EC ¦ FAQs on Provision of Services concerning Sanctions adopted following Russia’s Military Aggression against Ukraine

Sanctions and Services – How Article 5n of Regulation 833/2014 Reshapes Professional Advice to Russian Entities

The EU’s Article 5n of Council Regulation 833/2014 imposes a wide-ranging prohibition on providing certain professional and business services to the Government of Russia and to legal persons, entities or bodies established in Russia. Since its entry into force and subsequent amendments, the measure has expanded beyond classic embargo tools to target services that underpin corporate activity and technological development, including accounting, auditing, tax consultancy, business and management consulting, public relations, IT consultancy and an array of technical, engineering and scientific advisory services. The Regulation relies on international classification systems and EU directives to define covered activities, and it explicitly captures both direct and indirect provision of services, creating a compliance landscape in which how, where and for whose benefit a service is delivered determines legality.

Scope and definitions – what counts as a prohibited service and who is a covered recipient

Article 5n draws its list of prohibited activities from structured classifications such as the United Nations’ Central Products Classification and refers, where relevant, to sectoral EU rules (for instance, the statutory audit definition in Directive 2006/43/EC). The concept of “entities or bodies established in Russia” includes non‑incorporated branches operating in Russian territory, and the ban therefore covers services rendered to such branches. The prohibition does not extend to natural persons in Russia nor automatically to companies incorporated outside Russia even when they are owned by Russian residents, but services provided to non‑Russian legal persons are still restricted if they effectively benefit a parent or other entity established in Russia. This benefit test is critical for assessing indirect provision and requires careful mapping of ownership, control and the end use of advice or technical assistance.

Indirect provision and circumvention – the principal compliance challenges

A central risk under Article 5n is indirect provision. The Regulation expressly prohibits services that are indirectly provided to Russian entities, which means that EU operators cannot lawfully route prohibited services through subsidiaries in third countries, use outsourced providers to deliver the substance of banned assistance, or contract with non‑Russian affiliates where the true beneficiary is a Russian parent. Article 12 fortifies this approach by criminalising knowing and intentional participation in activities designed to circumvent the prohibitions. For compliance teams, this elevates the need to assess not just contractual counterparty identity but ultimate beneficiaries, data flows, service delivery locations, and the architecture of intra‑group arrangements.

Bastian Schwind-Wagner _Follow

"Article 5n of Regulation 833/2014 creates a complex patchwork of prohibitions, derogations and authorisation routes that require bespoke legal and compliance attention for each service, client and delivery model. Firms must combine careful legal interpretation with operational controls to avoid inadvertent indirect provision or circumvention.

Proactive engagement with national competent authorities, rigorous documentation of ownership and benefit chains, and clear escalation procedures for authorisation requests will materially reduce enforcement risk and support lawful business continuity where legitimate exceptions apply. Legal teams should update internal guidance to reflect the CPC‑based service definitions and relevant case law such as Jemerak."

Exemptions, derogations and authorisations – narrow routes for lawful provision

Article 5n contains a set of narrowly defined exemptions and a number of derogations that permit otherwise prohibited services in limited circumstances. Exemptions exist for services strictly necessary for the exercise of the right of defence in judicial proceedings, for access to judicial, administrative or arbitral proceedings in a Member State, and for recognition or enforcement of judgments. Derogations may permit services for humanitarian purposes, for civil society work that promotes democracy, human rights or the rule of law, for the functioning of diplomatic or consular representations where strictly necessary, and for other policy‑driven needs. Importantly, from 30 September 2024 some intra‑group services require prior authorisation by the relevant national competent authority; these authorisations are granted on a case‑by‑case basis and are valid only in the Member State that issued them. National authorities may grant authorisations under specified conditions and impose reporting or control obligations.

