Ljubljana: Banks in the European Union cannot refuse a basic payment account only because the applicant appears on a United States sanctions list, according to a Court of Justice ruling reported on 12 June 2026. The judgment came in a case that began in Slovenia, and it forces banks to justify refusals with their own documented risk assessment instead of relying automatically on a third-country list.
The case involved a consumer identified only as LH and Nova Kreditna Banka Maribor, now part of the OTP Group. In 2022 the bank refused to open an account with basic features for LH because LH appeared on a list kept by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control. According to the report, LH had not been convicted of the offence behind the listing and was not subject to United Nations, EU or Slovenian sanctions.
The Court held that a listing by a non-EU authority is not, on its own, a sufficient reason to refuse a basic payment account. Under EU rules, legal residents have a right to open and use such an account, subject to the requirements on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing. That right would lose its meaning if any foreign list could switch it off.
The ruling does not tell banks to ignore US sanctions. An OFAC or other third-country listing can still be considered a relevant risk factor when a bank assesses money-laundering or terrorist-financing risk. What changes is the method. Banks must reach individualised, documented reasoning and cannot use blanket refusals that treat a listing as the end of the analysis.
The practical effect lands on compliance departments. Many banks screen applicants against several sanctions lists, including American ones, because they fear losing access to dollar clearing. After this ruling, a match on the OFAC list should trigger a case-by-case review, and the file should explain why the bank accepts or rejects the applicant. A refusal without that file would be hard to defend before a national court.
For consumers, the judgment protects access to the banking system, which the basic payment account was designed to guarantee. A person without a basic payment account struggles to receive wages, pay rent or use online services, so exclusion has real consequences even when the person faces no EU sanctions.
The sources reviewed for this article do not give the case number, the exact date of the judgment or the Court’s operative wording, so readers should check the judgment on the Court’s own site. The direction is clear, though. The Court expects banks to weigh the risk of each applicant and to protect the basic payment account as a right that foreign sanctions lists cannot erase by themselves.





