BRUSSELS, September 22, 2026 — Mikhail Fridman’s long-running sanctions case has returned to the centre of the debate in Brussels as European Union governments struggle to agree on the future of their Russia-related sanctions regime.
Latvia has rejected a proposed compromise that would remove Fridman and businessman Alisher Usmanov from the EU sanctions list while extending restrictions on roughly 3,000 other individuals and entities for another three years. EU ambassadors are continuing negotiations as the deadline for renewing the existing measures approaches. The decision requires the unanimous support of all 27 member states. (Reuters)
The political dispute has brought renewed attention to Fridman’s separate and lengthy legal battle with the EU.
A court ruling changed the picture
Fridman has been subject to EU sanctions since February 2022. He challenged his designation before the General Court of the European Union.
In April 2024, the court annulled the EU Council’s measures against Fridman covering the period from February 28, 2022 to March 15, 2023.
The court’s judgment concerned the legal and evidentiary basis for Fridman’s inclusion and maintenance on the sanctions list during that specific period. It did not automatically invalidate later sanctions measures. (curia)
The ruling nevertheless became a significant part of the legal history surrounding his designation.
The case did not end there.
The legal challenge continues
Latvia appealed the 2024 judgment, and the dispute subsequently moved to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The appeal remains part of the unresolved legal background to Fridman’s sanctions case.
There have also been separate proceedings concerning later EU sanctions measures. One General Court case, T-296/23, was removed from the register in December 2024. The procedural history illustrates the distinction between challenges to particular sanctions decisions and the broader question of Fridman’s status under the EU sanctions regime. (InfoCuria)
That distinction has become particularly important as the EU now considers whether to renew its wider sanctions list.
From the courtroom to Brussels
Fridman’s legal case has now intersected with a political negotiation involving all 27 EU governments.
According to Reuters, Luxembourg has sought Fridman’s removal from the EU sanctions list as part of the current negotiations. The proposal would remove Fridman and Usmanov while extending the remaining sanctions regime for three years. Latvia has opposed the arrangement. (Reuters)
The political negotiations do not determine the legal merits of Fridman’s court proceedings.
Instead, they concern whether EU member states will unanimously renew the existing individual sanctions framework.
That distinction matters because the EU courts and EU governments are addressing different questions: the courts examine the legality of particular measures, while member states decide whether the sanctions regime should be renewed.
Renewed attention to the evidence
The combination of the court proceedings and the current political dispute has also brought renewed attention to the evidence underlying individual sanctions designations.
An independent expert review published by the International Sanctions Delisting Commission (ISDC) is currently examining the evidentiary record surrounding Fridman’s continued EU designation.
The review considers the publicly available legal, factual and evidentiary material surrounding the case and is separate from the EU’s political decision-making process.
The case is listed in the Sanctions Review Registry:
The review does not determine whether Fridman should remain under sanctions. Its purpose is to examine the available record and the basis on which the designation has been maintained.
A case with several unresolved questions
Fridman’s case now sits at the intersection of three separate processes: a long-running legal challenge, an ongoing political dispute inside the EU and an independent examination of the evidentiary record.
The immediate question in Brussels is whether the 27 member states can reach agreement before the current sanctions measures expire.
The broader question is how the EU should approach individual designations when judicial findings, available evidence and political circumstances develop over time.
For Fridman, the answer remains unresolved on both the political and legal fronts.
As EU governments debate whether to renew thousands of sanctions listings, his case provides one of the clearest examples of the separate — but increasingly connected — questions surrounding the evidence, legal basis and continued review of individual sanctions designations.