56

In those circumstances the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Provincial Court, Barcelona) decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) On the interpretation of Article 11(1) of [the Money Laundering Directive]: (a) If this provision is read in conjunction with Article 7 of that directive, was it the EU legislature’s intention to establish a genuine derogation from the possibility that credit institutions may adopt due diligence measures when their customers are themselves payment institutions in turn subject to their own supervision system, or is it simply an authorisation to derogate? (b) If this provision is read in conjunction with Article 5 of that directive, may the national legislature transpose the derogation laid down in the provision concerned in terms other than the actual wording thereof? (c) Does the derogation contained in Article 11(1) apply to enhanced due diligence measures too in the same terms as it applies to due diligence measures? (2) In the alternative, should the reply to the above questions confirm that credit institutions may adopt due diligence measures and enhanced due diligence measures in relation to payment institutions: (a) How far does the possibility that credit institutions may supervise the operations of payment institutions extend? Can they be deemed to be authorised under the provisions of [the Money Laundering Directive] to supervise the due diligence procedures and measures adopted in turn by payment institutions or does that power belong exclusively to the public institutions referred to in [the Payment Services Directive], in the present case, the Banco de España (Bank of Spain)? (b) Does the application of that right of credit institutions to adopt measures require any special justification that may be deduced from the acts of the payment institution or may those measures instead be adopted generally, simply on account of the fact that the payment institution carries out a risky activity such as the sending of remittances abroad? (c) If it is held that a specific justification is required in order for credit institutions to be able to adopt due diligence measures in relation to payment institutions: (i) What is the relevant conduct that a bank must bear in mind for the purposes of adopting due diligence measures? (ii) Can a credit institution be considered authorised to assess, for that purpose, the due diligence measures which a payment institution applies in its procedures? (iii) Does the exercise of that power require the bank to have identified in a payment institution’s operations conduct leading it to suspect collaboration in money laundering activities or in terrorist financing? (3) In addition, if it should be held that credit institutions are authorised to adopt enhanced due diligence measures in relation to payment institutions: (a) Is it acceptable that those measures may include a measure requiring payment institutions to provide identification data for all their customers from whom the funds remitted originate, and the identities of the recipients? (b) Is the obligation of payment institutions to provide their customers’ data to credit institutions with which they are forced to operate and with which they also compete on the market compatible with [the Personal Data Directive]?’