EU reconsiders the boundaries of sanctions policy

On 30 October 2025, the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Professor Andrea Biondi, delivered a key opinion in one of the most contentious legal cases of recent years concerning the sanctions regime against Russian businessmen Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven. He recommended rejecting Latvia's appeal seeking to reinstate the sanctions lifted in April 2024.

Recall that in April 2024, the EU Court of Justice annulled the EU Council's decision to include the businessmen in the sanctions lists, recognising that there was insufficient evidence of their support or benefit from the Kremlin's policies. However, despite this, Fridman and Aven still remain on the "listing", which, according to critics, effectively means punishment without a trial.

What Latvia was trying to prove

The Latvian side, supported by Estonia and Lithuania, argued in the appeal that the Court's judgement did not take into account the specifics of the Russian economy, where the line between the state and business is blurred. This, they argued, justified the "presumption" of loyalty of any big businessman to the regime. The appeal also relied on the EU's foreign policy objectives under Articles 3 and 21 of the Treaty on European Union, which emphasise the importance of responding to "Russian aggression".

In his opinion, Biondi rigidly and point by point refuted the logic of the appeal, emphasising that:

• The EU has a duty to rely on concrete, accurate and coherent evidence;
• Political context is important, but cannot replace facts;
• The merger of business and power in Russia does not automatically make it reasonable to assume that all big businessmen are accomplices of the regime;
• Past ties - for example, episodes with Alfa Group in 2005 - cannot be the basis for new sanctions without proof of continuation;
• Proximity to power does not equal benefit from it.

Biondi emphasised that the use of circumstantial evidence - business correspondence, participation in meetings, links to banks and others - is not proof of active support for political decisions, as required by EU law.

Consequences of the conclusion

Although the opinions of Advocates General are not binding, the Court of Justice of the EU follows them in 70 per cent of cases. If this happens now, the consequences could be tangible:

• Fridman and Aven will get a legal victory, and their case could set a precedent for others challenging the sanctions;
• The EU will be forced to rethink the logic of sanctions decisions, moving away from collective responsibility to an individualised approach;
• The confrontation between legal standards and political pressure will reach a new level.

Unlike the position of the UK Supreme Court, which in the Naumenko and Shvidler cases allowed the government wide latitude to impose sanctions without strict evidence, the EU, according to Biondi, should maintain legal standards even in the context of a geopolitical crisis. His formula "context can complement but not replace evidence" is already being hailed as a possible new principle of EU sanctions law.