Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:457
Date: 2025-06-19
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Lithuania

Summary C-671/23 – 1 
Case C-671/23 
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:  
13 November 2023  
Referring court:  
Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
8 November 2023  
Applicant at first instance: 
M 
Defendant at first instance: 
Bank of Lithuania 
   
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The dispute in the main proceedings concerns the annulment of the decision of the 
Financial Market Authority of the Bank of Lithuania and the order to take actions. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of Article 59 of Directive 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of 
the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing; 
third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU. 
Questions referred 
1. Is Article 59 of Directive 2015/849 to be interpreted as precluding national 
legislation under which, if the competent national authority finds a number of 
infringements of different sets of requirements under Article 59(1)(a) to (d) of 
Directive 2015/849 during a single inspection, each of those infringements is 
considered to constitute a separate systematic infringement, and each of those 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-671/23 
 
2  
infringements is subject to a separate fine taking into account the maximum fine 
laid down in the national law implementing Directive 2015/849? 
2. Is Article 59 of Directive 2015/849 to be interpreted as precluding national 
legislation under which, if the competent national authority finds a number of 
infringements of the same set of requirements under Article 59(1)(a) to (d) of 
Directive 2015/849 during a single inspection, each of those infringements is 
considered to constitute a separate systematic infringement and each of those 
infringements is subject to a separate fine taking into account the maximum fine 
laid down in the national law implementing Directive 2015/849? 
3. If at least one of the above questions is answered in the affirmative, what 
criteria must be taken into account when determining whether an infringement 
under Article 59 of Directive 2015/849 is systematic? 
Provisions of EU law and case-law of the Court of Justice relied on 
Recital 59 and Articles 5 and 59 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 (OJ 2015 L 141, p. 73) 
(‘Directive 2015/849’). 
Judgment of 24 October 2013, Commission v Italy (C-151/12, EU:C:2013:690, 
paragraph 26 and the case-law cited). 
Judgment of 14 February 2012, Flachglas Torgau (C-204/09, EU:C:2012:71, 
paragraph 60). 
Judgment of 30 April 2019, Italy v Council (Mediterranean swordfish quota) 
(C-611/17, EU:C:2019:332, paragraph 111). 
Judgment of 26 March 2020, ERG and Others, C-496/18 and C-497/18, 
(EU:C:2020:240, paragraph 93 and the case-law cited). 
Judgment of 12 May 2022, U.I. (Indirect customs representative) (C-714/20, 
EU:C:2022:374, paragraphs 59 to 61). 
National legal framework 
Article 2(7), Article 9(1), (13), (14), (16) and (17), Article 10(1), Article11(1)(4) 
and 11(3), Article 14(1)(4), Article 14(3)(2) and (3)(3), Article14(5), Article 
16(2), Article 22(1) and (2), Article 29(1)(2), (1)(3), (1)(4), (1)(8), (1)(9), (1)(10), 
Article 29(2), 29(3)(4) and 29(7), Article 34, and Article 39(1)(2) of the Law of 
the Republic of Lithuania on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist 
BANK OF LITHUANIA 
 
3 
Financing (in the version amended by Law No XIII-1440 of 30 June 2018; ‘the 
AML/CFT Law’). 
The Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Bank of Lithuania (in the version 
amended by Law No. XIII-1854 of 20 December 2018; ‘the Law on the Bank of 
Lithuania’), Article 433(7) to (10). 
Point 18.1 of the Procedure for the Calculation of Fines approved by Resolution 
No 03-126 of the Board of the Bank of Lithuania of 10 July 2018 (‘the 
Procedure’). 
Points 4, 30, 31.3.4 and 33 of the Instructions to Financial Market Participants for 
the Prevention of Money Laundering and/or Terrorist Financing, as approved by 
Resolution No 03-17 of the Board of the Bank of Lithuania of 12 February 2015 
(original version; ‘the Instructions’). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 The decision of the Director of the Financial Market Authority of the Bank of 
Lithuania of 13 November 2020 ‘The Application of a Sanction to M’ (‘the 
contested decision’) states that applicant M (‘the applicant’), an electronic money 
institution, committed eight infringements of the AML/CFT Law and the 
Instructions. The period under review is 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. 
2 It was found that during the period under review, the applicant did not establish a 
process for assessing money laundering and terrorist financing (‘ML/TF’) risks in 
all its activities and did not carry out a ML/TF risk assessment of all its activities, 
and that the procedures for customer risk assessment established and put in place 
by the applicant did not allow for the proper classification of customers into risk 
groups, and, as a consequence, the applicant breached the requirements of 
Article 29(1)(2), (3)(4) and 29(7) of the AML/CFT Law and of points 4 and 30 of 
the Instructions (infringement 1). 
3 The applicant’s remote identification of its customers was significantly flawed, 
the applicant performed an incorrect identification in respect of some of its natural 
person customers and therefore infringed the requirements of Articles 9(1), 10(1), 
11(1)(4) and 11(3) of the AML/CFT Law (infringement 2). 
4 It was found that the applicant failed to ensure the proper application of enhanced 
customer identification for higher risk customers and therefore infringed the 
requirements of Articles 14(1)(4) and (5) of the AML/CFT Law. The applicant did 
not obtain the approval of a senior manager before entering into a business 
relationship with a politically exposed person; the applicant did not take 
appropriate steps to identify the source of the assets and funds involved in the 
business relationship or transaction, and therefore breached the requirements of 
Article 14(3)(2) and (3) of the AML/CFT Law (infringement 3). 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-671/23 
 
