Sanctions must rely on facts and evidence not context and inference, says EU advocate

The funding of a charity run by President Putin’s estranged eldest daughter has been dismissed and rejected by a European Union Judge as the basis for sanctioning two Russian Oligarchs, I can reveal.

The charity, the Alfa-Endo program which helps sick children in Russia, is run by Maria Vorontsova, the eldest daughter of Putin who has never publicly acknowledged her.  It is financed by Alfa Bank whose majority shareholders are Russian billionaires Mikhail Fridman and Peter Aven who are sanctioned by the UK government.

The EU had sanctioned the Oligarchs partly due to a letter by Aven to Putin which complained about a decision by a Moscow Court which affected Alfa Bank’s interests.  The sanctioning was also based on donations to the children’s charity.

But in 2024 the EU removed sanctions against Fridman and Aven after ruling there was no evidence they had supported or benefitted from Russian decision-makers or Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.  The court ruled mere proximity to the Kremlin does not constitute grounds for sanctioning an individual. 

Now Latvia has filed an appeal which argues the EU failed to appreciate “the structural nature of Russia’s political economy where business and state are inseparable”.  It also referred to broad affiliations between the Oligarchs and the Kremlin and argues all Russian businessmen can only prosper if they support the government.  But last month Professor Andrea Biondi, an EU Advocate and international lawyer, dismissed their claim.  “Sanctions must rely on a sufficiently solid factual basis”, said Biondi. 

“Context may inform but cannot replace legal proof.  The EU Council must produce concrete, precise and consistent evidence which links the individual to the regime’s actions”

Latvia’s appeal – supported by Estonia and Lithuania - was based on letters, meetings and connections between Alfa Bank and the Russian political leadership.  But Biondi rejected these claims as “contextual inference to fill evidentiary gaps”.  He argued they reflect access and influence, not material support. 

While Professor Biondi’s remarks are not binding on the EU court, they carry significant legal weight.  Past opinions by Advocate Generals have guided and influenced the court’s decision-making and ultimately judgements. 

This new opinion contrasts sharply with the recent UK Supreme Court rejection of the appeal by Russian businessman Eugene Shvidler to overturn sanctions imposed on him.  The court confirmed the government should have the widest possible discretion to sanctions individuals and companies.

But some UK judges are increasingly uneasy about the imposition of sanctions and the implications on the rule of law.  In a dissenting judgement Lord Leggatt said the notion Shvidler would speak out “more robustly” in opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine if his assets were frozen has “sinister connotations” and is “Orwellian”.  He added: “Making it a criminal offence for an individual who has done nothing unlawful…is a serious invasion of liberty”.

The appeal against the removal of the sanctions against Fridman and Aven by the EU by the Baltic states – Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania – will be heard early next year.