Luxembourg / Court of Appeal (Pre-trial Chamber) / 106/25 Ch.c.C. XI

Company 1 and the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministère Public), in the presence of Persons 7 to 110 and Company 3
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Court of Appeal (Pre-trial Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
26/02/2025
  • Luxembourg / Court of Appeal (Pre-trial Chamber) / 106/25 Ch.c.C. XI

    Key facts of the case:

    In July 2020, the Financial Sector Supervisory Commission (Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier - CSSF) ordered Company 1 to pay an administrative fine of €170,000 under the Act of 12 November 2004 on the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing transposing Directive 2001/97/EC (Loi du 12 novembre 2004 relative à la lutte contre le blanchiment et contre le financement du terrorisme portant transposition de la directive 2001/97/CE) (non-official consolidated English version here) (hereinafter Act of 12 November 2004). The fine was based, among other things, on breaches of Articles 2-2(1), 3(2) and 5(1) of the same Act. These articles  enshrine requirements relating to risk assessment, customer due diligence and cooperation with the authorities, respectively. On 6 March 2024, the pre-trial chamber of the Luxembourg City District Court (chambre du conseil du tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg) ordered the referral of Company 1 to the criminal chamber of the Luxembourg City District Court (chambre correctionnelle du tribunal d’arrondissement de et à Luxembourg) for breach of the above-mentioned requirements (risk assessment, customer due diligence and cooperation with the authorities). Company 1 appealed the order of the Luxembourg City District Court before the Court of Appeal on 7 March 2024.

    Key legal question raised by the court:

    The key legal question raised by the Court concerns the interpretation of the principle of non bis in idem enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter.

    Outcome of the case:

    According to the Court, the principle of non bis in idem is to be assessed under Article 50 of the Charter as the Act of 12 November 2004 originates from EU law. Furthermore, the current caselaw of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter: CJEU) interpreting Article 50 of the Charter does not preclude imposing a combination of administrative and criminal penalties. It is only when the administrative penalty is of a criminal nature, within the meaning of Article 50 of the Charter, and has become final, that the said provision precludes criminal proceedings from being brought against the same person for the same conduct.

    Turning to the facts of the case, the Court notes, firstly, that Article 8-4 (1) and Article 9 of the Act of 12 November 2004 entail, respectively, administrative and criminal sanctions for the breach of the same requirements. Secondly, the facts of the criminal proceedings are included in those of the administrative sanctions. Thirdly, the penalty imposed by the CSSF is punitive and relatively severe and should therefore be considered criminal in nature according to the Engel criteria of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECtHR). Finally, an exception to the principle of non bis in idem was inapplicable in the case according to the criteria set out by the ECtHR as it was impossible to justify how the penalties – two fines – pursued complementary objectives.

    Consequently, the Court upheld the appeal and declared the criminal proceedings brought against Company 1 inadmissible under the principle of non bis in idem.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    Indeed, under the principle of non bis in idem, which is enshrined in various international conventions, notably Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 14(7) of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings by the Courts of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and the criminal procedure of that State. ...

    As the Act of 2004 originates from EU law, the non bis in idem principle must be assessed in accordance with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides that ”No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law.”

    In its opinion of 15 December 2017 on the bill transposing Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, the Council of State specifies that, according to the current caselaw of Court of Justice of the European Union, Article 50 of the Charter does not preclude a Member State from imposing a combination of administrative and criminal penalties. These penalties may therefore take the form of administrative penalties, criminal penalties or a combination of both. It is only when the administrative penalty is of a criminal nature, within the meaning of Article 50 of the Charter, and has become final, that the said provision precludes criminal proceedings from being brought against the same person for the same acts (Parliamentary Document, n° 7128-5, pages 21 and 22 relating to the Act of 13 February 2018 amending the amended Act of 12 November 2004 on the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    En effet, en vertu du principe non bis in idem qui est consacré par différentes conventions internationales, à savoir notamment par l’article 4 du protocole n°7 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme, par l’article 14-7 du Pacte international de l’ONU relatif aux droits civils et politiques et par l’article 50 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne, nul ne peut être poursuivi ou puni pénalement par les juridictions du même Etat en raison d’une infraction pour laquelle il a déjà été acquitté ou condamné par un jugement définitif conformément à la loi et à la procédure pénale de cet Etat.(…)

    La Loi de 2004 tire son origine du droit de l’Union, de sorte que le principe non bis in idem est à apprécier conformément à l’article 50 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne qui prévoit que « Nul ne peut être poursuivi ou puni pénalement en raison d’une même infraction pour laquelle il a déjà été acquitté ou condamné dans l’Union par un jugement pénal définitif conformément à la loi. »

    Dans son avis du 15 décembre 2017 relatif au projet de loi portant transposition de la directive (UE) 2015/849 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 20 mai 2015 relative à la prévention de l’utilisation du système financier à des fins de blanchiment de capitaux ou de financement du terrorisme, le Conseil d’Etat 5 précise qu’en l’état actuel de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne, l’article 50 de la Charte ne s’oppose pas à ce qu’un Etat membre impose une combinaison de sanctions administratives et pénales. Ces sanctions peuvent donc prendre la forme de sanctions administratives, de sanctions pénales ou d’une combinaison des deux. Ce n’est que lorsque la sanction administrative revêt un caractère pénal, au sens de l’article 50 de la Charte, et est devenue définitive, que ladite disposition s’oppose à ce que des poursuites pénales pour les mêmes faits soient diligentées contre une même personne (Document parlementaire, n° 7128-5, pages 21 et 22 relatif à la loi du 13 février 2018 portant modification de la loi modifiée du 12 novembre 2004 relative à la lutte contre le blanchiment et contre le financement du terrorisme).