MiCA regulatory authorities: who supervises what, country by country
Published on 06/08/2026
A MiCA licence granted in one member state acts as a passport for the other 26, but each country keeps its own competent authority to review applications and supervise activity on its territory. Here is who does what, state by state.
01Why there are 27 authorities for a single licence
MiCA is a single EU regulation, but its enforcement stays national: each member state designates its own competent authority (often the existing financial markets regulator, sometimes the central bank, sometimes both depending on the type of institution). This authority reviews the licence application, carries out ongoing supervision, and notifies the authorisation to ESMA, which republishes it in its centralised register.
Once a licence has been obtained from one of these 27 authorities, the platform can legally operate across the entire Union without applying for a second, country-by-country licence. This is the European passporting principle.
02The competent authority, country by country
Some countries split supervision between two authorities depending on the type of institution or service (for example, a bank applying for CASP status often follows a different track from an independent exchange). The table shows the authority that grants the licence, with a link to its official page (MiCA / CASP page where one exists); the note column flags cases where jurisdiction is split.
| Country | Competent authority | Good to know |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | BaFin ↗ | |
| Austria | FMA ↗ | |
| Belgium | FSMA and National Bank of Belgium ↗ | jurisdiction split by type of institution |
| Bulgaria | Financial Supervision Commission (FSC) ↗ | |
| Cyprus | CySEC ↗ | |
| Croatia | HANFA ↗ | in coordination with the Croatian National Bank (HNB) |
| Denmark | Finanstilsynet ↗ | |
| Spain | CNMV ↗ | |
| Estonia | Finantsinspektsioon ↗ | |
| Finland | FIN-FSA (Finanssivalvonta) ↗ | |
| France | AMF ↗ | jointly with the ACPR for certain institutions (banks, e-money issuers) |
| Greece | HCMC (Hellenic Capital Market Commission) ↗ | |
| Hungary | MNB (National Bank of Hungary) ↗ | |
| Ireland | Central Bank of Ireland ↗ | |
| Italy | CONSOB and Bank of Italy ↗ | jurisdiction split by type of service |
| Latvia | Latvijas Banka (Bank of Latvia) ↗ | |
| Lithuania | Bank of Lithuania ↗ | |
| Luxembourg | CSSF ↗ | |
| Malta | MFSA ↗ | |
| Netherlands | AFM and DNB ↗ | jurisdiction split by type of service |
| Poland | KNF ↗ | national legal framework still being finalised as of mid-2026 |
| Portugal | Banco de Portugal and CMVM ↗ | licensing by the central bank, market conduct supervision by the CMVM |
| Czechia | ČNB (Czech National Bank) ↗ | |
| Romania | ASF (Financial Supervisory Authority) ↗ | national legal framework still being finalised as of mid-2026 |
| Slovakia | NBS (National Bank of Slovakia) ↗ | |
| Slovenia | ATVP ↗ | |
| Sweden | Finansinspektionen ↗ |
03What this table doesn't replace
The name of an authority does not guarantee that a given platform is actually licensed there: only ESMA's centralised register, or the relevant national authority's own site, is authoritative at any given point in time. To check the status of a specific platform rather than a country, Uncrypt Check queries this data directly.
Sources: ESMA's CASP register, official communications from the national authorities listed. Poland and Romania: national legal framework still evolving in 2026, to be reconfirmed with the local authority before taking any action. Last verified: 06/08/2026.