Opinion of the European Central Bank of 6 December 2023 on excluding the possibility of purchasing real estate with cash and expanding tax disincentives for the use of cash CON/2023/39 (CON/2023/39)
Date: 2023-12-06
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: legal basis

EN 

ECB-PUBLIC 

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK 

of 6 December 2023  

on excluding the possibility of purchasing real estate with cash and expanding tax disincentives 

for the use of cash  

(CON/2023/39) 

Introduction and legal basis 

On  27  October  2023  the  European  Central  Bank  (ECB)  received  a  request  from  the  Greek  Ministry  of 

Finance for an opinion on certain draft amendments to existing tax legislation that (1) exclude the possibility 

of purchasing real estate property by paying in cash (hereinafter the ‘first draft amendment’); and (2) further 

expand already existing tax disincentives for the use of cash (hereinafter the ‘second draft amendment’), 

together referred to as the ‘draft amendments’.  

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/EC1, 

as the draft amendments relate to means of payment. In accordance with the first sentence of Article 17.5 

of the Rules of Procedure of the ECB, the Governing Council has adopted this opinion. 

1. 

Purpose of the draft amendments 

1.1  The first draft amendment amends certain provisions of the Law on restoring justice in taxation and 

combating tax evasion2 and the Law on the tax applicable to the transfer of real estate property3 to 

exclude the possibility of purchasing real estate property by paying in cash. The first draft amendment 

provides that for the drawing up of any notarial deed or document for transferring ownership of real 

estate  property  (including  binding  preliminary  contracts  and  settlement  deeds),  the  entire 

consideration is to be paid exclusively by means of bank payment. If a notarial deed or document 

records that the consideration for the transfer of ownership of real estate property  has been paid, 

partly or fully, in cash, it is null and void ipso jure. Moreover, it cannot be registered in the relevant 

public registry and does not produce any legal effects in respect of the parties, the State or any third 

party.  The  first  draft  amendment  also  provides  that  notaries  must  record  in  the  notarial  deed  the 

method of payment of the relevant consideration, namely the exclusive use of bank payment means, 

and that notaries are prohibited from registering a notarial deed which is in breach of that requirement 

1  

2 

3  

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). 

Law  3842/2010  on  restoring  justice  in  taxation  and  combating  tax  evasion  (Government  Gazette  A  58/23.4.2010); 
Νόμος υπ’ αριθμ. 3842 Αποκατάσταση φορολογικής δικαιοσύνης, αντιμετώπιση της φοροδιαφυγής και άλλες διατάξεις 
(ΦΕΚ Α΄ 58/23.04.2010). 
Law 1521/1950 on the tax applicable to transfer of real estate property (as codified and amended by Law 1587/1950) 
(Government Gazette A 245/29.10.1950); Α.Ν. 1521 της 29ης Οκτωβρίου 1950 Περί φόρου μεταβιβάσεως ακινήτων 
(ΦΕΚ Α΄ 245/29.10.1950).  

 
 
 
 
 
ECB-PUBLIC 

in the public registry. Last, the first draft amendment provides that persons who do not comply with 

these obligations will be fined an amount equal to 10 % of the consideration recorded as having been 

paid in cash, but no less than EUR 10 000 for each breach. 

1.2  The second draft amendment amends Article 23 of the Greek Income Tax Code4 to further expand 

an already existing tax disincentive for the use of cash. In particular, the Greek Income Tax Code 

currently provides that certain business expenses may be deducted from the calculation of ‘taxable 

profit arising from business activities’ (as defined in the Greek Income Tax Code). The Greek Income 

Tax Code also lists all the business expenses that cannot be deducted from the taxable profit. One 

of these non-deductible expenses is any expenditure for the acquisition of goods or services with a 

value  exceeding  EUR  500  that  has  not  been  paid  by  means  of  bank  payment.  The  second  draft 

amendment  proposes  to  reduce  the  EUR  500  threshold  to  EUR  300  and  that  the  new  threshold 

should apply from the fiscal year 2024 onwards.  

1.3  According  to  the  explanatory  note  accompanying  the  draft  amendments  and  provided  by  the 

consulting authority, the overarching purpose of the draft amendments is to reduce tax evasion and 

combat money laundering by incentivising the use of electronic transactions, and to contribute to the 

increase of the revenues of the Greek State.  

