Jenec (Approximation of laws - Financial services - Access to a payment account with basic features - money laundering and terrorist financing - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-81/24 (11 June 2026)

Executive summary

The Court interpreted Article 16(4) of Directive 2014/92 together with the anti-money-laundering framework in Directive 2015/849 in a dispute between LH and OTP banka d.d. about opening a payment account with basic features. The judgment focuses on whether a bank may refuse such an account where the consumer is included on the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control list, in light of EU rules on preventing money laundering and terrorist financing.

Key points

• Parties: LH v OTP banka d.d. (formerly NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR); request from the Slovenian court in Maribor.
• Issue: interpretation of Article 16(4) of Directive 2014/92 and Article 48 of the Charter in a refusal to open a basic payment account.
• EU framework: Directive 2014/92 requires access to basic payment accounts, but Article 16(4) requires refusal where opening the account would breach AML/CFT rules in Directive 2015/849.
• Reasoning context: recitals and provisions of Directive 2015/849 stress a risk-based approach, customer due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and enhanced measures where risk is higher.
• Sanctions angle: the source text expressly links the dispute to a consumer on the OFAC list, showing direct overlap between sanctions screening and AML/CFT account-access decisions.
• No express export-control issue appears in the source text; the legal tension is between financial inclusion and security/compliance screening.

Why it matters

The case is relevant because it shows how EU payment-account access rules can be curtailed by AML/CFT compliance where a customer is associated with sanctions screening concerns. For sanctions and sovereign-risk monitoring, it signals that banks may rely on anti-money-laundering obligations as the legal basis for refusing basic banking services when account opening would breach those rules.

Implications

Banks and compliance teams need to align basic-account onboarding with AML/CFT controls, including risk-based due diligence and escalation where sanctions-list status or related risk would make account opening unlawful. In litigation, the key battleground is likely to be whether the refusal is genuinely required by the AML/CFT framework or is an impermissible overreach beyond the statute’s narrow refusal grounds.