EU Court of Justice interprets “facilitate” in the context of sanctions circumvention

Under the various EU sanctions regimes, circumvention of sanctions is illegal and doing so constitutes a separate sanctions breach (see e.g. Article 12 of Council Regulation 833/2014). In addition, facilitation of infringements of the prohibition against circumvention of EU sanctions is in itself a ground for being sanctioned (see for example Article 3(1)(h) of Council Regulation 269/2014).  The EU Court of Justice recently had reason to revisit the expression “facilitate” when issuing a judgement in Case T-492/24, which was an appeal by Dimitry Beloglazov of his designation.

The reason for the designation was that Mr Beloglazov had been engaged in a scheme in Russia to buy Oleg Deripaska’s shareholding in a company which held 28.5 million frozen shares in another company and thereby remove Mr Deripaska from the ownership in order to make it easier to sell the shares and circumvent the EU asset freeze.

The Court held that “facilitate” must be understood as the act of making easier the carrying out of an operation intended to, or resulting in,  the circumvention of restrictive measures, by assisting or aiding in the carrying out of that operation. The Court also stressed the broad meaning of “circumvention”, holding that the mere existence of an activity, in respect of which there are objective factors allowing it to be regarded as aimed at thwarting of the sanctions concerned, is sufficient for it to be regarded as circumvention. The appeal was dismissed.

EU Court of Justice clarifies conditions for freezing assets in irrevocable trusts

The notion of “control” is crucial across EU sanctions regimes, as it delineates the boundary for which assets of a listed entity are to be frozen. In two parallel preliminary rulings upon requests from the administrative court in Rome (Case C-483/23, Joined Cases C-428/24 and C-476/24), the EU Court of Justice was asked to clarify whether assets placed in offshore irrevocable trusts frozen by the Italian Ministry of Finance could be considered “controlled” by a listed person or entity. The Court held that also assets in irrevocable trusts must be frozen when a listed ultimate beneficiary of the assets – regardless of whether they are trust functionaries or not – can use or influence the trust’s assets or influence the trustee. When the listed person or entity can recall the trust, replace functionaries, or give binding instructions to the trustee, the trust’s assets are normally “controlled”. The Court deferred to the Italian court to rule on the merits, but noted several circumstances of the two cases that could indicate control.

Sanctions and transit of the strait of Hormuz

Vessels transiting the strait of Hormuz not only runs a significant risk of being physically attacked, the transit also involves a sanctions risk. On 27th May 2026, the US designated the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) which is the entity involved in collecting toll for transiting the strait. As a result, any vessel paying toll for transiting the strait will breach US sanctions.

Although the EU has not designated the PGSA, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN), which reportedly is controlling PGSA, is designated. In addition, the Hormozgan Provincial Command of the EU listed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, which screens vessels and determines which ones are allowed to transit, was designated by the EU on 8th June. Hence, paying toll entails also a risk under EU sanctions.

Sweden hands over seized shadow fleet vessel to Ukraine

On 6th August, a quite remarkable legal saga came to an end when the Swedish Supreme Court did not grant leave for appeal regarding the seizure of the vessel CAFFA. The vessel was seized on 6th March 2026 by the Swedish Coast Guard within Swedish territorial waters on the basis of suspected unseaworthiness. The vessel’s flag did not meet legal requirements and as a result the vessel was deemed stateless and could not benefit from the right of innocent passage provided for under public international law.  

The seizure has been maintained by the Swedish authorities with reference to a criminal investigation to the theft of grain from non-controlled territories of Ukraine. It is suggested that the theft constitutes a war crime. The vessel’s owners have been contesting the seizure throughout. As per the judgement of the first instance which was confirmed by the appellate court, the vessel is now expected to be handed over to the  Ukrainian authorities for further investigations.  

In total, during 2026 the Swedish Coast Guard has boarded  five suspected shadow fleet vessels, invoking grounds such as unseaworthiness, statelessness, falsified documentation and environmental violations.

Shadow fleet vessels are generally defined as substandard vessels used to circumvent sanctions. For more information about the shadow fleet see our Sanctions Update 1/2026 and 3/2024.