Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:666
Date: 2025-09-04
Language of the case: Slovenian

Translation C-81/24 – 1 
Request for a preliminary ruling – Case C-81/24 [Jenec] i 
Reference for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
31 January 2024 
Referring court: 
Okrajno sodišče v Mariboru (Slovenia) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
25 January 2024 
Applicant: 
LH 
Defendant: 
NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d. 
  
[…] 
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European 
Union 
The procedure 
1 The applicant brought an action before the Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani (Local 
Court, Ljubljana) seeking an order requiring the defendant to grant him access to a 
payment account with basic features and the provision of basic banking services, 
and to pay compensation of EUR 10 000 for the damage arising as a result of the 
defendant’s breach of its obligation to contract. 
2 The Local Court, Ljubljana, following an objection raised by the defendant in its 
response, declared, by order of 20 April 2021, that it lacked territorial jurisdiction 
and decided that it was for the Okrajno sodišče v Mariboru (Local Court, Maribor) 
(‘the referring court’) to decide on the case. In his preliminary pleading of 4 April 
2022, the applicant amended point 1 of the application initiating proceedings, 
 
i The name of the present case is fictitious. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 1. 2024 – CASE C-81/24 
 
2  
rewording it as follows: ‘The defendant shall be required to open for the benefit of 
the applicant, within 10 days of the notification of the judgment, a payment 
account with basic features, and, more specifically, to the extent provided for in 
Article 181(2) of the Zakon o plačilnih storitvah, storitvah izdajanja elektronskega 
denarja in plačilnih sistemih (Law on payment services, electronic money issuing 
services and payment systems) (Uradni list RS, Nos 7/18, 9/18, as corrected, and 
102/20)’. In that pleading, the applicant requests the referring court to stay the 
main proceedings and to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union (‘the Court of Justice’) for a preliminary ruling. 
Facts of the case 
3 From the submissions of the parties to the proceedings, it appears that the factual 
situation, with reference to point 1 of the applicant’s application initiating 
proceedings, 1 is not in dispute between the parties and that the disagreement 
between them concerns only the arguments as to whether or not the defendant’s 
conduct is lawful. Slovenian procedural and civil law is based on the principle of 
non-challenge, according to which it is not necessary to adduce evidence of facts 
admitted, not challenged or challenged in an unreasoned manner and those are to 
be considered established. 2 3 In that way, the referring court has established the 
relevant factual situation from a legal point of view, and, therefore, already refers 
a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling at this stage of the 
proceedings (despite the fact that in the present case it has not yet held the main 
hearing and has not yet started the taking of evidence). 4 
4 In the light of the foregoing, the referring court finds that the legally relevant 
factual situation is as follows. The applicant, on behalf of his wife, who had a 
transaction account opened with the defendant, attempted on 22 October 2017 to 
pay, at the Petrol service station in Ljubljana, by remittance, an amount of 
 
1 Whether the second point in the application initiating proceedings is well-founded depends on 
whether that point is well-founded. 
2 It is not necessary to prove facts that the party has acknowledged before the court in the course 
of the proceedings (Article 214(1) of the Zakon o pravdnem postopku (Code of Civil Procedure) 
(ZPP), Uradni list RS, No 3/07 – official consolidated text 45/08 – ZArbit, 45/08, 111/08; 
[Ustavno sodišče] (Constitutional Court) decisions 57/09, 12/10, 50/10, 107/10, 75/12, 40/13, 
92/13, 10/14, 48/15, 6/17, 10/17, 16/19 – ZNP-1, 70/19, 1/22, and 3/22 – ZDeb. 
3 Facts which the party does not challenge or which it challenges without indicating reasons are 
deemed to be recognised (Article 214(2) ZPP). 
4 The national court is free when it comes to deciding when to refer a question for a preliminary 
ruling. In the light of the general (certainly non-binding) indications aimed at a more rational 
exercise of a discretionary right, the national court should refer a question for a preliminary 
ruling at the stage of the proceedings where the factual situation has already been established to 
a large extent (see Boulouis, Darmon and Huglo, Contentieux communautaire, p. 24). However, 
sometimes it is advisable to start the proceedings earlier, in order to ascertain which elements of 
the factual situation might be important and relevant for the outcome of the specific case 
(Hartley, The Foundations of European Community Law, p. 294). 
JENEC 
 
