EU General Court: Roman Abramovich EU Sanctions Appeal Rejected

• The EU General Court upheld sanctions against Roman Abramovich, rejecting his appeal to overturn an asset freeze and travel restrictions.
• The court ruled that Abramovich's 28.64% stake in Russian steelmaker Evraz was sufficient justification for the sanctions, even without proof of direct control or Kremlin influence.
• Abramovich's claim for $1.16 million in damages was denied, and he was ordered to pay the Council of the European Union's legal costs.
• The court dismissed Abramovich's arguments, including claims of a 'sanctions trap' preventing divestment and that the rule was vague or disproportionate.
• Experts note that the evidential threshold for the Council to impose sanctions is not especially demanding, emphasizing economic weight as a key factor.

The court emphasized that the Council of the European Union was not required to demonstrate that Abramovich exercised direct control over Evraz or another of his interests, Norilsk Nickel, nor did it need to prove his support for Moscow or influence over the Kremlin.

The European Union's General Court, the bloc's second-highest judicial body, recently affirmed its decision to maintain sanctions against Roman Abramovich, rejecting his appeal to overturn an asset freeze and travel restrictions. The court's ruling, issued on Wednesday, also denied Abramovich's claim for $1.16 million (1 million euros) in damages and stipulated that he must cover the legal expenses incurred by the Council of the European Union.

Abramovich, who holds Russian, Israeli, and Portuguese citizenship, has been subject to these measures since weeks after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The sanctions, which were renewed in 2025, stem primarily from his substantial and long-standing economic interests in key Russian industries, particularly his significant stake in the steel and mining conglomerate Evraz.

A central tenet of the court's decision was that Abramovich's 28.64% stake in Evraz, where he was the largest shareholder, provided sufficient grounds for the sanctions. Evraz, a major Russian steel and mining group, generated 66.3% of its 2021 revenue from steel. The court emphasized that the Council of the European Union was not required to demonstrate that Abramovich exercised direct control over Evraz or another of his interests, Norilsk Nickel, nor did it need to prove his support for Moscow or influence over the Kremlin.

Instead, the judges determined that economic weight alone was a sufficient criterion for imposing the measures. Niall Moran, an assistant professor of EU sanctions law, noted that while an evidential test exists, the threshold the Council must meet to satisfy it is not particularly demanding. This ruling underscores that a significant economic interest in a sanctioned entity can be enough to trigger EU sanctions, even in the absence of evidence of direct control or political influence.

Abramovich's appeal presented several arguments, including claims that the sanctions rule was vague and disproportionate. He also contended that council working groups, specifically Coreper, COEST, and RELEX, had effectively usurped the final decision-making authority regarding his sanctions. Furthermore, he invoked human dignity and free-movement rights, and challenged the review process of his circumstances. The court, however, found the rule to be clear, the restrictions reviewable, and affirmed that the Council retained ultimate authority.

Another key argument from Abramovich centered on the concept of a 'sanctions trap,' where he claimed overlapping sanctions regimes prevented him from divesting his Evraz stake, thereby keeping him listed. The judges found no concrete proof that a sale was impossible and reiterated that the measures were designed to exert pressure on Moscow, rather than to compel individual sanctioned persons to change their course of action. Francesca Finelli, an assistant professor of law, observed that Abramovich's Evraz stake remained the primary evidence supporting his listing, and his newer arguments, including a legal opinion he commissioned regarding his inability to sell, were given limited weight by the court.

The EU began implementing Ukraine-related sanctions in 2014 following Russia's annexation of Crimea, significantly expanding them after the full-scale invasion in February 2022. To date, the bloc has adopted 21 sanctions packages, with individual measures affecting nearly 3,000 people and entities set to expire next Tuesday, while broader economic restrictions are slated to run until July 31, 2027.

This ruling highlights the EU's robust approach to sanctions, particularly its willingness to target individuals based on substantial economic ties to Russian industries. The concept of an 'overlapping sanctions regimes trap,' as identified by experts, remains a real-world problem where individuals may struggle to exit listings even through divestment. However, the General Court's decision reinforces that the primary objective of these measures is to pressure the Russian state, and a significant economic stake, such as Abramovich's in Evraz, is sufficient to justify their imposition.

This ruling clarifies that the EU's evidential threshold for imposing sanctions is not high; a significant economic stake in a sanctioned entity, such as Evraz, can be sufficient even without proof of direct control or Kremlin influence. Lawyers should advise clients with investments in sanctioned jurisdictions that substantial economic interest alone can trigger sanctions, and be aware of the 'sanctions trap' created by overlapping regimes when planning divestment or compliance strategies.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service