Opinion of the European Central Bank of 30 May 2023 on increasing a cash payment limit (CON/2023/13)
Date: 2023-05-30
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: money

EN 

ECB-PUBLIC 

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK 

of 30 May 2023 

on increasing a cash payment limit  

(CON/2023/13) 

Introduction and legal basis 

On 19 April 2023 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the Chairman of the Financial 

and  Budgetary Committee  of the National  Council of the  Slovak Republic, for  an opinion on a draft law 

amending Law No 394/2012 on restricting cash payments1 (hereinafter the ‘draft law’).   

The ECB’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on Articles 127(4) and 282(5) of the Treaty on the 

Functioning of the European Union and the second indent of Article 2(1) of Council Decision 98/415/EC 2, 

as the draft law relates to means of payment. In accordance with the first sentence of Article 17.5 of the 

Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank, the Governing Council has adopted this opinion. 

1. 

Purpose of the draft law 

Law No 394/2012 on restricting cash payments 3 prohibits: (a) cash payments in excess of EUR 5 000 by 

or from legal persons or natural persons who are entrepreneurs; and (b) cash payments in excess of EUR 

15 000 between natural persons who are not entrepreneurs. The draft law amends Law No 394/2012 on 

restricting cash payments by applying a uniform restriction of EUR 15 000 for cash payments by or from all 

legal and natural persons, thus effectively increasing the amount permitted to be settled in cash from EUR 

5 000 to EUR 15 000 for both legal persons and natural persons who are entrepreneurs. 

2. 

General observations 

2.1  Cash plays an important role in society. Cash is generally useful as a payment instrument because 

it is legal tender, widely accepted, fast and facilitates control over the payer’s spending. Moreover, it 

is  the  only  payment  instrument  that  allows  citizens  to  settle  a  transaction  in  central  bank  money, 

which is also settled instantly, while ensuring privacy 4. In addition, 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,  or  do  not  have  access  to  the  banking  system  and 

electronic means of payments. These groups include not only elderly people, but also some disabled 

1  
2   

3  
4  

Návrh zákona ktorým sa mení zákon č. 394/2012 Z. z. o obmedzení platieb v hotovosti. 

Council Decision 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). 

Zákon č. 394/2012 Z. z. z 29, novembra 2012 o obmedzení platieb v hotovosti. 
See  paragraph  2.4  of  Opinion  CON/2017/8;  paragraph  2.1  of  Opinion  CON/2019/41;  paragraph  9.2.1  of  Opinion 
CON/2020/13;  paragraph  2.3  of  Opinion  CON/2020/21;  paragraph  7.2.1  of  Opinion  CON/2021/9;  paragraph  2.1  of 
CON/2021/18 and paragraph 2.1 of CON/2023/7. All ECB opinions are published on EUR-Lex.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
ECB-PUBLIC 

citizens,  immigrants,  socially  vulnerable  citizens,  minors,  and  others  with  limited  or  no  access  to 

digital  payment  services 5.  Against  this  backdrop,  the  ECB  closely  monitors  any  national  law 

developments that aim to limit cash payment possibilities for natural or legal persons and thereby 

interfere with citizens' right to pay in cash. 

2.2  Under the Treaty, the European System of Central Banks has the basic task of promoting the smooth 

operation of payment systems6, and the ECB has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of euro 

banknotes within the Union7. The euro banknotes issued by the ECB and the national central banks 

of the euro area are the only banknotes with legal tender status within the euro area 8. 

2.3  The  concept  of  ‘legal  tender’  of  a  means  of  payment  denominated  in  a  currency  unit  has  been 

considered by the Court of Justice of the European Union. In particular, the Court has clarified that 

the concept of ‘legal tender’ signifies that this specific means of payment cannot generally be refused 

in settlement of a debt, denominated in the same currency unit at its full face value, with the effect of 

discharging the debt. In clarifying the concept of ‘legal tender’ under Union law, the Court has taken 

into  consideration  Commission  Recommendation  2010/191  of  22  March  2010  on  the  scope  and 

effects  of  legal  tender  of  euro  banknotes  and  coins 9,  which  provides  useful  guidance  for  the 

interpretation of the relevant provisions of Union law. Point 1 of Recommendation 2010/191 states 

that, where a payment obligation exists, the legal tender of euro banknotes and coins should imply: 

(i) mandatory acceptance of those banknotes and coins; (ii) their acceptance at full face value; and 

(iii) their power to discharge from payment obligations. According to the Court, this shows that the 

concept of ‘legal tender’ encompasses, inter alia, an obligation in principle to accept banknotes and 

coins denominated in euro for payment purposes 10.  