3 
EUR 93. When the cashier entered the applicant’s personal data into the system, 
the defendant blocked the payment. In the letter which the defendant sent to the 
applicant’s wife, in her capacity as its customer, it explained that, due to political 
events and increased risks linked to general security and the increased possibility 
of abuse of banking products for terrorist financing or other criminal offences, it 
had adopted certain more restrictive measures to comply with the obligations 
imposed by the legislation on the prevention of terrorist financing and money 
laundering. Compliance with OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) 
limitations is also included in the context of those measures, as is apparent from 
the internal acts of the defendant. It concerns, above all, the defendant’s 
Regulation on the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing (anti-
money laundering regulation). That regulation provides that, before establishing a 
business relationship, all customers must be checked as regards their possible 
inclusion in the lists of restrictive measures (EU, OFAC, UN, internal list), 
bearing in mind that inclusion in such lists means a prohibition on entering into a 
relationship with such a customer. Substantially similar requirements with regard 
to taking into account the inclusion of potential customers in the OFAC list are 
also imposed by other internal acts of the defendant, and, in particular, by the 
Instructions for the establishment of business relationships with natural persons, 
the Customer acceptance policy guidelines, the defendant’s Methodology on 
restrictive measures and the defendant’s Code of conduct. After the 
commencement of the present civil proceedings and after receipt of the response, 
on 23 March 2022, the applicant presented himself in person at the defendant’s 
business premises, as he wished to open a payment account with basic features. 
An employee of the bank met with the applicant, and then examined the valid 
personal identity document produced by the latter. The bank employee explained 
to him that ‘the system, faced with the name of the applicant, does not permit the 
opening of a transaction account’ and that it is, therefore, not possible to open 
such an account with the defendant. The applicant, 10 days after the submission of 
an application to open a payment account with basic features with the defendant, 
had not received any written reply from the defendant, despite the fact that he had 
requested that such a reply be sent. On 23 February 2015, the Special State 
Prosecutor of the Republic of Slovenia had concluded and archived the case 
brought against the applicant concerning the same offences as those for which an 
international warning had been issued. The applicant has never been convicted 
anywhere in the world of the offence for which he has been included in the OFAC 
list, and no restrictive measures of any kind have ever been taken against him by 
the United Nations, the European Union or the Republic of Slovenia. 
The opposing legal arguments of the parties to the case 
5 There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the provisions of Article 16(4) 
of Directive 2014/92/EU may be interpreted as conferring on Member States the 
power to permit banks, under national law, to refuse a consumer’s application to 
open a payment account with basic features on the ground that the person 
concerned is included in the OFAC list, despite the fact that he or she has never 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 1. 2024 – CASE C-81/24 
 
4  
been convicted anywhere of the offence for which he or she is on that list, and that 
the United Nations, the European Union and the Member States of the European 
Union have never adopted restrictive measures of any kind against him or her 
Therefore, the dispute concerns, above all, whether such a case may come within 
the infringement of the provisions of Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention 
of money laundering and terrorist financing. According to the applicant, such an 
interpretation would be contrary to Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union. 
National law  
6 The Zakon o plačilnih storitvah, storitvah izdajanja elektronskega denarja in 
plačilnih sistemih (Law on payment services, electronic money issuing services 
and payment systems) (the ‘ZPlaSSIED’ 5) 6 regulates, inter alia, the rights and 
obligations of payment service users and providers in relation to the provision of 
payment services, and lays down rules and conditions for access to payment 
accounts with basic features (Article 1(3) and (9)). 
Article 180(1) of the ZPlaSSIED prohibits unjustified differentiation between 
consumers as regards the opening of and access to payment accounts with basic 
features: 
(1) ‘A consumer legally resident in the European Union who applies to open a 
payment account with basic features within the European Union, or to have 
access to such an account, shall not be discriminated against by the bank, in 
particular for reasons related to nationality, residence, gender, race, colour, 
ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or 
other opinion, membership of a national community, membership of a national 
minority from another country, financial situation, lineage, disability, old age or 
sexual orientation. The conditions applicable to the opening of a payment account 
with basic features and access to it shall in no way be unjustifiably 
discriminatory’. 
Article 181 of the ZPlaSSIED sets out the conditions governing the consumer’s 
right to have a payment account with basic features (which at the same time 
corresponds to an obligation of the bank to contract), and the exceptions relating 
thereto: 
(1) ‘All banks operating consumer payment accounts are obliged to offer 
consumers a payment account with basic features’. 
 
