![Ruling [EGC] ¦ General Court Annuls 2025 Renewals of Russia Sanctions Listing for Lack of Current Evidence](/assets/images/posts/pexels-shvetsa-6899219_1024.webp)
16 September 2026
Ruling [EGC] ¦ General Court Annuls 2025 Renewals of Russia Sanctions Listing for Lack of Current Evidence
Stale evidence and cultural figures: where the General Court draws the line on support listings
The General Court of the European Union has partly annulled the EU sanctions listing of a Russian singer. It upheld her inclusion in June 2024 and the first renewal in September 2024, but annulled the renewals of March 2025 and September 2025, because the Council’s evidence did not show that her participation in state propaganda events was still regular when those acts were adopted.
The judgment shows how far the criterion for persons supporting actions that undermine the territorial integrity of Ukraine can reach, what evidence the Council can use, and why a renewal needs proof that is current and not just a record of past conduct.
The listing and its four renewals
The applicant was added to the lists on 24 June 2024 under two criteria. Under the first, she was treated as a person supporting actions or policies that undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. The Council said she regularly performs at state propaganda events, for example to celebrate the annexation of four Ukrainian regions or the anniversary of the annexation of Crimea. Under the second, it said she benefits from the Russian Government because her frequent participation in state-sponsored events and programmes brought significant revenue.
The September 2024 acts kept her on the lists for the same reasons. The March 2025 and September 2025 acts kept her on the lists under the first criterion only, with shorter reasons. She challenged each act by modifying her original action, and the Court examined four pleas on reasons, errors of assessment, proportionality and freedom of expression and the arts, plus a fifth on procedure directed at the September 2025 acts.
Reasons that explained the case
The applicant argued that the reasons were almost absent or contradictory. The Court found that the context was known to her, that the legal basis was stated and that the reasons identified the actual and specific grounds: she was a singer who regularly took part in state propaganda events and was therefore said to support actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. She understood the case well enough to contest it in detail. Her argument that the reasons failed to explain how performing at such events amounts to support went to the merits, not to the duty to state reasons.
A full review on a solid factual basis
The Court treated her second plea as one alleging an error of assessment, not only a manifest error. The Council has some discretion over whether the criteria are met, but the EU courts must review the lawfulness of the acts fully. The listing has to rest on a sufficiently solid factual basis, and the Council carries the burden of showing that the reasons are well founded through a specific, precise and consistent body of evidence. The person listed does not have to prove the negative.
The Council may rely on the same evidence for renewals as for the first listing if the reasons are unchanged and the context has not made that evidence out of date. That context covers the situation of the country and the personal situation of the person listed.
What counts as a state propaganda event
The Council relied on press articles from 2022 to 2024, and the Court also accepted further articles produced with the defence, because they concerned earlier events and supported material the Council already had. Because the EU has no investigative powers in third countries, its assessment must draw on public sources, and the war makes primary sources hard to reach.
The Court found four events established. A concert at a Moscow stadium in March 2022 marked the anniversary of the annexation of Crimea. Its official slogan was about a world without Nazism, the Russian President spoke there in defence of the invasion, and the applicant sang a patriotic song from a film about the defence of Sevastopol while wearing an outfit with the letter Z formed from a St George ribbon. The Court held that her voluntary participation could not be regarded as neutral.
A second concert, the following day, was for refugees from the self-declared republics in Donetsk and Luhansk. It was organised by another singer who had described the invasion as a peacekeeping operation in a post the applicant had publicly liked, and the Court found that it could be regarded as a means of supporting a policy that promotes actions undermining the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
A third was a January 2024 concert at a military hospital. The applicant called it a charity event for children, but the Court concluded from the source and the accompanying video that the audience included soldiers who had taken part in the war. Although the primary aim was the soldiers’ recovery, the concert also bolstered moral support for the army. The fourth was a March 2024 concert in Red Square for the tenth anniversary of the annexation of Crimea, at which the President described the annexation of new territories as a major event in the history of the State.
The Council did not prove that the applicant took part in a September 2023 concert marking the annexation of four regions. The article it used said she was scheduled to appear, not that she did, and the video she cited was incomplete. The Court disregarded that event.
Regular participation and the wider context
The word regularly implies repetition at intervals and not a one-off. Several events between 2022 and 2024 were enough for the Council to use it. The Court also looked at context: the applicant had publicly liked a social media post that called the invasion a peacekeeping operation, had publicly declared political loyalty to the President and belonged to a group of patriotic artists recommended to regional authorities and state enterprises for engagements. From this the Court concluded that the events aimed to shape public opinion and legitimise the war, and that propaganda and disinformation form part of modern warfare. Because the first criterion was substantiated, the Court did not examine whether the criterion on benefiting from the Government was met for the 2024 acts.
Proportionality and freedom of the arts
The applicant argued that the measures should target real support for Russian policy, and that they had already closed her official video channel and removed her from major music platforms. The Court held that the measures serve an objective of general interest, that less restrictive measures would be less effective and that the measures are temporary, reversible and reviewed periodically, with the possibility of exemptions. It also held that freedom of expression and freedom of the arts are not absolute and may be limited under the Charter. The essence of the freedoms remained intact because the acts leave her free to create and share music, including recordings, outside the EU, and restrict only concerts in EU territory, which she may not enter or transit. She remains free to perform and earn income in Russia.
Why the 2025 renewals failed
The renewals of March 2025 and September 2025 fell for a different reason. The Council may use earlier evidence to show continuity between a person’s past and present situation, but the evidence has to show that the person still meets the criterion when the act is adopted. The most recent event in the files was the March 2024 concert, and nothing referred to a later one. The second evidence file held two documents that were identical to material already before the Court. The evidence therefore did not show that her conduct was still regular in March or September 2025, and the Council had not shown that regular participation from 2022 to 2024 was enough to establish continued support despite the passage of time.
The Court upheld the second plea and annulled the four acts in so far as they concern her, without ruling on the other pleas or on the procedural plea against the September 2025 acts. It dismissed the action for the rest, including the initial acts and the September 2024 acts. The Council’s request to maintain the effects of the annulled decisions was moot, since the applicant was subject to newer measures. Each party bears its own costs.
Consequences for sanctions screening and monitoring
For firms that screen cultural, media and other public figures, the ruling confirms that a support-based listing can rest on repeated public participation in state events, even where the person denies political intent, and that the courts accept press evidence from varied sources. It also shows that a renewal is a fresh decision that needs recent evidence. Here, a gap of a year or more between the last documented event and the renewal was enough for the annulment.
A judgment on a past listing period does not decide the current position. The annulment here covers March 2025 to March 2026, and a later decision was not before the Court. Screening teams should check the EU Consolidated Financial Sanctions List and the Official Journal for the current status and not rely on news of the judgment. The judgment does not address how firms should treat transactions that were blocked during the annulled period, so that question needs a separate legal assessment.
Dive deeper
EU Sanctions Helpdesk
The EU Sanctions Helpdesk platform supports European operators in complying with European Union restrictive measures (also known as sanctions) imposed worldwide.
Aimed primarily at Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), the Helpdesk offers resources and personalised help to companies performing sanctions due diligence checks.