Article 53, and what it actually allows

Article 53 of the 1993 Law is the inventory of supervisory and investigatory powers. It is worth knowing in outline, because the difference between a request you must satisfy and a request you may question depends on which power is being exercised. The CSSF may have access to any document in any form and take a copy of it. It may require information from any person and, where necessary, summon that person to obtain it.

It may carry out on-site inspections. It may require existing recordings of telephone conversations and electronic communications. It may require the cessation of any practice contrary to the rules. Then the heavier ones. It may request the freezing or sequestration of assets, and note the wording: request, from the President of the district court.

It may impose a temporary prohibition of professional activity. It may require the removal of a natural person from the management board. It may refer information to the State Prosecutor. And it may require auditors or experts to carry out verifications on the spot, which are carried out at the expense of the person concerned. That last clause is worth pausing on, because it is a real cost.

The supervisor can commission work about you and send you the bill. Article 53 also lets the CSSF require information at recurring intervals in specified formats, and it reaches third parties to whom you have outsourced functions, including information technology providers. Your delegate's records are within reach. Two things this article does not give it, and both matter.

Telecommunications traffic data requires the prior authorisation of the investigating judge, who must verify that the request is justified and proportionate. And every decision the CSSF takes in the exercise of these powers must state the reasons on which it is based. A reasoned decision is not a courtesy. It is what makes a decision reviewable, and everything in Module 4 about appeal depends on it.