5 Uradni list RS, Nos 7/18, 9/18, as corrected, and 102/20. 
6 This is the national legislative act transposing into Slovenian law Directive 2014/92/EU of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on the comparability of fees related to 
payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic 
features (OJ 2014 L 257, p. 214; ‘Directive 2014/92/EU’). 
JENEC 
 
5 
(3) ‘A consumer legally resident in the European Union, including a 
consumer with no fixed address and an asylum seeker, and a consumer who has 
not been granted authorisation to reside but whose expulsion is impossible for 
legal or factual reasons, shall have the right to open and use a payment account 
with basic features with a bank. That right shall apply irrespective of the 
consumer’s habitual residence’. 
(4) ‘The bank shall organise the procedure for opening a payment account with 
basic features in such a way that the exercise of that right is not excessively 
difficult or burdensome for the consumer. The bank shall open the payment 
account with basic features without undue delay, or at the latest 10 business days 
after receiving the consumer’s complete application for the opening of such a 
payment account’. 
(5) ‘The period laid down in the preceding paragraph shall also apply where 
the consumer’s application to open a payment account with basic features is 
rejected’. 
(6) ‘The bank shall refuse the consumer’s application for the opening of a 
payment account with basic features whenever opening such an account would 
result in an infringement of the provisions of the law governing the prevention 
of money laundering and terrorist financing. In such a case, the bank shall take 
measures in accordance with the law governing the area of countering money 
laundering and terrorist financing’. 
(8) ‘In the cases provided for in paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Article, the bank 
shall, after taking the decision to reject the application to open a payment account 
with basic features, inform the consumer without delay, in writing and free of 
charge, of the rejection of the application and of the specific reasons for refusing 
the application, except where this is prohibited under other provisions’. 
(9) ‘In the event of a refusal of the application to open a payment account with 
basic features, the bank shall inform the consumer of the remedies available 
against the rejection of his or her application, of the right to inform the Bank of 
Slovenia of such rejection, and of the right to initiate the out-of-court dispute 
resolution mechanism provided for in Article 286 of this Law. In this notice the 
bank shall also mention the appropriate contact details’. 
7 The Zakon o preprečevanju pranja denarja in financiranja terorizma (Law on the 
prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing) (the ‘ZPPDFT-2’ 7) 8 
 
7 Uradni list RS, No 48/22. 
8 That is the national legislative act transposing into Slovenian law 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), as last amended by Commission Delegated Regulation 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 1. 2024 – CASE C-81/24 
 
6  
defines measures, competent bodies and procedures for the detection and 
prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing, and governs the 
monitoring of the implementation of the provisions of that law (Article 1(1)). 
Article 2(1) of ZPPDFT-2 defines the concept of ‘money laundering’, for the 
purposes of that law, as follows: 
‘Money laundering means any conduct relating to sums of money or asset value 
obtained by means of a criminal offence, including: 
- exchange transactions or any type of transfer of money or of any other asset 
value deriving from a criminal offence; 
- acts aimed at concealing or disguising the true nature, origin, location, 
movements, availability, ownership or any rights relating to sums of money or 
other asset value deriving from a criminal offence’. 
Point 1 of Article 4(1) of the ZPPDFT-2 provides that banks are required to take 
measures to detect and prevent money laundering: 
‘Banks and their branches in Member States, branches of banks of third States 
and banks of Member States that establish a branch in the Republic of Slovenia 
shall take measures for the detection and prevention of money laundering and 
terrorist financing, as laid down in this law, before or upon the collection, 
delivery, exchange, safekeeping, disposition or any other conduct in relation to 
sums of money or other asset value, and upon entering into business 
relationships.’ 
Article 17 of the ZPPDFT-2 sets out the tasks related to the detection and 
prevention of money laundering: 
‘(1) In order to detect and prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, 
obliged entities shall ensure, in carrying out their activities, the fulfilment of the 
tasks laid down in this law and by the rules adopted on the basis of the latter. 
(2) The tasks laid down in the preceding paragraph shall include the following 
activities: 
1. drawing up an assessment of the risk of money laundering and terrorist 
financing; 
2. implementing policies, controls and procedures to effectively minimise and 
control the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing; 
      