2.4 

Insofar as it allows the Union legislature to lay down the measures necessary for the use of the euro 

as  the  single  currency,  the  Court  clarified  that  Article  133  of  the  Treaty  empowers  the  Union 

legislature alone to specify the legal rules governing the status of legal tender accorded to banknotes 

and coins denominated in  euro, insofar as that is necessary for the use of the euro as the  single 

currency. Such exclusive competence precludes any competence on the part of the Member States 

in the matter, unless they have been empowered by the Union to do so or for the implementation of 

Union acts 11. 

2.5  However, the Court further clarified that the status of legal tender calls only for acceptance in principle 

of banknotes and coins denominated in euro as a means of payment, not for absolute acceptance. 

The  Union’s  exclusive  competence  in  matters  of  monetary  policy  is  without  prejudice  to  the 

competence of the Member States whose currency is the euro to regulate the procedures for settling 

pecuniary obligations, which do not affect the principle that, as a general rule, it must be possible to 

5  
6  

7  
8  
9  
10  

11  

See paragraph 1.5 of Opinion CON/2019/41; and paragraph 2.1 of CON/2023/7. 
Article 127(2) of the Treaty and Article 3.1 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European 
Central Bank (hereinafter the ‘Statute of the ESCB’). 
First sentence of Article 128(1) of the Treaty and first sentence of Article 16 of the Statute of the ESCB.  

Third sentence of Article 128(1) of the Treaty and third sentence of Article 16 of the Statute of the ESCB.  
OJ L 83, 30.3.2010, p. 70. 

See  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  26  January  2021,  Hessischer  Rundfunk,  C-422/19  and  C-423/19, 
ECLI:EU:C:2021:63, paragraphs 46 to 49. 
See  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  26  January  2021,  Hessischer  Rundfunk,  C-422/19  and  C-423/19, 
ECLI:EU:C:2021:63, paragraphs 50 to 52.  

2 

 
ECB-PUBLIC 

discharge  a  payment  obligation  in  cash.  Thus,  that  exclusive  competence  does  not  prevent  a 

Member State from adopting a measure falling within one of the Member State’s competences; for 

instance,  a  Member  State  may,  based  on  its  competence  to  regulate  administrative  procedures, 

oblige  the  public  administration  to  accept  cash  payments  from  citizens.  Neither  does  it  prevent  a 

Member  State,  in  the  exercise  of  its  own  powers,  from  introducing,  on  legitimate  public  interest 

grounds, a derogation from that obligation for statutorily imposed payments, subject to compliance 

with  certain  conditions.  In  particular,  the  obligation  to  accept  euro  banknotes  and  coins  may,  in 

principle, be restricted by the Member States for reasons of public interest and subject to the principle 

of proportionality. This means that any such restrictions must be proportionate to the public interest 

objective pursued. When limiting the possibility, recognised by Union law, of generally discharging a 

payment obligation in banknotes and coins denominated in euro, Member States must ensure that 

any measures comply with the principle of proportionality, which requires in particular that they are 

appropriate for achieving the legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation at issue and do not go 

beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives12.  

2.6  The Court has established that restrictions of the legal tender status of euro banknotes in particular 

require that the legislation: (i) does not have the object or effect of establishing legal rules governing 

the status of legal tender of euro banknotes; (ii) does not lead, in law or in fact, to abolition of those 

banknotes, in particular by calling into question the possibility, as a general rule, of discharging a 

payment obligation in cash; (iii) has been adopted for reasons of public interest; (iv) only entails a 

limitation on payments in cash that is appropriate for attaining the public interest objective pursued; 

and (v) only entails a limitation on payments in cash that does not go beyond what is necessary in 

order to achieve the public interest objective pursued13. 

