Provisional text

delivered on 28 November 2024 (1)

Case C-745/23 [Alenopik] (i)

Maksu- ja Tolliamet

UT

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Supreme Court, Estonia))

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EU) 2018/1672 – Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union – Article 3(1) – Natural person entering the European Union – Method for determining the value of the currency of a third State for declaration purposes )

1.In spite of the rapidly changing face of criminality and the rise of cybercrime, such as online fraud and illicit online marketplaces, money-laundering methods remain overwhelmingly traditional. ‘Cash is king’ and therefore still one of the most prevalent facilitators for money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities across almost all criminal activities. (2)

2.Under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1672 (3) (the ‘Cash Controls Regulation’), a person carrying cash of a value of EUR 10 000 or more must declare that cash to the competent authorities of the Member State through which they are entering or leaving the European Union (‘the Article 3(1) declaration obligation’).

3.However, the Cash Controls Regulation is silent as to the method for ascertaining the value of the currency of a third State in order to determine whether the EUR 10 000 limit has been complied with. On what basis, therefore, may the competent authorities of the Member States determine the value of cash denominated in such currency, in particular where the European Central Bank does not publish an exchange reference rate? That, in a nutshell, is the question to be answered by the Court in the present case.

II. The facts in the main proceedings and the question referred

4.On 13 January 2023, after a day of running errands and visiting family, UT (‘the applicant at first instance’) and her daughter cross the ‘Friendship Bridge’ between Ivangorod (Russia) and Narva (Estonia).

5.At the customs checkpoint, they chose to pass through the green corridor, implying that they had nothing to declare to the competent authorities. However, when searched, they were found to be carrying 500 000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) each in cash, stacked into parcels of 100 notes and tied together with rubber bands. The cash was found to be concealed in their pockets, under the lining of their clothes and in the hoods of their jackets.

6.Because the European Central Bank does not publish euro foreign exchange reference rates for Ukrainian hryvnias, (4) in order to determine the value of the UAH 500 000 that the applicant at first instance and her daughter had on their person in euros, the competent Estonian authorities relied on the exchange rate of the currency converter published on the website www.xe.com, a Canada-based online foreign exchange tools and services company. (5)

7.According to that website’s currency converter, the value of the cash that the applicant at first instance and her daughter were carrying on the day of the border crossing in question amounted to EUR 12 565.71 each.

8.Consequently, the competent Estonian authorities found that the cash carried by the applicant at first instance and her daughter exceeded the EUR 10 000 threshold laid down by the Cash Controls Regulation, with the effect that the cash should have been declared.

9.By decision of 13 February 2023, the competent Estonian authorities imposed a fine on the applicant at first instance in the amount of EUR 600 for failure to declare the cash. (6) Those authorities also opted to confiscate the undeclared Ukrainian hryvnias.

10.On appeal to the Viru Maakohus (Court of First Instance, Viru, Estonia), the applicant at first instance explained that the cash found did not belong to her and that she had not been aware of the obligation to declare that cash. The applicant at first instance explained that the cash actually belonged to RR, a Ukrainian national resident in Estonia, who, because of the ongoing war in Ukraine, was not able to transfer that money to the European Union. He had therefore asked the applicant at first instance’s daughter to bring the cash belonging to him from Ivangorod into Estonia. After verifying the exchange rate for Ukrainian hryvnia on the website www.tavid.ee, RR had concluded that the cash would not have to be declared, as its value, as it appeared on that website, was alleged to be below the threshold of EUR 10 000. RR had allegedly communicated that information to the applicant’s daughter, who had then informed her mother. The applicant at first instance therefore claimed that she had not intended to bring the UAH 500 000 secretly into Estonia, but that the reason she had concealed the cash was for fear of it being stolen.

11.In the dispute that followed, the Viru Maakohus (Court of First Instance, Viru) partially upheld the applicant at first instance’s appeal and, by decision of 28 April 2023, annulled the competent Estonian authorities’ original penalty and confiscation decision. The Viru Maakohus (Court of First Instance, Viru) instead imposed a fine of EUR 400 and ordered the return of the UAH 500 000 that had been seized.