4  
5 The applicant’s procedures for identifying customers and verifying their identity 
did not ensure that the purpose and nature of the customer’s business relationship 
was clear and comprehensible in all cases, and the applicant did not always 
adequately fulfil its obligation to understand the nature of the customer’s business 
as a legal person, thus infringing the requirements of Article 9(13) and (14) of the 
AML/CFT Law (infringement 4). 
6 It was found that the applicant failed properly to update customer and beneficiary 
identification information during the period under review, in breach of 
Articles 9(17), 29(1)(8) of the AML/CFT Law and 33 of the Instructions 
(infringement 5). 
7 It was observed that the applicant failed to ensure that the transactions entered into 
in the course of the business relationship were in line with the customer’s business 
profile and risk profile. As no comprehensive analysis of the customer’s 
transactions and payment operations had been undertaken, the applicant did not 
have sufficient knowledge of the customer’s behaviour to be able properly to 
identify suspicious transactions and operations, and the applicant therefore 
breached the requirement of Article 9(16) of the AML/CFT Law. The measures 
put in place by the applicant to monitor customer relationships and transactions 
were insufficient adequately to manage ML/TF risks and, as a result, infringed 
Article 29(1)(3) and Article 16(2) of the AML/CFT Law (infringement 6). 
8 The applicant’s internal controls and procedures did not in all cases ensure the 
proper implementation of the requirements of international financial sanctions and 
restrictive measures, therefore the applicant breached the requirements of 
Article 29(1)(4) of the AML/CFT Law and point 31.3.4 of the Instructions 
(infringement 7). 
9 It was found that during the period under review the applicant had not appointed a 
board member responsible for the implementation of the ML/TF prevention 
measures laid down in the AML/CFT Law, thereby infringing the requirement of 
Article 22(1) of the AML/CFT Law. The applicant’s internal control with regard 
to ML/TF risk management was not sufficiently effective, the applicant did not 
have sufficient human resources and did not properly control the processes related 
to ML/TF prevention, and due to shortcomings which had been identified in the 
organisation of training, the staff implementing the ML/TF prevention measures 
were not adequately informed of the importance of the requirements for the 
prevention of ML/TF or of their roles and responsibilities, which led to a breach 
of Article 22(2) and Article 29(1)(9) and (1)(10) of the AML/CFT Law 
(infringement 8). 
10 The defendant, the Bank of Lithuania (‘the defendant’), imposed eight fines for 
the breaches observed (EUR 55 000 for each of infringements 1 to 3, 6 and 7 each, 
EUR 35 000 for each of infringements 4 and 5, and EUR 25 000 for infringement 
8). 
BANK OF LITHUANIA 
 
