EU Trends and Developments Contributed by: Nathalie Colin, Maria-Clara Van den Bossche, Florence Frühling and Kevin Xhebexhia, Freshfields LLP
subsidies granted in extraordinary circumstances. The Commission emphasised that while intended to enhance legal certainty, the Guidelines do not constitute a mechanical checklist, given the wide range of market contexts to which the FSR may apply. • Second, on 3 February 2026, the European Com - mission opened an in-depth investigation into a first ex officio case under the FSR public procure - ment module. The investigation targets an Asian wind turbine manufacturer involved in the devel - opment of wind parks in Spain, Greece, France, Romania and Bulgaria. This case began as a preliminary ex officio investigation in April 2024. Takeaway The publication of the FSR Guidelines and the open - ing of the first in-depth ex officio investigation under the public procurement module mark a maturation of FSR enforcement. For companies active in the EU that receive non-EU government support, FSR compliance – including in M&A transactions, public tenders and potential ex officio scrutiny – has become an integral part of deal planning and regulatory strategy. The EU Blocking Statute Background The EU’s primary defensive instrument against third- country extraterritorial sanctions is Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 (the “Blocking Statute”). It was origi - nally adopted in 1996 in response to US extraterritorial sanctions targeting Cuba, and amended in 2018 to cover re-imposed US sanctions on Iran. It prohibits EU operators from complying with designated foreign measures and enables recovery of resulting damage. Despite its broad scope, no EU member state author - ity has yet enforced the Blocking Statute in a known case, though it has had significant impact in private litigation, notably in the Bank Melli case before the CJEU. Key developments: pressure to activate the Blocking Statute against US sanctions on the ICC The most significant development in this area con - cerns US sanctions targeting the International Crimi - nal Court (ICC) and the mounting pressure on the European Commission to respond by activating the
Blocking Statute. The key developments unfolded as follows. • February 2025: The United States imposed travel bans and asset freezes on 11 ICC officials – includ - ing nine judges and the chief prosecutor – follow - ing the ICC’s 2024 decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli cabinet members, including Benjamin Netanyahu. The measures had immediate practical consequences, cutting targeted individuals off from the European financial system. • 9 July and 11 September 2025: The European Parliament adopted two successive resolutions calling on the European Commission to activate the Blocking Statute. This was intended both to protect the ICC as a cornerstone of the internation - al justice system and to shield European operators from the effects of the US sanctions, reaffirming member states’ commitments to the universality and integrity of the Rome Statute. • February 2026: In response to a parliamentary question signed by 42 MEPs from multiple politi - cal groups, the European Commission confirmed it was assessing appropriate measures – including a possible delegated act amending the Annex to the Blocking Statute – but indicated that diplo - matic outreach and targeted solutions remained its preferred course of action. The European Commis - sion reiterated its long-standing position that the extraterritorial application of sanctions is illegal and incompatible with international law. • 6 May 2026: Spain formally requested the Euro - pean Commission to activate the Blocking Statute, with Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez publicly calling for the mechanism to be triggered to prevent EU operators from being compelled to comply with the ICC-related US sanctions. • 24 May 2026: Former ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda publicly called on the EU to trigger the Blocking Statute as part of a broader call for struc - tural resistance. She described the US measures as designed not only to punish but to deter, with the ultimate aim of causing the court to “fade into oblivion”. She also urged ICC member states to create protected financial channels for court per - sonnel and to adopt domestic safeguards against enforcement co-operation with coercive third- country measures, stressing that the ICC system
174 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook