EBA power route
Record whether the request or action is connected to Articles 122, 123, 124, or 125, the named authority or authorised person, source URL, retrieval date, and responsible internal owner.
MiCA EBA powers and legal-privilege evidence
A source-backed, conservative evidence checklist for Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 Article 121, which limits the use of EBA powers under Articles 122 to 125 where information is subject to legal privilege.
Informational only. Not legal, regulatory, brokerage, underwriting, or insurance advice.
Privilege boundary: ESMA's Interactive Single Rulebook title for Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 Article 121 is “Legal privilege.” The public text states that powers conferred on EBA by Articles 122 to 125, or on an official or other person authorised by EBA, shall not be used to require the disclosure of information which is subject to legal privilege.
For issuers, CASP-adjacent teams, counsel, and risk owners, the practical work is not to assert a generic privilege outcome. The safer task is to preserve request provenance, document ownership, counsel-review status, privilege-basis notes, and escalation owners before a response file is treated as review-ready.
This page is an evidence-preparation checklist. It is not a legal interpretation, privilege determination, disclosure recommendation, supervisory-response instruction, authorisation opinion, provider endorsement, broker recommendation, or assurance about any issuer, CASP, authority request, document, communication, person, or fact pattern.
Record whether the request or action is connected to Articles 122, 123, 124, or 125, the named authority or authorised person, source URL, retrieval date, and responsible internal owner.
Maintain a request-response register covering document title, date, source system, custodian, document owner, confidentiality marking, legal-review status, and unresolved external-review questions.
Separate legal-privilege review notes from operational summaries. Capture counsel owner, review date, basis summary, dependency on national-law or procedural advice, and whether the file needs escalation before disclosure.
Track what information is proposed for disclosure, withheld for review, redacted, or routed for further advice without claiming that any category is privileged or disclosable for every situation.
Connect Article 121 notes to Article 100 professional-secrecy handling, Article 101 data-protection maps, Article 95/96 cooperation records, and Article 117 EBA-supervision files where relevant.
Preserve request timestamps, response deadlines, version history, approval owners, legal-review gates, correspondence logs, and final response status in one traceable package.
Article 121 is titled “Legal privilege.” ESMA's public text says powers conferred on EBA by Articles 122 to 125, or on officials or other persons authorised by EBA, shall not be used to require disclosure of information subject to legal privilege.
CASPs and service providers may be adjacent to issuer, token, custody, distribution, or supervisory files where EBA-supervision records, cooperation records, professional-secrecy notes, and privileged communications need clear evidence routing.
No. It only helps teams organize source-backed evidence, request provenance, document inventories, and qualified-review handoffs. Legal-privilege status and disclosure decisions require appropriate legal review.