Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2026:410
Date: 2026-05-21
Language of the case: Italian

Summary C-684/24 – 1 
Case C-684/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
17 October 2024 
Referring court: 
Consiglio di Stato (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
15 October 2024 
Appellants: 
Across Fiduciaria SpA 
Galvani Fiduciaria Srl 
Sfo Fiduciaria Srl 
Respondents: 
Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri 
Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze 
Ministero delle Imprese e del Made in Italy 
Garante per la Protezione dei Dati Personali  
Unioncamere (Unione Italiana delle Camere di Commercio, 
Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura) 
Infocamere Scpa 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The appellant trust companies allege that national and EU legislation pursuant to 
which the mandates under which they operate are included among the legal 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-684/24 
 
2  
arrangements similar in structure or effect to trusts, resulting in an obligation to 
provide information as to beneficial ownership, is unlawful. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, interpretation is sought of Directive (EU) 
2015/849, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843, and of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
(1) Is Article 31(4) of Directive (EU) 2015/849, as amended by Directive (EU) 
2018/843, permitting access to information about the beneficial ownership of a 
trust or similar legal arrangement, compatible with the rules laid down in the 
Charter (Article 7 ‘Respect for private and family life’ and Article 8 ‘Protection of 
personal data’) and with the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the 
ECHR’) (Article 8), in so far as it permits access in all cases for any natural or 
legal person ‘that can demonstrate a legitimate interest’, without specifying and 
delimiting the very concept of ‘legitimate interest’, leaving the definition of this 
concept fully to the discretion of the Member States and thus creating a risk of an 
excessively broad definition of the subjective scope of the right of access, which 
could potentially undermine the fundamental rights of the individual concerned? 
(2) Are the safeguards provided for in Article 31(7a) of Directive (EU) 
2015/849, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843 – concerning the right to an 
administrative review of an exemption decision (in exceptional circumstances laid 
down in national law) in relation to the access referred to in paragraph 4 (access 
permitted, in all cases, to information on the ownership of a trust or similar legal 
arrangement), having regard to the protections afforded by Article 47 (right to an 
effective remedy and to a fair trial) of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR – 
compatible with Articles 6 to 7 of decreto del Ministero dell’Economia e delle 
Finanze dell’11 marzo 2022, n. 55 (Decree No 55 of the Ministry of Economy and 
Finance of 11 March 2022), in so far as they confer on a non-judicial 
administrative body in the form of the local chamber of commerce the power to 
issue a decision with irreversible effect in relation to the disclosure of the data, 
and provide for a judicial remedy of which the beneficial owner may avail only at 
a later stage? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
The Charter, Articles 7, 8 and 47. 
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) 
ACROSS FIDUCIARIA AND OTHERS 
 
3 
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, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843, 
Article (31)(4) and (7a). 
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 
Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (ECHR), Articles 6 and 8. 
Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, judgments of 
22 November 2022, C-37/20 and C-601/20, Luxembourg Business Registers, 
EU:C:2022:912, and of 30 April 2024, C-178/22, Office of the Public Prosecutor 
at the District Court of Bolzano, EU:C:2024:371. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Decreto del Ministro dell’Economia e delle Finanze, di concerto con il Ministro 
dello Sviluppo economico, dell’11 marzo 2022, n. 55 (Decree No 55 of the 
Minister for Economy and Finance, in agreement with the Minister for 
Development, of 11 March 2022). In particular, the following provisions are 
relevant to this case: 
Article 2: ‘In order to prevent and counter the use of the economic and financial 
system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing, this decree 
lays down provisions, to be implemented exclusively by data transfer: 
(a) on the communication, to the office where the Companies Register is held, 
of data and information on the beneficial ownership of undertakings having legal 
personality, private legal persons, trusts producing legal effects relevant for tax 
purposes and legal arrangements similar to trusts, to enable their registration and 
storage in the separate section and special section of the Companies Register; 
(b) on access to data and information by the authorities, obliged entities, the 
public and any natural or legal person, including those having a diffuse interest; 
(c) for the purpose of identifying and determining the administrative fees with 
respect to parties other than the authorities; 
(d) for the purpose of ensuring secure data and information processing’. 
Article 4(1)(e) (to be read in conjunction with Article 7 below): ‘The possible 
indication of exceptional circumstances, for the purposes of excluding access to 
information on beneficial ownership, in accordance with the second sentence of 
Article 21(2)(f) and the third sentence of Article 21(4)(d-bis) of the Anti-Money 
Laundering Decree, and the indication of an email address for receipt of 
communications in accordance with Article 7(3), in the capacity of the person 
obliged to provide the information (“the opposing party”)’. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-684/24 
 