(EU) 2019/758 of 31 January 2019 supplementing Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards for the minimum 
action and the type of additional measures credit and financial institutions must take to mitigate 
money laundering and terrorist financing risk in certain third countries (OJ 2019 L 125, p. 4) 
(‘Directive (EU) 2015/849’). 
JENEC 
 
7 
3. implementing “know your customer” measures (“customer monitoring”) in 
accordance with the methods and conditions laid down in this law; 
4. communicating the required and requested data and submitting 
documentation to the Office [of the Republic of Slovenia for the prevention 
of money laundering] on the basis of this law; 
5. appointing a representative (“representative”) and replacement 
representatives and creating the conditions necessary for their work; 
6. initiatives to ensure regular vocational training of employees and 
establishing regular internal controls on the performance of the tasks 
referred to in this law; 
7. drawing up a list of indicators for recognising customers and transactions 
for which there are grounds for suspecting money laundering or terrorist 
financing; 
8. ensuring protection and storage of data and keeping of registers required by 
this law; 
9. implementing group policies and procedures as well as measures aimed at 
detecting and preventing money laundering and terrorist financing in their 
branches and majority-owned subsidiaries in Member States and third 
countries; 
10. performing other tasks and obligations under this law and the rules adopted 
on the basis thereof’. 
Article 18 of the ZPPDFT-2 defines the risk of money laundering and terrorist 
financing and risk assessments: 
‘(1) The risk of money laundering and terrorist financing consists in the 
possibility that the customer exploits the financial system for the purpose of money 
laundering or terrorist financing, or directly or indirectly uses a business 
relationship, transaction, product, service or distribution channel, taking into 
account the geographical risk factor (State or geographic area), for the purposes 
of money laundering or terrorist financing. 
(2) The obliged entity shall assess the risk of a particular group or type of 
customer, business relationship, transaction, product, service or distribution 
channel and shall take into account geographical risk factors in relation to 
possible misuses for money laundering or terrorist financing purposes. 
(3) On the basis of the risks ascertained in accordance with the preceding 
paragraph, the obliged entity shall carry out an assessment of the inherent risks in 
its business activity (risk assessment of the obliged entity). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 1. 2024 – CASE C-81/24 
 
8  
(4) On the basis of the risks ascertained in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 
of this article, the obliged entity shall carry out a risk assessment by which it 
estimates the level of risk of the individual customer in relation to money 
laundering and terrorist financing (customer risk assessment). 
(5) Obliged entities that have branches and majority-owned subsidiaries in 
Member States and third countries shall also draw up a group risk assessment, 
taking into account the risks to which their branches and majority-owned 
subsidiaries, as well as the group as a whole, are exposed (group risk 
assessment). 
(6) The risk assessment and the procedure for determining the risk assessment 
referred to in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this article shall reflect the particular 
characteristics of the obliged entity and its business activity. 
(7) The obliged entity shall prepare the risk assessment referred to in 
paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this article in accordance with the guidelines issued 
by the competent supervisory body referred to in Article 152(1) of this law in 
accordance with its powers, and taking into account the report containing the 
findings of the national risk assessment and the supranational risk assessment. 
(8) The findings resulting from the risk assessment referred to in paragraphs 2, 
3, 4 and 5 of this article shall be documented by the obliged entity and updated by 
it at least every two years. The documented findings shall be made available to the 
competent supervisory bodies referred to in Article 152(1) of this law upon their 
request. 
(9) The obliged entity shall, with regard to significant changes in its commercial 
processes, such as the introduction of a new product, a new commercial practice, 
including new distribution channels, the introduction of a new technology for new 
and existing products or organisational changes, carry out an appropriate 
assessment of how those changes affect the exposure of that obliged entity to the 
risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. 
(10) The obliged entity shall carry out the risk assessment referred to in the 
preceding paragraph before the introduction of a change under that paragraph 
and, in accordance with the findings made, shall take appropriate measures to 
reduce the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing’. 
Article 21 of the ZZPPDFT-2 lays down customer monitoring measures: 
‘(1) In so far as this law does not provide otherwise, the monitoring of the 
customer shall include the following measures: 
1. verifying the customer’s identity and verifying his or her identity on the 
basis of reliable, independent and objective sources; 
2. verifying the actual owner of the customer [legal person]; 
JENEC 
 
