A source-backed preparation page for CASP teams turning Article 63 assessment timing into a clean response plan, evidence tracker, and regulator-question workflow.
Informational only. Not legal, regulatory, brokerage, underwriting, or insurance advice.
MiCA Article 63 covers how competent authorities assess CASP authorisation applications after submission. It is a high-intent planning page because teams often focus on the Article 62 filing pack and then under-prepare for completeness questions, evidence requests, governance clarifications, and decision-clock management.
This page is an operating checklist, not a view on whether an application will be accepted. CASPs should confirm procedural deadlines, filing format, and authority-specific expectations with qualified advisers and the relevant competent authority.
Prepare an owner for completeness questions. Article 63 refers to a 25 working day completeness assessment after receipt of an application, so the team should know who can quickly locate entity, governance, programme-of-operations, ICT, custody, complaints, and prudential evidence.
Keep a source-linked tracker for missing or supplemental material, including request date, document owner, adviser owner, evidence source, response status, version, and whether the answer changes the business, custody, outsourcing, or insurance story.
Article 63 refers to a 40 working day assessment period after a complete application. Treat that window as an operating cadence for review calls, issue triage, evidence updates, and decision-ready governance sign-off rather than a passive waiting period.
Questions about governance, own funds, professional indemnity insurance, custody controls, complaints, outsourcing, or ICT should link back to Article 67, Article 68, Article 70, Article 71, and Article 75 evidence instead of being answered in isolation.
Prepare a concise file of application scope, service perimeter, control owners, unresolved assumptions, and client-facing launch dependencies so management can respond consistently if the authority grants, refuses, or conditions authorisation.
Before approval, map which commitments become recurring controls: policy reviews, complaint reporting, custody reconciliations, outsourcing oversight, incident handling, prudential-safeguard refresh, and evidence retention.
Short answer: MiCA Article 63 is the CASP authorisation assessment stage. A CASP should prepare for the 25 working day completeness check and the 40 working day assessment period by keeping a source-linked response tracker, assigning owners for evidence requests, and connecting every answer back to the Article 62 application pack, Article 67 prudential safeguards, Article 68 governance controls, Article 70 safeguarding, Article 71 complaints handling, and Article 75 custody evidence where relevant.
No. Article 62 is the authorisation application spine; Article 63 is the competent-authority assessment process after the application is received and treated as complete.
Those Article 63 periods help teams plan evidence ownership, response readiness, escalation, and management cadence. They should still validate exact procedural handling with advisers and the relevant authority.
Assessment questions can expose gaps in prudential safeguards, insurance or comparable-guarantee assumptions, custody controls, client-asset safeguarding, complaints handling, outsourcing, and governance evidence. The response plan should connect those files before submission.