ECJ upholds legality of EU Russia sanctions reporting obligations on DPs

16 October 2025

The European Court of Justice has rejected an appeal by Gennady and Elena Timchenko in which they challenged the legality of sanctions reporting obligations in the EU’s Russia sanctions regime – Case C-805/24.

In 2022, the EU Council added into EU sanctions Russia Regulation 269/2014 an obligation for people designated under the regulation to report their funds and economic resources after they were designated. Gennady and Elena Timchenko, who are sanctioned by the EU under reg 269, challenged this new obligation in Case T-644/22. They argued that the reporting obligation in Regulation 269 was a positive obligation rather than a “restrictive measure”, so the EU had exceeded its powers by imposing the obligation under Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The General Court rejected the Timchenkos’ challenge. The Court of Justice rejected their appeal against that judgment, saying:

• The General Court had provided sufficient reasons for stating that a measure taken on the basis of Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union could include a positive reporting obligation;

• The General Court had correctly held that the reporting obligation was not a “restrictive measure” and that the Council could impose the reporting obligation because, under Article 26 of the Treaty of the European Union, the Council has to ensure the “unity, consistency and effectiveness” of the sanctions.

• The Council is empowered, in a sanctions regulations context, “to take any measure… to ensure the uniform application at Union level of the restrictive measures… the Council, in doing so, does not add any new restrictive measures” [51].

Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven and German Khan challenged this same reporting obligation in Case T-635/22. Their challenge was rejected for the same reasons as the Timchenkos’ initial challenge and they did not appeal.