2. 

General observations  

2.1  Cash  continues  to  play  an  important  role  in  society.  Cash  is  generally  appreciated  as  a  payment 

instrument because it is widely accepted, fast and facilitates control over the payer’s spending. It is 

currently  the  only  payment  instrument  that  allows  citizens  to  settle  a  transaction  in  central  bank 

money, which is also settled instantly5, while, importantly, ensuring privacy, and does not carry the 

legal possibility of imposing a fee for the use thereof. Moreover, cash could play an important role in 

the event of a disturbance in the payment system6 and it is robust against cyber-crime7, since cash 

payments do not require a functional technical infrastructure or related investment but are always 

available.  Furthermore,  cash  payments  are  not  subject  to  daily  or  weekly  payment  limits  set  by 

entities  providing  underlying  payment  services.  In  addition,  cash  payments  also  facilitate  the 

inclusion  of  the  entire  population  in  the  economy  by  allowing  citizens  to  settle  a  wide  range  of 

payment transactions in this way, thus ensuring freedom of choice as to the method of payment for 

all citizens8. Last, 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 

4  

5  

6  

7  
8  

Law 4172/2013 on taxation of income, urgent measures for implementing laws 4046/2012, 4093/2012, 4127/2013 and 
other provisions (Government Gazette A 167/23.7.2013).  

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, paragraph 2.1 of Opinion CON/2023/7, and paragraph 2.1 of Opinion CON/2023/13. All ECB opinions 
are published on EUR-Lex.  

See paragraph 2.1 of Opinion CON/2019/41, paragraph 9.2.1 of Opinion CON/2020/13, paragraph 7.2.1 of Opinion 
CON/2021/9, and paragraph 2.3 of Opinion CON/2021/18. 

See paragraph 2.2 of Opinion CON/2021/32 and paragraph 2.1.1 of Opinion CON/2023/33. 
See paragraphs 2.4 and 3.1 of Opinion CON/2017/8, paragraph 2.7 of Opinion CON/2017/40, paragraph 2.6 of Opinion 
CON/2019/4, paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3 of Opinion CON/2021/18, paragraph 7.2.1 of Opinion CON/2021/9, paragraph 2.3 
of Opinion CON/2021/38, paragraph 2.1 of Opinion CON/2023/13, and paragraph 2.1 of Opinion CON/2023/13.   

2 

 
 
ECB-PUBLIC 

not  only  elderly  people,  but  also  some  disabled  citizens,  immigrants,  socially  vulnerable  citizens, 

minors and others with limited or no access to digital payment services9. Against this backdrop, the 

ECB closely monitors any national law developments that aim to limit cash payment possibilities and 

thereby interfere with citizens’ right to pay in cash.  

2.2  Under the Treaty, the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) has the basic task of promoting 

the smooth operation of payment systems10, and the ECB has the exclusive right to authorise the 

issue of euro banknotes within the Union11. 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 area12. 

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  coins13,  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 

(a) mandatory acceptance of those banknotes and coins; (b) their acceptance at full face value; and 

(c) 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 purposes14. 

2.4  The Court has clarified that the concept of ‘legal tender’ is a concept of Union law that must be given 

an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union15. 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. In this respect, the 

ECB notes that, on 28 June 2023, the Commission published a proposal for a regulation on the legal 

tender  of  euro  banknotes  and  coins,  which  would  establish  rules  on  the  legal  tender  of  euro 

banknotes  and  coins  in  binding  Union  secondary  law16.  The  explanatory  memorandum  of  the 

proposed  regulation  states  that  discussions  within  the  Euro  Legal  Tender  Expert  Group  (ELTEG) 

confirmed the existence of uncertainty and important differences regarding the practical application 

9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  

15  

16  

See paragraph 1.5 of Opinion CON/2019/41. 

Article 127(2) of the Treaty and Article 3.1 of the Statute of the ESCB and the ECB. 
First sentence of Article 128(1) of the Treaty and first sentence of Article 16 of the Statute of the ESCB and the ECB.  

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

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

See judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 January 2021, Hessischer Rundfunk, joined cases C-422/19 and C-423/19, 
EU:C:2021:63, paragraph 45. 
Proposal of the European Commission of 28 June 2023 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 
on the legal tender of euro banknotes and coins (COM(2023) 364 final). 

