Part 2 !

This second part was hosted by my friends in Notary public London

Now lets look at the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union)

 Article 6 may not have explicit exceptions the same way Article 8 does. To hold its value up the CJEU have explicitly said sometimes  LPP has to be argued against, in the context of Money Laundering.

In the Belgian Bars v Council of Ministers [2007] it was asked if the Money laundering directive would lead to a breach of Article 6 of ECHR. The court held that,

“the obligation to report information to the authorities responsible for the prevention of money laundering stipulated in article 6 paragraph 1 from the second directive on money laundering, considering also the provisions of article 3 paragraph 3, do not breach the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by article 6 of ECHR and by article 6 paragraph 2 from the EU Treaty”.

This shows that instead of Article 6 showing LPP is a cornerstone as Article 6 on occasion requires LPP to be balanced against a competing interest. Article 6 can be an argument for overcoming LPP

PabluJonUh in his article sees Belgian Bars decision as ambiguous and problematic, he asks: ‘when does the lawyer have the obligation to report to the competent authorities the information received from the client?’ This ambiguity means it is unclear as to when Article 6 can be used again to form exceptions to LPP. In this case it didn’t state what the exceptions are, it stated that Money Laundering was one.  This implies there is further potential for limitation of LPP based on Article 6 argument.

More info: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-293_en.htm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *