Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2013] All ER (D) 285 (May)
Court: Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber)

Judges Silva de Lapuerta, Acting President of the Third Chamber, Lenaerts, Juhász, Malenovsky, Šváby (Rapporteur), Advocate General: Bot

Judgment Dates: 25 April 2013


European Union - Money laundering - Common foreign and security policy - Danish bank with branch (Jyske) in Gibraltar - Jyske operating in Spain - Spanish authorities (FIU) suspecting Jyske of being used for money laundering activities - FIU requesting information from Jyske relating to identity of Jyske's customers - Jyske refusing to supply information - FIU deciding to investigate - Whether relevant EU directive precluding member state's national legislation requiring credit institutions carrying on their activities to communicate information for combating money laundering - Council Directive (EC) 2005/60, art 22(2) - Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, art 56 - Council Decision (JHA) 2000/642.

The Case

European Union Money laundering. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 22(2) of Council Directive (EC) 2005-60 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing).The request had been made in proceedings between Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd (Jyske), a credit institution situated in Gibraltar operating in Spain under the rules on the freedom to provide services, and the Administracin del Estado concerning the decision of the Spanish Council of Ministers, which had rejected the application for review brought against the decision of that Council of Ministers, imposing on Jyske two financial penalties for a total amount of 1,700,000 and two public reprimands following a refusal or lack of diligence to provide the information requested by the executive service for the prevention of money laundering.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.