AG Biondi opinion in MegaFon – failures of due process in EU sanctions listing

7 September 2026

Advocate General Biondi (the Italian Advocate General at the European Court of Justice) has given his opinion in Case C-228/25 P, MegaFon’s appeal against a General Court judgment refusing to annul the EU Council’s decision to include Megafon on the list of entities directly supporting Russia’s military and industrial complex in Annex IV of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014. It does not bind the Court of Justice, which will now give judgment.

MegaFon is a Russian telecoms operator. The EU listed it (and 95 other entities) in February 2023 on Annex IV to Regulation 833/2014. Articles 2, 2a and 2b of Reg 833/2014 prohibit the sale, supply or export of dual-use goods and technology to entities on Annex IV, & people and entities in the EU are prohibited from providing those entities with financing, financial assistance, technical assistance or brokering services related to those goods. The EU maintained the listing in July 2023 and January 2024.

MegaFon asked the Council of the EU for the reasons and evidence supporting the listing. The Council said it did not have to notify listed entities of the reasons and evidence, and referred MegaFon to the listing criterion, ie that was on the list of entities directly supporting Russia’s military and industrial complex.

MegaFon applied to annul the acts listing and re-listing it. The General Court rejected the application, holding that the Council could rely on a fact “presumed to be known to all” as justifying the listing – that a major Russian telecoms operator supports the military and industrial complex in wartime – and could produce supporting evidence for the first time in court.

MegaFon appealed. Advocate General Biondi’s opinion is that the General Court erred in a number of ways by not finding that the EU was in serious breach of Megafon’s due process rights, and that the Court of Justice should make a final decision on Megafon’s annulment application itself by annulling sanctions on Megafon rather than remitting to the General Court. In particular:

• The General Court was wrong not to have found that the EU Council breached MegaFon’s rights of defence by just reciting the listing criterion; the EU’s duty is to explain why the criterion is satisfied and to give the listed party a chance to respond at the administrative stage, not for the first time in the court process. Where the act is a re-listing as opposed to a listing for the first time, the Council has to disclose evidence and a chance to make observations before the decision is taken.

• The General Court was wrong to have permitted the Council to rely on ‘facts assumed to be known to all’ in its Defence instead of reasons and evidence at the administrative stage (the ‘well known fact’ here did not even appear in the statement of reasons).  The Council cannot rely on a presumption where the EU regulations do not contain one.