Opinion of the European Central Bank of 11 August 2025 on limits to cash payments and limitations on their acceptance in respect of court and administrative fees (CON/2025/21)

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK of 11 August 2025 on limits to cash payments and limitations on their acceptance in respect of court and administrative fees (CON/2025/21) Introduction and legal basis

On 1 July 2025 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from Minister for Finance of the Slovak Republic for an opinion on a draft law amending and supplementing the Law of the Slovak National Council No. 71/1992 on court fees and fees for criminal records extracts, as amended, and amending and supplementing certain laws in relation to payment methods and the payment system (hereinafter ‘the draft law’) . The ECB’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on Articles 127(4) and 282(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the first and second indents of Article 2(1) of Council Decision 98/415/EC , as the draft law relates to currency matters and means of payment. In accordance with the first sentence of Article 17.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank, the Governing Council has adopted this opinion.

1. Purpose of the draft law

1.1 The draft law, among others, amends: (a) the Law of the Slovak National Council No. 71/1992 on court fees and fees for criminal records extracts (hereinafter ‘the Law on court fees’); and (b) the Law of National Council of Slovak Republic No. 145/1995 on administrative fees (hereinafter ‘the Law on administrative fees’), to allow payment of court fees, fees for extracts from the criminal register and administrative fees (hereinafter the ‘court and administrative fees’) not only through the central system for recording fees that is operated by a 100 % state-owned legal entity, – currently Slovenská pošta a.s. (Slovak Post) – but also through the central system for recording State Treasury fees. 1.2 The draft law, among others, restates provisions of the Law on court fees and the Law on administrative fees which provide that court and administrative fees may be paid in cash, or by payment card, postal slip or transfer from an account with a payment service provider. The draft

1 Návrh zákona ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon Slovenskej národnej rady č. 71/1992 Zb. o súdnych poplatkoch a poplatku za výpis z registra trestov v znení neskorších predpisov a ktorým sa menia a dopĺňajú niektoré zákony.

2 Council Decision of 29 June 1998 on the consultation of the European Central Bank by national authorities regarding draft legislative provisions (OJ L 189, 3.7.1998, p. 42, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/1998/415/oj).

3 Zákon Slovenskej národnej rady č. 71/1992 Zb. z 28. januára 1991 o súdnych poplatkoch a poplatku za výpis z registra trestov v znení neskorších prepdisov.

4 Zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 145/1995 Z.z. z 22. júna 1995 o správnych poplatkoch v znení neskorších predpisov. law also maintains the current limit of EUR 300 on cash payments of court and administrative fees and does not provide for any exceptions. The ECB understands that currently, the Law on court fees allows for a very limited exception to the EUR 300 limit in the case of first registration of joint stock companies. In addition, the draft law clarifies that payment of court and administrative fees in cash or by payment card at the court, the court administration, or the prosecution or administrative authority, may be only made if the relevant authority possesses technical means to accept such payments.

2. General observations

2.1 The ECB has not been consulted before now on, or in relation to, the Law on court fees or the Law on administrative fees. 2.2 Cash plays an important role in society. Euro cash has legal tender status and should be generally accepted as a means of payment. As the ECB has noted previously, cash is secure, widely accepted, fast and facilitates control over the payer’s spending. Moreover, it is the only payment instrument that allows citizens to settle a transaction in central bank money, which is also settled instantly, while ensuring privacy . In addition, the ability to pay in cash remains particularly important for certain groups in society that, for various legitimate reasons, prefer to use cash rather than other payment instruments, or do not have access to the banking system and electronic means of payments. These groups include not only elderly people, but also some disabled citizens, immigrants, socially vulnerable citizens, minors and others with limited or no access to digital payment services . Against this backdrop, the ECB closely monitors any national law developments that aim to limit cash payment possibilities for natural or legal persons and thereby interfere with citizens' right to pay in cash. 2.3 Under the Treaty, the European System of Central Banks has the basic task of promoting the smooth operation of payment systems , and the ECB has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of euro banknotes within the Union . The euro banknotes issued by the ECB and the national central banks of the euro area are the only banknotes with legal tender status within the euro area . 2.4 The concept of ‘legal tender’ of a means of payment denominated in a currency unit has been considered by the Court of Justice of the European Union. In particular, the Court has clarified that the concept of ‘legal tender’ signifies that this specific means of payment cannot generally be refused in settlement of a debt, denominated in the same currency unit at its full-face value, with the effect of discharging the debt. In clarifying the concept of ‘legal tender’ under Union law, the Court has taken into consideration Commission Recommendation 2010/191 of 22 March 2010 on

5 See Article 9(1) of the Law on court fees in conjunction with item 17 of the Annex thereto. The fee for the first registration of joint stock companies is EUR 550.

6 See paragraph 2.4 of Opinion CON/2017/8; paragraph 2.1 of Opinion CON/2019/41; paragraph 9.2.1 of Opinion CON/2020/13; paragraph 2.3 of Opinion CON/2020/21; paragraph 7.2.1 of Opinion CON/2021/9; paragraph 2.1 of CON/2021/18; and paragraph 2.1 of CON/2023/7. All ECB opinions are published on EUR-Lex.