5 
11 The defendant calculated the amount of the fines on the basis of (i) the provisions 
of Article 43 3(10) of the Law on the Bank of Lithuania, and (ii) the Procedure. It 
considered that infringements 1 to 7 were serious and systematic. The defendant 
calculated each fine in accordance with the maximum fine set by the Law on the 
Bank of Lithuania (EUR 5 100 000, as 10% of the institution’s annual gross 
turnover was less than EUR 5 100 000). For each of infringements 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7, 
which were considered to be serious, the defendant set the basic amounts of the 
fines at 30% of the maximum fine amount, and for each of infringements 4, 5 and 
8, which were found to be less serious infringements, the defendant set the basic 
amounts of the fine at 20% of the maximum fine amount. The defendant reduced 
those basic fine amounts considering that they were disproportionately high in 
relation to the gross income of the applicant and that lower fines would also be 
effective in preventing infringements. 
12 The applicant brought an action against the contested decision before the first 
instance court. By decision of 21 September 2021, the first instance court upheld 
in part the applicant’s action and reduced the fine to EUR 200 000, but dismissed 
the applicant’s argument that a single systematic infringement of the AML/CFT 
Law ought to have been established in the case. 
13 The applicant then appealed against the judgment of the first instance court 
requesting (i) that the part of the judgment of the first instance court rejecting the 
applicant’s action be set aside and (ii) that the applicant’s arguments in the action 
at first instance be upheld in full. In that appeal, the defendant requested that the 
court (i) set aside the judgment of the first instance court and (ii) reject the 
applicant’s appeal. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
14 The applicant takes the position that, under Article 34 of the AML/CFT Law, 
infringements are classified as either serious or systematic. According to the 
applicant, in the event of multiple serious infringements, a single systematic 
infringement of the law must be established and only one fine, the maximum 
amount of which is laid down in the law, may be imposed in respect of a 
systematic infringement (Article 39(1)(2) of the AML/CFT Law). The applicant 
also submits that, under a linguistic interpretation of Article 34 of the AML/CFT 
Law, occurrences of non-compliance with a set of requirements (for example, the 
requirements for the identification of the customer and of the beneficiary set out in 
Articles 9 to 15 of the AML/CFT Law) are deemed to constitute a single serious 
infringement. The applicant also submits that the contested decision, by imposing 
a number of fines, infringes the ne bis in idem principle. As the infringement was 
not classified as a single systematic infringement, a number of fines were imposed 
in respect of infringements of similar requirements of the same Article. 
15 The defendant argues, referring to Article 39(1)(2) of the AML/CFT Law, that a 
fine may be imposed on a financial institution in respect of at least one serious 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-671/23 
 
6  
infringement of the AML/CFT Law, however, there is no similar provision in the 
case of a systematic infringement, and, therefore, an infringement can only be 
considered to be systematic when additional infringements of the AML/CFT Law 
have also been committed, as provided for in Article 34(2). The defendant notes 
that the provisions of Directive 2015/849 were intended to strengthen the 
requirements for the prevention of ML/TF in order to minimise the risks of 
ML/TF in the European Union and the adverse effects they have on the economy 
and the financial system. According to the defendant, to treat a number of serious 
ML/TF infringements as a single serious infringement or as a single systematic 
infringement would, in principle, be inconsistent with those objectives of 
Directive 2015/849. According to the defendant, it would then be in the interest of 
financial institutions which have committed a number of ML/TF infringements to 
have them treated as systematic and to be subject to a single sanction in respect of 
those infringements. The defendant also submits that to treat a number of different 
infringements as a single infringement would make it impossible to individualise 
the sanction and that failure to individualise the fine imposed in respect of each 
infringement (without taking into account the duration, gravity and other 
circumstances of each infringement, and without indicating a specific fine) would 
mean that a proper defence could not be put forward. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
16 The referring court points out that, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 59(1), 
59(2)(e) and 59(3)(a) of Directive 2015/849, maximum administrative pecuniary 
sanctions of at least EUR 5 000 000 or 10% of the total annual turnover may be 
imposed on a financial institution in the case of serious, repeated, systematic 
breaches, or a combination thereof, of the requirements laid down in 
Article 59(1)(a) to (d). 
17 Article 39(1)(2) of the AML/CFT Law states that the Bank of Lithuania has the 
right to impose a fine of EUR 2 000 to EUR 5 100 000 (if 10% of the gross annual 
turnover is less than EUR 5 100 000) on a financial institution for breaches of the 
AML/CFT Law, where the financial institution systematically breaches that law, 
or commits a single and serious breach of that law, or breaches the law repeatedly 
within a period of one year from the date of the imposition of a sanction for a 
breach of the law. It should be noted that the wording of that provision ‘where a 
financial institution […] systematically infringes this Law or commits a single 
serious infringement of this Law’ differs from the wording of Article 59(1) of 
Directive 2015/849, which refers to ‘breaches on the part of obliged entities that 
are serious, repeated, systematic, or a combination thereof’, as Article 39(1)(2) of 
the AML/CFT Law refers to ‘a single serious infringement of this Law’. The 
question therefore arises whether, in the present case, Article 39(1)(2) of the 
AML/CFT Law properly implements Article 59 of Directive 2015/849, and 
whether the defendant’s interpretation of Article 39(1)(2) of the AML/CFT Law is 
consistent with Article 59 of Directive 2015/849. 
BANK OF LITHUANIA 
 
