AFM Enforcement: Euronext Amsterdam Breached CSDR CSD Access Rules
The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) issued a formal instruction to Euronext Amsterdam N.V. on 12 November 2025, finding that the exchange had introduced conditions in its revised settlement model that violated EU rules on non-discriminatory access for central securities depositories (CSDs). Euronext has since complied, but the AFM's decision to publish the instruction now that it is final sends a clear signal to market infrastructure operators across the EU: CSDR open-access obligations are actively supervised and departures from them carry enforcement consequences.
What CSDR Article 53 Requires
The open-access obligation in plain terms
The Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR) is the EU framework designed to make securities settlement safer, more efficient, and more transparent. Article 53(1) of the CSDR places a specific duty on trading venues: they must grant CSDs access to their transaction flows on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis. The rationale is straightforward. If a trading platform can selectively restrict which depositories can settle trades on its infrastructure, it distorts competition between CSDs and, ultimately, raises costs and risks for market participants.
Why access conditions matter for settlement competition
The provision is not just about technical connectivity. It is about ensuring that market participants retain genuine choice over which CSD they use to settle trades executed on a given platform. Any condition that makes it materially harder or more burdensome to use a CSD other than the venue's preferred depository runs into Article 53(1). That is precisely the issue the AFM identified.
What Euronext Did and Why the AFM Intervened
The three conditions in the revised settlement model
As part of changes to its settlement model, Euronext announced three conditions applying to market participants who wished to appoint a CSD other than Euronext Securities Milan as their settlement agent for trades on the Euronext platform. The AFM assessed those conditions and concluded they restricted the ability of certain CSDs to access Euronext's transaction flows. That restriction, in the AFM's view, constituted a breach of Article 53(1) of the CSDR.
The AFM did not publish the precise text of the three conditions, but its assessment makes clear that the effect, whether or not the intent, was to place alternative CSDs at a disadvantage relative to Euronext Securities Milan.
The formal instruction and its scope
A formal instruction (aanwijzing) under Dutch supervisory law is an order requiring a firm to end a breach within a specified period. It sits below a financial penalty in the hierarchy of supervisory tools but is legally binding. Following the AFM's instruction of 12 November 2025, Euronext took several steps to bring itself back into compliance.
Those steps included confirming the continued access of CSDs that already had access to its transaction flows and withdrawing the disputed conditions. Euronext also confirmed access for the remaining CSDs that had requested to act as an alternative CSD. The AFM is publishing the decision now because the instruction has become final and unappealable.
Ongoing Monitoring and Forward-Looking Implications
The AFM's stated supervisory posture
The AFM has stated explicitly that it will continue to monitor compliance and will maintain close attention to fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory access. That monitoring extends to new access requests from CSDs not yet connected to the Euronext platform. In other words, this is not a closed file. Any future changes to Euronext's settlement arrangements will be assessed against the same standard.
Relevance for other trading venues
The enforcement action is not Euronext-specific in its implications. Any EU-regulated trading venue that routes settlement through a connected or affiliated CSD should review its access conditions against CSDR Article 53(1). The AFM's reasoning, that conditions attached to the use of an alternative CSD can themselves constitute a discriminatory restriction even if formal access is nominally available, sets a relatively demanding interpretation of the non-discrimination standard.
Firms advising trading venues, clearing members, or market infrastructure operators should note that the obligation runs to substance, not just form. A venue cannot satisfy Article 53(1) simply by listing multiple CSDs as technically eligible if the practical conditions attached to those alternatives are materially more onerous.
What This Means for Compliance and Accounting Teams
Settlement model changes need regulatory scrutiny before launch
One of the most instructive aspects of this case is that Euronext announced the conditions before they took effect, and the AFM intervened at that stage rather than waiting for harm to materialise. That is consistent with a proactive supervisory approach and suggests that EU regulators are willing to act on announced but not yet implemented changes where those changes appear to conflict with existing obligations.
For compliance teams at trading venues or firms building settlement infrastructure, this underlines the value of running proposed model changes through a formal regulatory review process, including external legal assessment against CSDR and related rules, before any public announcement.
Recordkeeping and auditability in settlement arrangements
For accounting firms and CFOs with clients operating in EU securities markets, the case is a reminder that settlement model documentation is not just an operational matter. The conditions under which a client's trades are settled, and the choices available to them regarding CSD selection, have regulatory and potentially financial reporting dimensions. Where a settlement arrangement restricts CSD choice in a way that affects costs or risk allocation, that may need to be reflected in disclosures or assessed as part of a wider compliance audit.
Teams using crypto bookkeeping software or digital asset accounting software to track on-chain and off-chain settlements should ensure their audit trails capture the settlement counterparty and applicable CSD for each transaction type. As regulators in the EU sharpen their focus on market infrastructure access rules, evidencing the basis on which settlement decisions are made will become increasingly relevant during supervisory examinations. The same systematic approach to auditability that underpins solid crypto accounting software practice applies equally here: if you cannot show the regulator how a settlement decision was made and on what terms, the record gap becomes the problem.
The broader EU regulatory environment for market infrastructure is evolving rapidly. ESMA's recent work on CCP default management preparedness and its ongoing MiCA clarifications both point to a supervisory landscape in which market structure rules are being tested and enforced with increasing rigour. The AFM's action against Euronext fits squarely into that pattern. For more on building the internal controls and reporting infrastructure your clients need, see our crypto compliance reporting pillar.
FAQs
What is CSDR Article 53(1) and who does it apply to?
Article 53(1) of the Central Securities Depositories Regulation requires EU-regulated trading venues to give CSDs access to their transaction flows on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis. It applies to any platform authorised under MiFID II that routes trades to settlement.
What enforcement tool did the AFM use and how does it differ from a fine?
The AFM used a formal instruction (aanwijzing), which compels a firm to remedy a breach within a set period. It is a compliance order rather than a financial penalty. A fine would typically follow if the instruction were not complied with or if the breach were more serious.
Has Euronext paid any penalty in connection with this matter?
The AFM's published decision does not reference any financial penalty. The instruction required Euronext to withdraw the disputed conditions and confirm CSD access, which Euronext did. The AFM confirmed compliance and published the decision once it became final.
What should trading venues do to ensure they comply with CSDR Article 53(1)?
Venues should review any conditions attached to the use of alternative CSDs and assess whether those conditions are substantively equivalent to the terms offered to their affiliated or preferred CSD. Legal review before any public announcement of settlement model changes is advisable given the AFM's proactive intervention in this case.
Why is the AFM publishing this decision now if the instruction was issued in November 2025?
Under Dutch supervisory law, decisions of this type are published once they have become final and unappealable. The delay between the instruction date and publication reflects the period during which Euronext could have challenged the decision.