ECJ rejects Karić’s appeal against judgment refusing his Belarus de-listing application

23 July 2026

Karić v Council - Case C‑39/25 P. The European Court of Justice has rejected Bogoljub Karić’s appeal against General Court judgment dismissing his application to annul his 2022 designation and 2023 relisting for “benefitting from or supporting” President Lukashenko’s regime under Article 2(5) of Regulation 765/2006 (the EU’s Belarus sanctions - see our EU-Belarus page for more information).

The court below (the General Court) had found that Mr. Karić benefitted from the regime because of his involvement in the Minsk World Project, his close relationships with President Lukashenko and his family, and because he had “common economic interests” with designated companies Dana Holdings (DH) and its former subsidiary Dana Astra (DA) which benefitted from the Mr. Karić relationship with Lukashenko. Dana Astra’s 2023 and 2025 applications (and appeal)  to annul its EU Belarus sanctions listing, and challenge to the UK’s decision not to de-list it from its Belarus sanctions list (and appeal) have been rejected.

Mr. Karić appealed against the General Court’s judgment on 6 grounds. He said that, by accepting the “common interests” argument, the General Court had in fact approved his designation on the ground that he was “associated with” DA and DH (under Article 2(4) of Reg 765/2006) and not under Article 2(5) of the Reg. He argued that this wrongfully extended the scope of Article 2(4), which only allowed for the designation of people “associated with” designated entities if the entities were responsible for serious human rights violations/ repression (which DA and DH were not). He also argued that the General Court had not explained which of Mr. Karić’s acts constituted benefit from the government and which support for the government.

The court dismissed these arguments because:

• The “common interests” argument did not wrongfully extend Article 2(5) by applying the “association” criterion under Article 2(4). Rather, the General Court had found that Mr. Karić’s common interest with DA and DH was relevant to whether he “supported or benefitted” the regime within the meaning of Article 2(5): the companies benefitted from his relationship with President Lukashenko (and this benefitted Mr. Karić because of his shared interest with them).

• In any event, Mr. Karić also met the designation criterion by cultivating networks with the family of President Lukashenko, by representing DA and DH at meetings with President Lukashenko, and because the Minsk World Project (a project developed by DH associated with Mr. Karić, and through his business involvement) supported the regime (the General Court drew on its finding in Dana Astrav Council (T‑239/21) that the Minsk World Project supported the regime).

• The General Court had not failed to distinguish between alleged acts that supported or benefitted the regime, and there was sufficient evidence that Mr. Karić satisfied both criteria.