# C_2021141EN.01001201.xml

| 22.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/12

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 22 December 2020

in Case E-10/19

Bergbahn Aktiengesellschaft Kitzbühel v Meleda Anstalt

(Directive (EU) 2015/849 – Anti-money laundering – Information on beneficial ownership – Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing – Adequate, accurate and current information – Data minimisation)

(2021/C 141/12)

In Case E-10/19, Bergbahn Aktiengesellschaft Kitzbühel v Meleda Anstalt – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Princely Court of Appeal (Fürstliches Obergericht) concerning the interpretation of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 22 December 2020, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | Article 30(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing must be interpreted as requiring a legal entity to take reasonable measures to seek to confirm the identity of its beneficial owner, such as requiring underlying documentation, when the circumstances of a situation present it with doubts as to the accuracy of the information received. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 30(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing must be interpreted as requiring a legal entity to take reasonable measures to seek to confirm the identity of its beneficial owner, such as requiring underlying documentation, when the circumstances of a situation present it with doubts as to the accuracy of the information received.

| 2. | The obligation of a legal entity under Article 30(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 is not altered by the fact that the owning entity is a legal person with a registered office in an EEA State nor by the profession of its board members. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The obligation of a legal entity under Article 30(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 is not altered by the fact that the owning entity is a legal person with a registered office in an EEA State nor by the profession of its board members.

| 3. | It is for the referring court to ascertain to what extent the information on beneficial ownership processed is in line with the principle of data minimisation in point (c) of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data by being adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary to identify the beneficial owner and, if needed, to confirm the identity of the beneficial owner. |
| --- | --- |

3.

It is for the referring court to ascertain to what extent the information on beneficial ownership processed is in line with the principle of data minimisation in point (c) of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data by being adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary to identify the beneficial owner and, if needed, to confirm the identity of the beneficial owner.

| 4. | Point (v) of Article 3(6)(b) and point (c) of Article 3(6) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 cannot be interpreted as obliging anyone to prove the non-existence of indirect ownership or ultimate control by a natural person. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Point (v) of Article 3(6)(b) and point (c) of Article 3(6) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 cannot be interpreted as obliging anyone to prove the non-existence of indirect ownership or ultimate control by a natural person.

| 5. | Directive (EU) 2015/849 does not require a legal entity to bring legal proceedings against its owning entity to obtain information on a beneficial owner. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Directive (EU) 2015/849 does not require a legal entity to bring legal proceedings against its owning entity to obtain information on a beneficial owner.

---