12.The competent Estonian authorities lodged an appeal in cassation before the Riigikohus (Supreme Court, Estonia).

13.The Riigikohus (Supreme Court) expresses its doubts as to the manner of determining the exchange rate in the case before it. That court observes that the method for the conversion of cash in a currency whose exchange rate is not published by the European Central Bank into euros is not specified in EU law or in national law.

14.In those circumstances, the Riigikohus (Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘How is the exchange rate to be used as the basis for establishing the value of cash within the meaning of Article 3(1) of [the Cash Controls Regulation] to be determined in a situation involving a currency the exchange rate for which is not published by the European Central Bank?’

15.Written observations were submitted by the Estonian Government and the European Commission. No hearing was held.

III. Analysis

16.The present Opinion is structured as follows. First, I shall briefly introduce the legal background to the Article 3(1) declaration obligation arising from the Cash Controls Regulation (A). Thereafter, I shall turn to the Estonian Government and the Commission’s main argument, namely that the currency conversion principles arising from the Union Customs Code (7) and its implementing act (8) must inform the reading of the Cash Controls Regulation (B). Finally, I will explain why I consider that the Cash Controls Regulation leaves the question of how to determine the value of cash denominated in a foreign currency to the competent national authorities (C).

17.In 1991, the EU legislature adopted the Anti-Money Laundering Directive. (9) As its name suggests, the purpose of that directive was to combat money laundering of the proceeds of illicit origin and organised crime, but also to protect the soundness, stability and confidence in the financial system as a whole. (10) Accordingly, that directive required credit institutions, financial institutions and certain professions to identify customers whose transactions involved a sum amounting to 15 000 European Currency Unit or more. (11)

18.However, at that time, no instrument of EU law mandated national border controls of cash movements, hence why only some Member States had introduced such controls. (12)

19.Recognising the risk that the lack of such EU-wide controls could undermine the effectiveness of the monitoring obligations introduced by the Anti-Money Laundering Directive, a joint operation between the (then) 15 Member States’ customs services, dubbed ‘Operation Moneypenny’, was launched. (13) That operation sought to examine the level of cross-border cash movements across the European Union’s internal and external borders. (14)

20.Though limited in scope, that operation revealed that the volume of cash being transported across EU borders was such that it presented a potential risk to both the European Union’s and the Member States’ interests, particularly in view of the substantial differences in the controls of cash movements (where they existed) across the Member States. (15)

21.The addition of the euro as a(n almost) single currency to the internal market without borders made such disparities in national controls on cash movements even more problematic to the proper functioning of that market. (16)

22.Against that backdrop, Regulation No 1889/2005 was born.

23.Accompanying the activities to combat money laundering of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, (17) Regulation No 1889/2005 introduced the obligation for carriers of cash ‘of a value of EUR 10 000 or more’ to declare that cash to the competent authorities of the Member State. (18)

24.Although that threshold was set below the control threshold of EUR 15 000 imposed by the Third Anti-Money Laundering Directive, (19) Regulation No 1889/2005 sought to complement that directive and act on the risk that the controls which it had introduced would lead to an increase in physical movements of cash for illicit purposes at the European Union’s external borders. (20)

25.In 2018, the Cash Controls Regulation replaced its 2005 predecessor to incorporate updates reflecting national best practices and the latest recommendations from the Financial Action Task Force. (21)

26.The Cash Controls Regulation maintains the Article 3(1) declaration obligation introduced by its predecessor.

27.Thus, as per that regulation’s Article 3(1), carriers carrying cash of a value of EUR 10 000 or more must declare that cash to the competent authorities of the Member State through which they are entering or leaving the European Union and make that cash available to those authorities for control.

28.The concept of ‘cash’ is demarcated as encompassing four categories, among which is the category of ‘currency’. (22)

29.‘Currency’ is defined as ‘banknotes and coins that are in circulation as a medium of exchange or that have been in circulation as a medium of exchange and can still be exchanged through financial institutions or central banks for banknotes and coins that are in circulation as a medium of exchange’. (23)

30.However, like its predecessor, the Cash Controls Regulation does not, at least on the face of it, provide for the Article 3(1) declaration obligation in cases of cash denominated in a non-EU currency.

