![Ruling [CJEU] ¦ EU Sanctions Case-Law September to November 2026: Business Leaders, State Firms and Stale Evidence](/assets/images/posts/pexels-nguyendesigner-241028_1024.webp)
11 November 2026
Ruling [CJEU] ¦ EU Sanctions Case-Law September to November 2026: Business Leaders, State Firms and Stale Evidence
What the EU courts said about sanctions listings between September and November 2026
Between mid-September and mid-November 2026, the General Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union decided seven cases on EU restrictive measures under the Russia/Ukraine, Belarus and Russia hybrid-threats regimes. Five concern individual listings, one the sectoral measures imposed on a state-owned Russian company, and one the remedies open to a person whose listing a court has already annulled. This overview sets out the general legal points: who counts as a leading businessperson or an associated family member, when state ownership is enough, what evidence a renewal needs, how far press reports can carry a listing and what the Council must do after it loses in court.
Seven decisions, three recurring themes
The first theme is the reach of the listing criteria. The Court of Justice confirmed that the Russia regime’s criterion for leading businesspersons kept its meaning when the Council split it in 2023, that a person who manages a company’s assets can be a businessperson without being a shareholder or executive, and that a business relationship between spouses can make one of them an “associated” person. The General Court confirmed that a Belarusian state-owned company that transfers money to the state supports the regime.
The second theme is evidence. The Council won where it showed a stable situation or produced new material, and lost where it renewed a listing on conduct that had stopped a year earlier or relied on press reports that did not match its own statement of reasons. The third concerns procedure and remedies: who may challenge a sectoral measure, when the time limit for challenging a regulation runs, and what an applicant can achieve with an action for failure to act or a claim for damages.
Four of the seven decisions went entirely the Council’s way. One annulled a listing outright, one annulled two renewals, and one annulled a single sectoral measure as disproportionate while upholding the rest.
Family ties and association: a business relationship is enough
In Case C-695/23 P (judgment of 15 October 2026), the Court of Justice dismissed an appeal against the 2022 listing of the spouse of a leading Russian businessperson. She had been listed as a person “associated” with her husband, on the ground that she chaired the board of trustees of a foundation that ran the charitable activities of large companies in which he held senior positions.
The Court restated the test it had set out in 2025. A family relationship alone never makes a person “associated”. The common interests between family members must objectively go beyond those inherent in any family relationship, but they need not take the form of an economic activity. Two people who hold positions in different but closely linked entities can share common interests in the form of a business relationship, and that was the case here. It made no difference that her role in the foundation was honorary and voluntary and gave her no control over its affairs.
The Court also rejected the argument that the association criterion is too vague. It is subordinate to a substantive criterion, here the one covering leading businesspersons, and its purpose is to prevent a listed person from using people close to him or her to get round the freeze. Because of that purpose, the Council does not have to show in each case that a risk of circumvention actually exists, that the associated person has any link with Russia’s actions against Ukraine, or that listing that person increases pressure on the Russian government. Nor does the Council breach legal certainty because it has not listed every person who could meet the criterion.
For related-party analysis, the lesson is the same as in July: charitable and philanthropic roles can establish an association just as a shareholding can, and the voluntary character of the role does not change that.
The case is one of three in the two overviews that concern the same family. The appellant is the person whose later renewals the General Court annulled in Case T-799/25, covered in the previous overview, and her husband is the father of the applicant in Case T-583/25 below. Read together, the cases show how much depends on the period and the evidence. The 2022 listing of the spouse, based on her role in the foundation at that time, stands. Later renewals that rested only on her husband’s positions and a single public appearance did not. The son’s earlier renewals failed, and the Council has since rebuilt its reasons around financial benefits he is said to have drawn himself; whether those reasons hold is still pending.
Leading businesspersons: the amended criterion means what the old one meant
Case C-530/25 P (judgment of 5 November 2026) matters most for anyone who screens Russian business figures. The Court of Justice dismissed in full an appeal against the 2023 and 2024 maintenance of an asset freeze on a Russian investor.
The appellant argued that, when the Council split the original (g) criterion in June 2023 into “leading businesspersons operating in Russia” and “businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government”, the word “leading” took on a narrower meaning that required a relationship of interdependence with the Russian authorities. The Court disagreed. “Leading” still refers to a person’s significant importance in the economic sector concerned, judged by occupational status, the importance of the economic activity, capital holdings or investments, positions in companies or any other relevant economic factor, and it does not depend on links with the government. The 2023 amendment only separated two conditions that had previously been cumulative, so that the Council could reach leading businesspersons in any sector and other businesspersons in the revenue-generating sectors. The recital describing a relationship of mutual benefit between the government and prominent businesspersons explains why the criterion was widened and adds no condition the Council must prove.
A person can be a businessperson because he or she manages a company’s assets, even after formally transferring the shares to a long-standing business partner and without being a shareholder or executive. And whether a sector provides a “substantial source of revenue” is judged in absolute terms. The Council may rely on the fact that one of the sector’s leading companies is among Russia’s largest taxpayers and on the sector’s total annual revenue. It does not have to compare that revenue with the federal budget, and “revenue” covers all financial resources flowing to the government, taxes included.