2.7  Regarding the proportionality of a restriction of the legal tender status of euro banknotes, the Court 

requires not only that the measure is appropriate for attaining the public interest objective pursued, 

but also that it must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective. The ECB 

has  undertaken  additional  reflection  in  its  opinions  with  respect  to  whether  limitations  may  be 

considered proportionate 14. In particular, the ECB has noted that the broader and more general a 

limitation  is,  the  stricter  should  be  the  interpretation  of  the  requirement  for  the  limitation  to  be 

proportionate to the objective pursued. When considering whether a limitation is proportionate, the 

adverse impact of the limitation in question and whether alternative measures could be adopted that 

would fulfil the relevant objective with a less adverse impact should always be considered 15. 

3. 

Specific observations 

3.1  The draft law, similarly to Law No 394/2012 on restricting cash payments, has neither the objective 

nor the effect of amending the legal rules governing the status of legal tender of euro banknotes or 

12  

13  

14  

15  

See  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  26  January  2021,  Hessischer  Rundfunk,  C-422/19  and  C-423/19, 
ECLI:EU:C:2021:63, paragraphs 55 to 56 and 67 to 70. 

See  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  26  January  2021,  Hessischer  Rundfunk,  C-422/19  and  C-423/19, 
ECLI:EU:C:2021:63, paragraph 78.  

See  paragraph  4  of  Opinion  CON/2022/5  of  the  European  Central  Bank  of  16 February  2022  on  a  proposal  for  a 
directive and a regulation on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or 
terrorist financing (OJ, OJ C 210, 25.5.2022, p. 15). 

See paragraph 2.7 of Opinion CON/2017/8.  

3 

 
 
ECB-PUBLIC 

coins. Given that the draft law materially broadens the legal use of cash, it does not, of course, lead, 

in law or in fact, to the abolition of euro banknotes in the Slovak Republic 16. 

3.2  The draft law was adopted for reasons of public interest. Firstly, Law No 394/2012 on restricting cash 

payments aims at combating tax fraud and evasion17. Secondly, the explanatory memorandum to 

the  draft  law  reflects  on  the  effectiveness  of  Law  No  394/2012  on  restricting  cash  payments  in 

achieving  these  aims,  noting  that  these  declared  objectives  were  not  achieved 18.  Thirdly,  by 

increasing from EUR 5 000 to EUR 15 000 the permitted amount to be settled in cash by or from 

legal persons or natural persons who are entrepreneurs, the draft law aims at reflecting the increase 

in wage and price levels since 2013 and to set one uniform threshold19.  

3.3  Regarding the proportionality of the draft law, the threshold of EUR 15 000 introduced by the draft 

law does not seem to go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objective of combatting 

tax  fraud  and  evasion.  The  increased  limit  seems  to  be  more  aligned  with  the  fact  that  Law 

No 394/2012 on restricting cash payments imposes a general limitation on cash payments 20.  

3.4  The ECB notes, however, that Article 11(c) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament 

and of the Council21 requires Member States to ensure that persons trading in goods apply customer 

due  diligence  measures when carrying out occasional transactions  in cash  amounting to EUR 10 

000 or more. Furthermore, a Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and 

the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering 

or  terrorist  financing22  (hereinafter  the  ‘proposed  AML  Regulation’)  proposes  to  introduce  a 

prohibition on persons trading in goods and providing services who accept or make payments in cash 

exceeding EUR 10 000 or the equivalent amount in other currencies. The proposed AML Regulation 

also proposes to allow Member States to retain lower limits or, following a consultation of the ECB, 

adopt lower limits. It follows that, if the proposed AML Regulation is adopted in its current form, the 

Slovak authorities would have to either abolish the common limit or adjust the common limit proposed 

by the draft law so that it is below the limit imposed by the AML Regulation.  

This opinion will be published on EUR-Lex.  

16 
17  

18  
19  
20 

21  

22 

See paragraph 4.6 of Opinion CON/2022/5.  
See third paragraph of the general part of the explanatory memorandum to the draft law and paragraph 1.1 of Opinion 
CON/2012/83.  

See fourth and fifth paragraphs of the general part of the explanatory memorandum to the draft law.  
See sixth paragraph of the general part of the explanatory memorandum to the draft law.  

See paragraph 4.8 of Opinion CON/2022/5 in which the ECB notes that the broader and more general the limitation, 
the stricter the interpretation of the requirement for the limitation to be proportionate to the objective pursued should 
be.  
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 L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73). 
COM(2021) 420 final.  

4 

 
 
 
 
Done at Frankfurt am Main, 30 May 2023. 

[signed] 

The President of the ECB 

Christine LAGARDE 

ECB-PUBLIC 

5