Articles 52(1)(i) and 63(j) of the CRR do not seem to permit repurchases of AT1- or T2-Instruments before five years unless Article 78(4) of the CRR applies. However, the aforementioned provisions of the CRR do not specifically refer to market making. Instead, Article 29(3) of the RTS provides for specific provisions relating to market making; those provisions strictly limit the amount of instruments that may be repurchased for market making purposes. Therefore the amounts that can be repurchased are small, and not comparable to the potential outcome of Liability Management Exercises ("LME"), where a material part or all of an issuance could be repurchased under certain conditions (see Q&A 2013_290). In addition, the predetermined amount for which permission under Article 29(3) of the RTS has been given must be deducted from own funds on a corresponding deduction basis from the moment the authorisation is granted (see Q&A 2014_1352). The RTS, however, does not specify when market making can take place (i.e. if those provisions apply only after five years after the issuance date). Therefore, it could be concluded that market making can take place at any time after issuance provided that the conditions stipulated by the RTS are met. Under those conditions, it can be argued that repurchases in market making need to be treated specifically due to market making’s distinct goal – to provide liquidity to investors in given instruments with an intention to resell them in the market in the longer term. In that respect there is no obvious reason to apply different rules before and after five years from issuance date. Also, the need for market making is deemed to exist from the issuance on. Furthermore, when repurchasing for market making purposes institutions do not intend to hold the instruments being subject to market making for a long period of time, but instead to resell them into the market. Finally, it can be argued that the principle of proportionality should be taken in to account when applying the CRR and the RTS. Preventing market making activities during the first five years of the issuance date may thus be a dis-proportionate application of the prudential rules.