FRANCE Trends and Developments Contributed by: William Julié, Amélie Beauchemin, Camille Gosson and Elena Moreno, WJ Avocats
Conclusion: Sanctions as Strategy – and as Liability The EU’s evolving sanctions framework reflects a shift in philosophy: from reactive and contained to preventive, expansive and strategic. The increasing inclusion of third-country actors – many of whom lack a direct link to Russia or the EU – raises important jurisdictional and diplomatic questions. Meanwhile, the expansion of personal nexus criteria, particularly as applied to family members, strains the boundaries of legal proportionality and invites criticism of guilt by association. As the EU moves forward, it must strike a delicate bal - ance between enforcement and legality, and between pressure and principle. Without such balance, the credibility of the sanctions regime – and the values it purports to defend – may be put at risk.
bring any clarification to the notion of association in the context of family members. As a matter of illustra - tion, she explained that “the words ‘natural persons associated with them’ are not clarified any further, [which in line with the literal interpretation suggests] that those terms should be interpreted in a way that it is not subject to any specific constraints and, in particular, without any need, as the General Court rightly pointed out, for the link between the persons concerned to be construed as being of an economic nature of being part of a specific legal structure” (para - graph 46). This is a clear admission of the Advocate General’s acceptance of the overly broad nature of the concept of association. In contrast, a few paragraphs later, she states that “the General Court’s interpretation sets out sufficient - ly specific criteria for recognizing the cases in which the concept of ‘association’ may be applied”, merely repeating once again that “it is necessary for [family members] to share common interests going beyond their mere family relationship and for those interests to be objectively interrelated” (paragraph 55). Hence, this opinion unfortunately brings no useful clarification of the concept of “association” in the con - text of family members, nor of the elements constitut - ing a “common interest” or the definition of “objec - tively interrelated”. Legal practitioners are left to rely on the slim hope that the Court of Justice will fill in the existing gaps and address these unresolved issues. This evolution raises broader questions about the legitimacy and moral underpinnings of the EU’s sanc - tions regime. Targeting individuals for their proximity – rather than their conduct – strains the principles of individual responsibility and due process. As the EU aims to show determination in countering circumvention, it must remain mindful of the broader reputational and legal consequences of overreach. Sanctions regimes that appear to operate on assump - tions or generalised suspicion risk undermining both their legitimacy and effectiveness.
110 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook