Ruling [CJEU] ¦ AML: Subject to a Legitimate Interest, the Public has Access to Information on the Beneficial Ownership of Trust Mandates Governed by Italian Law

EU Court confirms public access to beneficial ownership data for Italian trust mandates

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has delivered a joint judgment in Joined Cases C‑684/24 and C‑685/24 concerning the interaction between EU anti‑money laundering rules and Italian law on trust mandates (mandato fiduciario). The questions came from the Italian Council of State after a number of Italian trust companies challenged national implementing measures that required disclosure of beneficial ownership information for trust mandates governed by Italian law. At issue were the validity and interpretation of several provisions of Directive (EU) 2015/849, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843, in particular the rules on trustees’ obligations to hold and provide information on beneficial owners and the conditions under which that information may be publicly accessible.

Validity of the Directive provisions and legal certainty

The Court first rejected the challenges to the validity of the provisions of the Anti‑Money Laundering Directive that were contested. It held that the regulatory approach adopted by the EU legislature is compatible with the principle of legal certainty. Given the subject matter and the policy objective, the degree of discretion left to Member States and the way in which that discretion is circumscribed meet the required precision. The Court therefore confirmed that the Directive’s framework for identifying and recording beneficial ownership of trusts and similar arrangements is legally sound.

Bastian Schwind-Wagner _Follow

"The Court of Justice’s judgment upholds the EU anti‑money laundering framework, confirming that Member States may require disclosure of beneficial ownership information for trusts and similar arrangements while balancing that transparency with fundamental rights protections. This decision affirms that Italian trust mandates can be treated like trusts for disclosure purposes, provided national implementation stays within the Directive’s permitted discretion.

The ruling also permits administrative bodies to decide exemption requests but requires effective interim judicial remedies when access is refused, ensuring timely protection of privacy and safety interests. Practitioners and affected persons should review national procedures to confirm both compliance with disclosure obligations and availability of prompt legal recourse."

Public access to beneficial ownership information and fundamental rights

A central issue was whether the Directive’s provision allowing public access to beneficial ownership information, where a legitimate interest is shown, is compatible with the rights to privacy and data protection protected under Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Court found that public access provided there is a legitimate interest is compatible with those Charter rights. It recognised that the EU legislature pursues the legitimate and important objective of preventing money‑laundering and terrorist financing by increasing transparency. Applying the principle of proportionality, the Court concluded that the legislated balance between transparency and privacy is acceptable under EU fundamental rights law.

Classification of Italian trust mandates as “other types of legal arrangements”

The Court addressed whether Italian trust mandates (mandato fiduciario) can be treated as “other types of legal arrangements” within the meaning of the Directive, and thus be subject to the same information and access obligations as trusts. Italy had adopted national measures considering those mandates equivalent to trusts for anti‑money laundering purposes, even though Italian trust mandates do not transfer ownership of the relevant assets. The Court held that EU law allows Member States to include such mandates within the scope of “other types of legal arrangements”. The absence of transfer of ownership under Italian law is not decisive; what matters is that the arrangement has a structure or functions similar to a trust. The Court found that Italy did not exceed the margin of discretion available when implementing the Directive in that respect.

Administrative handling of exemption requests and interim protection

Finally, the Court examined whether EU law permits non‑judicial administrative bodies, specifically chambers of commerce in Italy, to decide on requests for exemptions from access to beneficial ownership information. The Court answered in the affirmative: conferring that task on non‑judicial administrative bodies is compatible with the Directive. However, the Court emphasised the need for effective legal protection: where an exemption is refused, beneficial owners must have access to interim judicial protection. That requirement ensures that refusals can be challenged promptly and that rights under the Charter are adequately safeguarded.

Practical implications for trustees, beneficial owners and competent authorities

The judgment confirms that national measures implementing Directive 2015/849, as amended, may require trustees and trustees under arrangements analogous to trusts to maintain and provide beneficial ownership information, and that such information can be accessible to the public upon a showing of legitimate interest. Member States retain a degree of discretion to determine which legal arrangements fall within the scope of those obligations, but their choices must be anchored in the similarity of structure or function to trusts. Administrative bodies may be entrusted with deciding exemption requests, yet national systems must provide timely interim judicial remedies when access is refused.

Conclusion

The Court’s ruling reinforces the transparency objectives of the EU anti‑money laundering framework while clarifying the limits of national discretion and the protection of fundamental rights. For practitioners, trustees and beneficial owners operating under Italian law, the judgment signals that the Italian treatment of trust mandates as subject to beneficial ownership disclosure is compatible with EU law, but also that affected persons must have effective avenues for interim judicial relief when access to information is denied.

Dive deeper

• InfoCuria ¦ Case C-684/24 ¦ Link
• InfoCuria ¦ Case C-685/24 ¦ Link
• EUR-Lex ¦ Directive (EU) 2015/849 AML Directive ¦ Link
• EUR-Lex ¦ Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ¦ Link