MiCA license in 40 days: who can benefit from the Article 60 fast-track procedure?

Keywords. MiCA, CASP, MiCA Article 60, MiCA fast-track procedure, CASP notification.

Since December 30, 2024, the provision of crypto-asset services in the European Union requires authorization as a crypto-asset service provider (CASP) under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA).

For certain already regulated financial players, Article 60 of MiCA nevertheless provides for a faster route: certain crypto-asset services may be provided upon completion of a notification procedure, in principle 40 working days after it is filed, without going through the full CASP authorization procedure.

Strictly speaking, this is therefore not a “fast-track MiCA license”, but a mechanism that relies on an existing financial authorization.

Are you eligible for the MiCA fast-track procedure?

The Article 60 procedure is not open to all regulated undertakings.

Only six categories of entities are eligible:

• credit institutions, for all crypto-asset services;
• central securities depositories, solely for the custody and administration of crypto-assets;
• investment firms, for services equivalent to those covered by their MiFID II authorization;
• electronic money institutions, solely for the custody and administration, as well as the transfer, of electronic money tokens (EMTs) that they issue;
• market operators, for the operation of a trading platform;
• UCITS management companies and authorized AIFMs, for portfolio management, investment advice, and the reception and transmission of orders.

A payment institution that holds none of the statuses referred to in Article 60 will therefore have to follow the ordinary CASP authorization procedure.

What must be prepared for an Article 60 notification?

The procedure is streamlined, but an Article 60 notification remains a substantial regulatory filing.

The entity must demonstrate that it is ready to provide the envisaged services and has an appropriate organization. The notification includes, in particular, a programme of operations, information relating to internal control and AML/CFT, a business continuity plan and information on IT systems and their security (MiCA, art. 60(7)).

Additional documents are required depending on the services concerned. For example, a custody service entails documenting the custody policy and the segregation of clients’ crypto-assets, while an order execution service implies an execution policy.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/303 specifies the level of detail expected, in particular regarding the program of operations for the three years following the notification, the categories of clients targeted, the jurisdictions targeted, and the human, financial, and IT resources allocated to the project.

The challenge is therefore to prepare upstream a file sufficiently advanced to be considered complete as soon as it is filed. Information already provided to the competent authority does not, however, have to be resubmitted where it is identical and still up to date (MiCA, art. 60(9)).

Can crypto services really be launched in 40 days?

Compliance with this timeline depends directly on the completeness of the file.

• Day 0 – Filing of the notification.

It must be sent to the competent authority at least 40 working days before the first provision of the services concerned (MiCA, art. 60(1) to (6)).

In France, it is filed with the ACPR for credit institutions, investment firms and electronic money institutions, and with the AMF for central securities depositories, market operators and management companies falling within its remit (CMF, art. L. 54-10-7, II and III).

• Within 20 working days – Completeness check.

The competent authority verifies that the required information has been provided.

• If the file is incomplete – Suspension of the time limit.

The competent authority requests the missing information and sets a deadline that may not exceed 20 working days. The 40-working-day period is suspended until the expiry of that deadline. Any subsequent requests for additional information or clarification do not further suspend that period, but the services may not commence for as long as the notification remains incomplete (MiCA, Article 60(8)).

• On expiry of the time limit – Launch.

Unlike the standard CASP authorization, MiCA does not provide for a formal decision granting a new authorization at the end of the notification. Once the notification is complete and the applicable time limit has expired, the entity may begin providing the notified services.

However, the right to provide the notified services ceases upon withdrawal of the authorization on which that right is based (MiCA, Article 60(11)).

An advantageous mechanism within a precisely defined framework

Article 60 offers a twofold advantage: it speeds up market access and avoids certain requirements specific to the ordinary CASP authorization.

Beyond its value for players that are already eligible, Article 60 may constitute a genuine regulatory structuring lever for a crypto project.

Depending on the business model and the services envisaged, various strategies may be considered: using an existing regulated entity within a group, having certain services carried by an eligible regulated partner, acquiring an entity that holds the relevant authorizations or, where this is more consistent with the project as a whole, obtaining a financial authorization that then allows the Article 60 procedure to be used.

The question is therefore not necessarily whether to choose between a “CASP authorization” and an “Article 60 notification” once the project has been built. The existence of this procedure can be factored in from the outset when choosing the regulatory structure and the entity called upon to carry the crypto activities.

For certain players, in particular those whose model sits at the intersection of traditional financial services and crypto-assets, Article 60 thus opens up several possible routes to access the European market, the relevance of which will depend on the intended scope of activities, the timeline and the overall regulatory strategy.

The information contained in this article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It does not purport to be exhaustive and must be assessed in the light of the circumstances specific to each situation, in particular the business model, the services envisaged and the applicable regulatory framework. It is recommended to seek appropriate legal advice before taking any decision based on the elements presented in this article.