it is reported to the competent authority of the venue where the most-traded equivalent contract trades, and aggregated once, with that contract.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 90%
AI summaryFor the other months' position limit, a person's positions across different maturities in the same commodity derivative are netted (summed or offset as appropriate) across the curve, excluding spot month positions, as set out in Article 3 of RTS 21a.
- Q&AAnsweredExplicit reference
AI summarySecuritised derivatives with a commodity underlying are transferable securities under Article 4(1)(44)(c) MiFID II and commodity derivatives under Article 2(1)(30) MiFIR, whereas exchange-traded commodities are debt instruments outside that definition and outside position limits; ESMA lists typical features to tell them apart, and notes securitised derivatives are no longer subject to position limits or position reporting.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 75%
AI summaryWhether economically equivalent contracts on a third-country venue count as EEOTC for position limits and reporting depends on whether ESMA lists that venue in the annex to its opinion; contracts on unlisted venues are EEOTC, and participants should alert their competent authority so the venue can be assessed.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 90%
AI summaryESMA sets out how position limits apply to C(10) commodity derivatives: freight derivatives and index derivatives (where commodities exceed 50% of the index, with limits based on open interest only) are covered if critical or significant, spread contracts are dealt with separately, and other C(10) contracts follow further rules.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 90%
AI summaryThe competent authority sets the spot month from the contract specification and market characteristics; where daily, weekly and monthly variants exist, positions in days or weeks falling wholly within the spot month count towards the spot-month limit, and the spot month may be the next tradable month where the current month's contract has expired.
- Q&AAnsweredExplicit reference · 90%
AI summaryTrading venues' position management controls play no part in applying the position limits that competent authorities set under Article 57(1) MiFID II, although venues may still set their own limits as a control on positions in their commodity derivatives.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 90%
AI summaryA non-financial entity needs to apply for a position limit hedging exemption only where it expects its risk-reducing positions to exceed the limit set for a contract, not for every contract it holds.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 85%
AI summaryA parent of a fund or its management company need not aggregate the fund's commodity derivative positions if it has no influence over its investment decisions (positions are then reported per fund LEI); if it does influence them, it must aggregate, and it must be able to justify its self-assessment.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 85%
AI summaryPositions an investment firm holds on behalf of clients count, and are reported, only as positions of the person for whom they are held; they are not added to or netted against the firm's own positions.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 95%
AI summaryCommodity derivative position limits apply at all times, not just at the end of the trading day, which matters particularly for OTC trading outside venue hours.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 90%
AI summaryWhere an economically equivalent OTC contract is not expressed in standard lots, its size is calculated as a multiple of the unit of trading used by the venue for the equivalent commodity derivative.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 90%
AI summaryNon-EU non-financial entities with positions above the limits can apply for the hedging exemption in the same way as EU firms, following the rules and procedures in RTS 21a.
- Q&AAnsweredInferred · 90%
AI summaryNet positions that CCPs hold at clearing member level cannot be used to determine clients' positions for position limits, which apply to each individual person; clearing-level positions must be broken down by holder.
- Q&AAwaiting answerInferred · 90%
AI summaryAsks how commodity derivative position limits apply to long and short positions. The question has been published but not yet answered.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 23 October 2017 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the UK FCA intended to set for London Metal Exchange nickel futures and options, adopted while the UK was in the EU, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 23 October 2017 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the UK FCA intended to set for London Metal Exchange zinc futures and options, adopted while the UK was in the EU, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 23 October 2017 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the UK FCA intended to set for London Metal Exchange aluminium futures and options, adopted while the UK was in the EU, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits BaFin set for CEGH VTP natural gas futures, which moved from Powernext to EEX in 2020, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits (the latter adjusted upwards because open interest was well below deliverable supply) comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 23 October 2017 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the UK FCA intended to set for London Metal Exchange copper futures and options, adopted while the UK was in the EU, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 10 August 2017 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the AMF intended to set for the Euronext Paris corn contracts, including a spot month limit of 13,000 lots (5% of deliverable supply), concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits BaFin set for EEX Capesize C7 freight futures, notified in May 2020, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on BaFin's revised position limits for EEX Capesize TC5 freight futures and options, notified in May 2020 after ESMA's January 2020 opinion on the original limits of 4,005 lots, concluding that the revised spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the reset position limits BaFin intended to set for EEX French Power Base futures and options, following ESMA's May 2019 opinion on the original limits, concluding that the new spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits BaFin set for Gaspool (GPL) natural gas futures, which moved from Powernext to EEX in 2020, concluding that both the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the reset position limits BaFin intended to set for EEX Italian Power Base futures and options after a significant market change, following ESMA's 2019 opinion on the original limits, and concluding that the new spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits BaFin set for NCG natural gas futures, which moved from Powernext to EEX in 2020, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 24 June 2021 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the reset position limits BaFin intended to set for EEX NetConnect Germany (NCG) natural gas futures, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on BaFin's revised position limits for EEX Panamax TC freight futures and options, notified in May 2020 after ESMA's January 2018 opinion on the original limits of 4,049 lots, concluding that the revised spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits BaFin set for PEG natural gas futures, which moved from Powernext to EEX in 2020, concluding that both the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 2 December 2020 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits BaFin intended to set for EEX Phelix DE/AT Base power futures and options, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits BaFin set for