9 
3. collecting data on the purposes and intended nature of the commercial 
relationship or transaction as well as other data within the meaning of this law; 
4. regularly and diligently monitoring the commercial activities which the 
customer carries out with the obliged entity. 
(5) in determining the scope that the implementation of the measures referred to 
in the preceding paragraph must have, the obliged entity shall take into account at 
least: 
- the purpose of entering into the business relationship and its nature, 
- the amount of resources, the value of the assets or the scope of the 
transaction, 
- the duration of the business relationship and the appropriateness of the 
commercial activity in relation to the purpose of entering into the business 
relationship’. 
Article 22 of the ZZPPDFT-2 provides that the obliged entity must carry out the 
monitoring of the customer at the time of entering into the business relationship 
with the customer. 
Article 29 of the ZZPPDFT-2 sets out the detailed rules for establishing and 
verifying the customer’s identity: 
‘(1) The obliged entity, as regards the customer who is a natural person […], 
shall establish and verify his or her identity and collect the data referred to in 
point 2 of Article 150(1) of this law by examining the personal identity document 
of the customer in his or her presence. If it is not possible to obtain all the data 
required from this document, the missing data shall be taken from another valid 
official document presented by the customer or shall be provided directly by the 
customer. 
(3) If, in establishing and verifying the customer’s identity within the meaning of 
this article, the obliged entity has doubts as to the veracity of the data obtained or 
the reliability of the documents and other business records from which the data 
was obtained, it shall also request a written declaration from the customer.’ 
Article 64 of the ZZPPDFT-2 establishes additional measures for enhanced 
customer monitoring: 
‘(1) Enhanced monitoring of the customer shall include, in addition to the 
measures provided for in Article 21(1) of this law, additional measures, which 
under this law apply: 
1. in the event of entering into a current account relationship with a bank or 
another similar credit institution established in a third State; 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 1. 2024 – CASE C-81/24 
 
10  
2. in the event of entering into a business relationship or carrying out a 
transaction within the meaning of points 2 and 3 of Article 22(1) and Article 23 of 
this law with a customer who is a politically exposed person within the meaning of 
Article 66 of this law; 
3. where the eligible persons of a life insurance or a life insurance related to 
units of investment funds, and the beneficial owners of an eligible person are 
politically exposed persons within the meaning of Article 68 of this law; 
4. where the customer or transaction is related to a high-risk third country. 
(2) The obliged entity shall carry out enhanced monitoring of the customer in 
the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph and to the extent that: 
1. within the meaning of Article 19(2) of this law, it considers that the 
customer, business relationship, transaction, product, service, country or 
geographical scope involves an increased risk of money laundering or terrorist 
financing, or 
2. an increased risk of money laundering or terrorist financing is entailed, 
within the meaning of point 2 of Article 14(2) of this law, and of the rule laid 
down in Article 14(4) of this law. 
(3) When determining the customers, business relationships, transactions, 
products, services, distribution channels, countries or geographical areas for 
which it considers that there is an increased risk of money laundering or terrorist 
financing, the obliged entity shall take into account the increased-risk factors 
established by the Minister. 
(4) When determining the enhanced customer monitoring measures, the obliged 
entities shall take into account the guidelines of the supervisory bodies referred to 
in Article 152(1) of this law relating to risk factors and measures that may be 
taken in such cases’. 
Grounds of the reference for a preliminary ruling 
8 Article 16(1) of Directive 2014/92/EU establishes the obligation of the Member 
States to ensure that all credit institutions or a sufficient number of credit 
institutions offer consumers payment accounts with basic features and to 
guarantee in their territory access to such accounts for all consumers; 
Article 16(2), for its part, establishes that Member States are required to ensure 
that consumers legally resident in the European Union have the right to open and 
use a payment account with basic features with credit institutions located within 
their territory. This ensures the right of consumers to a payment account with 
basic features. That right is admittedly limited by a legitimate aim, which is to 
prevent the misuse of such an account for the purposes of money laundering or 
terrorist financing, which is why Member States must, pursuant to Article 16(4) of 
JENEC 
 