7 
18 The referring court notes that Article 59(1) of Directive 2015/849 refers to cases 
where the sets of requirements laid down in points (a) to (d) are infringed in a 
serious manner, and Article 34(1)(1) to (3) of the AML/CFT Law defines a 
serious infringement as an infringement of the provisions of the AML/CFT Law 
implementing, inter alia, the requirements laid down in Article 59(1)(a) to (d) of 
Directive 2015/849, without specifying any other qualitative or quantitative 
elements of such infringement; Article 34(1)(4) of the AML/CFT Law defines a 
serious infringement as a case where a financial institution has not established the 
internal control procedures referred to in Article 29 of that law. 
19 The referring court notes that, in its view, the wording of Article 34(2)(2) of the 
AML/CFT Law ‘where infringements covering a number of sets of requirements 
are found at the same time […]’ implies that, in order to establish a systematic 
infringement in accordance with that provision, it is necessary to establish that 
more than one of the sets of requirements laid down in that provision has been 
infringed. However, Article 59(1) of Directive 2015/849 does not appear to 
require that, in order for an infringement to be considered to be systematic, it must 
necessarily be found to be in breach of a number of sets of requirements, as in 
Article 34(2)(2) of the AML/CFT Law. The national court notes that, in the 
present case, (i) infringements of a number of different sets of requirements and 
(ii) repeated infringements of one set of requirements under Article 34(2)(2) of the 
AML/CFT Law were identified and treated by the defendant as separate 
systematic infringements, which were subjected to separate fines. 
20 The referring court states that the provisions of the AML/CFT Law, the 
infringements of which were established by the contested decision, implement 
various provisions of Directive 2015/849. For example, in establishing 
infringement 3, infringements of, inter alia, Article 14(3)(2) and (3) of the 
AML/CFT Law implementing the relevant provisions of Article 20 of Directive 
2015/849 were identified. With regard to infringement 4, infringements of 
Article 9(13) and (14) of the AML/CFT Law implementing Article 13(1)(b) and 
(c) of Directive 2015/849 were established. In establishing infringement 6, an 
infringement was found inter alia, in relation to Article 16(2) of the AML/CFT 
Law implementing Articles 33, 34 and 35 of Directive 2015/849. 
21 The national court observes that the text of Directive 2015/849 does not contain a 
detailed definition of a systematic or serious infringement and that Article 5 of 
Directive 2015/849 states that ‘Member States may adopt or retain in force stricter 
provisions in the field covered by this Directive to prevent money laundering and 
terrorist financing, within the limits of Union law’. Furthermore, Article 59(4) of 
Directive 2015/849 provides that ‘Member States may empower competent 
authorities to impose additional types of administrative sanctions in addition to 
those referred to in points (a) to (d) of paragraph 2 or to impose administrative 
pecuniary sanctions exceeding the amounts referred to in point (e) of paragraph 2 
and in paragraph 3’. Member States are thus granted a certain discretion to adopt 
more stringent provisions within the limits set by EU law. However, it is doubtful 
whether those provisions of Directive 2015/849 can be interpreted as conferring 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-671/23 
 
8  
on Member States a discretion to adopt provisions of national law under which the 
national competent authority may impose a number of fines in respect of 
infringements detected during the same inspection, with each of the fines being 
calculated in accordance with the maximum limit laid down in national law (in the 
present case, EUR 5 100 000), where the requirements laid down in 
Article 59(1)(a) to (d) of Directive 2015/849 are found to have been infringed. 
22 Since Article 59(1) of Directive 2015/849 refers to cases of ‘breaches on the part 
of obliged entities that are serious, repeated, systematic, or a combination thereof, 
of the requirements laid down in’ points (a) to (d) thereof, and Article 59(3)(a) 
states that Member States shall ensure that where the obliged entity concerned is a 
credit institution or financial institution the maximum administrative pecuniary 
sanctions of at least EUR 5 000 000 or 10% of the total annual turnover can also 
be applied, the referring court takes the view that, where the infringement referred 
to in Article 59(1) of Directive 2015/849 is established, it should be subject to a 
single administrative pecuniary sanction, the maximum amount of which is laid 
down in Article 59(3)(a) of Directive 2015/849. If separate fines could be imposed 
for each of the concurrent infringements referred to in Article 59(1) of Directive 
2015/849, the total maximum amount of the concurrent fines could be many times 
higher than the maximum fine set out in Article 59(3)(a) of Directive 2015/849, 
and it is questionable whether such a situation would be in line with the principles 
of legal certainty and proportionality.