3 

 
ECB-PUBLIC 

of the concept of legal tender across the euro area17. These differences would justify establishing 

rules on the legal tender of euro cash in a regulation adopted under Article 133 of the Treaty. 

2.5  The Union legislature’s 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 acts18. 

2.6  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 

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 organise its public administration, 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 objectives19. 

2.7  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 objective20. 

2.8  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 

17  

18  

19  

20  

See  section  3,  page  4  of  the  Explanatory  memorandum  of  the  proposed  regulation  on  the  legal  tender  of  euro 
banknotes and coins, and the Final report of the Euro Legal Tender Expert Group (ELTEG) of 6 July 2022. 

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

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

4 

 
ECB-PUBLIC 

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

considered proportionate21. 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 pursued22. 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 considered23. 

2.9  Finally, the ECB notes that it opined in 2019 on the tax disincentive for the use of cash which is the 

subject of the second draft amendment24. 

3. 

Specific observations 

3.1  The  ECB considers that  the draft  amendments represent restrictions of the  legal  tender status  of 

euro  banknotes  and  that  therefore  they  should  be  assessed  against  the  criteria  laid  down  by  the 

Court.   

3.2  The ECB further considers that  neither of the draft amendments has the objective or the effect of 

amending the legal rules governing the status of legal tender of euro banknotes or coins. The draft 

amendments do not lead, in law or in fact, to the abolition of banknotes in Greece25.  

3.3  The draft amendments are proposed to be adopted for reasons of public interest. Regarding the first 

draft  amendment,  the  explanatory  note  explains  that,  based  on  currently  available  data, 

approximately  one-quarter  of  all  real  estate  property  transfers  in  Greece  have  been  recorded  as 

partly or fully paid for in cash. The consulting authority considers the first draft amendment to remove 

the possibility of purchasing real estate property in cash  necessary in order to tackle tax evasion, 

clean the real estate market and, at the same time, strengthen the banking system by channelling 

cash and activating anti-money laundering (AML) procedures for purchases of real estate property. 

The explanatory note also mentions that  imposing the use of bank payments for these purchases 

would allow the competent audit authorities to immediately identify cases of tax evasion as well as 

cases falling within the competence of the Greek Anti-Money Laundering Authority, which under the 

current  framework  are  almost  impossible  to  detect  and  deal  with,  even  if  the  competent  services 

increase the number of audits performed.  

3.4  According to the explanatory note, the aim of the second draft amendment is to further limit the use 

of cash in business transactions in order to enhance the transparency of these transactions and to 

combat  tax  evasion  and  the  shadow  economy.  The  explanatory  note  observes  that  the  use  of 

electronic means of payment is expected to be the first choice of an organised business and is in 

any case required for its proper management. The explanatory note states that despite the fact that 

the  law  already  provides  that  any  single  cash  payment  for  the  acquisition  of  goods  and  services 

exceeding EUR 500 for consumer-to-business transactions is prohibited and that such payment may 

21  
22  
23  
24  
25  

See paragraph 4 of Opinion CON/2022/5. 

See paragraph 2.7 of Opinion CON/2017/8 and paragraph 2.11 of Opinion CON/2021/18. 
See paragraph 2.7 of Opinion CON/2017/8 and paragraph 2.7 of Opinion CON/2019/39.  
See Opinion CON/2019/39. 

See paragraph 4.6 of Opinion CON/2022/5.   

5 

 
 
ECB-PUBLIC 

only be made via electronic means26, and despite increased controls and audits carried out by the 

competent authorities, it has been established in practice that the rate of tax evasion remains high. 

The explanatory note also points out that the use of electronic means of payment remains low even 

after Greek law provided relevant tax incentives to businesses and cites the ECB survey on the use 

of cash by companies in the euro area of October 202227, according to which 51 % of Greek retail 

trade,  hotel,  restaurant,  entertainment  and  recreation  businesses  currently  pay  their  suppliers  in 

cash, compared with the euro area average of 20 %. The explanatory note also emphasises that, 

based on the corresponding annual calculations of the European Commission, Greece ranks third 

highest in terms of loss of VAT revenue28. However, the explanatory note provides an assessment 

that is not entirely consistent with the data presented in the ECB survey, where the 51 % figure refers 

merely to those companies regularly withdrawing cash, which accounted for 30 % of the surveyed 

companies. Hence, the assessment carried out by the Greek authorities might have overstated the 

share of companies paying their suppliers in cash29. On the other hand, it is accurate according to 

the survey that the prevalence of companies withdrawing cash to pay suppliers in Greece is roughly 

2.5 times higher than in the euro area overall.  

