FRANCE Trends and Developments Contributed by: William Julié, Amélie Beauchemin and Camille Gosson, WJ Avocats
WJ Avocats 55, rue de Prony 75017 Paris France
Tel: (+33) 1 88 33 51 80 Fax: (+33) 1 88 33 51 81 Email: info@wjavocats.com Web: www.wjavocats.com
Introduction Before the two judgments delivered on 21 May 2026 by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-483/23 ( T Trust ) and joined Cases C-428/24 and C-476/24 ( FZ AR and SX ), the treatment of trust structures under restrictive measures adopted by the European Union (EU) was something of a legal vacu - um. Neither the General Court nor the CJEU had pre - viously clarified, within the specific context of trusts, the meaning of funds or economic resources “belong - ing to” or being “controlled by” a designated person. Yet both the General Court and national authorities were repeatedly called upon to assess trust arrange - ments when enforcing asset-freeze measures. In the absence of a coherent framework, enforcement prac - tices created legal uncertainty for trustees, beneficiar - ies, financial institutions and sanctioned persons alike. Trusts, by design, bifurcate legal title from economic benefit: the trustee holds the assets, while the ben - eficiary retains the economic interest. By separating legal ownership from beneficial enjoyment, trusts challenge traditional conceptions of ownership and control upon which restrictive measures are ordinarily premised. Trusts are not inherently opaque or suspi - cious structures; they are widely used across numer - ous jurisdictions for legitimate purposes, includ - ing estate planning, wealth preservation, charitable activities and business succession. They encompass a broad range of legal arrangements, each allocating powers, rights and benefits differently among settlors, trustees and beneficiaries.
Nevertheless, both judicial and administrative prac - tices in the field of restrictive measures have revealed a degree of discomfort with, and sometimes misun - derstanding of, the legal realities of trusts. Against this backdrop, guidance from the CJEU was eagerly awaited. The judgments delivered on 21 May 2026 constitute the CJEU’s first attempt at articulating a coherent framework for assessing assets held through trusts under EU sanctions law. This article examines, in turn, the background that made these rulings necessary, the factual and legal content of the judgments, and their implications and limits. Trusts as a Source of Interpretative Difficulty Within the Context of EU Restrictive Measures Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 provides that “All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by any natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I shall be frozen”. The CJEU has endorsed a broad interpre - tation, holding that, within the context of restrictive measures, the notions of “belonging to” and being “controlled by” are autonomous concepts. Owner - ship and control may be direct or indirect and extend to situations in which a person is able to influence the decisions of another person, even in the absence of any legal link between them (eg, see Judgment of 10 September 2019, HTTS v Council , C-123/18 P, EU:2019:694, paragraphs 69 to 71). A trust, as defined by the Hague Convention of 1 July 1985, is a legal relationship, created by a person, the
152 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook