MiCA Article 121 legal privilege
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.
Last reviewed · We re-read every article when ESMA, the EBA, or an NCA publishes guidance that changes it.
What Article 121 changes operationally
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.
Article 121 evidence matrix
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.
Document inventory
Maintain a request-response register covering document title, date, source system, custodian, document owner, confidentiality marking, legal-review status, and unresolved external-review questions.
Privilege review notes
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.
Disclosure boundary
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.
Secrecy and privacy handoffs
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.
Audit trail
Preserve request timestamps, response deadlines, version history, approval owners, legal-review gates, correspondence logs, and final response status in one traceable package.
Review-ready tracker
- Source record: ESMA Interactive Single Rulebook URL, retrieval date, Article 121 title, and source owner.
- Request file: EBA or authorised-person route, Article 122-125 connection, request date, response owner, and deadline assumptions.
- Legal-review file: counsel owner, privilege-review status, document inventory, proposed disclosure boundary, and unresolved qualified-advice questions.
- Handoff file: Article 117 EBA supervision, Article 95/96 cooperation, Article 100 professional secrecy, Article 101 data protection, and Article 120 college-opinion context where relevant.
FAQ
What does MiCA Article 121 cover?
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.
Why is Article 121 relevant to CASP diligence?
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.
Does this page determine whether information is legally privileged?
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.