Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:22:09.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anti-Money Laundering Measures Versus European Union Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Sara De Vido

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article will evaluate whether, and to what extent, preventive measures in the fight against money laundering may limit fundamental freedoms and human rights within the European Union (“EU”). It will analyze two judgments rendered by the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) and one judgment rendered by the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”). In these three cases, the courts were asked to investigate the compatibility of specific Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) preventive measures with the freedom to provide services enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) and human rights. Considering the gravity of the phenomenon, AML measures have gradually emerged as a “European general interest.” The Fourth EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which has been recently adopted, displays this compelling need.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 5 , October 2015 , pp. 1271 - 1292
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Lopez, Robert S., The Dawn of Modern Banking, in The Dawn of Modern Banking 1, 1 (R.S. Lopez et al. eds., 1979); see also Magno, Alessandro Marzo, L'invenzione dei soldi, Quando la Finanza Parlava Italiano 45 (2013).Google Scholar

2 For the origins of money laundering, see Stessens, Guy, Money Laundering: A New International Law Enforcement Model (2000). See also Truman, Edwin & Reuter, Peter, Chasing Dirty Money: Progress on Anti-Money Laundering (2004); Gilmore, Bill, Dirty Money (2011); Unger, Brigitte, Money Laundering Regulation: From Al Capone to Al Qaeda, in Research Handbook on Money Laundering 19 (2013); Il riciclaggio come fenomeno transnazionale: Normative a confronto (R. Razzante ed., 2014).Google Scholar

3 Vervaele, John, Economic Crimes and Money Laundering: A New Paradigm for the Criminal Justice System?, in Research Handbook on Money Laundering 379, 382 (Unger, Brigitte & Daan Van Der Linde eds., 2013).Google Scholar

4 Money laundering was linked to drug trafficking. Robert E. Grosse, Drugs and Money: Laundering Latin America's Cocaine Dollars 69 (2001).Google Scholar

5 U.S. v. Four Million Two Hundred & Fifty-Five Thousand, 551 F. Supp. 314,325 (S.D. Fla. 1982); see also Gilmore, supra note 2, at 22.Google Scholar

6 Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99–579, 100 Stat. 3207-18-21 (1986) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956-57 (2006)); see also Vervaele, supra note 3, at 383.Google Scholar

7 Recommendation No. R (80) 10 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Measures Against the Transfer and the Safekeeping of Funds of Criminal Origin, 1980 Eur. Y.B. 1. A thorough analysis of the first instruments related to anti-money laundering are described in Valsamis Mitsilegas, Money Laundering Counter-Measures in the European Union 44 (2003), and in Gilmore, supra note 2.Google Scholar

8 Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, Report on the Extent and Nature of the Money Laundering Process and FATF Recommendations to Combat Money Laundering (1990), http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/1990%20ENG.pdf.Google Scholar

9 Ferwenda, Joras, The Effects of Money Laundering, in Research Handbook on Money Laundering 35 (Unger, Brigitte & Daan Van Der Linde eds., 2013).Google Scholar

10 Directive 2015/849, On the Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purposes of Money Laundering or Terrorist Financing, amending Regulation 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, 2015 O.J. (L 141) 73.Google Scholar

11 Case C-212/11, Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd. v. Administración del Estado (Apr. 25, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

12 Free movement of goods, persons, services and capital, which are the bases of the EU internal market. See Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, art. 26, May 9, 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115)47 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

13 Catherine Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU 155 (2013).Google Scholar

14 Case C-120/78, Rewe-Zentrale AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon), 1979 E.C.R. 649; see also Tesauro, Giuseppe, Diritto dell'Unione Europea 409 (2012); Daniele, Luigi, Diritto del mercato unico europeo 68 (2012).Google Scholar

15 Cassis de Dijon, Case C-120/78 at para. 8.Google Scholar

16 Id. at para. 14.Google Scholar

17 For a comprehensive study, see Gallo, Daniele, I servizi di interesse economico generale (2010); Company Law and Economic Protectionism: New Challenges to European Integration (Bernitz, Ulf & Wolf-Georg Ringe eds., 2010) and bibliography cited.Google Scholar

18 Case C-212/09, Comm'n v. Portugal, 2011 E.C.R. I-10889 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

19 Directive 2005/60/EC on the Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, 2005 O.J. (L 309) 15 [hereinafter 3AML Directive].Google Scholar

