In its judgment in joined cases Luxembourg Business Registers (Case C-37/20) and Sovim (Case C-601/20), the CJEU found that part of the European Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which allows details of company beneficial ownership to be accessed by the general public, was invalid.
The first case involved a register of beneficial ownership set up by Luxembourg in accordance with the directive. Some of the information required to be entered into that register was available to the general public online.
The CJEU found that the general public’s access to information on beneficial ownership constituted a ‘serious interference’ with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Commenting on the judgment, Filippo Noseda, partner at Mishcon de Reya, who led a number of appeals, said: ‘Today’s judgment represents a victory for data protection and the rule of law in an extremely politicised context … Nobody should engage in money laundering or terrorism financing. However, the fight against crime must be conducted respecting the fundamental rights of compliant citizens.’
The firm points out that the decision could have practical implications for the UK, having already introduced public registers of beneficial ownership, including the new register of overseas entities.
Taking a different view, Tax Justice Network contends that the decision ‘returns EU to dark ages of dirty money’, ‘immediately triggering a growing transparency blackout across the bloc’.
Moran Harari, lead researcher at TJN, said: ‘The European Court of Justice’s decision ignores all the lessons learned over the past decade from leaks like the Pandora Papers and Panama Papers. Instead of continuing to lead the way on financial transparency, the EU now risks being left behind.’
In its judgment in joined cases Luxembourg Business Registers (Case C-37/20) and Sovim (Case C-601/20), the CJEU found that part of the European Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which allows details of company beneficial ownership to be accessed by the general public, was invalid.
The first case involved a register of beneficial ownership set up by Luxembourg in accordance with the directive. Some of the information required to be entered into that register was available to the general public online.
The CJEU found that the general public’s access to information on beneficial ownership constituted a ‘serious interference’ with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Commenting on the judgment, Filippo Noseda, partner at Mishcon de Reya, who led a number of appeals, said: ‘Today’s judgment represents a victory for data protection and the rule of law in an extremely politicised context … Nobody should engage in money laundering or terrorism financing. However, the fight against crime must be conducted respecting the fundamental rights of compliant citizens.’
The firm points out that the decision could have practical implications for the UK, having already introduced public registers of beneficial ownership, including the new register of overseas entities.
Taking a different view, Tax Justice Network contends that the decision ‘returns EU to dark ages of dirty money’, ‘immediately triggering a growing transparency blackout across the bloc’.
Moran Harari, lead researcher at TJN, said: ‘The European Court of Justice’s decision ignores all the lessons learned over the past decade from leaks like the Pandora Papers and Panama Papers. Instead of continuing to lead the way on financial transparency, the EU now risks being left behind.’
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