Sectoral implications – IT, AI, high‑performance computing, auditing and construction

Several sectors are particularly affected because the prohibited list targets services that are foundational to modern business operations and advanced technology deployment. IT consultancy is broadly defined to include bespoke software development, systems implementation, systems maintenance and technical assistance relating to software – areas that can also include updates and upgrades when they involve consultancy support. Artificial intelligence services that provide access to hosted models or to platforms enabling training, fine‑tuning or inference are expressly covered, as are high‑performance computing services including GPU‑accelerated computing and quantum computing services. Auditing and statutory audit services provided to entities established in Russia are prohibited, although audits conducted for the legitimate benefit of an EU parent in the context of consolidated reporting may be permitted where they are demonstrably for the EU entity’s purposes. Construction, architectural and engineering services are comprehensively captured by the United Nations’ Central Products Classification (“CPC”) categories and fall within the ban when supplied to Russian‑established entities.

Practical compliance measures – screening, documentation and escalation

Effective compliance requires a combination of legal analysis and operational measures. Firms must implement enhanced due diligence that identifies whether a counterparty is established in Russia, traces ownership and control, and evaluates whether the services would indirectly benefit Russian entities. Contract terms should reflect sanctions risk and include clauses enabling suspension or lawful termination where a recipient is later determined to be in scope. Robust recordkeeping is essential to demonstrate why a particular service was assessed as permitted, exempted or authorised. Where an authorisation route exists, businesses should engage proactively with national competent authorities, prepare detailed applications showing strict necessity and safeguards, and expect to comply with conditions and reporting obligations should an authorisation be granted.

Cross‑border and intra‑group arrangements – coordination and multi‑jurisdictional risk

Cross‑border delivery models raise additional complications because authorisations are national and not automatically transferable across Member States. An authorisation granted by one national competent authority is usually valid only in that Member State, which means multinational groups must plan for multiple authorisation requests when services are provided from several EU jurisdictions. National authorities are obliged to inform other Member States and the Commission about authorisations they grant, and firms should notify authorities when parallel requests are being submitted to enable coordination. Attempting to centralise services in a third country to evade restrictions can itself amount to circumvention under Article 12, so transparency and careful coordination across legal, compliance and operational teams are critical.

Notarial, translation and pro bono work – nuanced legal interpretations

Certain activities present fine distinctions. Notarial services can fall within the prohibition on legal advisory services when provided to Russian entities, but the status of the notary and the national notarial system matter: where a notary acts independently and merely authenticates documents without providing legal advice tailored to parties’ interests, such acts may fall outside the scope of prohibited legal advisory services, as clarified by the Court of Justice in Jemerak (Case C-109/23). Translation and interpretation services provided during authentication procedures are generally not legal advice and typically fall outside the ban. Pro bono legal assistance is not categorically exempt; it may only be permissible if it falls within one of the narrow exemptions or is specifically authorised under a derogation.

Tourism‑related restrictions and consumer information – what is and is not captured

Article 5n(2) targets services directly related to tourism in Russia, including travel agency and tour operator services, visa facilitation when provided for tourism, ticket issuance and online booking services offering personalised itinerary planning. Mass‑market travel information such as general guidebooks or widely distributed websites intended for the public is not covered by the ban, because the prohibitions apply to consultative, fee‑based services provided actively to specific clients rather than to passive mass‑market content.

Enforcement risk and recommended next steps

Article 12’s anti‑circumvention rule underscores that intentional efforts to evade the prohibitions will trigger enforcement, including by national competent authorities that manage authorisations and sanctions implementation. Firms should treat the Regulation as requiring continuous monitoring: regulatory updates, case law developments, and amendments to CPC interpretations can materially change exposure. The immediate steps for professional advisers and corporate compliance units are to conduct a service‑by‑service risk mapping, tighten client onboarding and beneficiary due diligence, review contractual models and delivery chains for potential indirect provision, and develop escalation procedures for authorisation requests and legal advice. Engaging early with national competent authorities when in doubt and documenting decision‑making will reduce legal risk and help preserve lawful business where justified exceptions apply.

Dive deeper

• EC ¦ Frequently asked questions on provision of services concerning sanctions adopted following Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine ¦ Link
• EC ¦ Consolidated version of the frequently asked questions concerning sanctions adopted following Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine and Belarus’ involvement in it ¦ Link