When an appeal deadline follows a refusal: what to do first
A refusal of authorisation under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) usually arrives with a review or appeal window attached. That window is short, it runs from the date of the decision, not from the date you read it, and missing it can close the route entirely. The first task is not drafting arguments. It is confirming the exact date the clock started and who has to receive the appeal.
Basis
The authorisation decision itself is issued under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA). MiCA sets the substantive conditions for authorisation of a crypto-asset service provider; it does not itself fix the length of a national appeal period. The appeal deadline, the receiving authority and the form of the appeal follow the applicable national review procedure in the Member State where the application was filed. We do not repeat a national deadline figure here unless the registry entry for that Member State confirms it — an unverified number is worse than no number.
What changes once the clock starts
Three things change the moment a refusal decision is served. First, the appeal period is running regardless of whether internal discussions about the merits have finished. Second, any parallel notification obligation tied to the intended activity — for example under Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR) where transfers of crypto-assets are involved — does not pause because an appeal is pending. Third, continuing to operate the service on the assumption that authorisation is a formality is a separate exposure from the appeal itself, and the two should not be managed by the same person without coordination.
What to do, in order
- Record the service date. The person who received the decision confirms, in writing, the date and channel of service.
- Read the refusal grounds line by line. The compliance officer separates factual findings from legal conclusions before anyone drafts a response.
- Check for a partial refusal. A refusal can cover only some crypto-asset services requested; the rest may already be authorised and unaffected.
- Confirm the forum and the form. The person filing the appeal verifies, with the authority itself, where the appeal is lodged and whether a specific form or fee applies.
- File within the window, not at its end. Counsel files with margin left for a rejected submission to be corrected and refiled.
- Freeze the affected activity. Management decides, in writing, whether the business continues, narrows, or pauses the specific service pending the outcome.
Who decides
| Stage | Who acts | What it turns on |
|---|---|---|
| Initial refusal | National competent authority for CASP authorisation | Whether the conditions under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) are met on the file as submitted |
| Appeal or review | National review body or court, as designated by the applicable procedure | Whether the refusal grounds are supported by the evidence on file |
| Interim continuation | The applicant, on its own risk assessment | Whether any activity can lawfully continue while the appeal is pending |
If your situation differs
If the refusal names a specific document as the deciding factor, request the file underlying that finding before drafting the appeal — arguing without the file wastes the window. If the same refusal coincides with a separate notification deadline, for example An incident report deadline is running data protection, treat the two clocks as independent and staff them separately.
If the refused service already trades under a brand that a third party is imitating online, that is a distinct problem and should not be folded into the appeal file; see When a domain mirrors your brand.
If the authorisation file also raised a question about who owns the platform's underlying code, resolve that separately from the appeal, since ownership gaps weaken the file itself; see Source code sits on a personal account ownership of.
If a marketplace has already reacted to the refusal by delisting a related collection, that consequence is handled on its own track; see A marketplace delists the collection tokenised rights.
What this page does not cover
This page does not cover the substantive arguments for reversing a specific refusal — those depend on the grounds stated and the evidence on file, and no two files are the same. It does not state a national appeal deadline in days: that figure belongs to the national procedure and is not repeated here without a confirmed source. It does not cover the merits of a partial authorisation or the drafting of the appeal document itself.
Verified
Checked against Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) and Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR) as published on EUR-Lex. National appeal procedures vary by Member State and are not summarised here; confirm the applicable deadline directly with the authority that issued the refusal before relying on any third-party summary.
Related situations
A related question arises when the scope of activity changes rather than a refusal being issued; see What to do first in this situation.
FAQ
What is the first step when an appeal deadline follows a refusal?
Confirm the exact date the refusal was served and by whom, in writing, before anything else. The appeal window is measured from that date.
Which deadline is already running?
The appeal or review deadline set by the national procedure that applies to the authorisation decision. Any separate notification obligation tied to the underlying activity, if one exists, runs in parallel and independently.
Who decides, and on what evidence?
The national competent authority issues the refusal under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA); a national review body or court then examines whether the grounds stated are supported by the evidence on the file as it stood at the time of the decision.