The Court of Justice of the European Union held on 11 June 2026 that a bank established in the EU may not refuse to open a payment account with basic features for a consumer solely because that person appears on a sanctions list maintained by a third country, including a list maintained by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The ruling, Case C-81/24, arose from a Slovenian preliminary reference and rests on two instruments: the Payment Accounts Directive (Directive 2014/92/EU) and the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (Directive (EU) 2015/849).

The facts

In 2017, a Slovenian bank blocked a payment initiated by a consumer after inputting his personal data into the payment system. The bank cited stricter measures adopted to fulfil its obligations under Slovenian AML/CFT legislation, including compliance with OFAC restrictions; the consumer appeared on an OFAC list.

In 2022, the same bank refused to open a payment account with basic features for the consumer, stating that its banking system did not allow such an account to be opened. The consumer had never been convicted of the offense underlying his OFAC listing, and no sanction had been imposed on him by the United Nations, the European Union or Slovenia. He sued to compel the bank to open the account. The Slovenian court asked the CJEU whether the refusal was justified under EU law and whether the presumption of innocence under Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights was engaged.

The holding

The court confirmed that any consumer legally resident in the EU has the right to open and access a payment account with basic features, subject to compliance with AML/CFT rules. The directive defines a "consumer" as "any natural person who is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business, craft or profession" — a definition that materially limits the decision's scope.

The court held that inclusion of a customer's name on the OFAC list, or any comparable third-country list, does not automatically prohibit a bank from establishing a business relationship. Such a listing may, however, constitute one of the relevant factors the bank must weigh in its individual assessment of the money laundering and terrorist financing risk associated with the customer. Relying on the listing alone would effectively outsource the decision to the designating country and does not, on its own, provide a sufficient basis under EU law.

The court added that, following a specific assessment, a bank may still conclude that it cannot effectively manage that risk through measures proportionate to its nature and size — even where the intended relationship is limited to a basic payment account. Any refusal therefore requires a documented, individual AML/CFT risk assessment. The court also noted that the limited uses of a basic payment account reduce the money laundering and terrorist financing risk connected with opening one.

Echoes of Bank Melli

The approach tracks the court's reasoning in Bank Melli Iran v. Telekom Deutschland (Case C-124/20, 21 December 2021), its first ruling on the EU Blocking Statute, which prohibits EU operators from complying with specified U.S. sanctions instruments. There, the court held that where evidence indicates an EU operator terminated a relationship with an OFAC-listed counterparty in order to comply with those instruments, member state courts may require the operator to show the termination rested on legitimate grounds independent of the U.S. sanctions.

Both judgments demand that an EU institution declining, restricting or terminating a relationship with a customer sanctioned in the U.S. but not by the EU base and document its decision on grounds permissible under EU law. Bank Melli applies only to the U.S. sanctions instruments specified in the Blocking Statute; Case C-81/24 is broader, covering any third-country sanctions instrument. But it is also narrower, applying only to specified bank services provided to a consumer.

What practitioners should do

EU financial institutions should review their onboarding and de-risking procedures now. Third-country designations can continue to feed into AML/CFT risk scoring as one factor among several risk metrics. Before refusing to onboard or terminating a relationship, a bank should conduct and record a case-specific risk assessment calibrated to the product's risk profile, including the reduced risk associated with basic payment accounts.

Institutions that onboard a U.S.-designated person must also manage competing obligations: appropriate controls to mitigate U.S. sanctions exposure, and awareness of the EU Blocking Statute (Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96), which restricts EU operators' ability to comply with specified U.S. sanctions programs. Institutions that review screening logic, escalation procedures and documentation standards position themselves well to substantiate decisions before regulators, courts or counterparties.