EU court Advocate General opinion in National Settlement Depository appeal on meaning of support for the Russian Government

16 January 2026

Advocate General Medina (the Latvian AG) has published her non-binding opinion in Case C-801/24, the Russian National Settlement Depository’s appeal against the General Court’s judgment (Case T-494/22) to uphold its original listing and relisting on the EU sanctions list under Regulation (EU) 269/2014.

The NSD is Russia’s central securities depository. It was sanctioned in June 2022 (Regulation (EU) 2022/878) under Article 3(1)(f) of Reg 269/2014 on the grounds that it provided material support to the Russian Government through its essential role in Russia’s financial system. It was relisted in March and September 2023. Its application to annul these listings was rejected by the General Court in 2024. The General Court said there was no breach of the obligation to give reasons, the EU was entitled to say the NSD played an essential function in Russia’s financial system (justifying its listing), and its listing was not a disproportionate interference with its customers’ property rights.

NSD appealed that judgment to the European Court of Justice. Advocate General Medina’s opinion is on the interpretation of Article 3(1)(f) which allows the listing of people/entities “supporting, materially or financially, … the Government of the Russian Federation”. It says:

• “Support” does not mean only direct funding or direct supply of material resources to the Russian Government, but “any support that is capable, by its quantitative or qualitative importance, of providing the Russian Government with resources or facilities enabling it to pursue its actions to destabilise Ukraine, regardless of the direct or indirect link of that support with the actions targeted”.

• The General Court was right to find that the NSD is “systematically important” and critical for the effective implementation of monetary policy.

• The NSD “significantly” supports the Russian Government within the meaning of Art. 3.

• The General Court applied the correct standard of proof when assessing the EU’s evidence against the NSD and correctly applied the principles set out by the ECJ Grand Chamber in Anbouba (Case 605/13 P).

• The NSD’s designation was not disproportionate because Reg 269/2014 permits licences to be granted. The Court had employed the correct approach to proportionality.

The ECJ will now hand down its judgment. The NSD was relisted in September 2025.