31.That being said, recital 4 of that regulation does explain that, in view of its aim to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing, the cash controls system introduced thereby applies to EUR 10 000 ‘or its equivalent in other currencies’. (24)

32.If read within the context of ensuring that the financial system and monetary flows in the territory of the European Union are not used for money laundering and other illicit purposes, (25) the scope of application of the Article 3(1) declaration obligation therefore also applies to cash denoted in a currency that is not the euro.

33.At the same time, however, the Cash Controls Regulation does not lay down any particular method for determining the value of cash not denominated in euros for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the Article 3(1) declaration obligation.

34.Hence, the issues in the present case arise.

35.In their written submissions, both the Estonian Government and the Commission take the view that the determination of the value of cash in a non-EU currency for the purposes of the Article 3(1) declaration obligation must be carried out on the basis of the currency conversion principles applicable to the rules on customs valuation, which are to be found in the Union Customs Code and its implementing act. (26)

36.

I disagree. The Union Customs Code applies only to goods, and currency that is in circulation as a medium of exchange does not fall within the concept of a ‘good’.

37.

37.In any event, even if the EU customs legislation applied, the outcome of the present case would be the same – that is, it would still be for the Member States to determine the applicable exchange rate.

38.

38.First, I will begin by explaining why the provisions of the EU customs legislation do not apply.

39.

39.Defining the scope of the Union Customs Code, its Article 1(1) states that that act lays down the general rules and procedures ‘applicable to goods brought into or taken out of the customs territory of the Union’.

40.

40.The applicability of the Union Customs Code to the circumstances of the present case thus depends on the question of whether or not ‘cash’ constitutes a ‘good’ for the purposes of that act of EU law.

41.

41.The Union Customs Code does not define the scope of what constitutes a ‘good’, but it also does not refer to the law of the Member States. Therefore, the concept of a ‘good’ must be attributed an autonomous and uniform meaning in EU law.

42.

42.That meaning was outlined by the Court in Commission v Italy, where it explained that ‘by goods, within the meaning of [EU law], there must be understood products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions’.

43.

43.Within the context of the free movement of goods, in two later judgments, Thompson and Others and Bordessa and Others, the Court had further occasion to explain that ‘cash’, be that in the form of coins or banknotes, in so far as it constitutes an asset of value, does not constitute a ‘good’ for the purposes of the free movement of goods.

44.

44.Thus, in Thompson and Others, the Court was presented with the question of whether Krugerrands – gold coins minted in South Africa – fell within the scope of the provisions on the free movement of goods. It observed that ‘under the system of the Treaty means of payment are not to be regarded as goods falling within the purview of [the free movement of goods]’. Therefore, the Court explained that ‘although doubts may be entertained on the question whether Krugerrands are to be regarded as means of legal payment it can nevertheless be noted that on the money markets of those Member States which permit dealings in these coins they are treated as being equivalent to currency.’ Their transfer would consequently fall outside the scope of the provisions on the free movement of goods.

45.

45.That logic was extended to banknotes of the currency of a Member State in Bordessa and Others, which involved natural persons crossing the border between Spain and France with, respectively, 38 million and 50 million Spanish pesetas on their person. When asked by the national court to provide guidance on whether a system of prior declaration or administrative authorisation fell within the provisions of the free movement of goods, the Court explained that ‘the physical transfer of assets falls … under Article [65 TFEU] and the directive implementing that provision’, thus within the free movement of capital, and not within the scope of the provisions on the free movement of goods.

46.

46.It therefore follows from the abovementioned case-law that cash, in the form of foreign currency, is excluded from the scope of the concept of ‘goods’, within the meaning attributed to that concept in Article 28 TFEU, so long as the financial markets permit dealings in that currency.

47.

47.In the present case, it arises from the national file that both of the websites used as reference points for the purposes of calculating the equivalent of EUR 10 000 in Ukrainian hryvnias appear to recognise that currency as exchangeable into euros.

48.

48.From that element alone, it would appear to me established that Ukrainian hryvnia constitutes a currency that the financial markets recognise as possible for conversion into euros.

