The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has recommended dismissing Latvia’s appeal in the case concerning the EU sanctions imposed on billionaires Pyotr Aven and Mikhail Fridman.
On 30 October, the Advocate General issued an opinion on the case in which Latvia appealed the General Court’s judgment on sanctions against Aven and Fridman for the period from 28 February 2022 to 15 March 2023.
The Advocate General recommends that the Court reject the appeal and order Latvia to bear the legal costs in the joined cases.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) informed LETA that the Advocate General’s conclusions are advisory in nature and do not constitute the Court’s final decision.
The opinion expressed by the Advocate General differs from Latvia’s position; however, Latvia stands by its position, and the MoJ promises to continue defending the state’s interests until a final ruling is delivered. The MoJ stresses that EU sanctions against Aven and Fridman remain in force, and on 12 September the Council of the EU unanimously decided to extend them for another six months.
Latvia, consistently supporting Ukraine and condemning Russia’s aggression, submitted appeals to the CJEU to reaffirm Latvia’s firm stance on extending all sanctions, preparing new sanctions, and maintaining constant pressure on Russia to reduce its ability to wage war against Ukraine.
Given that the proceedings are still in an active phase, the MoJ cannot provide further comment at this time.
The ministry explains that Advocates General assist the Court of Justice in fulfilling its functions. Unlike judges, Advocates General serve in an advisory capacity and do not take part in the decision-making in CJEU cases. In the cases assigned to them, they present a legal opinion independently and objectively in the form of conclusions. The Advocate General’s opinion usually contains a detailed analysis of the case, particularly the legal aspects, and proposes a solution for the Court.
As previously reported, the government decided to submit appeals against the CJEU rulings that annulled the EU sanctions imposed on Aven and Fridman. The appeals were later joined into a single case.
When submitting its appeal, Latvia asked the CJEU to overturn the rulings and not annul the initially imposed sanctions against both businessmen.
The MoJ argued that, when the sanctions were adopted, there was initial evidence indicating that both Aven and Fridman had actively provided material or financial support to Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea or the destabilisation of Ukraine.
The CJEU previously annulled the EU Council’s decision of 28 February 2022 imposing sanctions on Aven and Fridman, but Latvia urged the Council to file an appeal.
Meanwhile, Aven’s representative, lawyer Jānis Kārkliņš, previously told LETA that Latvia acted emotionally by requesting an appeal without properly assessing the ruling, claiming that the judgment is “absolutely legally correct and completely devastating”.
The lawyer acknowledged that imposing sanctions at the start of the war was a justified political decision, but argued that the sanctions policy should have been improved thereafter to make it more effective and targeted. Specifically, he argued that it should be assessed whether the fact that a company in which Aven holds a minority stake pays taxes in Russia means that he supports the war.
The CJEU judgment stated that none of the grounds included in the initial legal acts imposing sanctions on Aven and Fridman were sufficiently substantiated, and therefore their inclusion on the list of sanctioned individuals was not justified. Regarding their subsequent retention on the sanctions list, the General Court ruled that the EU Council did not provide any additional evidence beyond what was relied upon initially.
Aven and Fridman were shareholders of Alfa Group, which includes Alfa Bank, one of Russia’s largest banks.
Earlier this year, reports emerged that Aven had withdrawn from the share capital of Alfa Bank. The bank is one of Russia’s largest financial institutions, and his involvement in it was the reason for sanctions being imposed on him. According to the Financial Times, he sold his shares to his business partner Andrei Kosogov.
The Court noted that, although the arguments presented by the EU Council demonstrate a certain level of connection between Aven and Fridman with Vladimir Putin or individuals close to him, they do not establish that the businessmen supported actions or policies undermining or threatening Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence, nor that they provided material or financial support to Russian officials responsible for the annexation of Crimea.
Aven and Fridman are subject to sanctions imposed by the United States, the United Kingdom, the EU and other countries, which consider them close to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and serving Kremlin interests, including Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Ukraine has also imposed its own sanctions on both Fridman and Aven.
Read also: Experts explain how it is possible to be removed from sanctions lists — and whether it could apply to Pjotrs Avens