On procedure, the Court held that a short reply to the listed person’s observations, stating that his evidence did not change the Council’s assessment because he still met the criterion, satisfies the duty to conduct a careful and impartial periodic review. The review must cover changes in the person’s situation and in the general situation that led to the regime. On proportionality, it is irrelevant whether a listing has had any measurable effect on Russia. The test is whether the measure is capable of contributing to its objective, and it is not manifestly inappropriate while Russia’s breach of international law continues.
State-owned companies and support for the Belarus regime
In Case T-239/24 (judgment of 23 September 2026), the General Court dismissed an action by a Belarusian state-owned industrial company against the 2024 and 2025 maintenance of its listing under the criterion covering persons and entities that benefit from or support the Lukashenko regime.
The company challenged the criterion itself. The Court held it lawful: it is not manifestly inappropriate for the regime’s objective, it establishes the required objective link between the persons targeted and Belarus, and it meets the requirement of legal certainty. It does not create an irrebuttable presumption that every Belarusian state-owned company supports or benefits from the regime. The Council still has to show this for each entity, but transfers of financial resources by a state-owned company to the state count as support.
On the periodic review, the Court applied the principle that also decided the next case. The Council must make an updated assessment when it maintains a listing, but it may rely on the evidence from an earlier listing if the reasons are unchanged and neither the company’s situation nor the context in Belarus has changed in a way that makes that evidence out of date. That was the case here. The restrictions on the company’s right to property and freedom to conduct a business were proportionate.
Renewals need current evidence
Case T-460/24 (judgment of 16 September 2026) shows the other side of that principle. The General Court upheld the June 2024 listing and the September 2024 renewal of a Russian performer under the criterion covering persons who support actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The Council had shown that the performer regularly appeared at state propaganda events, including concerts marking the annexation of Crimea, between 2022 and March 2024. The Court accepted press reports and video material from varied sources, treated repeated voluntary participation as more than neutral, and held that the measures were a proportionate restriction of freedom of expression and of the arts because the performer remained free to work and publish outside the EU.
The renewals of March and September 2025 failed. The Council may use older evidence to show continuity between a person’s past and present situation, but here the most recent event in its files dated from March 2024. Nothing showed that the conduct was still regular a year or more later, and the Council had not shown that participation between 2022 and 2024 was enough, despite the passage of time, to establish continuing support. The Court annulled both renewals on that ground alone.
Read with T-239/24, old evidence can carry a renewal when the situation is stable and the criterion describes a status, such as state ownership. It cannot carry a renewal when the criterion depends on conduct, such as regular participation in propaganda events, and the conduct is no longer documented.
Press reports, organisations and the statement of reasons
Case T-479/25 (judgment of 21 October 2026) is the first decision in this series under the regime against Russia’s destabilising activities, Regulation (EU) 2024/2642. The General Court annulled the May 2025 listing of a Russian national living in Germany. The Council’s reasons said that he acted as the German representative of a Cossack organisation linked to the Russian government and involved in the war, organised military gatherings for its members and, as a member, took part in acts of violence.
The Council’s evidence file consisted mainly of press articles and public reports. The Court accepted that they established the organisation’s links with the Russian government and its participation in the war. They did not establish the applicant’s role in it. The articles said that he pledged allegiance to a Cossack society or paramilitary group supporting Russia, but did not identify that group as the organisation named in the reasons, and other Cossack organisations were active in the war. He had organised and provided security for a 2022 demonstration in Germany calling for peace with Russia, but nothing showed that the organisation was behind it. Photographs of him at Cossack gatherings, sometimes in uniform, showed attendance but not organisation, and nothing at all supported the allegation of violence.
Several points are of wider use. Showing that an organisation is linked to the Russian government does not, by itself, support the listing of a person said to represent it; the person’s own role must be proven. “Maintaining close links” with an organisation is not the same as “acting as its representative”, and the Council cannot change the wording of its reasons before the court. Nor can it rely on facts that do not appear in the statement of reasons, such as the applicant’s alleged membership of a wider pro-Russian network in Germany. Finally, a signed resignation letter and a reply from the organisation’s management confirming the resignation were accepted as prima facie evidence that the applicant’s situation had changed, even without a letterhead and even though they were exchanged through a messaging app.
The applicant had challenged only the implementing regulation and not the parallel CFSP decision. The Court confirmed that this is permitted, and annulled the regulation as far as it concerned him.
After an annulment: relisting on new grounds counts as compliance
Case T-583/25 (judgment of 11 November 2026) deals with what happens after a listed person wins. The General Court had annulled several earlier renewals of the listing of the son of a leading Russian businessperson, the same businessperson whose spouse lost the appeal in Case C-695/23 P, the last of them in April 2025, because the Council had not shown that he benefited from his father. The applicant then formally called on the Council to remove him from the lists and, when it did not, brought an action for failure to act under Article 265 TFEU and a claim for EUR 10,000 in non-material damages.
