Complaints handling procedure

Article 71 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 turns that channel into a licensing condition rather than a courtesy. The firm has to publish a description of the procedure, hand clients a complaint template, and keep a record of every complaint and the measures taken in response. For anyone holding a balance at a European platform, this is the escalation route for a stuck withdrawal or a disputed fee.

How it works

Article 71 breaks a complaints handling procedure into four obligations. First, the provider establishes and maintains effective and transparent procedures for the prompt, fair and consistent handling of complaints received from clients, and publishes a description of them. Second, clients file free of charge, so a platform cannot put a fee or a paid support tier in front of it. Third, the provider must tell clients that complaining is possible, supply a template for doing it, and keep records of what came in and what was done. Fourth, every complaint is investigated in a timely and fair manner and the outcome is communicated back.

Article 31 repeats the first, second and fourth for issuers of asset-referenced tokens almost word for word, and part of the third: Article 31(3) requires the template and the record of complaints and measures taken, but the article carries no duty to inform holders that complaining is possible. It adds what Article 71 does not need: where tokens reach holders through third-party distributors, the issuer must build a route for complaints between a holder and that distributor, and complaints from consumer associations representing holders count too.

The detail below that level was left to technical standards. Article 71(5) required ESMA, in close cooperation with EBA, to submit draft regulatory technical standards on the requirements, templates and procedures for handling complaints to the Commission by 30 June 2024.

Article 71 sits inside the Articles 65 to 83 block listed at Article 111(1)(d), so Member States must arm their regulators with maximum fines of at least EUR 5 000 000 or 5% of total annual turnover for a legal person, at least EUR 700 000 for a natural person, plus the power to temporarily ban a responsible member of the management body from exercising management functions in a crypto-asset service provider.

Where you see it

A complaints handling procedure surfaces at two points in the paper trail of a European crypto business. It appears first in the authorisation file: Article 62(2)(l) requires a licence applicant to submit a description of its complaints-handling procedures, Article 18(2)(q) requires the same of an applicant issuer of asset-referenced tokens, and Article 34(5), first subparagraph, point (j) puts complaints-handling on the list of policies and procedures an issuer must establish, maintain and implement.

It appears next in published disclosure. Annex II, Part D, item 12 requires an asset-referenced token white paper to carry the contact details for submitting complaints, a description of the complaints-handling procedures and any dispute resolution mechanism or redress procedure the issuer has established; Annex III, Part D, item 6 repeats that for e-money tokens.

The procedure is the least advertised thing a licensed platform owns: no exchange can put a MiCA authorisation on its country listings without having described it to a regulator first.

Complaints handling procedure vs national competent authority

A complaints handling procedure is the firm's channel; the national competent authority runs a second, separate one under Article 108. That authority must accept complaints from clients and other interested parties, including consumer associations, about alleged infringements of the Regulation by offerors, issuers or service providers, in writing including electronically, in an official language of the Member State where the complaint is submitted or in another language that Member State's authorities accept. Information about how to do that goes on the authority's website and is communicated to EBA and ESMA, and ESMA publishes hyperlinks to those pages in the crypto-asset register it keeps under Article 109. Use the firm's procedure first: the regulator's channel targets rule breaches, not one frozen account.