Industry News

EU Court Clarifies When Sanctions Extend to Companies Linked to Listed Individuals

March 16, 2026·2 min read

The EU Court of Justice ruled in Case C-84/24 on how EU sanctions apply to companies linked to sanctioned individuals after Lithuanian firm UAB EM System challenged banks that froze its accounts.

On 12 March 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered an important ruling in Case C-84/24, clarifying how EU sanctions apply to companies connected to sanctioned individuals. The case arose from a dispute between Lithuanian company UAB EM System and two banks, SEB Bankas and Citadele Banka, which had frozen the company’s bank accounts. The banks acted under EU sanctions targeting Belarus, after a shareholder holding 50% of the company was included on the EU sanctions list under measures adopted pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.

The central legal question was whether the funds of a company not itself listed under EU sanctions must automatically be frozen when one of its shareholders—holding a significant stake—is listed. The Lithuanian Supreme Court referred the issue to the CJEU for interpretation of EU sanctions rules.

The Court’s Interpretation

The Court held that a company’s assets may be frozen even if the company itself is not listed, provided it is controlled by a sanctioned person or entity. However, the Court emphasized that control cannot be presumed automatically simply because a listed individual owns 50% of the company’s capital. Instead, authorities and financial institutions must assess whether the sanctioned shareholder actually exercises control over the company.

The ruling also stresses the importance of procedural safeguards, including the right to effective judicial protection and respect for the rights of defence. Companies whose assets are frozen due to connections with sanctioned persons must be able to challenge the decision and demonstrate that the sanctioned shareholder does not exercise real control over their operations.

Why the Decision Matters

The judgment provides important guidance for banks, compliance teams, and regulators implementing EU sanctions. It confirms that financial institutions must look beyond formal shareholding structures and assess actual control relationships when deciding whether to freeze a company’s assets. At the same time, it protects companies from automatic sanctions spillover where ownership alone does not amount to control.

For AML and sanctions compliance professionals, the decision reinforces the need for risk-based analysis of ownership and control structures, especially in cases involving politically sensitive sanctions regimes such as those imposed in response to developments in Belarus.

Share this article:

Industry NewsMay 29, 2026

Why a sanctions freeze is a data problem before it is a legal one

A data provider's perspective on Swiss Federal Supreme Court judgment 4A_537/2025 of 28 April 2026 In brief — four things to know • The trigger is suspicion, not proof. A Swiss financial institution must freeze and report assets as soon as it has reasonable suspicion they are directly or indirectly controlled by a sanctioned person — and the freeze applies automatically, by law, without waiting for an official order. • The risk hides in the relationships, not the name. The client company and its beneficial owner were on no list; the exposure ran through extended family — the owner was the spouse of the sanctioned person's nephew. Plain name-against-list screening catches none of this. • “Family” is defined differently everywhere. EU and UK PEP rules use a narrow, closed list (spouse, children, parents); Switzerland's PEP rule is open-ended (“persons close for family, personal or business reasons”); and sanctions regimes turn on control, not kinship — with US measures reaching furthest through the “acting on behalf of” and 50% rules. • For data providers, it is a balancing act. The job is to map relationships richly enough to support any of these tests, while respecting data-protection limits and keeping false positives manageable — and to leave the final call on “how close is too close” to the client. Sanctions screening is often imagined as a clean, binary exercise: a name either matches an entry on a list, or it does not. The reality our clients deal with every day is far messier — and a recent judgment from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court is a useful reminder of just how subtle the line can be. Very often the hard question is not whether someone is listed, but how far a chain of family and ownership links has to run before the assets at the other end of it are caught by a freeze. This case sits squarely on that line.

Industry NewsApril 24, 2026

UK Sanctions End-Use Controls: Why Diversion Risk Now Deserves Closer Attention

The UK government’s new guidance on Sanctions End-Use Controls (SEUC) is a useful reminder that sanctions compliance no longer stops with checking the name in front of you.

Industry NewsApril 6, 2026

OFAC Advisory (March 2026): What It Means for Data & SaaS Platforms

The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has issued a new advisory highlighting the growing use of sham transactions to evade sanctions. These structures are designed to obscure the involvement of sanctioned entities through intermediaries, complex ownership, or misleading documentation.