Opinion of the European Central Bank of 11 August 2025 on limits to cash payments and limitations on their acceptance in respect of court and administrative fees (CON/2025/21)
Date: 2025-08-11
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: money

ECB-PUBLIC 

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK 

of 11 August 2025  

on limits to cash payments and limitations on their acceptance in respect of court and 

administrative fees 

(CON/2025/21) 

Introduction and legal basis 

On  1  July  2025  the  European  Central  Bank  (ECB)  received  a  request  from  Minister  for  Finance  of  the 

Slovak Republic for an opinion on a draft law amending and supplementing the Law of the Slovak National 

Council No. 71/1992 on court fees and fees for criminal records extracts, as amended, and amending and 

supplementing certain laws in relation to payment methods and the payment system (hereinafter ‘the draft 

law’)1. 

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  first  and  second  indents  of  Article  2(1)  of  Council  Decision 

98/415/EC2, as the draft law relates to currency matters and 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 

1.1 

The draft law, among others, amends: (a) the Law of the Slovak National Council No. 71/1992 on 

court fees and fees for criminal records extracts3 (hereinafter ‘the Law on court fees’); and (b) the 

Law of National Council of Slovak Republic No. 145/1995 on administrative fees4 (hereinafter ‘the 

Law  on  administrative  fees’),  to  allow  payment  of  court  fees,  fees  for  extracts  from  the  criminal 

register and administrative fees (hereinafter the ‘court and administrative fees’) not only through 

the  central  system  for  recording  fees  that  is  operated  by  a  100 %  state-owned  legal  entity,    – 

currently Slovenská pošta a.s. (Slovak Post) – but also through the central system for recording 

State Treasury fees.  

1.2 

The  draft  law,  among  others,  restates  provisions  of  the  Law  on  court  fees  and  the  Law  on 

administrative fees  which  provide that court and  administrative fees may be paid in cash,  or by 

payment card, postal slip or transfer from an account with a payment service provider. The draft 

1  

2   

3 

Návrh  zákona  ktorým  sa  mení  a  dopĺňa  zákon  Slovenskej  národnej  rady  č.  71/1992  Zb.  o  súdnych  poplatkoch  a 
poplatku za výpis z registra trestov v znení neskorších predpisov a ktorým sa menia a dopĺňajú niektoré zákony. 
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, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/1998/415/oj). 

Zákon Slovenskej národnej rady č. 71/1992 Zb. z 28. januára 1991 o súdnych poplatkoch a poplatku za výpis z registra 
trestov v znení neskorších prepdisov. 

4    

Zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 145/1995 Z.z. z 22. júna 1995 o správnych poplatkoch v znení neskorších 
predpisov. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ECB-PUBLIC 

law also maintains the current limit of EUR 300 on cash payments of court and administrative fees 

and does not provide for any exceptions. The ECB understands that currently, the Law on court 

fees allows for a very limited exception5 to the EUR 300 limit in the case of first registration of joint 

stock companies. In addition, the draft law clarifies that payment of court and administrative fees 

in  cash  or  by  payment  card  at  the  court,  the  court  administration,  or  the  prosecution  or 

administrative authority, may be only made if the relevant authority possesses technical means to 

accept such payments. 

2. 

General observations 

2.1 

The ECB has not been consulted before now on, or in relation to, the Law on court fees or the Law 

on administrative fees. 

2.2 

Cash plays an important role in society. Euro cash has legal tender status and should be generally 

accepted  as  a  means  of  payment.  As  the  ECB  has  noted  previously,  cash  is  secure,  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  privacy6.  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  citizens, 

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

payment services 7. 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. 

2.3 

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

smooth operation of payment systems 8, and the ECB has the exclusive right to authorise the issue 

of  euro  banknotes  within  the  Union9.  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 10. 

2.4 

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 

5  

6  

7  
8  

9  
10  

See  Article  9(1)  of  the  Law  on  court  fees  in  conjunction  with  item  17  of  the  Annex  thereto.  The  fee  for  the  first 
registration of joint stock companies is EUR 550. 

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.  
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.  

2 

 
 
 
 
ECB-PUBLIC 

the scope and effects of legal tender of euro banknotes and coins 11, 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 purposes 12.  

2.5 

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 acts13. 

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  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 

objectives 14.  

2.7 

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

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

11  
12  

13  

14  

OJ L 83, 30.3.2010, p. 70, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2010/191/oj. 
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.  
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. 

3 

 
 
 
ECB-PUBLIC 

governing  the  status  of  legal  tender  of  euro  banknotes;  (b)  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; (c) has been adopted for reasons of public interest; 

(d) 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 objective15. 

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 

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

considered proportionate16. 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 17. 

3. 

Specific observations 

3.1 

Although  the  draft  law  retains  the  general  limit  on  cash  payments,  the  submission  report  and 

explanatory  memorandum  accompanying  the  draft  law  do  not  provide  an  analysis  of  the  public 

interest in maintaining such a relatively low limit, nor do they explain why the limit of EUR 300 is 

proportionate to the public interest pursued. 

3.2 

The ECB understands from the implicit references in the explanatory memorandum that the public 

interest  could  lie  in  preventing  excessive  operational  costs  of  administering  large  sum  cash 

payments. In this regard, while the Court has accepted that it is in the public interest that monetary 

debts  to  public  authorities  may  be  honoured  in  a  way  that  does  not  involve  those  authorities  in 

unreasonable  expense  which  would  prevent  them  from  providing  services  cost-effectively18,  the 

ECB considers that the consulting authority has not sufficiently demonstrated that the courts, court 

administrations, or prosecution or administrative authorities would incur unreasonable expenses in 

accepting cash payments above EUR 300.  

