—

annul Article 3(3)(a) and (b), Article 19(6)(b), Article 20(1) and (2), Article 21(2) to (4), Article 24(4) and Article 70(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing (OJ L 2024/1624) in so far as they infringe Articles 2, 6 and 19 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 7, 8, 16, 52 and 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’);

—

consequently, declare the obligations introduced by Articles 21, 24 and 69(1) and (2) of that regulation to be inapplicable to lawyers.

1.

First plea in law: In order to ensure the independent position of lawyers and to provide them with effective judicial protection, it is necessary that rules on the conditions under which an interference with the confidentiality of conversations between lawyers and their clients may be envisaged, be drafted in clear terms, which is not the case with Article 3(3)(a) and (b), Article 21(2), Article 24(4) and Article 70(2) and (3) of the contested regulation, with the result that there is an infringement of Article 8(2) of the ECHR, read in conjunction with Articles 7, 52 and 53 of the Charter.

2.

Second plea in law: If the activity of a lawyer is limited to mere advice or no subsequent transactions are carried out, there is no absolute need to adopt measures to which lawyers are subject and, therefore, such measures are inappropriate. Only specific circumstances, which lead to the presumption that a lawyer is or will be involved in a serious criminal offence in the execution of a transaction justifies an interference with the confidentiality of the conversations between lawyers and their clients. The measures to which lawyers are subject under Article 3(3)(a) and (b) (relating to advisory activities), Article 19(6)(b) (concerning the provision of information on third parties), Article 20(1), Article 21(3) and Article 69(1) (concerning the provision of information independently of a transaction) of the contested regulation are therefore contrary to Articles 6 and 8(1) of the ECHR, read in conjunction with Articles 2, 6 and 19 TEU and Articles 7, 52 and 53 of the Charter.

3.

Third plea in law: The contested regulation contains measures which are disproportionate to the objective to be achieved by that regulation, which is why Articles 7, 8, 16, 52 and 53 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8(1) of the ECHR, are infringed in so far as those measures apply to lawyers. This concerns the measures set out in the articles referred to in the second plea and the possibility conferred on Member States in Article 70(3) to restrict the exceptions to the reporting obligation for lawyers.

4.

Fourth plea in law: There is no fair balance between, on the one hand, the effective protection of the independence of lawyers’ activities, which Articles 2, 6 and 19 TEU require the institutions to maintain, and, on the other hand, the measures to which lawyers are subject in the contested regulation.