Sanctions 2026

FRANCE Law and Practice Contributed by: William Julié, Amélie Beauchemin and Camille Gosson, WJ Avocats

there was an objective link between important businesspersons involved in sectors that are lucrative for Russia and the objective pursued by the European Union consisting in increasing the pressure exerted on that country and the costs of its actions destabilising Ukraine. • The Court indicated its position concerning the interplays between trusts and sanctions, in a Judgment of 21 May 2026, T Trust, C-483/23, EU:C:2026:408, in a Judgment of 21 May 2026, and in joined cases FZ AR ( Gel des biens affec - tés au trust ), C-428/24, and SX Ltd , C-476/24, EU:C:2026:409. It held that the existence of a trust does not, in itself, preclude the freezing of assets held through it. The Court made clear that the decisive question is not who holds legal title over the assets under the law governing the trust or the trust deed but who has the power, in practice, to use, benefit from or dispose of the assets or have influence over them. The Court identified several factual indicators. It did not, however, define any of the underlying concepts of its decision, notably “influence” and “power”, which could create further uncertainties in the future, and might require further clarifications. Directive (EU) 2024/1226, adopted in April 2024, crimi - nalised violation and circumvention of sanctions at EU level. The transposition of a directive is carried out in France by decree for matters falling within the regulatory power and by statute for those that Article 34 of the Constitution reserves to the legislature. The regulatory aspects of the Directive were transposed through Decree No 2025-470 of 28 May 2025 (see 2.2.2 Breaching Sanctions ); the criminal-law aspects must be transposed by statute. On 3 March 2026, a member of Parliament introduced Bill No 2544 to that effect. The bill defines eight categories of conduct constituting criminal offences, with aggravating cir - cumstances notably for organised crime or dual-use items. It departs from the Directive on several points, and raises constitutional concerns. First, whereas Recital 4 permits gross-negligence liability only for trade in dual-use items, the bill extends it to all trade in goods and creates a strict liability offence punish - able by fine and confiscation, difficult to reconcile with the constitutional principles of necessity and proportionality of penalties. Second, the bill adopts

an overly broad definition of freezing that includes seizure, conflating a precautionary measure with a coercive one, at odds with the CJEU’s holding that restrictive measures are precautionary in nature ( Shu- valov v Council , T-289/22). Third, the bill fails to trans - pose the Directive’s protection of legal professional privilege and creates a reporting offence applicable to anyone obtaining information on a sanctioned per - son’s assets “in the course of a professional activity”, broad enough to capture both advisory and litigation counsel, with no carve-out for lawyers. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs, but no date has been set. At national level, as explained above, relevant recent case law includes the Lafarge trial, the Baltic Leader case and the Arcom decision concerning Eutelsat. Also, on 5 February 2026, in a case concerning assets frozen under Regulation (EU) No 2016/44 (Libya), the Court of cassation held that prior administrative authorisation from the DG Trésor is required before any attachment of debt ( saisie - attribution ) may be lev - ied on frozen funds. That requirement is not confined to the payment stage but goes to the very validity of the attachment, and it cannot be satisfied by a judicial authorisation from the enforcement judge (JEX) (Cass. 2e civ., 5 February 2026, No 23-15.936 (F-B)). 3.2 Future Developments The focus is expected to remain on oil and tankers, with additional listings of individuals and vessels likely in the coming months. The introduction of new designation criteria, in par - ticular that targeting individuals allegedly responsible for the abduction of Ukrainian children, is likely to generate further listing challenges and, in turn, future case law. Further sanctions packages are expected in the next few months, continuing the regular pace of the past four years, introducing new criteria and targeting new sectors of the Russian economy.

146 CHAMBERS.COM