Letter from Yves Mersch, Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB), to Maria Elisabetta Alberti Casellati, President of the Senate of the Italian Republic, Roberto Fico, President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, and Roberto Gualtieri, Italian Minister for Economy and Finance, requesting that the ECB be consulted on the legislation setting out a new threshold for cash payments
Date: 2019-12-13
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: money

Yves Mersch  
Member of the Executive Board 

President Maria Elisabetta Alberti Casellati 
Senate of the Republic 
Piazza Madama 
00186 Rome 
Italy 

President Roberto Fico 
Chamber of Deputies 
Piazza Montecitorio 
00186 Rome 
Italy 

Mr Roberto Gualtieri 
Minister for Economy and Finance 
Cabinet of the Minister 
Via XX Settembre,  
00100 Rome 
Italy 

Dear Presidents, 

Dear Minister, 

ECB-PUBLIC 

[COURTESY TRANSLATION1] 

13 December 2019 

By this letter the European Central Bank (ECB) requests to be consulted on the Italian Law about to be 

adopted, converting the Decree Law No 124 of 26 October 2019 on urgent fiscal matters and other urgent 

needs (hereinafter, the ‘Decree Law’), that was published in the Italian Official Gazette No 252 dated 26 
October 2019 and entered into force on 27 October 20192. In particular, Article 18 of the Decree Law sets 

out a new threshold for cash payments (currently EUR 3 000), setting the limit at EUR 2 000 from 1 July 

2020 until 31 December 2021, reduced further to EUR 1 000 starting from 1 January 2022.  

In this context, the minimum penalty for money transfers exceeding the legal limit (equal to EUR 3 000 

before the changes introduced by the Decree Law) is now equal to the new maximum amount allowed by 

the law (i.e. EUR 2 000 for breaches committed and challenged from 1 July 2020 to 31 December 2021 

and EUR 1 000 for breaches committed and challenged from 1 January 2022).  

In accordance  with Articles 127(4) and  282(5)  of the Treaty on  the Functioning  of the European Union, 
Recital  19  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  974/983  and  the  second  indent  of  Article  2(1)  of  Council 

1  
2  
3  

The official ECB letter is addressed in the official language of the Member State concerned. 

Decreto-Legge 26 ottobre 2019, n. 124. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (OJ L 139, 11.5.1998, p. 1). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

Decision 98/415/EC4, national authorities are required to consult the ECB on draft legislative provisions in 

its fields of competence, including, in particular, on means of payment. 

Moreover, in relation to the limitation on cash payments, the ECB would like to draw attention to the letter 

sent to the Italian Minister for Economy and Finance in November 2012 on Law No 214 of 22 December 

2011, converting into Law the Decree Law No 210 of 6 December 2011, and Law No 44 of 26 April 2012, 

converting into Law the Decree Law No 16 of 2 March 2012, which entered into force on 28 December 

2011 and 29 April 2012 respectively, which asserted the ECB’s advisory competence pursuant to Article 

2(1) of Decision  98/415/EC in relation to the introduction of limitations on cash payments above EUR 1 

000 (Article 12 of Decree Law No 210  of 6 December 2011) and certain derogations to such limitations 

(Article  3  of  Decree  Law  No  16  of  2 March  2012),  and  also  invited  the  Italian  authorities  to  consult  the 

ECB  in  the  future,  in  particular  in  the  event  of  further  legislative  work  initiated  in  relation  to  the  issues 

regulated by the above-specified decree laws.  

The ECB understands that the legislative process for the conversion into law of the Decree Law is at an 

advanced  stage.  Nevertheless,  the  ECB  requests  to  be  consulted  in  light  of  its  competence  to  be 

consulted under the Treaty.  

In this respect, the ECB wishes to draw your attention to a number of opinions adopted by the ECB on 

cash limitations in other Member States, including, in particular, Greece and Spain, as further described 
below5. In these opinions the ECB set out the following considerations with regards to limitations on cash 

payments. 

First,  Commission  Recommendation  2010/191/EU6  states  that  the  acceptance  of  payments  in  cash 

should  be  the  rule,  but  acknowledges  that  cash  may  be  refused  for  reasons  related  to  the  ‘good  faith 

principle’,  without  this  constituting  a  breach  of  the  legal  tender  status  of  cash.  Neither  Union  law  nor 

Commission Recommendation 2010/191/EU explicitly addresses whether, nor to  what extent, it may be 

permissible  to  introduce  a  more  general  limitation  to  the  obligation  to  accept  euro  cash  payments. 

Therefore, Union law must be interpreted in order to ascertain the conditions that a limitation on payments 

in  euro  notes  and  coins  should  fulfil,  including  the  conditions  that  should  be  fulfilled  to  comply  with  the 

legal tender status of euro banknotes and coins when general limitations to the obligation to accept cash 
payments are introduced7.  

Second,  any  limitation  on  cash  payments  needs  to  comply  with  the  legal  tender  status  of  euro 
banknotes8.  In  this  context,  recital  19  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  974/989,  which  states  that  ‘limitations  on 

payments in notes and coins, established by Member States for public reasons, are not incompatible with 

the  status  of  legal  tender  of  euro  banknotes  and  coins,  provided  that  other  lawful  means  for  the 

4  

5  

6  

7  

8  

9  

Council  Decision  98/415/EC  of  29  June  1998  on  the  consultation  of  the  European  Central  Bank  by  national 
authorities regarding draft legislative provisions (OJ L 189, 3.7.1998, p. 42). 
See  Opinion  CON/2019/39  and  Opinion  CON/2019/4.  All  ECB  opinions  are  available  on  the  ECB’s  website  at 
www.ecb.europa.eu. 

Commission  Recommendation  2010/191/EU  of  22  March  2010  on  the  scope  and  effects  of  legal  tender  of  euro 
banknotes and coins (OJ L 83, 30.3.2010, p 70). 
See  paragraph  2.1  of  Opinion  CON/2017/18,  paragraph  3.1  of  Opinion  CON/2017/20,  paragraph  2.3  of  Opinion 
CON/2017/27, paragraph 2.2 of Opinion CON/2017/40, paragraph 2.2 of Opinion CON/2019/04. 
See  also  paragraph  2.4  of  Opinion  CON/2017/18,  paragraph  2.5  of  Opinion  CON/2017/40  and  paragraph  2.3  of 
Opinion CON/2019/04. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (OJ L 139, 11.5.1998, p. 1). 

2 

                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

settlement  of  monetary  debts  are  available’10,  has  been  taken  into  account  in  previous  ECB  opinions 

considering the introduction of cash limitations under draft national laws.  

Third,  while  lawful  means  for  the  settlement  of  monetary  debts  other  than  cash  payments  may  be 
generally available in a Member State11, their availability across all parts of society, at comparable costs 

to cash  payments, should  be closely verified  by  the relevant national  authorities. This is because these 

other means may have different characteristics compared to cash payments and hence may not be fully 

equivalent  alternatives.  In  this  respect,  the  ECB  notes  that  Directive  2014/92/EU  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council12 has made it easier for Union consumers to obtain payment accounts and 
related electronic payment services as alternatives to cash13.  

Fourth,  limitations  on  cash  payments  need  to  comply  with  the  legal  tender  status  of  euro  banknotes 

enshrined in Articles 128(1) and 282(3) of the Treaty. Therefore, it would need to be demonstrated that 

the  proposed  cash  payment  limitations  affecting  the  legal  tender  status  of  euro  banknotes  would  be 

effective  as regards the achievement of the public  objectives that are  being legitimately pursued  by  the 

limitations. Hence, there should be clear evidence that such limitations are likely, in fact, to achieve the 

stated public goal of combating tax evasion.  

Fifth,  direct  or  indirect  limitations  on  cash  payments  should  also  be  proportionate  to  the  objectives 

pursued and should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve such objectives. Any adverse impact of 

the  proposed  limitations  should  therefore  be  carefully  weighed  against  the  anticipated  public  benefits. 

When  considering  whether  a  limitation  is  proportionate,  the  adverse  impact  of  the  limitation  in  question 

should always be considered, as well as whether alternative measures could be adopted that would fulfil 
the relevant objective and have a less adverse impact14. 

Sixth, the ability to pay in cash remains particularly important for certain groups in society that, for various 

legitimate  reasons,  prefer  to  use  cash  rather  than  other  payment  instruments.  Cash  is  generally  also 

appreciated as a payment instrument because it is, as legal tender, widely accepted, fast and facilitates 

control  over  the  payer’s  spending.  Moreover,  it  is  a  means  of  payment  that  allows  citizens  to  instantly 

settle a transaction and is the only method of settlement in central bank money and at face value which 

does  not  carry  the  legal  possibility  of  imposing  a  fee  for  the  use  thereof.  Also,  cash  payments  do  not 

require  a  functional  technical  infrastructure  and  related  investment,  and  are  always  available;  this  is  of 

10  
11  
12  

See, for example, Opinions CON/2013/18, CON/2014/4 and CON/2014/37. 
See paragraph 2.1 of Opinion CON/2012/33 and paragraph 3.1 of Opinion CON/2010/36. 
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 L 
257, 28.8.2014, p. 214). 

