A sanctions measure can pursue a legitimate objective and still go further than necessary.
The EU General Court illustrated that distinction on November 4 in Russian Maritime Register of Shipping v Council, T‑535/24. It upheld most challenged restrictions but annulled the measure withdrawing the organisation’s EU recognition as a ship inspection, survey and certification body.
Different measures, different outcomes
| Challenged measure | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Investment and transaction bans | Upheld |
| Port-access prohibition affecting certified ships | Challenge inadmissible because the organisation was affected indirectly |
| Withdrawal of EU recognition | Annulled as disproportionate |
The Court considered suspension a less onerous way to achieve the sanctions objective. Withdrawal would require a new recognition procedure if restrictions were later lifted, with no assured outcome.
Why the distinction matters
For sanctions counsel, the judgment reinforces the need to examine each restriction separately.
Standing, legal authority and proportionality are different questions. An applicant may fail to obtain review of one measure while succeeding against another. Equally, success against a recognition decision does not erase transaction restrictions.
The practical lesson is to avoid translating a partial judicial victory into a general statement that an organisation is “no longer sanctioned.”
This is a General Court judgment, with an appeal on points of law still possible.
Its immediate significance is the distinction between restricting an organisation’s activities and imposing a regulatory consequence that may outlast the circumstances justifying it.
Sources: CJEU press release; Official case record.
Scope note: Cleared as an outcome report based on the Court’s press summary. It is not an operational opinion on every current restriction or authorization applicable to RMRS.