Skip to content
Back to REMIT cases

Gesternova and Axpo Iberia fined for quote stuffing (CNMC, 2024)

CNMC found that Gesternova and Axpo Iberia flooded the Spanish continuous intraday market's single order-processing queue with orders the system was bound to reject, so that a genuine sell order for the next day's product would validate first when trading opened at 15:10 and match first against French demand. It fined Gesternova EUR 6,000,000 and Axpo Iberia EUR 1,500,000 under the Spanish Electricity Sector Law, holding both acts intentional.

On this page

The decision

Authority
National Commission on Markets and Competition (CNMC), Spain
Decided
3 October 2024
Participants
Gesternova S.A.; Axpo Iberia S.L.
Commodity
Electricity
Market
Spanish continuous intraday market (MIC), D+1 product
Conduct period
30 September to 30 December 2022, for delivery 1 October to 31 December 2022
REMIT
Article 5 (Market manipulation)
Type of conduct
Quote stuffing
Penalty
EUR 6,000,000 (Gesternova) and EUR 1,500,000 (Axpo Iberia)
Status
Under appeal (ACER register, 2026-10-14)

What CNMC found

In two resolutions of 3 October 2024, CNMC found that Gesternova and Axpo Iberia flooded the continuous intraday market's processing queue with repeated next-day orders to obtain priority for their genuine orders. For Gesternova, between 30 September and 30 December 2022, it recorded 74,797 next-day orders, 36.5% of all such orders. Only 1,669 validated; 97.8% were rejected, predominantly because they arrived before the contract opened at 15:10.

CNMC found that the repeated messages obstructed other participants and slowed validation, distorting what the order book showed. The genuine orders gained an advantage when next-day contracts opened and when export capacity to France became available. CNMC treated the conduct as quote stuffing and a breach of REMIT Article 5, rather than legitimate competition over price or timing.

How it was established

OMIE reported the conduct under Article 15 of REMIT. The market rule then in force reactivated hibernated orders by arrival time, making queue position valuable. From 10 October 2022, OMIE's Instruction 1/2022 required at least eight seconds between messages and cancelled next-day orders submitted before 15:10:00.

The decisions record repeated warnings. OMIE reported more than 20,000 Gesternova NewOrder messages in three minutes and 10,000 Axpo messages on 13 December. It disabled Gesternova's application from 16 December and Axpo's on 20 December. CNMC relied on the firms' continuation after warnings as evidence of intentional conduct.

The defences and penalties

Both firms argued that quote stuffing lacked a legal definition and ACER's Guidance was not binding. CNMC held that the Guidance illustrated conduct already covered by the law: orders giving misleading supply signals and the use of deception. It did not require proof of a price effect. Gesternova argued that it followed the market rules to exploit a legitimate spread; Axpo disputed the extent of its breaches. CNMC rejected the claim that formal compliance with an order's parameters justified disrupting rivals' access to the market.

CNMC imposed the statutory maximum of EUR 6,000,000 on Gesternova, weighing intent, persistence despite warnings, market harm and an estimated EUR 6,830,717.38 benefit on the export sales it assessed. It imposed EUR 1,500,000 on Axpo, whose assessed benefit was EUR 367,470.66. The benefit estimates concerned export sales in the first two minutes after 22:00 relative to the average day-ahead price, rather than a calculation of all profits.

A concurring opinion argued for ancillary sanctions because Gesternova's estimated benefit exceeded its maximum fine. The resolutions provided for a judicial appeal to the Audiencia Nacional within two months.

For a surveillance function

The decisions use rejected messages as evidence as well as orders that reached the book. Their reasoning makes message rates, validation failures, timing around market openings and the response to venue warnings relevant to an algorithm review. A review limited to executed trades would omit much of the conduct CNMC examined.

Sources

Sources read on 27 October 2026. This page restates what the authority published and adds no finding of its own. A decision under appeal is not final, and its status may have changed since: check the source before relying on it.

Continue reading