49.

49.Subject to verification by the referring court, I would therefore conclude that cash in the form of Ukrainian hryvnias, when carried by a person across an external EU border, does not fall within the concept of ‘goods’ within the meaning of EU law.

50.

50.The Union Customs Code therefore does not apply to the present case.

51.

51.Second, as I already hinted in point 37 of this Opinion, even if the EU customs legislation were to apply, it would not offer an answer to the referring court’s question.

52.

52.In that respect, the Estonian Government and the Commission claim that the Cash Controls Regulation should be informed by Article 53(1)(a) of the Union Customs Code and Article 146(4) of the Union Customs Code Implementing Act.

53.

53.According to the former, the competent authorities must publish and/or make available on the internet the rate of exchange applicable where a currency conversion is necessary because ‘factors used to determine the customs value of goods are expressed in a currency other than that of the Member State’ at issue. That provision is supplemented by Article 146(4) of the Union Customs Code Implementing Act, which lays down that, for those instances where the rate of exchange is not published by the European Central Bank or by the competent national authority, the ‘rate of exchange … shall be determined by the Member State concerned. This rate must reflect the value of the currency of the Member State concerned as closely as possible.’

54.

54.Therefore, the customs legislation merely points back to the Member States, obliging them to determine the applicable exchange rate.

55.

55.As the Cash Controls Regulation does not regulate the method by which the value of a foreign currency is to be calculated in euros and as the EU customs legislation does not apply, I can only conclude that the EU legislature left that issue to be resolved by the domestic legal orders of the Member States.

56.

56.Even if regulations are acts that, by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, are supposed to be directly applicable to Member States, they nevertheless sometimes, expressly or implicitly, require additional implementation. That is, I believe, the situation in the present case.

57.

57.Therefore, the answer to the referring court could simply be that EU law does not regulate the method for establishing the exchange rate in order to obtain the value of cash for the purposes of applying Article 3(1) of the Cash Controls Regulation, where that cash is denominated in a currency whose exchange rate is not published by the European Central Bank. Instead, the Cash Controls Regulation leaves that issue to the Member States to resolve.

58.

58.However, that answer might not be very useful to the referring court.

59.

59.How else might EU law help the referring court to assess the appropriateness of the solution adopted by the competent Estonian authorities in the present case?

60.

60.When filling the void left by a regulation, Member States must provide for the solution that enables individuals effectively to enjoy the rights which that regulation bestows on them.

61.

61.Article 3(1) of the Cash Controls Regulation may also be expressed in terms of a right: a carrier has the right to bring up to EUR 10 000 in cash into the European Union without declaring it to the competent authorities.

62.

62.In order to know whether or not there is an obligation to declare cash denominated in a foreign currency, the carrier of that cash must be capable of ascertaining how the competent authorities calculate that currency’s value in euros. Therefore, one may conclude that the competent authorities of the Member States must publish information about the method for calculating the value of a foreign currency into euros. That information must be available to the person entering the European Union in advance of crossing the border.

63.

63.Furthermore, the choice of the calculation method cannot be arbitrary.

64.

64.Accordingly, in the absence of an ‘official’ exchange rate published by the European Central Bank, the rate used by the competent national authorities has to respond to a value that reflects, as closely as possible, the exchange rate at which that particular currency is sold and bought on the market.

65.

65.Such a rate fulfils the objective purpose of setting the threshold at EUR 10 000: that of controlling only significant cash movements so that travellers and traders are impacted as little as possible in the exercise of their free movement rights.

66.

66.For the purposes of the present case, the referring court should, therefore, first ensure that the applicant in the main proceedings was or could have been aware of the method of conversion of Ukrainian hryvnias into euros by the competent Estonian authorities.

67.

67.Secondly, that court should then verify whether the conversion principle adopted by the competent authorities, that is to say, the exchange rate published on www.xe.com, reflects as closely as possible the ‘real’ (market) value of EUR 10 000 in Ukrainian hryvnias.

68.

68.It arises from the national file that the competent Estonian authorities advertise the Article 3(1) declaration obligation at the border crossing point at issue. They also publish the currency conversion principles used for that purpose on their website.

