A company does not have to appear on an EU sanctions list for its funds to be frozen. Ownership or control by a listed person can also bring it within the restrictions. For a business facing a blocked payment, the first question is therefore straightforward: what is the legal reason for the restriction?

Two September judgments help explain why that question matters. Inter Rao Lietuva concerns evidence that a listed person controls a company. Abramovich concerns the Council’s decision to keep an individual on the sanctions list. They address different situations, with different arguments and different routes to challenge.

What the Court said about control

In Inter Rao Lietuva, Case C-147/25, the Court of Justice considered a Lithuanian electricity company whose funds had been frozen over alleged links to the Russian President. Its 3 September judgment requires control to be supported by objective and sufficiently solid evidence. General assumptions about Russia’s political system are not enough. Informal control can still count, but it needs evidence too. [1]

The Court also explained that a freeze may take effect without an advance hearing where notice would undermine it. Reasons must be communicated promptly afterwards, and the national court must examine the factual basis. The judgment interprets EU law; the national court must resolve the underlying dispute. [1]

For a company asked to explain its independence, a shareholding chart may be only the beginning. The useful evidence depends on the allegation. If the concern is board appointments, the appointment rights matter. If it is informal instructions, the review needs to examine how decisions are actually made.

Why Abramovich is a different case

On 9 September, the General Court dismissed Roman Abramovich’s challenge in Case T-358/25. It upheld the contested measures and accepted the relevant listing criteria concerning leading businesspersons and economic sectors that generate substantial revenue for the Russian Government. The Court considered his holdings in Evraz and Norilsk Nickel. [2]

This was a review of the grounds for listing him directly. It was not a finding that every business with a Russian connection is controlled by a sanctioned person. Equally, Inter Rao does not remove a valid direct listing. An argument that answers one question may leave the other untouched.

Start with the reason for the restriction

In our view, a useful sanctions review should identify the person, assets and transaction involved, then the exact rule relied on. Is the customer listed? Is another listed person an owner or controller? Does a separate restriction affect the proposed service or transaction?

Consider a company that has independent directors but needs a shareholder’s approval for major payments. The directors’ independence does not, by itself, settle the control question. The approval rights, their scope and their use need to be examined. Conversely, a commercial relationship or shared nationality should not replace an assessment of the actual facts.

The company should provide documents that address the concern, rather than sending an unfocused bundle. Shareholder agreements, board records, bank mandates and relevant correspondence may help. The review should explain what each document establishes and where uncertainty remains.

Bank decisions may involve more than sanctions law

A statutory asset freeze and a bank’s decision to decline business are not necessarily the same thing. Where a bank refers to sanctions, ask whether it is applying a legal prohibition, investigating an unresolved concern or acting under its own risk policy. That distinction helps determine the appropriate response. The judgments do not guarantee that a bank must process a particular payment.

For Cyprus companies, financial firms and family offices, the practical benefit of these decisions is a clearer way to frame the issue. A challenge should address the reason actually given for the restriction. A compliance decision should record its legal basis, supporting evidence and review date.

AGPLAW assists businesses with sanctions and AML compliance and related corporate legal questions.

Sources [1]: Court of Justice official summary of Inter Rao Lietuva. [2]: General Court official summary of Abramovich v Council.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information and is not legal advice on a specific matter.