3.3 

In  this  context,  the  cash  payment  limit  of  EUR  300  must  be  proportionate  in  light  of  the  public 

interest  objective  pursued.  The  consulting  authority  has  not  provided  in  the  background 

documentation to the draft law any estimate of the proportion of court and administrative fees that 

could not be paid in cash where the limit of EUR 300 applies. For example, the court fees schedule 

in  the  Annex  to  the  Law  on  court  fees  specifies  a  significant  number  of  court  fees  that  are 

15  

16  

17  
18  

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 C 210, 25.5.2022, p. 15). 
See paragraph 2.7 of Opinion CON/2017/8.  
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 73. 

4 

 
 
 
 
ECB-PUBLIC 

determined as a percentage of the value of the subject matter of the dispute19, or that are set at 

above EUR 300.  

3.4 

The  ECB  also  understands  that  the  draft  law  allows  the  courts,  court  administrations,  and 

prosecution and administrative authorities to refuse to accept payment of court and administrative 

fees in cash or by a payment card in cases where they do not have technical means (technické 

podmienky)  to  accept  such  payments.  The  explanatory  memorandum  explains  that  ‘technical 

means’ are to be understood to include: (a) in the case of card payments, a mix of technical means 

that  allow  the  administrative  body  to  accept  payment  by  card  (generally  a  point-of-sale  (POS) 

terminal); and (b) in the case of cash payments, a cash desk and the operational support (employee 

liability  for  cash  handling,  cash  management  system)  and  security  support  (cash  register,  safe, 

security devices). The explanatory memorandum explains this limitation on the acceptance of cash 

and card payments by referring to the need for effectiveness and consideration of costs.  

3.5 

While it is true, as noted in paragraph 3.2, that the Court has accepted that it is in the public interest 

that monetary debts to public authorities may be honoured in a way that does not involve those 

authorities  in  unreasonable  expense  which  would  prevent  them  from  providing  services  cost-

effectively, the ECB considers that allowing public authorities to refuse cash payments altogether 

by deciding not to establish the technical means for their acceptance, without any further guidance 

from the public authorities, cannot be considered a proportionate restriction on payments in cash 

as legal tender. In particular, the provisions set out in the draft law could lead to an overall refusal 

by courts, court administrations, and prosecution and administrative authorities to accept payments 

of court and administrative fees in cash on the basis of cost-cutting considerations.  

3.6 

In the same vein, a decision not to establish the technical means for acceptance of payments by 

payment  card,  without  any 

further  guidance 

from 

the  public  authorities,  should  not 

disproportionately obstruct the intention of the law to enable payments by payment card as one of 

the available payment options.   

3.7 

The ECB also notes that when proposing legislation in the field of retail payments, it is advisable 

that  it  is  drafted  using  technology-neutral  language,  to  allow  for  its  application  to  new  forms  of 

payment in the future.  

3.8 

Finally, in the statement accompanying the draft law, the Ministry of Finance states that the limit of 

EUR 300 on cash payments and the ability to refuse cash payments where technical means are 

not available, as provided for in the draft law, only apply to payments in cash at the premises of the 

courts,  court  administrations,  and  prosecution  and  administrative  authorities.  The  Ministry  of 

Finance’s position is that it will be possible for payees to continue to pay court and administrative 

fees of up to EUR 15 000 in cash either by making use of a postal slip at a branch of Slovak Post, 

or by making a cash deposit in a bank to the account of Slovak Post or the State Treasury. The 

ECB considers, however, that since payment by use of a postal slip or by cash deposit are, or may 

be, subject to additional fees, these payment methods cannot be considered as equivalent to the 

acceptance of cash payments in euro banknotes and coins as legal tender. 

19  

See for example Item 1a of the Annex to the Law on court fees which specifies that the court fee is 6 % of the subject 
matter of the dispute. In such a case, if the value of the subject matter of the dispute is above EUR 5 000, the court 
fee would be higher than EUR 300 and so could not be paid in cash. 

5 

 
 
 
ECB-PUBLIC 

3.9 

In  conclusion,  the  ECB  considers  that  the  Slovak  authorities  have  not  sufficiently  assessed  the 

proportionality  of  the  limit  on  cash  payments  and  the  ability  to  refuse  cash  payments  where 

technical means are not available, as proposed by the draft law. As the explanatory memorandum 

considers  the  public  interest  objectives  only  in  a  vague  manner,  and  as  the  legislator  has  not 

provided any concrete impact assessment, it is difficult for the ECB to assess whether or not: (a) 

the limit of EUR 300 on the payment in cash of court and administrative fees; and (b) the rule that 

allows the courts, court administrations, and prosecution and administrative authorities to refuse 

acceptance of payment of  court and  administrative fees in cash  or by  a payment card  in  cases 

where  they  do  not  have  technical  means  to  accept  such  payments,  could  be  considered 

proportionate in light of the public interest objectives pursued. The Slovak authorities should thus 

carefully consider any restrictions on cash payments, taking into account the criteria established 

by the Court. As noted previously by the ECB in relation to limitations on cash payments to the 

Social Insurance Agency, in particular, they should ensure that restrictions on cash payments are 

appropriate and necessary to achieve the public interests pursued and do not call into question the 

possibility, as a general rule, of discharging a payment obligation in legal tender 20. 

This opinion will be published on EUR-Lex.  

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 11 August 2025. 

[signed] 

The President of the ECB 

Christine LAGARDE 

20 See paragraph 3.8 of Opinion CON/2023/7. 

6