11 
Directive 2014/92/EU, ensure that banks refuse applications for a payment 
account with basic features whenever opening such an account constitutes an 
infringement of the rules on the prevention of money laundering and terrorist 
financing laid down in Directive (EU) 2015/849. 
9 The referring court is uncertain as to whether the opening of a transaction account 
in the name of a customer who is included in the OFAC list of restrictive 
measures would constitute an infringement of the rules on the prevention of 
money laundering and terrorist financing laid down in Directive (EU) 2015/849, 
especially where that person has never been definitively convicted anywhere of 
the offence for which he is included in that list and where no restrictive measures 
of any kind have been taken against that person at national level, at EU level or at 
the level of an international organisation of which the State concerned or the 
European Union is a member. Indeed, the aim of Directive (EU) 2015/849 is to 
prevent the use of the European Union’s financial system for the purposes of 
money laundering and terrorist financing (Article 1), so Member States must 
ensure that money laundering and terrorist financing are prohibited (Article 2). 
Directive (EU) 2015/849 provides that banks are obliged, when establishing a 
business relationship, to implement verification measures (verifying the identity of 
customers, verifying the origin of funds and of data on the purpose and nature of 
commercial transactions), but it is by no means established that inclusion in the 
OFAC list of restrictive measures is to be taken into account in that context. Even 
if the fact that a person is included in such a list would constitute a special 
circumstance that would justify enhanced vigilance on account of the increased 
risk, it is not clear whether such a person should be denied the opening of a 
transaction account. In the event that the opening of a payment account with basic 
features for the benefit of such a person would constitute an infringement of 
Directive (EU) 2015/849, that would therefore constitute an exception to the right 
of access to such a payment account under Article 16(4) of Directive 2014/92/EU. 
In that context, the question arises as to whether such a rule constitutes an 
infringement of the right to the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 48 
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, also in the light of 
the fact that recital 65 of Directive (EU) 2015/849 states that that directive 
respects the right to the presumption of innocence. 
Questions for a preliminary ruling 
10 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Local Court, Maribor, refers the 
following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a 
preliminary ruling: 
(1) Does Article 16(4) of Directive 2014/92/EU permit Member States to 
require banks to refuse a consumer’s application for a payment account 
with basic features, on the ground that that consumer is included in the 
OFAC list – a list of the United States Department of the Treasury, 
Office of Foreign Assets Control – in that opening such an account 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 1. 2024 – CASE C-81/24 
 
12  
would constitute an infringement of the rules on the prevention of 
money laundering and terrorist financing laid down in Directive (EU) 
2015/849? 
(2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative: is there an exception 
where that consumer has never been convicted anywhere in the world 
of the offence for which he or she is included in the abovementioned 
list, and/or where no restrictive measures of any kind have been taken 
against that consumer by the Member State concerned, the European 
Union or any other international organisation of which the Member 
State concerned or the European Union is a member? 
(3) Does an answer in the affirmative to the first question mean non-
compliance with Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union which establishes the right to the presumption of 
innocence? 
(4) Does an answer in the negative to the second question mean non-
compliance with Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union which establishes the right to the presumption of 
innocence?