EU court says banks cannot deny basic accounts solely over OFAC listing

LUXEMBOURG, June 11, 2026 — The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that EU law does not allow banks to refuse a payment account with basic features solely because a consumer appears on a sanctions list maintained by a third country, including the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, unless the bank has first carried out an individual assessment of money-laundering or terrorist-financing risk.

The Fourth Chamber’s judgment in Case C-81/24, Jenec, confirms and hardens the position set out last year by Advocate General Richard de la Tour. The court said Article 16(4) of the Payment Accounts Directive, read together with the EU’s anti-money laundering directive, does not permit member states to require automatic refusal of a basic account on the sole basis of a third-country restrictive measures list.

Instead, the court said inclusion on an OFAC list may be a relevant risk factor, but not an automatic bar. A bank must assess all relevant circumstances and determine whether proportionate measures, including enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring, can manage the risk tied to the proposed business relationship. Only if the institution concludes it cannot effectively manage that risk may refusal be justified under EU law.

The dispute arose in Slovenia after OTP banka, formerly Nova Kreditna Banka Maribor, refused to open a basic payment account for a customer identified in the proceedings as LH, who had been listed by OFAC. The Slovenian court asked whether such a refusal was compatible with EU law and whether it raised issues under the presumption of innocence. After answering the first question in the negative, the ECJ said there was no need to address the remaining questions.

The ruling is significant for EU banks that screen customers against non-EU sanctions lists. It draws a sharper line between sanctions-related risk screening and the bloc’s legal right of access to a basic bank account, particularly for legally resident consumers. It also signals that foreign designations alone cannot replace the individualized, risk-based analysis required by the EU AML framework.