The European Union will decide the location of the new headquarters for the European Authority to Combat the Targeting of Capital and Financing of Terrorism (AMLA) on February 22. Nine candidate cities were reviewed in what became a final test this week: Rome (Italy), Paris (France), Vienna (Austria), Madrid (Spain), Vilnius (Lithuania), Riga (Latvia), Frankfurt (Germany), Dublin (Ireland) and Brussels (Belgium). The Spanish delegation, led by the Minister of Economy, Carlos Body, and Madrid’s mayor, Jose Luis Martinez-Almeida, presented Madrid as the best possible venue at the recent hearing.
Body and Martinez-Almeida, who is currently seeking confirmation for his candidacy as Secretary of State for the Treasury, appeared together this week before the European Parliament committees on Economic Affairs and Civil Liberties. The hearing lasted about thirty minutes and consisted of questions from three Members of the European Parliament focused on technical matters and geographic balance. Madrid does not currently host the headquarters of any European agency, though cities such as Vigo, Bilbao or Alicante are home to other EU institutions. The question raised by Italian MP Annalisa Tardino of the Lega party—how Madrid could meet the geographic balance criterion—was part of the scrutiny of the bid.
“Twenty of the twenty-seven European capitals already have a European presence, while Madrid does not,” stated the Spanish minister. He argued that Madrid not only satisfies the geographic balance criterion, but also stands as a strong candidate to be selected and subsequently defeated by its rivals. In his view, Madrid possesses strengths across all key indicators needed to meet the mission’s requirements, particularly in areas related to the domestic framework for anti-money laundering enforcement, where Spain has led since 2010. After the hearing, the term “90s” gained prominence in discussions about the candidate profiles.
glass tower
The new institution, initially employing 150 staff in its first year and growing to about 350 to 400 in later years, is set to anchor the EU’s anti-money laundering reform. The AMLA will wield direct and indirect supervisory powers, with authority to levy sanctions and call for required measures. Both Body and Martinez-Almeida highlighted the organization’s strengths, with Madrid’s bid tied to the symbolism of a modern, transparent headquarters and the city’s capacity to support a high-profile EU agency from its outset.
“The proposal was well received by Members of the Parliament, as well as by representatives of the Council and the Commission who listened to our presentation,” summarized the economy minister. He noted that the questions posed were specific yet technical and that the feedback was largely positive. Madrid’s proponents remain hopeful about the possible outcome. The mayor added that although the final decision rests with the EU institutions, Madrid offers the strongest case for hosting the anti-money laundering authority and could become a model for future governance reforms in the area.
Co-legislators’ decision
Until mid-2022, the European Parliament did not play a formal role in selecting the headquarters of EU agencies. A ruling by the Court of Justice of the EU on July 14, 2022, established that the seat lies with the legislator—the Council and the European Parliament—together. Brussels initiated the call for candidacies at the end of September, and nine contenders came forward. In the months that followed, each city’s strengths and weaknesses have been assessed through expert briefings, public documentation, and committee questions.
With the formal presentations completed this week, the selection process has moved into its final phase. The decisive vote is scheduled for February 22. Each institution will allocate 27 votes: 27 from the European Parliament and 27 from the Member States, distributed among political groups according to their sizes. Madrid, along with the other eight candidates, continues to seek broad support as the process approaches its culmination, with officials emphasizing that the choice should reflect both practical capacity and geopolitical balance.