7 See paragraph 1.5 of Opinion CON/2019/41 and paragraph 2.1 of CON/2023/7.

8 Article 127(2) of the Treaty and Article 3.1 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the ‘Statute of the ESCB’). the scope and effects of legal tender of euro banknotes and coins , which provides useful guidance for the interpretation of the relevant provisions of Union law. Point 1 of Recommendation 2010/191 states that, where a payment obligation exists, the legal tender of euro banknotes and coins should imply: (a) mandatory acceptance of those banknotes and coins; (b) their acceptance at full face value; and (c) their power to discharge from payment obligations. According to the Court, this shows that the concept of ‘legal tender’ encompasses, inter alia, an obligation in principle to accept banknotes and coins denominated in euro for payment purposes . 2.5 Insofar as it allows the Union legislature to lay down the measures necessary for the use of the euro as the single currency, the Court clarified that Article 133 of the Treaty empowers the Union legislature alone to specify the legal rules governing the status of legal tender accorded to banknotes and coins denominated in euro, insofar as that is necessary for the use of the euro as the single currency. Such exclusive competence precludes any competence on the part of the Member States in the matter, unless they have been empowered by the Union to do so or for the implementation of Union acts . 2.6 However, the Court further clarified that the status of legal tender calls only for acceptance in principle of banknotes and coins denominated in euro as a means of payment, not for absolute acceptance. The Union’s exclusive competence in matters of monetary policy is without prejudice to the competence of the Member States whose currency is the euro to regulate the procedures for settling pecuniary obligations, which do not affect the principle that, as a general rule, it must be possible to discharge a payment obligation in cash. Thus, that exclusive competence does not prevent a Member State from adopting a measure falling within one of the Member State’s competences; for instance, a Member State may, based on its competence to regulate administrative procedures, oblige the public administration to accept cash payments from citizens. Neither does it prevent a Member State, in the exercise of its own powers, from introducing, on legitimate public interest grounds, a derogation from that obligation for statutorily imposed payments, subject to compliance with certain conditions. In particular, the obligation to accept euro banknotes and coins may, in principle, be restricted by the Member States for reasons of public interest and subject to the principle of proportionality. This means that any such restrictions must be proportionate to the public interest objective pursued. When limiting the possibility, recognised by Union law, of generally discharging a payment obligation in banknotes and coins denominated in euro, Member States must ensure that any measures comply with the principle of proportionality, which requires in particular that they are appropriate for achieving the legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation at issue and do not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives . 2.7 The Court has established that restrictions of the legal tender status of euro banknotes in particular require that the legislation: (a) does not have the object or effect of establishing legal rules

11 OJ L 83, 30.3.2010, p. 70, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2010/191/oj.

12 See judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 January 2021, Hessischer Rundfunk, C-422/19 and C-423/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:63, paragraphs 46 to 49.

13 See judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 January 2021, Hessischer Rundfunk, C-422/19 and C-423/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:63, paragraphs 50 to 52.

14 See judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 January 2021, Hessischer Rundfunk, C-422/19 and C-423/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:63, paragraphs 55 to 56 and 67 to 70. governing the status of legal tender of euro banknotes; (b) does not lead, in law or in fact, to abolition of those banknotes, in particular by calling into question the possibility, as a general rule, of discharging a payment obligation in cash; (c) has been adopted for reasons of public interest; (d) only entails a limitation on payments in cash that is appropriate for attaining the public interest objective pursued; and (v) only entails a limitation on payments in cash that does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the public interest objective . 2.8 Regarding the proportionality of a restriction of the legal tender status of euro banknotes, the Court requires not only that the measure is appropriate for attaining the public interest objective pursued, but also that it must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective. The ECB has undertaken additional reflection in its opinions with respect to whether limitations may be considered proportionate . In particular, the ECB has noted that the broader and more general a limitation is, the stricter should be the interpretation of the requirement for the limitation to be proportionate to the objective pursued. When considering whether a limitation is proportionate, the adverse impact of the limitation in question and whether alternative measures could be adopted that would fulfil the relevant objective with a less adverse impact should always be considered .

3. Specific observations

3.1 Although the draft law retains the general limit on cash payments, the submission report and explanatory memorandum accompanying the draft law do not provide an analysis of the public interest in maintaining such a relatively low limit, nor do they explain why the limit of EUR 300 is proportionate to the public interest pursued. 3.2 The ECB understands from the implicit references in the explanatory memorandum that the public interest could lie in preventing excessive operational costs of administering large sum cash payments. In this regard, while the Court has accepted that it is in the public interest that monetary debts to public authorities may be honoured in a way that does not involve those authorities in unreasonable expense which would prevent them from providing services cost-effectively , the ECB considers that the consulting authority has not sufficiently demonstrated that the courts, court administrations, or prosecution or administrative authorities would incur unreasonable expenses in accepting cash payments above EUR 300. 3.3 In this context, the cash payment limit of EUR 300 must be proportionate in light of the public interest objective pursued. The consulting authority has not provided in the background documentation to the draft law any estimate of the proportion of court and administrative fees that could not be paid in cash where the limit of EUR 300 applies. For example, the court fees schedule in the Annex to the Law on court fees specifies a significant number of court fees that are

15 See judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 January 2021, Hessischer Rundfunk, C-422/19 and C-423/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:63, paragraph 78.

16 See paragraph 4 of Opinion CON/2022/5 of the European Central Bank of 16 February 2022 on a proposal for a directive and a regulation on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing (OJ C 210, 25.5.2022, p. 15).

17 See paragraph 2.7 of Opinion CON/2017/8.

18 See judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 January 2021, Hessischer Rundfunk, C-422/19 and C-423/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:63, paragraph 73. determined as a percentage of the value of the subject matter of the dispute , or that are set at above EUR 300. 3.4 The ECB also understands that the draft law allows the courts, court administrations, and prosecution and administrative authorities to refuse to accept payment of court and administrative fees in cash or by a payment card in cases where they do not have technical means (technické podmienky) to accept such payments. The explanatory memorandum explains that ‘technical means’ are to be understood to include: (a) in the case of card payments, a mix of technical means that allow the administrative body to accept payment by card (generally a point-of-sale (POS) terminal); and (b) in the case of cash payments, a cash desk and the operational support (employee liability for cash handling, cash management system) and security support (cash register, safe, security devices). The explanatory memorandum explains this limitation on the acceptance of cash and card payments by referring to the need for effectiveness and consideration of costs. 3.5 While it is true, as noted in paragraph 3.2, that the Court has accepted that it is in the public interest that monetary debts to public authorities may be honoured in a way that does not involve those authorities in unreasonable expense which would prevent them from providing services costeffectively, the ECB considers that allowing public authorities to refuse cash payments altogether by deciding not to establish the technical means for their acceptance, without any further guidance from the public authorities, cannot be considered a proportionate restriction on payments in cash as legal tender. In particular, the provisions set out in the draft law could lead to an overall refusal by courts, court administrations, and prosecution and administrative authorities to accept payments of court and administrative fees in cash on the basis of cost-cutting considerations. 3.6 In the same vein, a decision not to establish the technical means for acceptance of payments by payment card, without any further guidance from the public authorities, should not disproportionately obstruct the intention of the law to enable payments by payment card as one of the available payment options. 3.7 The ECB also notes that when proposing legislation in the field of retail payments, it is advisable that it is drafted using technology-neutral language, to allow for its application to new forms of payment in the future. 3.8 Finally, in the statement accompanying the draft law, the Ministry of Finance states that the limit of EUR 300 on cash payments and the ability to refuse cash payments where technical means are not available, as provided for in the draft law, only apply to payments in cash at the premises of the courts, court administrations, and prosecution and administrative authorities. The Ministry of Finance’s position is that it will be possible for payees to continue to pay court and administrative fees of up to EUR 15 000 in cash either by making use of a postal slip at a branch of Slovak Post, or by making a cash deposit in a bank to the account of Slovak Post or the State Treasury. The ECB considers, however, that since payment by use of a postal slip or by cash deposit are, or may be, subject to additional fees, these payment methods cannot be considered as equivalent to the acceptance of cash payments in euro banknotes and coins as legal tender.

19 See for example Item 1a of the Annex to the Law on court fees which specifies that the court fee is 6 % of the subject matter of the dispute. In such a case, if the value of the subject matter of the dispute is above EUR 5 000, the court fee would be higher than EUR 300 and so could not be paid in cash. 3.9 In conclusion, the ECB considers that the Slovak authorities have not sufficiently assessed the proportionality of the limit on cash payments and the ability to refuse cash payments where technical means are not available, as proposed by the draft law. As the explanatory memorandum considers the public interest objectives only in a vague manner, and as the legislator has not provided any concrete impact assessment, it is difficult for the ECB to assess whether or not: (a) the limit of EUR 300 on the payment in cash of court and administrative fees; and (b) the rule that allows the courts, court administrations, and prosecution and administrative authorities to refuse acceptance of payment of court and administrative fees in cash or by a payment card in cases where they do not have technical means to accept such payments, could be considered proportionate in light of the public interest objectives pursued. The Slovak authorities should thus carefully consider any restrictions on cash payments, taking into account the criteria established by the Court. As noted previously by the ECB in relation to limitations on cash payments to the Social Insurance Agency, in particular, they should ensure that restrictions on cash payments are appropriate and necessary to achieve the public interests pursued and do not call into question the possibility, as a general rule, of discharging a payment obligation in legal tender . This opinion will be published on EUR-Lex. Done at Frankfurt am Main, 11 August 2025. [signed] The President of the ECB Christine LAGARDE

20 See paragraph 3.8 of Opinion CON/2023/7.