Reasoned-decision file
Preserve the competent-authority decision, source URL or delivery channel, retrieval or receipt date, affected entity, service scope, article route, stated reasons, internal owner, and unresolved external-review questions.
What Article 113 changes operationally
Right of appeal: the ESMA Interactive Single Rulebook text for Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 Article 113 says Member States shall ensure that decisions taken by competent authorities under MiCA are properly reasoned and subject to the right of appeal before a court.
Article 113 also says the right of appeal before a court applies where, for an authorisation application providing all required information, no decision is taken within six months of submission. It also references public bodies, consumer organisations, and professional organisations that may, as determined by national law, take action before courts or competent administrative bodies to ensure MiCA is applied.
This page is an evidence-preparation checklist. It is not a legal interpretation, appeal strategy, complaint-submission instruction, authorisation opinion, litigation recommendation, provider endorsement, broker recommendation, or assurance about any firm, authority decision, no-decision period, consumer route, professional-body action, court route, or fact pattern.
Article 113 evidence matrix
Six-month no-decision tracker
For authorisation workflows, keep the submitted application version, completeness assumptions, evidence that all required information was provided, submission date, response logs, information-request history, and Article 62/63 assessment links.
Authority route map
Connect appeal-readiness evidence to Article 93 competent-authority routing, Article 94 request files, Article 95/96 cooperation files where cross-border issues exist, and Article 109 register hygiene checks.
Consumer and professional bodies
Track national-law dependent public body, consumer-organisation, and professional-organisation references as source-backed routing context, not as an endorsement or instruction to use a particular body.
Governance and record control
Maintain board or management-body escalation notes, legal-review gates, versioned evidence bundles, communications archives, privilege/confidentiality assumptions, and Article 100 professional-secrecy boundaries.
Operating-evidence bridge
Link disputed or delayed matters to the underlying CASP evidence pack: Article 66 conduct, Article 67 prudential safeguards, Article 68 governance, Article 70 safeguarding, Article 73 outsourcing, and Article 75 custody where relevant.
Review-ready tracker
- Decision context: authority, date, article route, affected service or activity, decision text, reasons, and internal response owner.
- Authorisation timing: application version, submitted information inventory, submission date, completeness evidence, missing-information requests, and six-month no-decision status where relevant.
- External route evidence: court route assumptions, national-law dependencies, public body or organisation references, source URLs, retrieval dates, and unresolved counsel questions.
- Evidence bridge: links to Article 62/63 authorisation files, Article 93/94 authority records, Article 100 secrecy notes, and Article 109 register checks.
FAQ
What does MiCA Article 113 cover?
Article 113 covers the right of appeal for properly reasoned competent-authority decisions under MiCA and a court-appeal route where no decision is taken within six months for an authorisation application that provides all required information.
Why is Article 113 relevant to CASP diligence?
It turns supervisory-response and authorisation-delay scenarios into recordkeeping requirements: reasoned-decision files, submission inventories, timing logs, authority-routing evidence, and governance escalation records.
Does this page recommend an appeal or predict an outcome?
No. It only helps organize source-backed evidence and handoffs. Any formal view on rights, appeal routes, timing, standing, or strategy depends on national law, court or authority context, and qualified review.