EU General Court Rules on Russia-Related Sanctions and Due Process

On 14 January 2026, the General Court of the European Union delivered an important judgment in a case brought by Euro Asia Cargo Private Ltd against the Council of the European Union. The dispute centered on EU sanctions adopted as part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in response to Russia’s military actions in Ukraine.

Background

Euro Asia Cargo, a Sri-Lankan cargo and transshipment company, was added to EU sanctions lists because the Council considered it to be indirectly supporting Russia’s military and industrial complex by trading in electronic components. These sanctions were adopted through a series of CFSP Decisions and amendments to Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, which restrict exports of certain dual-use goods and sensitive technologies to Russia.

The company challenged these measures before the General Court, arguing that its inclusion on the sanctions lists was unlawful for several reasons, including alleged procedural errors and breaches of fundamental rights.

Key Findings of the Court

✔ No Breach of the Obligation to State Reasons

The Court found that the Council had properly explained why Euro Asia Cargo was added to the sanction lists. While the decision applied to multiple entities, the Court held that the recitals and legal criteria made clear that the company was included because it was considered to facilitate trade in electronic components used by Russia’s military. This satisfied EU requirements to state specific reasons for restrictive measures.

✔ No Violation of the Right to Be Heard

Euro Asia Cargo argued that it should have been notified and heard before its name was added. The Court confirmed that in the context of urgent foreign-policy measures like sanctions, prior notification is not required where effectiveness would be compromised. It also concluded that the company was able to understand the basis for the measures from the published acts, so its rights were not violated.

✔ No Error of Assessment by the Council

The company disputed the factual basis for labeling its activities as support for Russia’s defence sector. The Court reviewed the evidence and concluded that there was a sufficient factual link between the company’s trading activities and the criteria in the sanctions regime. In essence, the Court held that the Council’s assessment was justified and supported by evidence.

Why This Judgment Matters

Procedural clarity in sanctions law: The ruling confirms that, under EU law, sanctions can be adopted swiftly without prior notice to the affected party if necessary for effectiveness—so long as reasons are properly stated and rights to challenge are respected.

Sanctions enforcement: It underscores that companies—even outside the EU—can be caught by EU restrictive measures if their business is judged to support prohibited activities linked to armed conflict or state aggression.

Judicial review: The General Court reaffirmed that it will closely examine both legal and factual assessments made by EU institutions when fundamental rights are at stake, balancing them with the imperatives of foreign