Last updated
Circular CSSF 26/912: What the Repeal of Circular IML 91/75 Means for Luxembourg UCI References
Source-check date: June 2, 2026. This guide is general information, not legal advice, investment advice, compliance advice, fund-selection advice, or a substitute for reading the current official source.
On May 22, 2026, the CSSF published Circular CSSF 26/912. The circular repeals Circular IML 91/75, which concerned the revision and redesign of rules applicable to Luxembourg undertakings for collective investment. The CSSF also published a related communique on the repeal of Circular IML 91/75.
Direct Answer
If a document, checklist, article, or adviser note still cites Circular IML 91/75 as current Luxembourg UCI authority, treat that citation as needing review. Circular CSSF 26/912 repeals the older circular. That does not mean Luxembourg UCIs are outside supervision; it means readers should trace the current rule through the CSSF investment fund framework, the applicable law or regulation, and the current fund documentation.
| Reader situation | Practical response |
|---|---|
| You are reading an old fund memo | Check whether it still relies on Circular IML 91/75 and ask for the current source basis. |
| You manage a UCI compliance checklist | Remove stale reliance on Circular IML 91/75 and map each control to current CSSF, Luxembourg, or EU sources. |
| You are an investor comparing Luxembourg funds | Do not treat the repeal as a product-quality signal; use it as a reason to verify the current legal framework and official register entry. |
| You publish CSSF or fund-regulation content | Update pages that cite Circular IML 91/75 as live authority, and explain the May 22, 2026 repeal clearly. |
Key Dates
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 22, 2026 | CSSF published Circular CSSF 26/912. |
| May 22, 2026 | CSSF published the communique on the repeal of Circular IML 91/75. |
| May 22, 2026 | Circular CSSF 26/912 entered into force with immediate effect, according to the circular text. |
| June 2, 2026 | This article checked the official CSSF source. |
Who Is Affected
The CSSF circular is relevant to readers who work with, publish about, or rely on Luxembourg undertakings for collective investment. That includes fund managers, UCI service providers, compliance teams, auditors, lawyers, fund boards, financial intermediaries, and investors reading older Luxembourg fund materials.
The most important affected audience is any team maintaining a control library, policy, due-diligence memo, marketing review checklist, or regulatory explainer that still cites Circular IML 91/75 without explaining that it has been repealed.
What Changed
Circular CSSF 26/912 changes the status of a historical UCI circular with immediate effect. The editorial consequence is straightforward: Circular IML 91/75 should not be presented as current authority after the repeal. Where the older circular appears in published content, update the citation, explain the repeal, and point readers back to the current CSSF investment fund regulatory framework.
This article does not replace a legal mapping exercise. A compliance team should identify the exact obligation it was using Circular IML 91/75 to support, then confirm the current source through CSSF, Luxembourg legal texts, EU measures where relevant, and qualified counsel or compliance advisers.
What Readers Should Check
Use this checklist when you encounter Circular IML 91/75 in a current-looking document:
| Check | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Is the document dated before May 22, 2026? | It may predate the repeal and need updating. |
| Does the document say Circular IML 91/75 is still applicable? | That statement conflicts with Circular CSSF 26/912 and needs review. |
| Does the document identify the current legal source? | A repeal note is not enough if the practical rule still matters. |
| Is the document investor-facing? | Investors need a plain-English explanation, not only a citation change. |
| Is the document a compliance control? | Controls should map to live sources, not repealed instruments. |
How This Fits the Investment Fund Framework
The CSSF investment fund framework remains the official starting point for mapping Luxembourg fund regimes such as UCITS, Part II UCIs, SIFs, SICARs, AIFMs, and related fund-industry rules. The repeal of a legacy circular makes that framework more important, because it helps readers avoid treating an old citation as a complete current rule map.
For broader context, see CSSF investment fund regulatory framework in Luxembourg and Luxembourg CSSF rules tracker.
Source Review Status
Reviewed on June 4, 2026 against the official source URLs listed in this article. This publication batch excludes CSSF articles with official CSSF URLs that returned a non-200 HTTP status during the pre-publication check.
Official Sources
- CSSF: Circular CSSF 26/912
- CSSF: Repeal of Circular IML 91/75
- CSSF: Investment fund industry regulatory framework
Bottom Line
Circular CSSF 26/912 is a source-status change that matters because stale fund-law citations can mislead readers. If Circular IML 91/75 appears in current UCI materials, update the reference, identify the live source basis, and keep the reader focused on the practical question: what rule applies now, to which fund or actor, and from which official source?
Decision Matrix
| Decision point | What to verify | Evidence to keep |
|---|---|---|
| Reader profile | Confirm nationality, residence status, tax position, employment or study route, and timing before applying general advice. | Identity document, route-specific official page, appointment record, and dated notes. |
| Controlling source | Identify whether an authority, regulator, bank, insurer, university, employer, marketplace, or broker decides the outcome. | Official page, provider terms, contract wording, and the date checked. |
| Money and deadline exposure | Find deposits, fees, premiums, delivery costs, tuition, margin exposure, or cancellation windows before committing. | Invoice, receipt, policy terms, order page, margin statement, or refund rule. |
| Fallback route | Define the second legitimate route before the first route fails or becomes too expensive. | Alternative provider, later appointment, second programme, different bank, or adviser note. |
Main Risks
- Following a generic checklist that does not match the reader's country, status, institution, or deadline.
- Paying, signing, trading, booking, or submitting before the accepted evidence format is clear.
- Relying on provider marketing, forums, or old summaries where an official or regulated source controls the decision.
- Keeping no dated proof of what was checked, submitted, refused, accepted, or promised.
- Missing the fallback route until the first provider, authority, school, platform, or broker has already refused.
Official Sources
Use this source pack to verify the practical claims in this guide before acting on Circular CSSF 26/912: What the Repeal of Circular IML 91/75 Means for Luxembourg UCI References. The links below are intentionally broad because they help readers separate official rules, institutional terms, and private advice.
- EUR-Lex Regulation (EU) No 236/2012
- ESMA short selling regulation topic
- FINRA short interest investor education
- Federal Register short sales rule release
- CSSF short selling page
Related Guides
- What is short selling?
- Short squeeze explained
- Read net short position data
- EU short selling regulation
- CSSF short selling in Luxembourg
- Why investors short stocks
Reader Action Checklist
Before relying on this guide, make a one-page case note. Name the reader category, the deciding institution, the rule or source checked, the documents available today, the document that is still missing, the payment or deadline at risk, and the fallback route. That short note makes the article useful in a real decision rather than only informative.
If the topic affects immigration, tax, insurance, employment, regulated finance, consumer rights, housing, university admission, or large payments, ask the relevant authority, regulated provider, or qualified adviser to confirm the current rule for the specific facts. The point is not to collect more links; it is to make the next action verifiable.
For comparison work, separate three layers. First, identify the rule or contract that decides the case. Second, identify the provider or institution that applies that rule in practice. Third, identify the document, screenshot, statement, receipt, filing, or confirmation that proves the reader meets the rule today. A guide is strongest when it helps the reader move through those layers without pretending that every country, bank, insurer, school, shop, broker, or authority behaves the same way.
When information conflicts, prefer the newest official page, the regulated provider's written terms, and dated correspondence over summaries that do not show their source. If the decision is expensive or hard to reverse, pause until the reader can name the missing evidence, the deadline, the amount at risk, and the person or institution that can confirm the next step.