EU Law and Practice Contributed by: Edward Borovikov, Laurens Engelen, Xiaoyi Tang and Semen Medvedkov, Dentons
In Case T-518/23 (December 2025), the General Court confirmed that the EU blocking statute does not provide the third parties targeted by the restric - tive measures any procedural role, meaning that their interests are not taken into account and that they are not involved in the procedures conducted. In contrast, in this case the Court found that the authorisations did have retroactive effect and were exceptionally permis - sible since the purpose – preventing serious damage to the interests of the EU or the applicant resulting from non-compliance – justified the retroactivity and the legitimate expectations of those concerned were duly respected. Claims for Damages In its decision of February 2023, the CJEU rejected a claim by Oleksandr Klymenko, Ukraine’s former rev - enue minister. Mr Klymenko sought financial compen - sation because he was placed on the EU’s sanctions list. While the Court acknowledged that the EU made mistakes, they were not serious enough to warrant financial payout. Though the Court found the EU’s actions in 2021 could be considered a reason for compensation, Mr Klymenko could not prove enough damage or a clear connection between the sanctions and his losses. Similarly, in its decision (Case T-602/24) of 10 June 2026, the General Court rejected a claim by Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko, a Russian listed business - man, seeking EUR1 million in provisional compensa - tion for alleged moral harm due to the adoption and maintenance of the restrictive measures. The General Court recalled that the EU can only be held responsi - ble where the alleged breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals is sufficiently estab - lished, damages have actually been suffered and a causal link between the two is established. However, the Court found that Mr Timchenko had merely assert - ed that the Council’s allegations and the listing itself had serious consequences for his reputation, without providing any evidence of the existence or extent of the alleged harm. Legal Services and Advisory Bans The General Court and CJEU have also recently clari - fied the scope of the EU’s prohibitions on the provision of legal services to Russian entities.
In Jemerak (Case C 109/23, September 2024), the CJEU ruled that notarial services do not fall within the scope of the advisory services ban imposed under Article 5n of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014. The Court distinguished between legal representa - tion in judicial proceedings, which remains permitted, and general legal advice, which is prohibited where it may support sanctioned actors. In the Commission’s guidance (which is not legally binding) as regards EU sanctions targeting Russia, it is specified that notary services do not fall within the scope of legal services in legal systems where a notary, acting with complete independence and impartiality and with a legal obliga - tion incumbent on them, authenticates a contract for the sale of immovable property owned by a legal per - son established in Russia without providing, besides that authentication, any legal advice intended to pro - mote the specific interests of the parties. In joined cases T 635/22, T 644/22 and T 494/22 (Sep - tember 2024), the General Court upheld the Council’s restrictions on legal advisory services, finding them proportionate and compatible with the fundamental rights of both EU lawyers and sanctioned entities. Additional challenges by Bar associations were simi - larly rejected (see T 797/22, T 798/22, T 828/22). The General Court did however specify in these cases that the provision of legal advice in the context of pre- litigation procedures is permitted. Circumvention EU sanctions are binding within the EU’s jurisdiction. The EU refrains from adopting sanctions having extra - territorial application, however, and prohibits “circum - vention” of existing sanctions regimes. Circumvention has been generally defined as “activities in respect of which it appears, on the basis of objective fac - tors, that, under cover of a formal appearance which enables them to avoid the constituent elements of an infringement of [...], none the less they have, as such or by reason of their possible link to other activities, the aim or result, direct or indirect, of frustrating the prohibition” (judgment of the CJEU, 21 December 2011, C-72/11, Afrasiabi , EU:C:2011:874, paragraphs 60 and 62). In the 14th sanctions package targeting Russia, the EU’s wording of the prohibition on circumvention
123 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook