FRANCE Trends and Developments Contributed by: William Julié, Amélie Beauchemin and Camille Gosson, WJ Avocats
person subject to restrictive measures for the purpose of asset-freeze measures. Against this backdrop, the use of trusts has repre - sented a challenge for the effective enforcement of EU restrictive measures since their creation, and even more since March 2022 and the increase in sanctions against Russia. The ambiguity requires a uniform interpretation both for the national authorities impos - ing freezing measures and the persons subject to restrictive measures involved in trust structures. Prior to the 21 May 2026 judgments, the CJEU had scarcely addressed the notions of “belonging to” and “controlled by”. In a judgment issued on 12 March 2026 in Case C-84/24, EM System , the Court held that the freezing of funds covers funds and econom - ic resources of a company not included on the list, provided that those funds and economic resources are owned, held or controlled by a person, entity or body which is included on that list. The Court added that a 50% shareholding in a company gave rise to a presumption of control of that company, but also its funds and economic resources. However, the CJEU never interpreted the concepts of “belonging to” and “controlled by” within the context of trust structures. The Regional Administrative Court for Lazio in Italy, faced with three cases involving persons subjected to restrictive measures and assets held through trusts, referred preliminary questions to the CJEU, making these the first decisions to address the intersection of The three cases arose within the context of sanctions imposed by the Council of the EU in response to Rus - sia’s aggression against Ukraine, and pertain to assets linked to individuals included in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, and held through Bermudian trust structures. In Case C-483/23 ( T Trust ), four Italian companies were controlled by a company established in Bermu - da, itself placed in an irrevocable trust governed by the law of Bermuda and whose trustee was a Swiss trust law and EU asset freeze obligations. The Court’s Findings in the 21 May 2026 Judgments Facts and questions referred
entity. The trust’s settlor had been removed from the list of beneficiaries prior to his inclusion in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 in 2022. The Italian authorities imposed a freezing measure on assets belonging to the four companies, finding that they were attributable to the settlor, as beneficial owner of those companies. In Case C-428/24 ( FZ AR ), an Italian company belong - ing to an international group was held, indirectly, through an irrevocable and discretionary trust gov - erned by the law of Bermuda (XT Trust). The original beneficiary of the trust (Mr ZU) had been replaced by his spouse (Ms TU), before both of them were included in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 in 2022. In Case C-476/24 ( SX ), a boat located in Italy belonged to the company SX that was held in an irrev - ocable and discretionary trust of which Mrs TU was the sole beneficiary. In both cases, the Italian authori - ties imposed freezing measures on company FZ AR and on the boat on the grounds that the assets and resources remained attributable to Mrs TU as benefi - ciary of the trust. In both cases, the companies challenged the freezing measures before the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio. The questions referred to the CJEU by the Italian court pertained to the interpretation of Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 and, specifically, the concepts of “belonging to” and being “controlled by” within the context of trusts. On the one hand, the court wished to ascertain whether it is possible to impose freezing measures on assets and economic resources put into a trust by a settlor subject to restrictive meas - ures when such assets are deemed to belong to or be controlled by said settlor and, on the other, whether assets and economic resources held in a trust could be considered as belonging to or being controlled by the beneficiary of the trust, subject to restrictive measures, even when the national law prohibited the beneficiary from enjoying or disposing of the trust’s assets. The Court’s holdings: substance over form The Court clarified for the first time whether funds and economic resources held through trust structures may
154 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook