Court of Justice 26 February 2026, C-51/25 (Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered on 26 February 2026.)

Also known as

In Case C-51/25, Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona opines that Article 4(3) of Directive 2015/2366, read in conjunction with point 3(c) of Annex I, must be interpreted as meaning that a security deposit intermediation service—whereby an entity receives client funds in its own payment account and, upon client consent, transfers those funds to a contractor—does not constitute a payment service (specifically, the execution of credit transfers), because the entity is not technically involved in executing payment transactions on payment accounts held in the clients' names and the transfers are carried out by the respective banks. The Advocate General further opines that the ancillary nature of any fund transfers relative to the entity's main activity of arranging real-estate security deposits (zekerheidsstelling) precludes classification as a professional payment service provider subject to the directive's authorisation and prudential supervision requirements. The opinion also rejects classification of the service as money remittance under Article 4(22) of the directive, on the grounds that the transfers lack the requisite immediacy and unconditionality and are merely instrumental to the primary security deposit activity.AI