General Court dismisses Abramovich challenge to EU sanctions and damages claim

The General Court of the European Union has dismissed the action brought by Roman Arkadyevich Abramovich against the EU sanctions listings adopted in 2025 and rejected his claim for compensation, in a judgment of 9 September 2026 published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 19 October 2026 (C/2026/5216). The ruling in Case T-358/25, Abramovich v Council, leaves the restrictive measures against him in force and orders him to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

The dispute sits inside the Ukraine-related sanctions regime established by Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, which impose the freezing of funds and economic resources and restrictions on entry into the territories of the Member States. Abramovich, whose address in the proceedings is given as Nemchinovo, Russia, was maintained on the list under criterion (g) of those acts — the definitions of “leading businesspersons operating in Russia” and of “businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation” set out in Article 2(1)(g) of the Decision and Article 3(1)(g) of the Regulation. The language of the case was French, and the application had been notified at OJ C, C/2025/4059, 28.7.2025.

The four acts under challenge

The applicant sought annulment under Article 263 TFEU of two successive pairs of Council acts, in so far as they concerned him:

• Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/528 of 14 March 2025 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/527 of 14 March 2025 (OJ L 2025/528 and OJ L 2025/527).
• Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1895 of 12 September 2025 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1894 of 12 September 2025 (OJ L 2025/1895 and OJ L 2025/1894).

In parallel, he claimed compensation under Article 268 TFEU for the harm he said he had suffered as a result of the adoption of those acts.

The grounds the Court rejected

By dismissing the action in its entirety, the Court rejected every line of argument raised, including the plea of illegality directed at the designation criterion itself. The pleas examined in the judgment were:

• Plea of illegality against the criterion of “leading businesspersons operating in Russia” and against the criterion on economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Russian Government.
• Infringement of essential procedural requirements.
• Breach of human dignity.
• Error of assessment in maintaining his name on the list.
• Breach of the principle of proportionality.
• Infringement of citizenship of the Union and of freedom of movement.
• Non-contractual liability of the Union.

The operative part is limited to two points: the action is dismissed, and Abramovich bears his own costs and those of the Council.

A wider pattern in oligarch litigation

The outcome follows a run of similar rulings in which the General Court has backed the Council’s listings. On 8 July 2026 the Court dismissed the action of Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska in Case T-606/24 (C/2026/4406), and on 2 September 2026 it dismissed that of Igor Albertovich Kesaev in Case T-296/24 (C/2026/5068), both concerning the same criterion (g) and the same 2024–2025 amending acts.

The record is not uniform, however. In its judgment of 2 September 2026 in Case T-799/25, Pumpyanskaya v Council (C/2026/5224), the Court annulled the 2025 and 2026 acts maintaining Galina Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya on the list, ordered that the effects of Decision (CFSP) 2026/696 be maintained with regard to her until the appeal period expires, and ordered the Council to pay her costs.

For readers, the Abramovich judgment confirms that a frontal attack on the legal basis of criterion (g) is not, by itself, a route out of the EU asset freeze: the Court accepted the Council’s framework and examined the individual listing only for error of assessment, proportionality and procedure. Challenges by listed Russian businesspersons will therefore continue to turn on the specific evidence behind each renewal, as the contrasting outcomes in the Deripaska, Kesaev and Pumpyanskaya cases show.

Source: Official Journal of the European Union, C series, C/2026/5216, 19 October 2026, p. 1/1 (official reference: C/2026/5216; Case T-358/25).