• news-banner

    Expert Insights

When Protection Of Personal Data Supersedes Anti-Money-Laundering Regulations

min read

In May 2018, the EU Legislator adopted its 5th anti-money-laundering directive[1] to make information on beneficial owners of companies available to any member of the general public.

As a Member State of the EU, Luxembourg implemented this directive and adopted in 2019 a law[2] establishing a Register of Beneficial Ownership freely accessible on the internet.

Following this adoption, a Luxembourgish company and its beneficial owner both challenged the validity of this disclosure before the Luxembourg District Court on the grounds that it violates the right to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data, rights guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (“the Charter”).

In that context, the Luxembourgish Court made a request to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“Court of Justice”) for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the provisions of the EU anti-money-laundering directive and their validity with respect to the Charter.

In its judgement C-37/20 / C-601/20 of 22 November 2022, the Court of Justice states that any interference with a fundamental right must be based on a legal provision, must not undermine the essential content of the fundamental right, must have an objective of general interest and must be proportionate to the aim pursued.

According to the Court of Justice, granting access to the general public to information on beneficial ownership constitutes a serious infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. As a matter of a fact, disclosing this kind of information to an unlimited number of people could expose the subjects of the data to potential abuse. Indeed, once that data has been made available, it is impossible for the subjects of the data to protect themselves, the said data being not only freely consultable, but also retainable or massively spreadable.  

After noting that such an interference is based on a legal provision (the EU anti-money-laundering directive) and that it does not affect the essential nature of fundamental rights, the Court of Justice focuses on the objective of general interest which is also provided since the EU Legislator seeks to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing by increasing transparency and thus creating an environment less likely to be used for such activities.

However, in the interests of proportionality, the Court of Justice holds that while granting public access to the data is able to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, it is neither limited to what is strictly necessary nor proportionate to the objective pursued.

Indeed, the previous regime provided limited access to beneficial owner information to the competent authorities, certain entities and to any person or organization having a legitimate interest. But it was dropped by the EU Legislator because the requirement of a “legitimate interest” implied practical difficulties. The Court of Justice states that the difficulty to provide a detailed definition of the circumstances and conditions under which such legitimate interest exists cannot justify public access to this information. The Court of Justice concludes that the fight against money laundering is the responsibility of public authorities and financial institutions. Making information on beneficial owners available to the public is thus not justified by a proper balance between the objective of the general interest pursued and of the fundamental rights infringed.

On these grounds, the Court of Justice rules that the provision of the new EU anti-money-laundering directive which provides that information on the beneficial ownership of corporate and other legal entities incorporated within the territory of a Member State has to be accessible in all cases to any member of the general public is invalid.

One can wonder if this European issue will ever be discussed under Swiss law. These questions should however not arise since a project of law aiming to increase transparency and facilitate the identification of beneficial owners of companies is in progress. In particular, it should provide for the introduction of a central identification register of beneficial owners, but only accessible to the competent authorities[3].


[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), as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 (OJ 2018 L 156, p. 43)
[2]               Loi du 13 janvier 2019 instituant un Registre des bénéficaires effectifs (mémorial A 15) (Law of 13         January 2019 establishing a Register of Beneficial Ownership)  
[3]           Communiqué du Conseil fédéral du 12.10.2022, Le Conseil fédéral entend renforcer la transparence des personnes morales (Press releases by the Federal Council of 12.10.2022, Federal Council wishes to increase transparency of legal entities)

Our thinking

  • IBA Annual Conference 2026

    Jean-Baptiste Beauvoir-Planson

    Events

  • Charles Russell Speechlys Opens New York Office and Connecticut Practice

    Simon Ridpath

    News

    min read
  • Disputes Over Donuts: Sports Arbitration

    Jue Jun Lu

    Podcasts

  • Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration issues update on arbitration in Saudi Arabia

    Peter Smith

    Insights

    min read
  • First Sanction Against a Health Data Warehouse Controller

    Marguerite Brac de La Perrière

    Insights

    min read
  • Omnibus and Digital Health: Simplification Objective and Resistance from Authorities and Member States

    Marguerite Brac de La Perrière

    Insights

    min read
  • AI in Healthcare in France: CNIL and HAS Guidance on Best Practices, from Development to Use

    Marguerite Brac de La Perrière

    Insights

    min read
  • Back-to-back is not enough: UAE construction subcontracts and multiparty arbitration under the 2026 ICC Rules

    Glenn Bull

    Insights

    min read
  • London International Disputes Week 2026: Key Takeaways on Follow-On Claims in International Sport

    Daniel McDonagh

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Disputes Over Donuts: The UAE’s New Civil Code - Implications for Construction Contracts

    Paula Boast MBE

    Insights

  • London International Disputes Week 2026: Key Takeaways on Open Justice and the Growing Reputational Stakes of Litigation

    Claudine Morgan

    Insights

    min read
  • London International Disputes Week 2026: Key Takeaways on Resolving China-Related Disputes in a Global Era

    Jue Jun Lu

    Insights

  • Frédéric Jeannin and Georgia Fullarton write in Daily Jus on significant French cases in international arbitration

    Frédéric Jeannin

    In the Press

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys obtains Hadkinson order in relation to proceedings to return a child to her father

    Vanessa Duff

    News

    min read
  • ‘Sharenting’ and consent – UAE ruling on posting photos of children online

    Miranda Fisher

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • ‘Don’t Lose Ur Head’…But It Might Lose You Money: Conduct in the No-Fault Divorce Era

    Cara Fung

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Claudine Morgan, Hannah Gornall and Ellen Roberts write in New Law Journal about the implications of a landmark anti-SLAPP judgment

    Claudine Morgan

    In the Press

    min read
  • India-UAE BIT 2024: What to Expect When You’re Investing

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

    min read
  • Affidavits in International Litigation - Lessons for Trust Companies from a Recent Geneva Judgment

    Bruno Ledrappier

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • The Increased Expedited Procedure Threshold under the 2026 ICC Rules: What Does It Mean for Mid-Value Construction Disputes in the UAE?

    Glenn Bull

    Insights

    min read
Back to top