Almost 3,000 listings face a deadline as governments dispute a proposal to remove two billionaires
European Union governments are racing to preserve sanctions on almost 3,000 Russia-linked people and organisations after Latvia blocked a proposed compromise shortly before the measures were due to expire. The dispute centres on whether billionaires Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman should be removed from the blacklist in exchange for extending the remaining listings for three years.
Negotiations return to the brink
EU ambassadors were scheduled to resume negotiations in Brussels on Tuesday morning after failing to secure the unanimous support required to renew the restrictions.
The proposed agreement would remove Usmanov and Fridman from the sanctions list while extending the measures against the other designated individuals and entities for 36 months. Latvia lodged an objection after diplomats had reported broad support for the arrangement, according to reporting on the blocked compromise.
France has sought Usmanov’s removal on grounds described as relating to national security. Diplomatic sources have linked the request to efforts to secure the release of French nationals imprisoned in Azerbaijan. Neither Paris nor Baku has publicly confirmed that a prisoner arrangement depends on the EU delisting him.
Slovakia has pushed for Fridman to be removed as well. Both businessmen have been subject to EU restrictions since 2022. Usmanov has denied the allegations used to justify sanctions against him.
What could expire
The dispute concerns targeted sanctions imposed over actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence. According to the Council of the EU’s sanctions overview, the list covers almost 3,000 individuals and entities.
The measures include travel restrictions for listed people, the freezing of assets held within the EU and a prohibition on making funds or economic resources available to those targeted.
A failure to renew the listings would not dismantle the EU’s entire sanctions policy against Russia. Separate sectoral restrictions affecting finance, trade, energy, transport, technology and other areas are currently extended until July 2027. Other sanctions regimes addressing Russian human-rights abuses and destabilising activities also operate under different legal instruments.
The immediate risk is nevertheless substantial. Letting the individual listings expire could release frozen assets and remove travel restrictions from political officials, military personnel, businesspeople, banks, defence companies and organisations accused of supporting Russia’s war.
Why the proposed bargain is controversial
EU sanctions are temporary and legally reviewable. Individuals must be given reasons for their listing and can challenge the measures before the EU courts. Removing a name can therefore be legitimate when the supporting evidence is no longer sufficient or a court overturns the designation.
The present dispute raises a different concern. Several governments fear that removing sanctioned individuals as part of an opaque diplomatic exchange could weaken the consistency of the system. It could also encourage foreign governments or wealthy intermediaries to treat EU listings as bargaining instruments rather than targeted legal measures.
The reported connection to French detainees creates an especially difficult human-rights question. Governments have a duty to assist nationals facing arbitrary detention or unfair proceedings abroad. Yet accommodating pressure linked to detained citizens may encourage further coercive arrests if states conclude that prisoners can be exchanged for European policy concessions.
Ukraine has opposed removing either businessman. Kyiv argues that delisting figures whom the EU previously connected to Russia’s political or economic establishment would send the wrong signal while the war continues.
Unanimity exposes a structural weakness
The episode also illustrates the fragility of EU foreign policy decisions that require agreement among all 27 member states. Unanimity is intended to protect national sovereignty, but it allows one government to delay measures supported by every other member.
Sanctions renewals have repeatedly become opportunities for governments to pursue unrelated national demands. The proposed three-year extension was designed to reduce the frequency of these confrontations and provide greater predictability for enforcement authorities, banks and businesses.
A longer renewal period carries its own responsibility. The EU would still need to examine individual cases, respond to court decisions and ensure that listings remain supported by current evidence. Stability cannot replace due process.
Credibility at stake
The dispute reaches beyond the fate of two billionaires. Sanctions depend on political unity, credible evidence and consistent enforcement. As The European Times has previously examined, restrictions are most defensible when governments combine clear objectives with legal safeguards and transparent decision-making.
A last-minute agreement could prevent a far wider lapse in the listings. It would not, however, settle the underlying argument over how national interests should be balanced against collective policy. Whatever compromise emerges, European governments will need to explain why particular names were retained or removed and how the decision supports both accountability and the rule of law.
Discussion about this post