Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in Case C-81/24, Jenec, that the mere inclusion of a person on the US OFAC sanctions list does not constitute sufficient grounds to refuse them the opening of a basic account in the EU (see judgment and Opinion here).

Facts

In 2022, a Slovenian bank refused to open a payment account with basic functions for a consumer because he was listed on the sanctions list of the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). However, the consumer in question had not been convicted anywhere in the world of a criminal offence justifying inclusion on the OFAC list, nor was he subject to sanctions imposed by the United Nations, the EU or Slovenia. He subsequently brought an action before a Slovenian court seeking the opening of the account.

The Slovenian court referred the question to the ECJ as to whether the bank’s refusal was justified under EU law – in particular in the light of Directive 2014/92/EU (Payment Accounts Directive) and Directive (EU) 2015/849 (Anti-Money Laundering Directive).

The ECJ’s ruling

Advocate General Richard de la Tour had already argued in his Opinion of 4 September 2025 that a banking institution should not be permitted to refuse to open an account solely on the grounds of an OFAC listing.

The ECJ followed this line of reasoning, thereby contributing to a degree to the establishment of uniform minimum standards across Europe regarding access to banking services.

The ECJ has established three key principles:

1. Fundamental right to a basic account: Any person legally resident in the EU has the right to open and use a payment account with basic features – subject to compliance with AML/CFT regulations.
2. No automatic ban based on third-country sanctions lists: The mere inclusion of a customer’s name on the OFAC list or a comparable sanctions list of a third country does not automatically prohibit a bank from entering into a business relationship with that customer.
3. OFAC listing as a risk factor – not an exclusion criterion: Inclusion on the OFAC list or a comparable third-country list may nevertheless be taken into account as a relevant factor in the individual risk assessment with regard to money laundering and terrorist financing.

Practical implications for financial institutions

The ruling has significant consequences for compliance practice:

• No automatic rule: Banks and other payment service providers cannot refuse to open an account solely on the basis of an OFAC listing. Mere ‘list matches’ are not sufficient.
• Obligation to assess each case individually: An individual risk assessment is required, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including any EU, UN or national sanctions as well as criminal convictions.
• Increased documentation requirements: Decisions to refuse a basic account must be substantiated with sound reasoning and documented in a robust manner.
• No free pass: The ruling does not preclude a refusal from being lawful in individual cases – however, it must be based on a well-founded overall assessment.

Conclusion

Although the limited scope of use of a basic payment account reduces the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, it cannot be ruled out that, following a specific assessment, a bank may conclude that it is unable to effectively manage the ML/TF risk associated with a business relationship with a person listed on such a list through measures appropriate to the nature and scale of the business. In such a case, refusing to open such an account may also be justified under EU law. However, the mere inclusion of the person on the US OFAC list is not sufficient grounds to refuse such a business relationship.