69.

69.Moreover, given that the European Central Bank does not publish an exchange rate for the conversion of euros into Ukrainian hryvnias, having recourse to an information source that uses mid-market rates, such as appears to be the case for www.xe.com, satisfies the requirement to reflect, as closely as possible, the value of EUR 10 000 in Ukrainian hryvnias for the purposes of controlling the Article 3(1) declaration obligation. That is because such rates derive from the midpoint between the buy rates and the sell rates of transactions denominated in a particular currency.

70.

70.In that respect, the Estonian Government submitted that the website at issue also appears to be used by at least two other Member States for currencies for which the European Central Bank does not publish an exchange rate.

71.

71.Subject to verification by the national court, it thus appears that the approach adopted by the competent Estonian authorities satisfies both the effective enjoyment of the right to enter the territory of the European Union with a certain amount of foreign currency in cash without declaring it, on the one hand, and the need for effective application of cash controls in order to fight money laundering and terrorist financing, on the other.

72.

72.In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Riigikohus (Supreme Court, Estonia) as follows:

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1672 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on controls on cash entering or leaving the Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005

must be interpreted as not laying down a particular method for determining the value of a currency in euros whose exchange rate is not published by the European Central Bank.

It falls to the Member States to determine the method for such a currency conversion.

* * *

(1) Original language: English.

(i) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2) See, to that effect, Europol Financial Intelligence Group, Why is cash still king? A strategic Report on the use of cash by Criminal groups as a facilitator for money laundering, European Police Office, 2015, p. 7.

(3) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on controls on cash entering or leaving the Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 (OJ 2018 L 284, p. 6).

(4) At the time of writing, the European Central Bank had published euro foreign exchange reference rates only for a basket of 31 currencies. See European Central Bank, Framework for the euro foreign exchange reference rates, 2023, point 2.5.

(5) According to the observations of the Estonian Government, its authorities started to have recourse to that website from April 2022 following discussions with the competent authorities of other Member States, in view of the European Central Bank suspending the publication of the daily exchange rate for the Russian rouble and the euro.

(6) According to the national file, separate proceedings have been brought against the applicant’s daughter. The present preliminary reference relates only to the proceedings against the applicant herself.

7Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1) (‘the Union Customs Code’).

8Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation No 952/2013 (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 558) (‘the Union Customs Code Implementing Act’).

9Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering (OJ 1991 L 166, p. 77) (‘the Anti-Money Laundering Directive’).

10See the Anti-Money Laundering Directive, first recital.

11See the Anti-Money Laundering Directive, Article 3(1) and (2).

12See Report from the Commission to the Council on controls on cross-border cash movements (COM(2002) 328 final) (‘the 2002 Commission Report’), paragraph 9.

13‘Operation Moneypenny’ was carried out from September 1999 to February 2000 by the Member States’ customs services with the aim of monitoring cross-border cash movements in excess of EUR 10 000, in order to determine whether the scale of such movements posed a threat to the effectiveness of the controls applied by financial institutions to prevent money laundering. See Council Document 9630/2/00 of 7 September 2000.

14See Commission Staff Working Document – Impact Assessment accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on controls on cash entering or leaving the Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 (SWD(2016) 470 final) (‘the 2016 Staff Working Document’), p. 70. See also the 2002 Commission Report, paragraphs 4 and 13 (highlighting that, in view of the event of 11 September 2001, ‘controls on money movements via the financial institutions have necessarily been tightened [so that] there could therefore be increasing recourse to cash as an alternative solution’).

15See the 2016 Staff Working Document, pp. 71 and 72.

16See recital 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 9). See also the 2002 Commission Report, paragraph 14, highlighting that ‘the present interpenetration of the Member States’ economies means that [national disparities in border controls of cash movements] are destined to become exceptional and hard to justify. Tight controls in one Member State could well divert movements through a neighbouring Member State with few or no controls. The disparate nature of the control systems applied by the Member States is also questionable from the standpoint of the single market.’

