Recital 47

(47) In addition, a maximum timeframe should be set for finalising the scrutiny procedure and for the competent authority’s decision on the prospectus. Given that the duration of the scrutiny procedure is influenced also by factors outside the control of the competent authority, the timeframe should be established as the maximum duration of the procedure overall, covering activities from both the person applying for approval of a prospectus and the competent authority. As it may be difficult to anticipate all situations where scrutiny cannot be finalised within the set timeframe, it is important to specify the conditions for possible derogations from that timeframe. In addition, in the same way as for the time limits laid down in Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129, a failure by the competent authority to take a decision on the prospectus within that maximum timeframe should not be deemed to constitute approval of the prospectus. For the sake of legal clarity, the definition of ‘approval’ should also clarify that it does not concern the accuracy of the information in a prospectus.

← Recital 46 · All articles · Recital 48 →

Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-10-17 · Text as adopted (Official Journal); later amendments are not incorporated in this text.