4  
Article 7(1): ‘The data and information on the beneficial ownership of 
undertakings with legal personality and of private legal persons in the separate 
section of the Companies Register shall be accessible to the public upon request 
and without limitation, unless the communication referred to in Article 4 contains 
the information referred to in paragraph 1(e) of that article. Access to the public 
shall cover the name, surname, month and year of birth, country of residence and 
nationality of the beneficial owner and the conditions from which beneficial 
owner status is derived, within the meaning of Article 20 of the Anti-Money 
Laundering Decree.’ 
Article 7(3): ‘The chamber of commerce with geographical jurisdiction shall send 
the request for access referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 to the opposing party, 
forwarding it to the certified email address advised in accordance with 
Article 4(1)(e). Within ten days of receipt of the above request, the opposing party 
may send a reasoned objection by certified email. The chamber of commerce shall 
assess, on a case-by-case basis, the exceptional circumstances referred to in 
Article 21(2)(f) and (4)(d-bis) of the Anti-Money Laundering Decree, as 
represented by the opposing party, which fully or partly justify a refusal of access, 
where applicable in the light of the principle of proportionality between the risk 
posed and the interest in gaining access. Access to the data referred to in 
paragraphs 1 and 2 may be refused in whole or in part following the assessment 
by the chamber of commerce with geographical jurisdiction of the exceptional 
circumstances represented by the opposing party. The reasoned refusal of access 
shall be communicated to the applicant by certified email within twenty days 
following the request for access. If no response is provided within the 
abovementioned time limit, access shall be deemed to have been refused’. 
Article 11: ‘The chamber of commerce with geographical jurisdiction to receive 
communications of data and information in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 shall 
be the data controller pursuant to and for the purposes of the legislation in force. 
The data and information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made available in the 
separate section and the special section of the Companies Register in accordance 
with the provisions of this decree, for a period of ten years starting either from the 
last reported change to those data and information or from the last annual 
confirmation. 
Within thirty days from the date on which this decree enters into force and, in any 
event, prior to the processing of the data, the operator, on behalf of the data 
controller, shall prepare a technical specification, subject to prior verification by 
the Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Personal Data Protection 
Authority), intended to establish appropriate technical and organisational 
measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk, in accordance with 
Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 27 April 2016 and the applicable national legislation on the protection 
of personal data’. 
ACROSS FIDUCIARIA AND OTHERS 
 