17See the Cash Controls Regulation, recitals 5 and 6, Regulation No 1889/2005, recital 4, and the 2016 Staff Working Document, p. 114, which refers to the Financial Action Task Force’s Special Recommendation IX, later renamed ‘Recommendation 32’ and supplemented by an interpretative note. That task force’s recommendations call on governments to take measures to detect physical cash movements, including through disclosure obligations. The Court has previously referred to the Financial Action Task Force as the main international body combating money laundering (see, in that regard, judgment of 25 April 2013, Jyske Bank Gibraltar, C‑212/11, EU:C:2013:270, paragraph 46).

18See Regulation No 1889/2005, Article 3.

19Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15) (‘the Third Anti-Money Laundering Directive’). While the directive kept a threshold of EUR 15 000 (see Article 2(e) thereof), trilogue negotiations appear to have led to a lower threshold of EUR 10 000, which the Italian delegation highlighted as not ‘consistent with [the] threshold of EUR 15 000’ laid down in that directive (see Council of the European Union, draft minutes of the 2672nd meeting of the Council of the European Union (Economic and Financial Affairs), 12 July 2005, 11128/05, p. 6).

20See the Cash Controls Regulation, Article 1 and recital 4, Regulation No 1889/2005, Article 2 and recital 2, and the judgment of 16 July 2015, Chmielewski (C‑255/14, EU:C:2015:475, paragraph 17).

21See the Cash Controls Regulation, recital 8.

22See the Cash Controls Regulation, Article 2(1)(a)(i) and recital 13. The other three categories covered by that concept are ‘bearer-negotiable instruments, commodities used as [highly liquid] stores of value and certain types of prepaid cards’.

23See the Cash Controls Regulation, Article 2(c).

24Emphasis added.

25See, to that effect, recitals 2 to 4, 10 and 17 of the Cash Controls Regulation and the judgment of 4 May 2017, El Dakkak and Intercontinental (C‑17/16, EU:C:2017:341, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited), the latter explaining that that regulation ‘seeks to prevent, discourage and avoid the introduction of the proceeds of illegal activities into the financial system and their investment after laundering by the establishment, inter alia, of a principle of obligatory declaration of the movements of cash entering or leaving the EU, allowing information to be gathered concerning them’.

26See footnotes 7 and 8 to the present Opinion.

27Emphasis added.

28As that act merely lays down separate types of status for ‘Union goods’ and ‘non-Union goods’; see Article 5(23) and (24) of the Union Customs Code.

29Judgment of 10 December 1968, Commission v Italy (7/68, EU:C:1968:51, p. 428).

30Judgment of 23 November 1978, Thompson and Others (7/78, EU:C:1978:209) ‘Thompson and Others’.

31Judgment of 23 February 1995, Bordessa and Others (C‑358/93 and C‑416/93, EU:C:1995:54; ‘Bordessa and Others’).

32Thompson and Others, paragraph 25.

33Thompson and Others, paragraph 27.

34Thompson and Others, paragraph 28.

35According to the exchange rate in 1999, when the euro was introduced in Spain, those amounts would have been worth approximately EUR 228 300 and EUR 300 500.

43As pointed out by the 2002 Commission Report, only significant cash movements should be controlled so as to ‘strike a balance’ between a proper supervision of cash movements and the rights to free movement involved. That is why the threshold ought to be high enough to save travellers and traders from additional administrative formalities and the competent administrations from a disproportionate workload. See 2002 Commission Report, paragraphs 18 to 20.

44The use of websites of bureaux de change, such as www.tavid.ee appears to be, would actually undermine the effectiveness of the cash control system and the right of carriers to carry cash of a value of EUR 10 000 or below, since those establishments set their rates independently of exchange rates on the financial markets. The use of a website of a bureau de change established in Estonia would therefore yield different rates – oftentimes significantly so – than a similar establishment in, for example, Spain.

45In that respect, a simple internet search for cash controls at the Estonian border reveals as one of its first results the website of the Estonian Tax and Customs Board. On that website, it is stated clearly that cash at a value of EUR 10 000 or more has to be declared to the competent authorities. That website also refers to https://www.xe.com as the method used to convert foreign currency into euros. See https://www.emta.ee/en/private-client/consignments-travel-settlement/travel/declaration-cash.