20 Id. at art. 22, para. 2.Google Scholar

21 Id. at art. 21.Google Scholar

22 Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd., Case C-212/11 at para. 20. Territories regarded as tax havens and uncooperative territories were specified by Royal Decree 1080/1991 of 5 July 1991 (BOE No 167, of 13 July 1991, p. 233371), and by order ECO/2652/2002 of 24 October 2002 on the implementation of disclosure obligations in relation to operations with certain States to the Servicio Ejecutivo of the Commission for the prevention of money laundering and monetary offences (Orden ECO/2652/2002 por la que se desarrollan las obligaciones de comunicación de operaciones en relación con determinados países al Servicio Ejecutivo de la Comisión de Prevención del Blanqueo de Capitales e Infracciones Monetarias) (BOE No 260 of 30 October 2002, p. 38033). Gibraltar appears on this list.Google Scholar

23 Id. at para. 38.Google Scholar

24 See 3AML Directive, supra note 19, Preamble, recital no. 5 (“Since the FATF Forty Recommendations were substantially revised and expanded in 2003, Directive should be in line with that new international standard.”); see also Vido, Sara De, Il contrasto del finanziamento al terrorismo internazionale. Profili di diritto internazionale e dell'Unione europea 172 (2012).Google Scholar

25 The article is not aimed at a deep analysis of the Directive. For further details, see Gilmore, supra note 2, at 236; Mitsilegas, Valsamis & Gilmore, Bill, The EU Legislative Framework Against Money Laundering and Terrorist Finance: A Critical Analysis in the Light of Evolving Global Standards 56 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 119 (2007); Pellegrina, Lucia Dalla & Masciandaro, Donato, The Risk-Based Approach in the New European Anti-Money Laundering Legislation: A Law and Economics View, 5 Rev. L. & Econ. 931 (2009); Borrello, Italo, Il ruolo dell'Unione europea nel controllo dei capitali di provenienza illecita, in Il Riciclaggio Come Fenomeno Transnazionale: Normative a Confronto 159 (Ranieri Ruzzante ed., 2014).Google Scholar

26 Jyske Bank, Case 212/11 at para. 43.Google Scholar

27 Id. at paras. 45, 49.Google Scholar

28 Id. at paras. 51, 54.Google Scholar

29 In this sense, see the Opinion of Advocate General Bot at paras. 95–96, Case C-212/11, Jyske Bank of Gibraltar Ltd. v. Administración del Estado (Oct. 4, 2012), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

30 Id. at para. 6.Google Scholar

31 Id. at para. 85.Google Scholar

32 Tesauro, supra note 14, at 541.Google Scholar

33 Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd., Case C-212/11 at para. 59.Google Scholar

34 Id. at para. 60.Google Scholar

35 Id. at para. 62.Google Scholar

36 Case 212/08, Zeturf Ltd. v. Premier Ministre, 2011 E.C.R. I-5633, paras. 45–46.Google Scholar

37 Barnard, supra note 13, at 173.Google Scholar

38 Jyske Bank, Case 212/11 at paras. 65–66.Google Scholar

39 Id. Google Scholar

40 On the principle of proportionality, see, e.g., Gráinne De Bürca, The Principle of Proportionality and Its Application in EC Law, 13 Y.B. Euro. L. 105 (1993); Tomuschat, Christian, Le Principe de Proportionnalité: Quis Judicabit?, 13 Cahiers de Droit Européen 97 (1997); Cannizzaro, Enzo, Il Principio della Proporzionalità nell'Ordinamento Internazionale (2000); Jans, Jan H., Proportionality Revisited, 27 Legal Issues Econ. Integration 239 (2000); Harbo, Tor-Inge, The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law, 16 Euro. L.J. 158 (2010); Pertile, Marco, Il Principio di Proporzionalità nell'Interazione tra Diritto Umanitario e Tutela dei Diritti Umani: Strumento per la Risoluzione delle Antinomie o mero Argomento Retorico?, in La Tutela dei Diritti Umani e il Diritto Internazionale 159 (2012); Hatzopoulos, Vassilis, The Court's Approach to Services (2006–2012): From Case Law to Case Load?, 50 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 459 (2013).Google Scholar

41 Case C-212/11, Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd. v. Administración del Estado, paras. 73–75 (Apr. 25, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

42 Id. at para. 81.Google Scholar

43 Id. at para. 83.Google Scholar

44 Id. at para. 32.Google Scholar

45 Referring to fundamental rights, see Barnard, supra note 13, at 159.Google Scholar

46 Id. at 391.Google Scholar

47 Directive 2015/849, supra note 10, at arts. 51–57.Google Scholar

48 Id. at art. 51.Google Scholar

49 Lecocq, Arnaud, Le Blanchiment des Capitaux, 6 J. Droit Eur. 233 (2013).Google Scholar

50 Hatzopoulos, supra note 40, at 497; see also Weiss, Friedl & Kaupa, Clemens, European Union Internal Market Law 34(2014).Google Scholar

