EU Fractures Grow as Commission Dismisses Compromise on Oligarch Sanctions

The Core Dispute

The disagreement surfaced during talks on the mandatory renewal of EU restrictive measures, a process requiring the unanimous consent of all 27 member states. Hungary and Slovakia reportedly spearheaded a push to remove Usmanov and Fridman from the sanctions list immediately, contending that their continued inclusion lacks sufficient justification.

This proposal faced a wall of opposition from the majority of the bloc. Most member states remain wary of easing pressure on figures linked to the Russian economic system while the conflict in Ukraine persists.

A Rejected Middle Ground

In an effort to resolve the stalemate, Slovakia suggested a conditional compromise: the EU would agree to delist the two entrepreneurs specifically if the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in their favor in their ongoing legal appeals.

This move was intended to bridge the gap between judicial review and political mandates. However, the European Commission reportedly dismissed this suggestion, asserting that sanctions must remain a matter of political discretion for member states rather than being strictly dictated by court outcomes.

Law vs. Political Strategy

The standoff highlights a fundamental tension within the EU framework—the friction between legal due process and foreign policy objectives.

• The Political Pillar: Sanctions are enacted under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), where political goals are paramount and unanimity is the rule.
• The Legal Pillar: While individuals can challenge their status in court, a legal victory does not provide a "fast track" to delisting, as the political machinery of the EU often moves independently of the judiciary.

Critics argue that decoupling delisting decisions from court rulings threatens legal certainty. Conversely, proponents of the Commission’s stance argue that sanctions are a geopolitical tool; even if specific evidence is challenged in court, the broader strategic necessity of maintaining a unified front remains the priority.

Inconsistency in Delistings

Historically, successful challenges at the CJEU are infrequent. Those who do manage to get delisted are typically lower-profile individuals or relatives of businessmen. The fact that major industrial figures rarely see relief—even after legal wins—has led to perceptions of an uneven system where high-stakes cases are held hostage by political consensus.

Broader Consequences

This latest row occurs at a fragile time for EU solidarity. While sanctions have been a cornerstone of the bloc's response to Moscow, maintaining a united front is becoming harder as domestic economic concerns and political shifts pull member states in different directions.

Hungary’s frequent use of its veto and Slovakia’s shift toward a more cautious alignment illustrate the growing difficulty of sustaining the current sanctions architecture. The fate of Usmanov and Fridman is now more than a legal question; it is a litmus test for whether the EU prioritizes the rule of law or political expediency in its foreign policy.