3.5  Expanding existing tax disincentives for the use of cash is also deemed appropriate, according to 

the explanatory note, because it is envisaged that it will become mandatory in 2024 for businesses 

to connect with the digital tax platform myDATA  and report their revenues and  expenses via that 

platform. The fines under the draft amendments are expected to be coupled with (a) increased fines 

for breaching the prohibition of using cash for all consumer-to-business transactions exceeding EUR 

500  mentioned  in  paragraph  3.4  above;  and  (b)  fines  that  are  expected  to  be  introduced  for 

businesses  not  transmitting  tax  data  to  the  digital  tax  platform  myDATA,  to  produce  a  combined 

deterrent effect.  

3.6  The  ECB  acknowledges  that  the  draft  law’s  objectives  of  combating  tax  evasion  and  money 

laundering  may,  in  general,  constitute  ‘public  interest  reasons’  justifying  the  dis-incentivisation  of, 

and the resulting limitation on, the use of cash payments30. Some studies indicate that tax evasion 

and money laundering might be facilitated by cash, in particular in the real estate market.31 On 14 

July  2023  and  21  November  2023,  the  Council  and  the  Commission  recommended  that  Greece 

26  

27  
28  

29  

30  

31  

Article 20, paragraph 3, of Law 3842/2010 as amended by Article 69 of Law 4446/2016. See paragraphs 1.3 and 2.10 
of Opinion CON/2019/39.  
The report is available on the ECB’s website at www.ecb.europa.eu.  

European Commission, Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, Poniatowski, G., Bonch-Osmolovskiy, 
M.,  Śmietanka,  A.  and  Sojka,  A., VAT  gap  in  the  EU  –  2023  report,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
2023, available on the European Commission’s website at www.ec.europa.eu. 
The share of companies in Greece that regularly withdraw cash amounted to 30%, which corresponds to the euro area 
average of 28%.  

See, among others, paragraph 2.2 of Opinion CON/2014/37; paragraph 2.4 of Opinion CON/2017/18; paragraph 2.5 
of Opinion CON/2017/40; paragraph 2.4 of Opinion CON/2019/4; paragraph 2.3 of Opinion CON/2019/46; paragraph 
4  of  Opinion  CON/2022/5;  paragraph  2.6  of  Opinion  CON/2022/9;  paragraph  2.10  of  Opinion  CON/2022/43;  and 
paragraphs  3.2  and  3.3  of  Opinion  CON/2023/7.  See  also  paragraph  2.6  of  Opinion  CON/2019/39  assessing  the 
second  of  the  draft  amendments,  where  the  ECB  also  acknowledged  that  ‘the  draft  amendments’  objectives  of  (i) 
combating  tax  evasion  and  (ii)  broadening  the  tax  base,  while  maintaining  fiscal  balance  after  the  decreases  in 
corporate  income  tax  and  personal  income  tax  may,  in  general,  constitute  “public  reasons”  justifying  the  dis-
incentivisation through taxation of, and the resulting limitation on, the use of cash payments’. 

Remeur,  C.  (2019),  “Understanding  money  laundering  through  real  estate  transactions”,  European  Parliamentary 
Research  Service;  OECD  (2007  and  updated  since),  “Real  estate  sector:  Tax  fraud  and  money  laundering 
vulnerabilities”;  ECORYS  &  CEPS  (2017),  “Study  on  an  EU  initiative  for  a  restriction  on  payments  in  cash”, 
commissioned by the European Commission. 

6 

 
ECB-PUBLIC 

should, among others, strengthen tax compliance by extending the use of electronic payments32. Tax 

evasion in Greece seems to be higher than in other EU  Member States. For 2021, the European 

Commission estimated Greece as having the third highest VAT gap (the difference between the VAT 

revenue that could in theory be collected with full compliance and the VAT that is in fact collected) in 

the EU, equal to 17.8% of potential VAT revenue. 33   

3.7 

It  is,  however,  difficult  for  the  ECB  to  assess  whether  the  measures  contained  in  the  draft 

amendments are appropriate for attaining the public interest objectives pursued, and whether they 

do not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives, especially in view of the 

vague  description  of  those  objectives  in  the  explanatory  note  to  the  draft  amendments  and  the 

absence of concrete impact assessments of the expected effect of the draft amendments.  

3.8  Regarding  the  first  draft  amendment  more  specifically,  the  explanatory  note  does  not  provide 

evidence that real estate purchases, regardless of their value, are being used for tax evasion and/or 

money laundering purposes, nor does it explain how imposing the use of bank payments for these 

purchases  will  be  effective  in  (a)  preventing  shadow  economy  phenomena  whereby  part  of  the 

consideration for these purchases remains unrecorded in the notarial deeds and is paid in cash; or 

(b)  facilitating  the  detection  by  competent  authorities  of  cases  of  tax  evasion  and/or  money 

laundering.  It  is  not  explained  why  cases  of  tax  evasion  and/or  money  laundering  would  be 

impossible  to  detect  and  deal  with  when  the  payment  is  made  in  cash,  even  if  audit  authorities 

increase the number of audits they perform. The explanatory note also does not specifically describe 

the extent to which alternative and equally or more effective (but less onerous) measures could be 

adopted which would also fulfil the objectives of the first draft amendment.  

3.9  The ECB notes that the first draft amendment implies a full prohibition of using cash in Greece for 

real  estate  transactions.  The  ECB  further  notes  that  the  purchase  price  of  certain  real  estate 

properties may be very low depending on their size (e.g. parking spaces, storage rooms) or location 

and nature (e.g. plots of agricultural land, farmhouses in rural areas). The latter type of asset might 

have a strong presence in areas where citizens have limited access to bank offices or digital payment 

services. The explanatory note does not address the social impact and risk of financial exclusion that 

could potentially result from the first draft amendment. The envisaged prohibition of cash would mean 

that legitimate transactions of low value real estate assets could not be settled using cash as a means 

of  payment.  Moreover,  as  experience  within  the  Union  has  shown,  certain  cashless  payment 

instruments may be temporarily unavailable as they depend on the underlying technical infrastructure 

operated by payment service providers. 

3.10  Regarding  the  second  draft  amendment,  the  explanatory  note  does  not  explain  why  the  current 

threshold of EUR 500 paid in cash for the acquisition of goods or services that may not be deducted 

from  taxable  profit  arising  from  business  activities  has  not  produced  the  expected  results  in 

combating tax evasion and the shadow economy and increasing VAT revenues. If such a measure 

32  

33  

Council Recommendation of 14 July 2023 on the 2023 National Reform Programme of Greece and delivering a Council 
opinion  on  the  2023  Stability  Programme  of  Greece  (OJ  C  312,  1.09.2023,  p.  67)  and  Commission  Opinion  of  21 
November 2023 on the Draft Budgetary Plan of Greece, C(2023) 9507 final, where the Commission also suggests that 
the full and timely implementation of the two draft amendments would be key to deliver on the recommendation.   
See speech of the Governor of the Bank of Greece of 31 October 2023, available on the website of the Bank of Greece 
at www.bankofgreece.gr. See also Vasardani, M., “Tax Evasion in Greece: An overview”, Economic Bulletin, Bank of 
Greece, Issue 35, Article 2, 2011. 

7 

 
ECB-PUBLIC 

has not produced the desired effects, it is hard to understand why lowering that threshold to EUR 300 

would  be  considered  more  appropriate  and  more  effective,  or  necessary  also  considering  the 

envisaged mandatory connection of businesses with the Greek tax authorities through the digital tax 

platform myDATA, in which all revenues and all expenses of a business should be declared. The 

new proposed threshold of EUR 300 is in fact currently lower than when it was first proposed by the 

consulting  authority  in  2019,  once  inflation  is  accounted  for.  The  explanatory  note  also  does  not 

explain why this indirect limitation on the use of cash through tax disincentives has not produced the 

expected results when combined with the general prohibition to use cash for the acquisition of goods 

and services exceeding EUR 500. 

3.11  Against this background, it is therefore questionable whether or not the draft amendments could be 

considered proportionate to the objectives pursued. 

This opinion will be published on EUR-Lex.  

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 6 December 2023. 

[signed] 

The President of the ECB 

Christine LAGARDE 

8