|
|
The results of the earlier implementation of the Insider Dealing Directive were very mixed, with the Directive’s own “minimum requirement” status interacting with varying national practices to produce a significant range of results across the country spectrum.
The results of the more recent implementation of the Market Abuse Directive have been more homogeneous, partly because of the more prescriptive nature of the directive itself and partly because countries have moved closer to straight transposition into domestic law when implementing the Directive. Even in the second case, however, the report makes clear that there is still scope for variation in practice, not least because national regulators and courts are likely to interpret key concepts in different ways.
The report concludes that there is no guarantee that the provisions on the Market Abuse Directive will be interpreted, monitored and enforced in the same way in all the Member States. The report illustrates how similar provisions can be interpreted in very different ways by Member States.