The article was written by Thierry Marembert and Aaron Bass, lawyers
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the 11th of September, the Western world experienced an unprecedented wave of restrictions on freedoms. The Patriot Act, Guantánamo, tough anti-terrorism laws – all showed how the “free world” can sacrifice its values in the name of fear. Today, a similar ethical and legal dilemma is posed by the European Union’s sanctions policy in the context of the war in Ukraine.
Already in 2022, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, called this war “a war against our values and our future”. And yet, four years later, we are still silent on the measures taken by the EU, especially the individual sanctions. More than 2 400 people have been subjected to sanctions, often without clear evidence and without adequate judicial control.
Sanctions are imposed under Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which allows for “restrictive measures against natural or legal persons and groups or non-state entities”. However, this wording is so general that it makes it possible to arbitrarily restrict people’s rights, with no prior control and almost no possibility of challenge.
Even now, it is not defined which rights may be restricted and in relation to whom.
What is the result? From an initially understandable approach of sanctioning the representatives of authoritarian regimes and their direct supporters, we have ended up with people who have no demonstrable links to the Russian regime being the victims of sanctions. A new criterion for sanctions is being created: “influential businessperson”. Initially, this applied to people working in industries that finance the Russian Government, but now it is enough to be a “significant businessperson” to be included in the sanctions list.
One of the most illustrative examples is Pjotrs Avens, a businessman who was included in the sanctions list in 2022. Two years later, the EU court found all charges against him to be false. However, the EU Council re-imposed sanctions on him, this time pointing towards his minority stake in a bank that he had already sold. The sale was approved by most member states, but Latvia blocked the decision due to domestic political considerations. As a result, Avens is still on the sanctions list – not for owning a business in Russia, but for having withdrawn from it.
Meanwhile, the European Union, without explanation, lifts sanctions against the Russian Sports Minister, but ignores the heads of large Russian companies and foreign businessmen who are active in the Russian market. What is the logic? The EU claims that this is destabilizing the Russian economy.
But how exactly does a villa in Europe being frozen destabilize Russia?
Even more worryingly, sanctions are sometimes extended to family members, as was the case with Mikhail Fridman’s ex-wife or a racing driver Nikita Mazepin. Such “collective guilt” is reminiscent of the practices of totalitarian regimes and violates basic principles of international law.
It turns out that “restrictive measures” are no longer used to influence the situation in Ukraine, but to satisfy the political ambitions and voter sentiment in individual countries. It is becoming a practice of economic hostage-taking.
And this is no longer just about Russian citizens. It is about what the European Union will be like in the future. Will we allow the Council to impose sanctions without limits, without assessing the evidence and without taking human rights into account? Will Europe become a platform for arbitrary political decisions?
As Jean Monnet wrote: “Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises”. If we fail to establish clear, fair criteria for the application of sanctions now, we risk not only injustice to the victims, but also the collapse of the European project itself.
Read also: Avens requests criminal proceedings against Foreign Minister Braže for defamation