CJEU ¦ Notaries and Interpreters Are Not Covered by Sanctions’ Ban on “Legal Advisory Services”

Why this ruling matters for sanctions compliance

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a clear ruling on 5 September 2024 in Case C‑109/23 (Jemerak) that has immediate practical implications for how Member State professionals handle transactions involving Russian‑established legal persons under the EU’s Russia sanctions regime. The judgment interprets Article 5n(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (as amended) and holds that certain notarial acts, subsequent notarial steps to execute property sales, and interpreter services provided in the context of notarial authentication do not fall within the prohibition on providing “legal advisory services” to legal persons established in Russia. For practitioners working at the intersection of property, sanctions and anti‑money‑laundering (AML) compliance, this decision reduces legal uncertainty about the permissibility of routine, state‑delegated formalities necessary to register or transfer immovable property in Member States with mandatory notarial systems.

Background – the legal framework and the dispute before the referring court

Regulation No 833/2014 forms part of the EU’s restrictive measures introduced in response to Russia’s destabilising actions in Ukraine. Its Article 5n prohibits certain services to the Government of Russia and to legal persons established in Russia, including legal advisory services. The same regulation provides a limited exemption for services “necessary to ensure access to judicial, administrative or arbitral proceedings in a Member State” (Article 5n(6)). The Berlin Regional Court referred questions to the CJEU after a local notary (PR) refused to authenticate and execute a purchase contract for an apartment owned by a Russian company, citing uncertainty whether such notarial acts would breach Article 5n(2)(b). The referring court also sought guidance about interpreter services and ancillary notarial tasks (escrow handling, cancellation of charges, registration with the Land Register).

Core legal question – what counts as “legal advisory services” under Article 5n(2)?

The CJEU began by examining the ordinary meaning of “legal advisory services” in the absence of a statutory definition. It adopted an ordinary‑language and contextual approach: legal advisory services generally denote the provision of an opinion on a question of law in the context of an economic relationship between a service provider and a client, where the provider advances the client’s interests in non‑contentious matters (for example, legal advice on commercial transactions, participation in negotiations on behalf of a client, and preparation/verification of legal documents). The Court contrasted that private, client‑oriented activity with state‑delegated functions performed by notaries in certain national systems.

Bastian Schwind-Wagner _Follow

"Notarial authentication and closely related execution steps for the sale of immovable property owned by a legal person established in Russia do not fall within the prohibition on providing “legal advisory services” under Article 5n(2) of Regulation No 833/2014, according to the CJEU. Interpreter services assisting a non‑German‑speaking representative during such authentication are likewise not covered by that prohibition.

This clarification reduces uncertainty for professionals handling property transactions involving Russian entities but does not relieve parties of other sanctions, asset‑freeze measures or AML obligations. National courts must still assess, on the facts, whether specific post‑authentication tasks amount to prohibited legal advisory services."

Key findings – notarial authentication is not a “legal advisory service”

The Court emphasized the particular character of notarial authentication under German law: the notary acts as an independent holder of public office entrusted by the State with preventive administration of justice, certifying the legality of instruments and performing impartial, binding functions (including the power to refuse authentication when legally required). Given this public‑law role, the CJEU concluded that the notarial authentication of a contract for the sale of immovable property in Germany does not correspond to the economic activity captured by “legal advisory services” in Article 5n(2). The notary does not act to promote a specific client’s private interests; instead the notary acts in the interests of legal certainty and the public order of the domestic legal system.

Consequences for notarial acts and ancillary execution steps

The Court extended that conclusion to core ancillary notarial tasks directly required to implement an authenticated sale – holding purchase monies in escrow, arranging payment to the seller, requesting documents to cancel mortgages and other charges, and submitting documents for registration in the Land Register – while leaving the concrete determination to the national court. The CJEU noted that these tasks, as described in the referring court’s order, do not appear to involve provision of legal advice of the kind Article 5n targets. The national court must nevertheless assess, on a task‑by‑task basis, whether any specific activity could amount to legal advisory services in the sense identified by the CJEU.

