European Court of Justice judgment on national lists of entities owned or controlled by EU- sanctioned people and test for ownership and control – Inter Rao

7 September 2026

The European Court of Justice has given judgment in Case C-147/25, Inter Rao Lietuva, following a request for a preliminary ruling by the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court – CJEU press summary. See our EU preliminary rulings page for all pending & decided EU preliminary references on sanctions issues.

Article 2(1) of EU Regulation (EU) 269/2014 freezes all funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by, people and entities listed under it.  Lithuania publishes a list of entities its financial crime service (FNTT) has assessed are owned or controlled by EU-listed people (see our Lithuania sanctions pages which explains this list; France and Latvia publish similar lists). It added Inter Rao Lietuva, a Lithuanian electricity importer indirectly 51% owned by Russian energy company Inter Rao Ues, in April 2022 on the ground that Inter Rao Ues’ main shareholders were indirectly state-owned, so the company was controlled by President Putin. Inter Rao Lietuva is not itself EU-listed.

Inter Rao Lietuva asked the Lithuanian courts to annul the FNTT’s refusal to remove it. The Supreme Administrative Court referred 3 questions to the ECJ, asking:

• whether EU law allows a member state to put an entity not named in the EU sanctions list on a national asset-freeze list, where the entity can only challenge the measure after it has been listed;

• whether a national court’s review that checks compliance with procedural rules and the duty to give reasons, the accuracy of the facts, the absence of manifest error in assessing them and the absence of misuse of powers satisfies the requirement of judicial review under EU law; and

• whether, in proving links to Russian political figures, account can be taken of the general and informal nature of political control over Russian companies operating in economically significant sectors, even where that control cannot be proved by direct evidence.

The Court followed AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona’s opinion and held:

• EU law doesn’t preclude member state national lists that record entities owned or controlled by DPs (since EU law requires their assets to be frozen) even where the entities on the national lists can only challenge their listing after they have been added to the list. Such lists implement EU sanctions and promote legal certainty.

• National authorities must respect fundamental rights including the right to good administration in relation to those lists. That means:
  • For entities whose assets are already frozen, there must be chance to be heard before being added to a list, since there is no risk of dissipation of assets (para 50).
  • For other entities, this doesn’t mean entities have a right to be heard before being listed, but reasons must be given as soon as possible afterwards.

• It is for the EU authorities to assess who should be on an EU sanctions list – member states adopting national lists simply assess which entities are owned or controlled by those designated persons, and don’t carry out an assessment of the necessity or appropriateness of including the people or entities on the EU sanctions list in light of national security risks or anything else (para 67-69).

• A “link” with a listed person is not enough to add an entity on the basis that it is owned or controlled by a designated person ([52]). The authority must provide “objective and sufficiently solid” evidence that the assets belong to, or are owned, held or controlled by, that person. National courts can assess ownership and control by reference to the EU’s best practices document (see our EU Guidance pages), which lists indicative criteria are indicative on ownership and control ([82]-[83]).  The Court at 78-80 made comments on what kind of evidence might be needed in relation to ownership and control.

• Here the Lithuanian court must decide whether the FNTT (Lithuanian financial crime service) has sufficiently established that President Putin owns, holds or controls the funds of Inter Rao such that it should be included on the list. That Russia is “autocratic and oligarchic” is part of the context but is not itself sufficiently solid evidence of control ([85]-[90]).