5 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The dispute giving rise to this reference for a preliminary ruling began with the 
complaint made by the appellant trust companies, as set out above under ‘Subject 
matter of the main proceedings’. That complaint originates from the amendments 
made by the Italian legislature in order to transpose the new elements introduced 
by Directive 2018/843 into Directive 2015/849, the original version of which 
limited its scope to ‘trustees of any express trust’ governed by national law 
(Article 31(1)). Being required to comply with the new obligation to inform the 
Commission of legal arrangements similar to trusts (‘similar legal arrangements’), 
the Italian Republic listed, in particular, ‘trust mandate’ and ‘hypothecation’, and 
then adopted a series of acts in implementation of this specification. This series of 
acts was challenged at first instance, before the competent Tribunale 
amministrativo regionale (Regional Administrative Court), by the appellant 
companies, which appealed to the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State), the 
referring court, following the dismissal of that action. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
2 The complaints made by the appellant companies in these proceedings constitute 
developments of a fundamental complaint, which is not, however, under 
examination here, amounting to the appellant companies considering that the 
extension by the Italian legislature of the rules currently in force concerning trusts 
to cover the activities of the appellants is unjustified. Indeed, as a result of that 
extension of the rules, they are now required to grant much broader access to the 
personal data of their principals than under the previous regime, and for a much 
larger number of potential recipients. For that reason, the appellants assert that the 
subjective extension of access imposed by the regulatory measures they are 
challenging is excessive. In particular, they claim that making it possible to 
exercise a right of access based merely on the existence of an unspecified 
‘legitimate interest’ would lead to situations of uncertainty in the application of 
the relevant measures. Moreover, the right to oppose requests for access to the 
data in question would be so limited in substantive terms that the safeguards 
provided would be inadequate to prevent the unlawful disclosure of personal data 
relating to the beneficial owners of the assets they administer. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the reference for a preliminary 
ruling 
3 The referring court recalls, first of all, the broader issue connected with the doubts 
raised by the extension – to trust companies and to entities that administer the 
assets of third parties in compliance with a ‘hypothecation’ (‘vincolo di 
destinazione’) [an Italian scheme where the owner of immovable property or 
assets registered in public registers establishes a bond over such property] – of the 
rules laid down for trusts (an issue that constitutes the core issue in the parallel 
proceedings now pending under case number C-685/24). 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-684/24 
 
6  
4 Having considered the complaints raised by the appellant trust companies, the 
referring court has focused its scrutiny on two questions, for which it considers it 
essential to request the Court of Justice’s assistance in interpretation through a 
preliminary ruling. 
5 As regards the first question, while accepting that an individual’s right to 
protection of privacy – guaranteed by the Charter and by the ECHR – may be 
subject to limitations where there are reasons of general interest requiring that 
such limitations be imposed, the referring court seems to share the trust 
companies’ misgivings as to the actual utility of the concept of ‘legitimate 
interest’ as a criterion for determining whether to grant access to the personal data 
of the beneficial owners of the assets administered by those trust companies. In 
support of those doubts, that court also cites the European Commission itself, 
which, while referring to a different issue, argued before the Court of Justice that 
‘the criterion of “legitimate interest” was a concept which did not lend itself easily 
to a legal definition and that, while it had considered the possibility of proposing a 
uniform definition of that criterion, [the Commission] had ultimately decided not 
to do so on the ground that the criterion, even if defined, remained difficult to 
apply and that its application could give rise to arbitrary decisions’ (judgment in 
cases C-37/20 and C-601/20, cited above, paragraph 71). 
6 The second question concerns the actual adequacy of the protections afforded to 
trust companies to enable them to defend themselves against any improper claims 
for access. The doubts on this point arise from the fact that the national rules in 
this sphere do not establish remedies that can be used as a preventive measure (at 
this stage, in fact, those rules only allow for a prior discussion between the trust 
company concerned and the chamber of commerce with geographical jurisdiction, 
which is the body responsible for deciding whether access will be granted). Real 
protections are only envisaged at a later stage, through the granting of the right to 
challenge before the administrative court the measure granting access that was 
adopted. 
7 Lastly, it should be noted that, as in the parallel proceedings now pending before 
the Court of Justice under case number C-685/24, the referring court makes an 
application to submit the present case to the expedited procedure under 
Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. In support of that 
application, the referring court states that the legal effect of the national measures 
has been suspended by the Council of State, given the sensitive nature of the 
questions. The decision was also taken in view of the fact that failure to suspend 
the legal effect would have required all trust companies to provide information on 
beneficial owners. Although the effects of that decision were limited to trust 
companies only, the representatives of the respondent administrations and of the 
Chamber of Commerce of Rome stated in open court that this situation affects the 
entire system of implementation of Directive 2018/843. Therefore, at the present 
time, the actual implementation of the provisions of that directive in Italian law 
appears to be ‘frozen’ pending the decision of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union, even though the objective of strengthening the rules protecting the 
ACROSS FIDUCIARIA AND OTHERS 
 
7 
European Union as regards the transparency of information on sole ownership 
requires timely implementation throughout the European Union, in the face of 
transnational phenomena such as those that it is intended to prevent and combat.