51 Hatzopoulos, supra note 40, at 499; Weiss & Kaupa, supra note 50, at 264.Google Scholar

52 See Tesauro, supra note 14, at 562 (concerning the freedom to provide services and indistinctly applicable measures, the ECJ has stressed the “exceptional character” of the derogations).Google Scholar

53 Case 305/05, Ordre des Barreaux Francophones et Germanophone v. Conseil des Ministres, 2007 E.C.R. I-5305.Google Scholar

54 Council Directive 91/308, June 10, 1991, On Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering, 1991 O.J. (L 166) 77 [hereinafter 1AML Directive].Google Scholar

55 Directive 2001/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of Dec. 4, 2001, amending Council Directive 91/308 on Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering, 2001 O.J. (L 344) 76 (EC) [hereinafter 2AML Directive].Google Scholar

56 Id. art. 2(a), para. 5. See Komárek, Jan, Legal Professional Privilege and the EU's Fight Against Money Laundering, 27 Civ. Just. Q. 13, 15 (2009); Luchtman, Michiel & Rob Van der Hoeven, Case C-305/05, Ordre des Barreaux Francophones et Germanophone et al. v. Conseil des Ministres, Judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 June 2007, Grand Chamber; [2007] ECRI-5305, 46 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 301 (2009).Google Scholar

57 See 2AML Directive, supra note 55, art. 2(a), para. 5Google Scholar

Member States shall ensure that the obligations laiddown in this Directive are imposed on the following institutions: … 5. notaries and other independent legal professionals, when they participate, whether: (a) By assisting in the planning or execution of transactions for their client concerning the (i) buying and selling of real property or business entities; (ii) managing of client money, securities or other assets; (iii) opening or management of bank, savings or securities accounts; (iv) organization of contributions necessary for the creation, operation or management of companies; (v) creation, operation or management of trusts, companies or similar structures; (b) or by acting on behalf of and for their client in any financial or real estate transaction.

58 Case 305/05, Ordre des Barreaux Francophones et Germanophone v. Conseil des Ministres, 2007 E.C.R. I-5305, para. 24.Google Scholar

59 Id. at para. 28.Google Scholar

60 Id. at para. 33.Google Scholar

61 Id. at para. 34.Google Scholar

62 Opinion of Advocate General Maduro at para. 78, Case C-305/05, Ordre des Barreaux Francophones et Germanophone v. Conseil des Ministres (Dec. 14, 2006), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-305/05&td=ALL.Google Scholar

63 Melissa Van Den Broek & Addink, Henk, Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing from a Good Governance Perspective, in Research Handbook on Money Laundering 368, 374 (Unger, Brigitte & Daan Van Der Linde eds., 2013).Google Scholar

64 Id. at 313.Google Scholar

65 The real estate sector is particularly vulnerable to money laundering. See Ferwenda, Joras & Unger, Brigitte, Detecting Money Laundering in the Real Estate Sector, in Research Handbook on Money Laundering, supra note 64, at 269.Google Scholar

66 Broek, Van Den & Addink, supra note 63, at 375.Google Scholar

67 Stouten, Maaike & Tilleman, André, Reporting Duty for Lawyers vs. Legal Privilege—Unresolved Tension, in Research Handbook on Money Laundering supra note 2, at 431.Google Scholar

68 Cour constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 10–2008, Jan. 23, 2008 (Fr.).Google Scholar

69 Séance du 28 Mars 2008-Lecture du 10 Avril 2008, D.P. III 296845, 296907 (2008), available at http://www.conseil-etat.fr/.Google Scholar

70 Stouten & Tilleman, supra note 67, at 431.Google Scholar

71 Opinion of Advocate General Maduro, supra note 62, at para. 41.Google Scholar

72 France, Michaud v., 2012 VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 89.Google Scholar

73 Id. at para. 51.Google Scholar

74 Id. Google Scholar

75 Tomasi, Laura, Articolo 8, in Commentario Breve alla Convenzione Europea per la Salvaguardia dei Diritti Dell'uomo 355 (Sergio Bartole et al. eds., 2012).Google Scholar

76 See Michaud, 2012 VI Eur. Ct. H.R. at paras. 97–98 (“[S]uspicions is a matter of common sense” and “an informed group such as lawyers can scarcely claim that they do not understand it.”)Google Scholar

