The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has delivered a significant ruling that reinforces the rights of consumers while preserving the integrity of the financial system. In a judgement delivered on 11 June 2026, the court held that an individual’s inclusion on a United States sanctions list cannot, by itself, justify the refusal to open a basic bank account within the European Union. Instead, banks must conduct an individual assessment of the customer’s risk before denying access to banking services.
The decision stems from a dispute involving a Slovenian bank and has far-reaching implications for financial institutions, regulators, and consumers across the European Union. It establishes an important legal distinction between foreign sanctions regimes and the obligations imposed under EU law.
The Case That Reached the EU’s Highest Court
The case originated in 2022 when a Slovenian bank, Nova Kreditna Banka Maribor (later acquired by OTP Group), refused to open a payment account with basic features for an individual identified only as LH.
The refusal was based solely on the fact that the applicant appeared on a sanctions list maintained by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the agency responsible for administering and enforcing U.S. economic and trade sanctions.
However, the applicant:
- Had not been convicted of the offence that resulted in the OFAC listing.
- Was not subject to sanctions imposed by the European Union.
- Was not sanctioned by the United Nations.
- Was not under any sanctions issued by Slovenia.
The dispute eventually reached the Court of Justice of the European Union after the Slovenian court sought clarification on how EU banking laws should be interpreted in such circumstances.
What EU Law Says About Basic Bank Accounts
European legislation grants every legal resident the right to access a payment account with basic features.
Such an account generally enables consumers to:
- Deposit money
- Withdraw cash
- Receive salaries or benefits
- Make electronic transfers
- Pay bills
- Use payment cards
The objective is financial inclusion. Without access to basic banking services, participating in modern economic life becomes extremely difficult.
However, this right is not absolute. Banks remain legally obligated to comply with anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) regulations. If a customer genuinely presents an unacceptable financial crime risk, a bank may refuse to establish the relationship but only after carrying out an evidence-based assessment.
The Court’s Key Findings
The Court delivered a carefully balanced ruling that protects both consumer rights and financial security.
Its principal findings include:
· OFAC Listing Alone Is Insufficient
The court made it clear that merely appearing on a sanctions list created by a third country does not automatically prohibit an EU bank from opening an account.
Banks cannot treat an OFAC designation as an automatic legal ban.
· Individual Risk Assessment Is Mandatory
Instead of relying solely on sanctions lists, banks must evaluate every customer individually.
This assessment should consider:
- Money laundering risks
- Terrorist financing risks
- Customer background
- Available evidence
- Nature of the proposed banking relationship
Only after such an assessment may a bank determine whether refusing the account is legally justified.
· AML Rules Remain Fully Applicable
The judgement does not weaken anti-money laundering laws.
Rather, it confirms that banks must continue complying with AML and CTF obligations through stringent customer due diligence and proportionate risk management procedures.
The Relevance of the Judgement
The ruling carries significant implications for multiple stakeholders.
· For Consumers
The judgement strengthens financial inclusion by ensuring that legally resident individuals are not automatically excluded from essential banking services because of foreign sanctions lists.
Consumers retain the right to fair and individual treatment.
· For Banks
Financial institutions must ensure that account-opening decisions are supported by documented risk assessments rather than blanket internal policies.
Compliance teams will need to maintain detailed records demonstrating why a customer does or does not pose an unacceptable financial crime risk.
· For Regulators
The decision reinforces the principle that EU law governs banking rights within the Union, even when foreign sanctions influence international finance.
Regulators are likely to continue encouraging risk-based compliance instead of automatic exclusion.
Balancing Compliance and Fundamental Rights
One of the most significant aspects of the judgement is its emphasis on proportionality.
Banks undoubtedly have a responsibility to protect the financial system from abuse. They must prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, fraud, and other financial crimes.
At the same time, denying an individual access to even a basic payment account can have serious consequences.
Without a bank account, people may struggle to:
- Receive wages
- Pay rent
- Access government benefits
- Conduct routine financial transactions
- Participate fully in society
The Court recognised that combating financial crime should not unnecessarily deprive individuals of these essential services where no sufficient legal basis exists.
OTP Group’s Response
Following the judgement, OTP Group stated that it remains fully committed to complying with applicable legislation relating to anti-money laundering and terrorist financing.
The bank noted that the decision confirms the importance of conducting proper, individualised risk assessments, a practice it said was already being followed.
This response reflects the broader message of the judgement that us compliance obligations remain unchanged, but decisions must be evidence-based rather than automatic.
Wider Impact on International Banking
The judgement may influence how European banks handle customers associated with foreign sanctions programmes in the future.
Although U.S. sanctions remain commercially significant, particularly for institutions with international operations or exposure to U.S. financial markets, the decision confirms that EU banks cannot simply substitute foreign sanctions policies for their own legal obligations under European law.
Instead, they must strike an appropriate balance between:
- Regulatory compliance
- Financial crime prevention
- Consumer protection
- Fundamental rights guaranteed under EU legislation
This risk-based approach aligns with broader international standards for anti-money laundering supervision.
Looking Forward
The CJEU’s ruling establishes an important precedent for banks operating across the European Union.
Financial institutions are expected to continue performing rigorous customer due diligence, but they must avoid blanket refusals based solely on inclusion in third-country sanctions lists.
The judgement also provides greater legal certainty for consumers who may face banking restrictions despite not being subject to EU, UN, or national sanctions.
Ultimately, the decision reinforces a key principle of European financial regulation, such as safeguarding the financial system and protecting individual rights are complementary objectives, not competing ones. By requiring proportionate and individual assessments, the Court has reaffirmed that effective compliance depends on evidence, fairness, and careful legal judgement rather than automatic assumptions.
