EU General Court Upholds Sanctions Against Roman Abramovich Over His Investments in Russia

The General Court of the European Union confirmed the renewed sanctions in 2025 against Roman Abramovich, rejecting the argument that his minority stake in Evraz was a passive investment that did not justify the restrictions. The judges considered that the size of his holding and the company's activities in Russia allowed the measures to remain in place, without the European authorities being required to demonstrate a personal relationship with the Russian government.

In brief Abramovich lost his action against the extensions of the sanctions adopted in March and September 2025. The judgment does not establish a new period of application. The 28.64% stake in Evraz, shareholder rights, and the group's activities in Russia supported maintaining the measures, even though his holding was a minority one. The General Court considered that the documents submitted did not prove the definitive impossibility of selling his shares. The situation of sanctioned persons must be reviewed periodically. Travel restrictions may also apply to EU citizens, subject to legal safeguards. Abramovich retains the right to enter Portugal and may request exemptions in the other Member States.

The judgment, delivered in Luxembourg on 9 September, concerns the freezing of funds and restrictions on entry into and transit through the territory of the Member States, extended by the Council of the European Union in March and September 2025. The freeze prevents the use and transfer of the assets concerned, while the regime, in principle, prohibits making money or economic resources available to the sanctioned person. Abramovich sought annulment of the two extensions and compensation for the non-material damage he claimed to have suffered.

The businessman argued that he did not run Evraz and did not participate in its current operations. The 28.64% stake in the capital was a minority holding, and the lack of control over the company should, in his view, have excluded classifying the investment as an economic activity relevant to sanctions. He also maintained that he did not have the influence over the Russian authorities that the measures sought to mobilize.

However, the judges examined his position among the shareholders: although he did not hold a majority, Abramovich had the largest individual stake in Evraz and could appoint up to three of the 11 members of the board of directors. He stated that he had not used this right since 2006. The General Court found that he had not substantiated this claim and that, in any event, failure to exercise the right did not remove its existence.

The reasoning also goes beyond management rights. Even if the stake had not allowed him to exercise effective control, the scale of the investment in one of Russia's principal steel and mining groups remained sufficiently relevant to classify him as an important businessman. The criterion applied required the Council to establish his economic importance and the existence of activities in Russia, without any additional condition concerning personal relations with the Russian government.

Abramovich also disputed this economic link with Russia, citing the fact that Evraz was registered in the United Kingdom and generated two-thirds of its turnover outside Russia. The General Court noted that its steel production was concentrated mainly in Russia, for infrastructure and construction. The data examined by the judges showed that the Russian market absorbed 46% of the steel division's sales in 2018, the year in which Evraz had been Russia's fourth-largest producer of crude steel by volume.

The judges rejected the idea that a company with significant operations in Russia could avoid this classification merely because it was established or also active abroad. Such an interpretation would mean “allowing the restrictive measures in question to be easily circumvented”. Abramovich's investment could therefore be regarded as an activity in Russia through Evraz.

The Council also applied a second criterion: activity in sectors that provide substantial revenue to the Russian government. The Council cited Evraz's position among Russia's largest taxpayers. The General Court considered that steelmaking and mining met the criterion concerning government revenues and examined Evraz's share in those industries. In 2021, steelmaking activities accounted for 66.3% of the group's total revenues. The percentage describes the company's activity, not the share of revenues paid to the Russian state.

The stake in Norilsk Nickel, one of the world's major palladium producers and a significant producer of refined nickel, strengthened the assessment. Abramovich estimated it at approximately 2.5% and argued that it did not give him decision-making power. The judges considered that the company's global importance made even such a holding relevant, but specified that the principal basis for his classification remained his stake in Evraz.

By targeting these categories of businesspeople, the Council sought to increase pressure on the Russian government and the cost of its actions against Ukraine. The court's review concerned the measures' capacity to contribute to that objective. The Council did not have to prove that the personal sanctions against Abramovich had already changed Moscow's policy.

Abramovich also invoked a practical impasse: the sanctions had allegedly prevented him from selling his shares, keeping him precisely in the situation for which he was sanctioned. He maintained that he could not obtain the certificates required to register the securities in his name, nor the British authorization for the transfer of those documents. The General Court attributed the difficulties described to British law and British measures against Evraz and found that the evidence did not demonstrate a definitive impossibility of selling.

The judges examined the correspondence and legal opinion submitted in his defense: some of the documents relied upon had not been attached, and unanswered requests did not prove an explicit and definitive refusal. They also specified that the European rules invoked did not prohibit the mere issuance of a certificate of share ownership. The Council remained obliged to review the situation periodically, but the General Court considered that, when the contested extensions were adopted, the relevant circumstances had not changed sufficiently to justify removing him from the list.

Abramovich's Portuguese citizenship did not remove the travel restrictions either. He argued that his rights as a European citizen could not be limited in this way without reference to his personal conduct. The General Court explained that sanctions adopted under the common foreign and security policy have a legal basis distinct from the restrictions that a Member State may impose on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health.

This power is subject to limits: the measures must be provided for by law, proportionate, and respect the essential content of fundamental rights. In his case, the regime preserves the right to enter and reside in Portugal, as the state of which he is a national, and allows other Member States to grant exemptions, including for urgent humanitarian reasons. The judges considered that these safeguards, together with periodic review, justified the contested restrictions.

The acts under review had successively extended the measures until 15 September 2025 and 15 March 2026; the judgment confirms the legality of those extensions without establishing a new period of application. The General Court also rejected the claim for compensation, provisionally assessed by Abramovich at one million euros, because the legal infringement necessary to establish the Union's liability had not been demonstrated. He must bear his own legal costs and those of the Council and may appeal to the Court of Justice, limited to points of law, within two months and ten days of notification of the judgment.