Interpretation of the sanctions regime – contextual and consistency concerns

The Court’s reasoning took into account the broader sanctions architecture. Regulation No 833/2014 does not impose a blanket ban on transactions with all legal persons established in Russia; separate provisions (for instance Article 5aa) apply to specific state‑owned or controlled entities. The CJEU rejected an interpretation of Article 5n(2) that would, in practice, bar legal persons established in Russia from disposing of immovable property in Member States that require notarisation for transfers, because that would create inconsistent effects across Member States and exceed the EU legislature’s aim as reflected in the relevant recitals. The Court stressed that the prohibition on legal advisory services aims to restrict private legal support that would facilitate the continued commercial operation of Russian entities in the EU and to prevent circumvention of sanctions – not to freeze all asset disposals by Russian‑established legal persons.

Interpreters and translation services – not legal advisory services

The CJEU also addressed whether interpreter services provided during notarial authentication could fall within the ban. Because interpretation is not a legal profession and translation does not, by its nature, involve giving legal advice, the Court ruled that interpreter services used to assist a party who does not understand the language of authentication do not amount to “legal advisory services” under Article 5n(2). This clarification removes a practical obstacle that might otherwise have impeded the participation of non‑German‑speaking representatives in notarial procedures.

Practical implications for compliance, AML and risk management

The judgment reduces legal uncertainty for notaries, property professionals, banks, escrow agents and counsel involved in property transactions where the seller or owner is a Russian legal person.

Key practical takeaways are:

• Notarial acts, ancillary execution steps and interpreter services
  The CJEU makes clear that, as a general rule, the notarial authentication of sale contracts, the statutorily required execution steps that follow such authentication (for example, escrow handling, payment to the seller, cancellation of charges and registration in the Land Register) and interpreter services used during the authentication procedure do not fall within the prohibition in Article 5n(2). This means routine disposals of immovable property in Member States with mandatory notarial involvement are generally permitted, subject to any other applicable legal restrictions.
• Member State variances
  The CJEU’s decision is sensitive to the specific role that notaries play under national law. Where national law gives notaries a similar position as public office holders responsible for authentic acts, the reasoning will be persuasive. Courts and regulators in Member States with different systems should assess local specifics to determine whether notarial acts fall outside Article 5n(2)’s scope.
• Transaction‑by‑transaction risk assessment remains essential
  Although the judgment clarifies the general position, the referring court retains responsibility to determine whether specific execution tasks involve “legal advisory services”. Professionals should document the public‑law nature of notarial acts, limit actions to statutorily delegated execution functions when dealing with sanctioned risk, and avoid providing client‑oriented legal advice aimed at advancing the seller’s commercial interests where this could fall within the prohibition.
• Sanctions vs. targeted freezing and AML checks
  The ruling does not affect obligations under other sanctions provisions (for example, asset freezes under Regulation No 269/2014 for persons listed in Annex I) or AML/KYC duties. Practitioners must still screen counterparties against listing regimes, conduct enhanced due diligence where required, and comply with reporting obligations where transactions raise suspicions.
• Institutional coordination
  Notaries and professional bodies should coordinate with national competent authorities and, where helpful, seek guidance from national ministries or the Commission’s sanctions helpdesks to confirm when a particular act falls outside the prohibition, especially in cross‑border or complex factual settings.

Limitations and open questions

The CJEU’s ruling is narrow and fact‑sensitive. It does not create a broad exemption for all legal work involving Russian‑established entities. The Court explicitly left to the national court the task of assessing, in concrete cases, whether particular acts beyond the authentication and clearly ancillary, statutorily mandated execution duties may nonetheless involve legal advice. The judgment does not change the status of legal advisory services in other contexts – for example, drafting commercial contracts or representing clients in commercial negotiations remains covered by Article 5n(2) and prohibited where addressed to Russian legal persons. Finally, the judgment preserves other sanctions and AML frameworks that can still restrict or prevent transactions with certain persons or entities.

Conclusion – what compliance teams and practitioners should do now

The CJEU has reduced uncertainty by distinguishing public‑law notarial functions and interpretation services from the private, client‑oriented “legal advisory services” that Article 5n(2) prohibits. Compliance teams should update internal sanctions guidance to reflect that notarial authentication and closely linked execution steps, and interpreter assistance during such proceedings, are generally not captured by the Article 5n(2) ban – but must be treated with caution and documented. Screening for listed persons, reviewing ownership structures, conducting enhanced due diligence and coordinating with national authorities remain indispensable. When in doubt about whether a particular activity crosses into prohibited legal advisory services, practitioners should seek a national court ruling or authoritative regulatory guidance to reduce liability risk.

Dive deeper

• InfoCuria ¦ Case C 109/23 ¦ Link