77 Id. at para. 99.Google Scholar

78 On the doctrine of “equivalent protection” and the Bosphorus case, see ex multis, Gaja, Giorgio, The Review by the European Court of Human Rights of Member States’ Acts Implementing European Union Law: Solange Yet Again?, in Essays in Honour of Christian Tomuschat 517 (Pierre-Marie Dupuy ed., 2006); Benoît-Rohmer, Florence, A propos de l'arrět Bosphorus air lines du 30 juin 2005: l'adhésion contrainte de l'Union à la Convention [On the Judgment in Bosphorus Airlines of 30 June 2005: The EU Accession to the ECHR], 64 Rev. Trim. Dr. H. 827 (2005); Cannizzaro, Enzo, Sulla responsabilità internazionale per condotte di Stati membri dell'Unione europea: in margine al caso Bosphorus [On the International Responsibility for Actions Taken by EU Member States: The Bosphorus Case], 88 Rivista di diritto internazionale 762 (2005); Eckes, Christina, Does the European Court of Human Rights Provide Protection from the European Community?—The Case of Bosphorus Airways, 13 Eur. Pub. L. 47 (2007); Hert, Paul De & Korenica, Fisnik, The Doctrine of Equivalent Protection: Its Life and Legitimacy Before and After the European Union's Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, 13 German L. Rev. 874 (2012); Jean-Paul Jacqué, L'arrět Bosphorus, une jurisprudence Solange Il de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme? [The Judgment in the Bosphorus Case: A Solange Il Jurisprudence for the ECHR?], 3 RTDE 749 (2005); Kuhnert, Kathrin, Bosphorus: Double Standards in European Human Rights Protection ?, 2 Utrecht L. Rev. 177 (2006).Google Scholar

79 Michaud, 2012 VI Eur. Ct. H.R. at paras. 102–03.Google Scholar

80 Id. at para. 103.Google Scholar

81 Id. at para. 108.Google Scholar

82 Id. at para. 113.Google Scholar

83 Id. at para. 114.Google Scholar

84 Giannelli, Alessandra, L'adesione dell'Unione europea alla CEDU secondo il Trattato di Lisbona [The Accession of the EU to the ECHR According to the Lisbon Treaty], 14 II Diritto dell'Unione europea 645, 678 (2009); see generally, Gragl, Paul, The Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights (1st ed. 2013).Google Scholar

85 Michaud, 2012 VI Eur. Ct. H.R. at para. 121.Google Scholar

86 Id. at para. 123.Google Scholar

87 Id. at paras. 127–28.Google Scholar

88 Id. at para. 129.Google Scholar

89 Daniele, supra note 14, at 188.Google Scholar

90 Michaud, 2012 VI Eur. Ct. H.R. at para. 123.Google Scholar

91 Id. at para. 131.Google Scholar

92 We will not deal with pure economic theories on markets and democracy. See, e.g., Schumpeter, Joseph A., Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1943); see also Dahl, Robert A. & Lindblom, Charles E., Politics, Economics, and Welfare (1976). These nonetheless do not take into account “supranational” entities such as the ones that have developed after the Second World WarGoogle Scholar

93 TFEU art. 289.Google Scholar

94 According to the 4AML Directive, EU member states are obliged to transpose it into their national legal systems by 26 June 2017. Directive 2015/849, supra note 10, at art. 67.Google Scholar

95 European Commission Proposal for a Directive 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, at 2, COM (2013) 45 final (May 2, 2013), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52013PC0045.Google Scholar

96 Directive 2015/849, supra note 10, at recital no. 42.Google Scholar

97 Directive 2015/849, supra note 10, art. 14, para. 4; see also id. at art. 34, para. 2Google Scholar

regarding reporting obligations, “Member States shall not apply the obligations laid down in Article 33(1) to notaries, other independent legal professionals, auditors, external accountants and tax advisors only to the strict extent that such exemption relates to information that they receive from, or obtain on, one of their clients, in the course of ascertaining the legal position of their client, or performing their task of defending or representing that client in, or concerning, judicial proceedings, including providing advice on instituting or avoiding such proceedings, whether such information is received or obtained before, during or after such proceedings.”

98 Consider for example the strong position taken by the national bar associations before the ECtHR in the Michaud case. Michaud, 2012 IV Eur. Ct. H.R. at para. 75.Google Scholar

99 FATF-style regional body established within the Council of Europe.Google Scholar

100 Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Methodology for Assessing Compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the Effectiveness of AML/CTF Systems, at 4-5 (2013), http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/content/images/FATF%20Methodology%2022%20Feb%202013%20.pdf.Google Scholar

101 European Parliament Ordinary Legislative Procedure for the Legislative Resolution on the Proposal for a Directive 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, Amendment 2, COD (2013) 25 (Mar. 11, 2014), available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2014-0191+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.Google Scholar