Appealing an AMF or ACPR decision: a guide for CASPs

A crypto-asset service provider (CASP) authorised in France appeals a refusal or withdrawal of its authorisation, or a sanction imposed by the AMF (Autorité des marchés financiers, the French financial markets regulator), before the Conseil d’État (France’s supreme administrative court). Other individual AMF decisions go to the Paris Court of Appeal. Time limits are short: ten days as a rule, two months for a sanction.

Since 1 July 2026, the PSAN regime (the French registration regime for digital asset service providers, which applied before MiCA) has ended: the AMF authorises, supervises and sanctions CASPs under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA). The routes of appeal have followed. This guide explains, decision by decision, which court to go to, within what time limit and in what form, how to have a decision suspended pending judgment, and what changes when the ACPR (Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution, the French banking and insurance supervisor) is also involved. It ends with unauthorised operators facing a formal notice or a blocking procedure.

Which decision, which court?

The court depends on the type of decision and on the person it targets. For a CASP, Article L. 621-30 of the French Monetary and Financial Code (CMF) excludes the ordinary courts, sanctions included: a refusal or loss of authorisation and sanctions both fall within the jurisdiction of the Conseil d’État.

The time limit runs from notification for the person concerned, and from publication for other interested parties (CMF, Article R. 621-44). Publication on the AMF website starts the time limit for third parties.

The appeal route in one diagram

Three cases out of four lead to the Conseil d’État; only other individual AMF decisions go to the Paris Court of Appeal. In every case, an appeal does not suspend the decision.

Authorisation and sanctions: appeal to the Conseil d’État

CASPs are listed in point 21 of Article L. 621-9(II) CMF, among the persons whose professional obligations the AMF supervises. For these persons, Article L. 621-30 removes appeals against individual AMF decisions, sanctions included, from the ordinary courts. Article R. 621-45(I) draws the consequence: appeals against decisions on their authorisation or their sanctions go to the Conseil d’État, under the French Code of Administrative Justice (CJA).

The time limit is ten days for a decision on authorisation and two months for a sanction (CMF, Article R. 621-44). Ten days leave little time: decide whether to appeal as soon as the decision is notified, and prepare the file while the AMF is reviewing the case, before the decision is even taken.

For sanctions, the appeal is a full-jurisdiction review (recours de pleine juridiction): the Conseil d’État may uphold the decision, annul it or vary it, in whole or in part, in favour of or against the sanctioned person (CMF, Article R. 621-45(I)). The Chair of the AMF may also appeal, with the agreement of the AMF Board (Collège), and, if the sanctioned person appeals, bring a cross-appeal (recours incident) within two months of being notified of that appeal (CMF, Articles L. 621-30 and R. 621-45(I)). An appeal can therefore make the sanction heavier.

Before the Conseil d’État, parties may be assisted by a member of the specialist bar with rights of audience before France’s two supreme courts (avocat au Conseil d’État et à la Cour de cassation) (CMF, Article R. 621-45(I)).

Other AMF decisions: the Paris Court of Appeal

Any other individual AMF decision falls within the jurisdiction of the Paris Court of Appeal (CMF, Article R. 621-45(II)). The time limit is ten days (CMF, Article R. 621-44). The procedure follows Article R. 621-46, as amended by Decree No 2026-559 of 29 June 2026, which applies to appeals lodged since 1 July 2026.

The appeal is lodged by a written statement filed in four copies with the court registry, against a receipt. It must contain the particulars required by Article 648 of the French Code of Civil Procedure and state the subject of the appeal; otherwise the court declares it inadmissible of its own motion. If the statement does not set out the grounds of appeal, they must be filed within 15 days, on the same penalty. The statement lists the documents relied on, filed at the same time with a copy of the decision challenged.

The registry sends the statement to the AMF and to the public prosecutor’s office at the Court of Appeal (parquet général). The First President of the Court sets the timetable for written submissions and the hearing date (CMF, Article R. 621-46).

This appeal does not suspend the decision, unless the court decides otherwise (CMF, Article L. 621-30).

Suspending the decision pending judgment

An appeal does not suspend the decision: the withdrawal of authorisation or the sanction applies until the court rules. To avoid harm that a judgment would come too late to repair, you must seek a suspension through urgent proceedings.

Before the Conseil d’État, the route is interim relief to suspend the decision (référé-suspension) (CJA, Article L. 521-1). The interim relief judge may suspend all or part of the decision’s effects if two conditions are met: urgency, and a ground that raises, at that stage, serious doubt as to the decision’s lawfulness. The application requires an appeal on the merits, and the suspension ends at the latest when that appeal is decided.

Before the Paris Court of Appeal, an application for a stay of enforcement (sursis à exécution) is made by petition to the First President, within the time limit for the appeal (CMF, Article R. 621-46(II)). It must set out its grounds and state the date of the appeal; otherwise it is inadmissible. A stay is granted only if the decision is likely to have manifestly excessive consequences (CMF, Article L. 621-30).

In both cases, evidence of urgency or of excessive consequences takes preparation: impact on turnover, clients affected, risk of having to cease business, effect of a publication naming the firm.

A precedent: in April 2021, under the former PSAN regime, the Paris Court of Appeal suspended, by three orders, AMF injunctions requiring unregistered providers to stop their business. It relied on the manifestly excessive consequences of those injunctions and on irregularities in the procedure followed.

Dual-status CASPs: ACPR sanctions

A CASP that also provides payment services, for example on e-money tokens, is supervised by the ACPR for that activity. Sanctions imposed by the ACPR’s Enforcement Committee are challenged before the Conseil d’État, through a full-jurisdiction review open to the sanctioned person and to the Chair of the ACPR (CMF, Article L. 612-16). The Chair has two months from notification of the sanctioned person’s appeal to bring their own appeal.

The same breach can therefore expose a group to two sets of proceedings, before two authorities, with one court on appeal. A joint strategy is needed from the start of the inspection or from notification of the contested measure.

Unauthorised operators: formal notice and blocking

An operator that provides crypto-asset services in France without the authorisation required by Article 59 of MiCA has no authorisation decision to challenge. It faces the procedure of Article L. 621-13-5 CMF: a formal notice from the Chair of the AMF, five days to submit observations, then an application to the President of the Paris Judicial Court for blocking of the website. The operator defends itself before that judge, in those proceedings.

Inclusion on the AMF blacklist follows a different logic: to get off the AMF blacklist, the first step is to approach the AMF. A foreign provider that wants to serve the French market does so through MiCA passporting or through an authorisation.

Why ORWL?

• Unique specialisation: the firm focuses on crypto-asset, payment services and fintech law, from authorisation to litigation.
• Regulatory and litigation teams that work together: the team that knows the authorisation file and the exchanges with the AMF or the ACPR prepares the appeal with the team that argues it in court.
• Knowledge of the sector and its business models: we measure the real effect of a decision on your business, which is what proves the urgency of a suspension.

ORWL Avocats advises CASPs in their dealings with the AMF and the ACPR, from the authorisation application to litigation.