13   Within the framework previously created by Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
13  November  2007  on  payment  services  in  the  internal  market  amending  Directives  97/7/EC,  2002/65/EC, 
2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ L 319, 5.12.2007, p. 1), which introduced the legal 
basis for the creation of an internal market for payments within the Union and allowed for the creation of the Single 
Euro Payments Area (SEPA) (the Payment Services Directive 1). The Payment Services Directive 1 has been since 
replaced by Directive 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment 
services  in  the  internal  market,  amending  Directives  2002/65/EC,  2009/110/EC  and  2013/36/EU  and  Regulation 
(EU)  No  1093/2010,  and  repealing  Directive  2007/64/EC  (OJ  L  337,  23.12.2015,  p.  35)  (the  Payment  Services 
Directive 2). 
See, for example, paragraph 2.3 of Opinion CON/2014/4, paragraph 2.3 of Opinion CON/2014/37, paragraphs 2.6 
and  2.7  of  Opinion  CON/2017/8,  paragraphs  2.5  and  2.6  of  Opinion  CON/2017/18,  paragraph  3.3  of  Opinion 
CON/2017/20, paragraph 2.7 of Opinion CON/2017/27, paragraph 2.6 of Opinion CON/2017/40 and paragraph 2.5 
of Opinion CON/2019/04. 

14  

3 

                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

particular  relevance in the  case of outage  of electronic payments. Additionally, cash payments facilitate 

the  inclusion  of  the  entire  population  in  the  economy  by  allowing  it  to  settle  any  kind  of  financial 
transaction in this way15.  

Seventh, Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council16, while confirming the 

vulnerability  of  large  cash  payments  to  money  laundering  and  terrorist  financing,  requires  that  persons 

trading  in  goods,  who  are  otherwise  not  obliged  entities  under  that  Directive,  be  classified  as  obliged 

entities  and  apply  customer  due  diligence  measures  only  to  the  extent  that  payments  are  made  or 

received  in  cash  in  amounts  of  EUR  10  000  or  more.  This  implies  that  the  draft  law  should  establish  a 
proportionate threshold for limits on cash payments, taking into account the objectives of such limits17. 

With  regard  to  the  threshold  of  cash  payments,  the  ECB  has,  in  particular,  advised  the  Greek  and 

Spanish authorities as follows:  

Greece:  the  ECB  considered  that  the  existing  limit  on  cash  payments  of  EUR  500  for  consumer-to-

business  transactions  is  disproportionate  in  the  light  of  the  potentially  adverse  impact  on  the  cash 

payment  system.  Accordingly,  the  ECB  advised  that  where  the  legislator  wishes  to  preserve  cash 

payment limitations, higher thresholds should be chosen and a degree of flexibility should be introduced 
in the draft amendments18. 

Spain: the ECB considered the lowering of the limit on cash payments in transactions where the payer is 

acting  in  a  professional  or  business  capacity  to  EUR  1  000  to  be  disproportionate,  in  the  light  of  the 

potentially adverse impact on the cash payment system. The ECB further stated that the proposed limit 

makes  it  more  difficult  to  settle  legitimate  transactions  using  cash  as  a  means  of  payment,  thus 
endangering the concept of legal tender enshrined in the Treaty19. 

In addition to the above, please note that on 5 December 2019 the ECB was consulted by the Minister of 

Finance of the Netherlands on a draft law containing a ban on cash payments upwards of EUR 3 000 for 

persons trading in goods. The main elements of the draft law are as follows:  

(a) 

The draft law prohibits anyone who buys or sells goods in a professional or corporate capacity from 

making or accepting a cash payment of EUR 3 000 or more. 

(b) 

The draft law is part of an action plan to prevent money laundering. According to the Explanatory 

Memorandum accompanying the draft law, cash plays a major part in money laundering since its 

origins are hard to trace. 

(c) 

The draft law does not apply to consumers. 

15  

16  

17  

18  
19  

See  paragraph  2.6  of  Opinion  CON/2017/18,  paragraph  3.4  of  Opinion  CON/2017/20,  paragraph  2.8  of  Opinion 
CON/2017/27, paragraph 2.7 of Opinion CON/2017/40, paragraph 2.6 of Opinion CON/2019/04. 
Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 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 L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73). 

See, for example, paragraph 3.2 of Opinion CON/2017/18, paragraph 2.10 of Opinion CON/2017/27 and paragraph 
3.2 of Opinion CON/2019/04. 

See paragraph 2.10 of Opinion CON/2019/39. 
See paragraph 3.2 of Opinion CON/2019/4. 

4 

 
                                                 
The ECB would appreciate the Italian authorities giving due consideration to the above observations by 

consulting the ECB, before the Decree Law is converted. 

ECB-PUBLIC 

Yours sincerely, 

[signed] 

Cc: 

Mr Ignazio Visco, Banca d’Italia 

Mr P. Gentiloni, Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs  

Mr L. Romero Requena, Director-General Legal Service, European Commission  

Encl. 

Guide to consultation of the ECB by national authorities regarding draft legislative provisions 

5