E-7/24 Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein
Klik hier voor het dossier van het EVA-hof (voor zover beschikbaar).
Deadlines: Motivation ministry: 21 May 2024 Written observations: 2 July 2024
Keywords: Disclosure of information; money laundering
Subject: 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: Article 1 and Article 30(5).
Facts of the case: Appellant has requested the disclosure of data on the beneficial owners of the ‘BB Foundation’, from the register of beneficial owners of legal entities. The request was made before the Office of Justice. Appellant argues that the BB Foundation has been used for the commission of offences which constitutes predicate offences to money laundering. Therefore, the disclosure of the persons behind this legal entity is necessary. The BB Foundation refused to disclose their information, as in their view a legitimate interest did not exist. The Office of Justice then forwarded the request for disclosure to the Commission of the register of beneficial owners. They also refused the disclosure of the information, on the grounds that a legitimate interest had not been sufficiently demonstrated. The appellant then brought an appeal to the Administrative Court.
The disclosure of data contained in the register of beneficial owners of legal entities constitutes an interference with the right to informational self-determination of those natural persons whose data are disclosed. This interference is only permissible where it is appropriate, necessary and reasonable to attain an objective in the public interest. One of the public interest which is served by the disclosure of data is the combatting of money laundering, see Article 1(1) of Directive 2015/849. Pursuant to Article 30(5) of the Directive, any person or organization that can demonstrate a legitimate interest shall have access to the data contained in the register. The Administrative Court takes the view that inspection by a private third party who claims to be the victim of a predicate offence is never necessary and thus never proportionate in order to combat money laundering, predicate offences to money laundering and terrorist financing. If this view is not shared by the EFTA Court, the following questions arise.
Request for an advisory opinion:
1. Must Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 and point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 30(5) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 in the original version be interpreted as meaning that an inspection of the register of beneficial owners by a private person whose only connection with money laundering, terrorist financing and associated predicate offences consists in the fact that their financial interests were harmed by a predicate offence is not necessary and thus not proportionate in order to combat money laundering, predicate offences to money laundering and terrorist financing?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Must point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 30(5) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 in the original version be interpreted as meaning that a private person whose only connection with money laundering, terrorist financing and associated predicate offences consists in the fact that their financial interests were harmed by a predicate offence does not have a legitimate interest in inspecting the register of beneficial owners?
3. If Question 2 is answered in the negative: Must point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 30(5) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 in the original version be interpreted as meaning that a substantiation of a legitimate interest is necessary but also sufficient?
Cited (recent) case-law: C-37/20 and C-601/20 Luxembourg Business Registers Policy Area: JenV