The action for failure to act was admissible. A Council letter announcing that it intended to maintain the listing on amended grounds and new evidence, and inviting the applicant’s observations, was not yet a definitive position, because the right to be heard meant the Council’s view could still change. But in September 2025, after the action was brought, the Council adopted new acts keeping the applicant on the lists, and those acts were a definitive position, even though they refused what he had asked for. The action therefore lost its purpose. The Court added that the pending annulment actions against the later acts meant they were not beyond judicial review.
The claim for damages was admissible as an autonomous remedy, but it failed because it rested on a false premise. The Council had complied with the annulment judgment under Article 266 TFEU. It had re-examined the case and adopted new acts with substantially amended reasons and new evidence: a severance payment of around EUR 9 million on leaving positions obtained through family ties, a jointly owned holding company and the alleged transfer of nominal control over assets to close associates. Whether those new reasons are well founded will be decided in the pending cases.
In Case T-807/25, covered in the previous overview, relisting on identical grounds with no new evidence breached Article 266 TFEU and was a sufficiently serious breach. Here, relisting on substantially different grounds was a legitimate way of complying.
Sectoral measures against a state-owned company: standing, time limits and proportionality
Case T-535/24 (judgment of 4 November 2026) is the only decision in the series on sectoral measures. An extended five-judge chamber of the General Court ruled on an action by a wholly state-owned Russian ship classification society against four measures under Decision 2014/512/CFSP: an investment ban on its securities, a ban on all transactions with it, the withdrawal of its EU recognition and a ban on ships it certifies from accessing EU ports and locks.
On admissibility, the society was not directly concerned by the port and lock ban. That ban restricts the legal position of the ships and of EU port operators, not the society’s own rights; it does not prevent it from certifying ships, and the loss of customers is only an indirect economic effect. Being named in the provision was not enough. The Court also held that the challenge to the corresponding provisions of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 was out of time. Unlike the decision, the regulation has no expiry date, so the six-monthly renewals of the decision do not extend the regulation or open a new period for challenging it.
On the merits, the Court upheld the investment and transaction bans. The reasons can be found in the criteria of the decision read with its recitals, and it was enough that the society was wholly state-owned and active in the maritime sector to which the measures had been extended. The withdrawal of recognition was linked to the transaction ban: once no one could buy its services, flag states could no longer delegate inspections to it. The Council was also competent to withdraw the recognition under the CFSP, even though the Commission has power to withdraw it under Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 on maritime-safety grounds, because the two powers pursue different objectives and complement each other.
The withdrawal of recognition was nevertheless disproportionate. Suspension would have achieved the same aim of stopping the society from carrying out inspections for EU-flagged ships, while withdrawal meant that, if the sanctions were lifted, it would have to go through an uncertain new recognition procedure from scratch. The Court annulled the withdrawal but maintained its effects for two months and ten days, so that the decision and the identical provision in the regulation would not diverge. The society’s arguments on environmental and maritime-safety risks failed for lack of evidence.
What compliance teams should take from this
For banks, fund administrators, corporate service providers and sanctions teams, several practical lessons follow. The Russia regime’s (g) criterion reaches further than its wording suggests: a person who manages a group’s assets after handing his shares to a business partner can still be a leading businessperson, and a sector’s size alone can make it a substantial source of revenue for the Russian government. Related-party screening should cover foundations and charitable roles as well as shareholdings and directorships, and severance payments, jointly held holding companies and transfers of nominal control to close associates are the kind of facts the Council relied on when it relisted one applicant. In Belarus, state ownership combined with payments to the state can be enough for a listing.
The courts still insist on evidence that matches the reasons and is current. A listing built on press reports about a person’s attendance at events, or on an organisation’s links with the Kremlin, will not hold unless the person’s own role is shown. A renewal that relies on conduct a year old will fall. A win in court also does not end the matter, because the Council may relist on new grounds and that counts as complying with the judgment. Screening systems and asset freeze procedures should therefore follow the EU Consolidated Financial Sanctions List and the Official Journal, not press reports of judgments, and check when an annulment actually takes effect.
For sectoral measures, Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 is not renewed with the decision it implements, so a person who misses the deadline for challenging a regulatory listing cannot reopen it by challenging a later renewal of the decision. And because an annulment may have its effects maintained for a period, counterparties should not treat a favourable judgment as an immediate end to the prohibition.
Dive deeper
- CURIA ¦ Case T-460/24 Gagarina v Council, Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2026 ¦ Link
- CURIA ¦ Case T-460/24 Gagarina v Council, Summary of the judgment ¦ Link
- CURIA ¦ Case T-239/24 Belaz-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belaz Holding v Council, Summary of the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 September 2026 ¦ Link
- CURIA ¦ Case C-695/23 P Pumpyanskaya v Council, Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 October 2026 ¦ Link
- CURIA ¦ Case T-479/25 Kharkovsky v Council, Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 October 2026 ¦ Link
- CURIA ¦ Case T-535/24 Russian Maritime Register of Shipping v Council, Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, sitting with five Judges) of 4 November 2026 ¦ Link
- CURIA ¦ Case C-530/25 P Khan v Council, Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 November 2026 ¦ Link
- CURIA ¦ Case T-583/25 Pumpyanskiy v Council, Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 November 2026 ¦ Link
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.