ESMA’s 15 October report records 955 administrative sanctions and measures imposed in 29 EEA countries in 2025, based on national authorities’ submissions. Administrative fines totalled €81.9 million, below 2024’s €100.2 million; counts were similar at 975 measures in 2024 and 976 in 2023. Several measures can arise from one case, so these totals count neither cases nor firms.[1]
Regime and enforcement measures
| Measure | 2025 result |
|---|---|
| Administrative fines within the 955 measures | 510Source 1 |
| MAR sanctions and measures | 350Source 1 |
| AIFMD sanctions and measures | 268Source 1 |
| MiFID II/MiFIR fine value | €36,598,918Source 1 |
| MAR fine value | €33,392,952Source 1 |
| Settled measures | 153; 16% of the totalSource 1 |
| Monetary sanctions through settlements | €35,577,141Source 1 |
The €81,896,178 fine total excludes €1,353,119 in disgorgement and €504,348 in gain-based pecuniary sanctions. Including those categories brings administrative monetary sanctions to €83,753,645. Settlement figures are a subset of the totals, not additional penalties.[1]
Annual figures need careful interpretation
| Measure | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sanctions and measures | 976 | 975 | 955Source 1 |
| Administrative fine value | €71,259,970 | €100,186,062 | €81,896,178Source 1 |
Germany (€23,355,500), France (€17,830,000) and Spain (€12,545,000) together accounted for about two-thirds of administrative fine value. Hungary recorded the largest number of measures, at 189. The report records the first MiCA and SFTR sanctions; no measures were imposed under BMR or EuGBR in 2025.[1]
Settlements were used in 13 countries and accounted for 16% of measures. Their monetary value represented about 42% of all administrative pecuniary sanctions, compared with slightly above 20% in 2024. These percentages use different denominators: the first counts measures and the second compares amounts. Not every national authority has settlement powers.[1]
ESMA identifies national differences in sanction types, amounts and settlement use as a convergence issue, especially where limited enforcement cannot be explained by market size. It plans further case discussions among authorities to promote similar outcomes for similar breaches. That is a supervisory work programme, not an immediate harmonisation of national penalty law.[2]
Implications for cross-border compliance
| Area | Operational question |
|---|---|
| Market abuse | Are surveillance, access controls and escalation effective in each local entity? |
| MiFID/MiFIR and fund rules | Can local teams demonstrate reporting, conduct and governance controls, beyond a group policy? |
| Settlement | Who can evaluate local procedures and approve a response when an authority raises a case? |
| Several authorities | Are entity ownership, regulator contacts and evidence preservation coordinated? |
The dataset cannot capture every supervisory intervention. Informal warning letters and other supervisory tools fall outside it; some national-law and anti-money-laundering enforcement is also outside scope, while criminal data may be incomplete. ESMA expressly rejects ranking supervisory effectiveness solely by sanction numbers or amounts. The figures do not reveal undetected misconduct or prove a deterrent effect.[1]
Sources & further reading
- Sanctions and measures imposed in Member States in 2025 ESMA · 15 Oct 2026 · Accessed 26 Oct 2026
- ESMA’s third Sanctions Report highlights the need for greater convergence in enforcement ESMA · 15 Oct 2026 · Accessed 26 Oct 2026