Italian PSV (Punto di Scambio Virtuale) natural gas futures, which moved from Powernext to EEX in 2020, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the reset position limits BaFin intended to set for EEX Spanish Power Base futures and options, following ESMA's January 2020 opinion on the original limits, concluding that the new spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits BaFin set for EEX Supramax TC 10 freight futures and options, agreeing that as C(10) freight contracts their spot month limit is set as a percentage of open interest (25%, unadjusted), and concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 2 June 2025 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits BaFin intended to set for EEX Trading Hub Europe (THE) gas futures, a critical or significant contract (net open interest of at least 300,000 lots), with a spot month limit of 17,938,800 MWh (6% of deliverable supply); ESMA concludes that both limits comply with RTS 21a and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 24 June 2021 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on BaFin's reset position limits for Dutch TTF gas futures and options, following its September 2020 opinion: the spot month limit becomes 25% of deliverable supply (54,933,750 MWh), and ESMA concludes that the spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 2 September 2020 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits BaFin set for Dutch TTF gas futures and options, which moved from Powernext to EEX in 2020, including a spot month limit of 52,466,250 MWh, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 2 September 2020 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits Norway's Finanstilsynet intended to set for the Fish Pool farmed salmon contract, including a spot month limit of 23,400 lots (about 25% of deliverable supply), concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 7 December 2017 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the UK FCA intended to set for ICE Futures Europe Brent crude futures and options, adopted while the UK was in the EU, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the Dutch AFM intended to set for ICE Endex TTF gas futures and options as a critical or significant contract under the 2021 regime (net open interest of at least 300,000 lots), concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21a and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 24 June 2021 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the reset position limits the Dutch AFM intended to set for ICE Endex TTF gas futures and options, following ESMA's January 2020 opinion on the original limits, concluding that the new spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the Dutch AFM intended to set for ICE Endex German NCG gas futures and options, notified in October 2019, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the Dutch AFM intended to set for ICE Endex German Power Financial Base futures and options, notified in April 2020, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 29 January 2021 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the Dutch AFM intended to set for ICE Endex German NCG gas futures and options, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 15 May 2018 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the UK FCA intended to set for ICE Futures Europe low sulphur gasoil 1st line futures and options, adopted while the UK was in the EU, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 23 October 2017 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the UK FCA intended to set for ICE Futures Europe white sugar futures and options, adopted while the UK was in the EU, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the Dutch AFM intended to set for ICE Endex Italian Power Financial Base contracts, notified in May 2020, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 23 October 2017 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the UK FCA intended to set for London Metal Exchange lead futures and options, adopted while the UK was in the EU, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 23 October 2017 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the UK FCA intended to set for ICE Futures Europe London cocoa futures and options, adopted while the UK was in the EU, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the revised position limits the Spanish CNMV intended to set for MEFFPOWER baseload power contracts after recalculating open interest, following ESMA's January 2020 opinion on the earlier limits, and concluding that the revised spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 10 August 2017 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the AMF intended to set for the Euronext Paris milling wheat No. 2 contracts, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 2 September 2020 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits Norway's Finanstilsynet intended to set for Nasdaq Oslo Nordic power futures and options, including electricity price area differential (EPAD) contracts, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the revised position limits the Portuguese CMVM intended to set for OMIP SPEL Base power futures and options, following ESMA's October 2019 opinion on the original limits, concluding that the revised spot month limit and the other months' limit comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 2 December 2020 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits BaFin intended to set for EEX Phelix DE Base power futures and options, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 10 August 2017 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the AMF intended to set for the Euronext Paris rapeseed contracts, with spot month and other months' limits each split into two periods, concluding that they comply with RTS 21 and are consistent with Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 23 October 2017 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the UK FCA intended to set for ICE Futures Europe Robusta coffee futures and options, adopted while the UK was in the EU, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- OpinionPublishedESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA opinion of 23 October 2017 under Article 57(5) MiFID II on the position limits the UK FCA intended to set for London Metal Exchange tin futures and options, adopted while the UK was in the EU, concluding that the spot month and other months' limits comply with the RTS 21 methodology and are consistent with the objectives of Article 57.
- Q&ALegacy Q&A documentESMA rulebook
AI summaryESMA's consolidated legacy Q&A document (ESMA70-872942901-36, last updated 23 September 2022) on commodity derivatives under MiFID II and MiFIR, covering position limits, the ancillary activity exemption, position reporting, position management controls and third-country issues. It is no longer updated; later Q&As are in ESMA's Q&A tool.
Consultations
- ConsultationClosed 24 Sept 2021Inferred · 75%
AI summaryHM Treasury's post-Brexit review of the UK wholesale capital markets regime (UK MiFID/MiFIR): proposals to clarify the regulatory perimeter, remove restrictions on accessing liquidity (such as the trading obligations), recalibrate fixed income and derivatives transparency, reform the commodities regime and amend the market data regime. Ran 2 July to 24 September 2021; the government's response (78 responses) confirmed it is taking the reforms forward.
Commentary
No law-firm commentary is linked to this provision yet.
393 more documents relate to MiFID II as a whole without naming an article.
UK counterpart
UK transposition not traced in the FCA Handbook. It may sit in FSMA, the Regulated Activities Order or SI 2017/701, which are not yet mapped.
Version history
- From 28 Mar 2024
- From 28 Feb 2022 to 28 Mar 2024
- From 17 Sept 2014 to 28 Feb 2022
Each entry is a consolidated version of the act on EUR-Lex in which this provision appears. The text itself is on the official site.