(7)The evidence presented by the AMF and BaFin shows that it is reasonable to assume that, should the suspension of the derivative trading obligation be granted pursuant to Article 32a(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, the requesting financial counterparties would regularly receive RFQs for the derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation from non-EEA counterparties which have no active membership on an EEA trading venue that offers trading in the OTC derivative subject to the derivative trading obligation. In view of the fact that requesting financial counterparties are, to date, unable to receive RFQs for derivatives subject to the derivative trading obligation from a non-EEA counterparty within a jurisdiction that is not recognised as equivalent under Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, and considering that the suspension of the derivative trading obligation should be possible where the activities of an EEA financial counterparty with a non-EEA counterparty are unduly affected by the scope of the derivative trading obligation, the Commission concluded that the evidence presented by the AMF and BaFin demonstrates the fulfilment of the condition laid down in Article 32a(1), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.