EU Asset Freezes and Sanctions: The Criminal File at the Heart of the Listing
An asset freeze imposed by the Council of the European Union presents itself as a foreign-policy measure. For the person concerned, it is nonetheless one of the most abrupt interferences a fortune can suffer. Once published in the Official Journal, a listing blocks accounts and assets overnight and bars anyone from making funds available to the listed person. No charge is brought, no conviction is handed down. The measure is meant to be preventive; its effects are those of a penalty.
A political measure under judicial scrutiny
The political nature of the decision has not placed it beyond the law. Since the Kadi judgment of 2008, the EU courts have reviewed listings against fundamental rights, even where they reproduce United Nations lists1. The Council must rely on a “sufficiently solid factual basis” and bears the burden of proving it2. The requirement has teeth: the General Court annuls listings based on mere family ties3, or maintained without the Council establishing that the original justification still holds4.
That review operates within a demanding framework. An action for annulment must be brought before the General Court in Luxembourg within two months5, and each act maintaining the listing opens a fresh time limit of its own. Between renewals, submissions to the Council are no formality: they frame the debate the court will ultimately decide. Nor does a freeze prevent a person from living or from mounting a defence: derogations cover basic needs and legal costs, granted in France by the Directorate General of the Treasury.
The criminal file as decisive ground
A substantial share of listings rests not on diplomatic assessment but on criminal proceedings. The regimes targeting the misappropriation of public funds in third countries presuppose a prosecution; the counter-terrorism regime presupposes a decision by a national authority, usually a judicial one. The Court of Justice has drawn a decisive consequence: the Council may rely on foreign proceedings only after verifying that they respect the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection, and it must repeat that verification at every renewal6. The counter-terrorism regime follows a similar logic: the national decision must be sound, and the older it is, the more the Council must update its assessment7.
The centre of gravity of the dispute shifts accordingly. The question is no longer only whether the Council gave adequate reasons. It is whether the criminal proceedings on which it relies are regular, whether they are still moving, whether they have been instrumentalised, whether they have come to an end. This is a criminal lawyer's task: obtaining the foreign file, measuring its weaknesses, showing what an accusation is really worth. Where the listing presents itself as a political act, it is often the criminal file that decides its fate.
The criminal flip side of a listing
A listing also creates a criminal risk of its own. Under French law, breaching EU restrictive measures is a customs offence, now set out in Article L. 542-2 of the Customs Code and punishable by five years' imprisonment, a proportionate fine and confiscation8. The risk extends to the listed person's relatives, business partners and bankers. The provision covers measures adopted under Articles 75 and 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, so terrorism-related asset freezes fall within its scope. Directive (EU) 2024/1226, which harmonises these offences, has still not been transposed in France, despite the reasoned opinion sent by the Commission on 4 June 20269. Prosecutors cannot rely on it to extend criminal liability beyond existing law10. Nor can the defence simply invoke the vagueness of sanctions regulations: the Court of Justice accepts that a Member State may criminalise their breach even before the Court has clarified their scope11. Vagueness must be demonstrated, measure by measure.
The two sets of proceedings speak to each other. What a person argues before the General Court to contest a listing may be used in a criminal prosecution; conversely, a favourable criminal outcome is often the strongest argument against continued listing. A later annulment does not erase an offence committed while the freeze was in force, and concealed assets may end up confiscated12. For persons who are sought abroad, Interpol notices may follow, which can be challenged before the Commission for the Control of Interpol's Files.
A single dispute
The listing, the criminal proceedings and international police cooperation are not three separate matters but three faces of one dispute. Entrusting them to counsel who do not speak to one another means accepting that one set of proceedings may undermine another. The defence here can only be integrated: it must be conceived from the outset in Luxembourg, before the criminal courts and, where necessary, before Interpol's bodies.
Notes
1. ECJ, 3 September 2008, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P. ↑
2. CJEU, 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P. ↑
3. General Court, 8 March 2023, Prigozhina v Council, T-212/22; General Court, 25 June 2025, Ezubov v Council, T-273/24. ↑
4. General Court, 10 September 2025, Pumpyanskiy v Council, T-541/24. ↑
5. Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, extended by the ten-day period on account of distance provided for in the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. ↑
6. CJEU, 19 December 2018, Azarov v Council, C-530/17 P; General Court, 11 July 2019, Yanukovych v Council, T-244/16 and T-285/17. ↑
7. Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001, Article 1(4) and (6), and Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001; CJEU, 26 July 2017, Council v LTTE, C-599/14 P; CJEU, 13 March 2025, PKK v Council, C-44/23 P. ↑
8. Article L. 542-2 of the French Customs Code, introduced by Ordinance No. 2026-265 of 8 April 2026 enacting the legislative part of the Customs Code, in force from 1 May 2026 and codifying existing law unchanged (formerly Article 459); penalties by reference to Article L. 542-1, with fines multiplied fivefold and professional bans for legal persons (Article L. 542-4) and publication of the judgment (Article L. 543-1). ↑
9. Directive (EU) 2024/1226 of 24 April 2024 on the definition of criminal offences and penalties for the violation of Union restrictive measures, Articles 5 and 7; transposition deadline expired on 20 May 2025; European Commission, reasoned opinion of 4 June 2026, procedure INFR(2025)0221. ↑
10. ECJ, 8 October 1987, Kolpinghuis Nijmegen, 80/86. ↑
11. CJEU, 28 March 2017, Rosneft, C-72/15. ↑
12. Directive (EU) 2024/1260 of 24 April 2024 on asset recovery and confiscation, Article 2(1)(p) and Article 5(4). ↑
This analysis is published on zekkouti-avocat.com. A French version is also available: « Gel des avoirs et sanctions de l'Union européenne : le dossier pénal au cœur de la liste ». On this area of practice, see also Asset freezes and international sanctions, and the analysis “Russia Asset Freezes: Challenging the Legality of the Extension of 12 October 2026 before the General Court”.