Case C-685/24, Unione Fiduciaria and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 October 2024 – Unione Fiduciaria SpA, Assoservizi Fiduciari, Torino Fiduciaria – Fiditor Srl, Ser-Fid Italiana Fiduciaria e di Revisione SpA v Ministero delle Imprese e del Made in Italy, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Garante per la Protezione dei Dati Personali, Unioncamere (Unione Italiana delle Camere di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura), Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Milano, Monza-Brianza, Lodi, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Torino, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Roma, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Torino, Infocamere Scpa
Date: 2024-10-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, data protection, ownership, personal data, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, trust company








C_202500707EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/707


10.2.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 October 2024 – Unione Fiduciaria SpA, Assoservizi Fiduciari, Torino Fiduciaria – Fiditor Srl, Ser-Fid Italiana Fiduciaria e di Revisione SpA v Ministero delle Imprese e del Made in Italy, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Garante per la Protezione dei Dati Personali, Unioncamere (Unione Italiana delle Camere di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura), Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Milano, Monza-Brianza, Lodi, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Torino, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Roma, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Torino, Infocamere Scpa


(Case C-685/24, Unione Fiduciaria and Others)

(C/2025/707)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Unione Fiduciaria SpA, Assoservizi Fiduciari, Torino Fiduciaria – Fiditor Srl, Ser-Fid Italiana Fiduciaria e di Revisione SpA

Respondents: Ministero delle Imprese e del Made in Italy, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Garante per la Protezione dei Dati Personali, Unioncamere (Unione Italiana delle Camere di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura), Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Milano, Monza-Brianza, Lodi, Camera di Commercio Industria e Artigianato di Torino, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Roma, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Torino, Infocamere Scpa

Questions referred







(1)


Should the term ‘istituti giuridici’ (‘legal arrangements’), which appears in the Italian version of Article 31(1), (2) and (10) of Directive (EU) 2015/849, (1) as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843[,] (2) be interpreted as referring, in accordance with what can be inferred from the other main language versions and from the context and purpose of the directive, to the existence of an organic union of the rules and principles governing a social phenomenon, or to a concrete, specific economic and legal operation or, again, to types of economic and legal operations assessed based on their substantial characteristics, which have, in any event, a structure or functions similar to those of trusts?










(2)


Should Article 31(10) of Directive (EU) 2015/849, as amended by Directive (EU) 201[8]/84[3], be interpreted as meaning that the notifications made by the Member States and the Commission’s report to the European Parliament and to the Council do not have binding legislative force but are merely declaratory acts identifying legal arrangements similar to trusts present in the various legal systems, with the consequence that it is in any event for the national court and the Court of Justice of the European Union to verify, in the event of a dispute, whether the structure or functions of those arrangements are similar to those of trusts solely on the basis of the provisions of the directive, as these acts supplementing [EU] law cannot be considered binding?










(3)


Should EU law and, in particular, recitals 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and Article 2, point (6) of the first paragraph of Article 3, and Article 31 of Directive (EU) 2015/849, and recitals 4, 5, 16, 17, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 of Directive (EU) 2018/843, be interpreted as precluding national rules such as those laid down in Article 1(2)(ee) and Articles 20, 21 and 22 of Decreto legislativo del 21 novembre 2007, n. 231 (Legislative Decree No 231 of 21 November 2017), in so far as … they include the trust mandates of … trust companies among the legal arrangements that have a structure and functions similar to those of trusts?










(4)


Does EU law and, in particular, the principle of proportionality, and the provisions in Article 31(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/849, read in conjunction with Article 5(4) TEU and recitals 5 and 27 of Directive (EU) 2018/843, preclude national rules such as those laid down in Articles 1(2)(ee), 20, 21 and 22 of Legislative Decree No 231/2017, in so far as … they include the trust mandates of … trust companies among the legal arrangements that have a structure and functions similar to those of trusts, even though the activities of these companies are subject to a number of obligations and to the supervision of various national authorities, and in view of the risks that the operations carried out could entail?










(5)


Are the provisions of Article 31(1), (2) and (10) of Directive (EU) 2015/849, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843, invalid on the ground that they are contrary to the provisions of Article 114 and the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU as well as the principle of effectiveness?










(6)


Should EU law, and in particular recitals 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of Directive (EU) 2015/849, Articles 30 and 31 of that directive, recitals 4, 5, 16 to 17 and 25 to 34 of Directive (EU) 2018/843, Articles 6, 7, 8 and 16 of the Charter, and the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5(4) TEU, be interpreted – also in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 November 2022 in Cases C-37/20 and C-601/20 – as precluding a legal provision such as that laid down in Article 21(4)(d-bis) of Legislative Decree No 231/2007 and Article 7(2) of Decreto Ministeriale n. 55/2022 (Ministerial Decree No 55/2022), which permits access by private individuals, including those with a diffuse interest, who have a relevant and differentiated legal interest, in cases where knowledge of the beneficial ownership is necessary to address or defend an interest corresponding to a legally protected situation, where they have concrete, documented evidence of non-correspondence between beneficial ownership and legal ownership, also requiring that the interest be direct, concrete and current and, in the case of entities representing diffuse interests, that it not coincide with the interest of individuals belonging to the category represented?






(1)  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).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU (OJ 2018 L 156, p. 43).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/707/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)