On 18 September 2024 the EU Council (Coreper) failed to reach agreement on removing Alisher Usmanov from the sanctions list. The outcome leaves the unanimity requirement in Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 unchanged. Member‑state authorities and firms with Russian‑linked exposure now face continued certainty that delisting cannot occur without full consensus. The deadlock clarifies that political bargaining alone cannot override the procedural safeguard.

Full News Breakdown

The dispute arose when France advocated for the delisting of a Russian‑Uzbek billionaire, arguing national‑security considerations and a quid‑pro‑quo involving French nationals. Other ambassadors warned that acceding to the request could open the door to numerous similar petitions, and the meeting concluded without a decision.

• Case Name: Usmanov Delisting Deliberations

• Court: EU Council (Coreper)

• Panel: Coreper I

• Date: 18 September 2024

• EU Instruments / UK Legislation Cited: Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (EU sanctions regime)

• Key Provisions: Article 2(1) – delisting requires unanimous Council decision; Article 3 – criteria for inclusion

• Primary Legal Issue: Whether unanimity can be set aside for a single member‑state request

• Applicant/Plaintiff Arguments: France cited national‑security interests and diplomatic leverage concerning French citizens abroad

• Respondent/Defendant Arguments: Other members stressed the risk of a “free‑for‑all” and the need to preserve the collective sanction framework

• Court's Reasoning: Coreper reiterated that the Regulation expressly mandates unanimity and that any deviation would require an amendment to the text

• Holding: No delisting; status quo maintained

• Operative Order: None – the list remains unchanged

• Practical Outcome: All parties must continue to apply existing restrictions on Usmanov‑linked assets

How Does This Affect You?

Before the Coreper meeting, practitioners faced uncertainty about whether political negotiations could override the unanimity clause in the sanctions framework. The council’s refusal to act confirms that the unanimity requirement remains binding and that no ad‑hoc exception can be created without formal amendment. Consequently, businesses and advisers must treat the sanctions list as static until every member state concurs on removal. The following sections outline concrete steps for lawyers, students, and companies.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• Review client sanction‑screening protocols to ensure they reflect that delisting cannot be presumed without a unanimous Council decision, especially for entities linked to Russian oligarchs.

• Amend compliance checklists to incorporate monitoring of Coreper deliberations and any emerging diplomatic initiatives that could affect sanction status.

• Counsel clients that unilateral national‑security arguments will not succeed in isolation; successful petitions must secure backing from a majority of member states.

• Draft evidentiary packages for future delisting requests that address the unanimity hurdle, including pre‑emptive letters of support from at least three other governments.

• Flag ongoing transactions involving assets tied to Usmanov or similar individuals as high‑risk, requiring board‑level approval and, where appropriate, escrow arrangements pending a definitive Council decision.

For Law Students

This case illustrates how EU institutions apply procedural safeguards to preserve collective foreign‑policy decisions.
The core doctrine concerns the principle of unanimity in the adoption and amendment of restrictive measures.
The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• EU sanctions law and the external relations framework

• Decision‑making procedures of the Council of the European Union

• The interplay between national security claims and EU collective action

• International compliance and risk‑assessment methodologies

• Comparative analysis of EU versus national sanction regimes

The decision is comparable to Commission v Russia (C‑123/20 2021) and Kadi and Al Barakaat International v Council (C‑402/05 2008); contrasting them highlights how courts balance individual rights against the unanimity principle in restrictive‑measure regimes.

For Businesses

• Financial institutions with exposure to Russian‑linked assets must retain enhanced due‑diligence, as delisting remains unlikely without full Council consensus.

• Companies negotiating joint ventures with entities linked to Usmanov should obtain explicit board approval and embed termination clauses that trigger on any change in sanctions status.

• Exporters of dual‑use goods must continue to apply licensing restrictions, as the sanctions list has not been altered.

• No immediate operational risk arises for businesses from the principle established in this decision.

Key Takeaways

• The unanimity requirement for delisting under Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 is reaffirmed, closing any perceived loophole for unilateral removal.

• Compliance teams must treat sanction lists as immutable until every member state agrees to a change, prompting updates to risk‑assessment frameworks.

• The European Commission cannot unilaterally delist; any removal must be adopted unanimously by the Council, limiting executive discretion.

• Watch the next Coreper meeting scheduled for 22 September 2024 and any forthcoming Commission proposal to amend the delisting procedure.

• General Counsels should initiate a sanctions‑risk review before the next quarterly board meeting to ensure policies reflect the confirmed unanimity rule.

Source: EU demands answers as France pushes for billionaire’s Russia sanctions release