A new Court of Justice ruling strengthens the EU’s ability to freeze assets linked to sanctioned individuals, even where those assets are held through trust structures rather than directly owned.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that assets held by a trust may be frozen under EU restrictive measures where they are linked to a person subject to sanctions. The judgment, delivered on 21 May, concerns Russia-related sanctions and clarifies that trust arrangements cannot automatically shield economic resources from asset-freezing measures. The Court said in its press release that “the freezing of assets held by a trust is compatible with EU law”.
The ruling was issued in Case C-483/23, T Trust, and in joined cases C-428/24 and C-476/24, concerning the freezing of assets transferred to, or held through, trust structures. The cases arose in the context of EU sanctions adopted in response to Russia’s war against Ukraine and asked whether assets indirectly connected to sanctioned persons could be frozen even where legal ownership was held by a trust or trustee.
The decision is important because EU sanctions enforcement often depends less on whether an individual directly owns an asset than on whether they control, benefit from, or remain economically connected to it. Wealthy individuals and companies subject to restrictive measures frequently hold assets through layered corporate structures, trustees, foundations, nominees or offshore arrangements. These structures may be lawful in ordinary commercial or estate-planning contexts, but they can create difficulty for authorities seeking to enforce asset freezes.
The Court’s judgment gives national authorities and EU operators clearer grounds to freeze assets where trust structures are used in a way that preserves an economic link with a listed person. According to the Court, the EU asset-freezing regime would be weakened if restrictive measures could be avoided simply by transferring assets into a trust or by relying on formal distinctions between legal ownership and beneficial interest.
The ruling follows other recent CJEU decisions that have clarified the reach of EU sanctions. In March, the Court ruled in EM System that the assets of a company not itself listed may be frozen if that company is controlled by a sanctioned person. In another March judgment, SBK Art, the Court held that the freezing of funds prevents a listed person from attending and voting at a general meeting of shareholders through depositary receipts. Together, these rulings indicate that the Court is taking a functional view of sanctions enforcement, focused on control and economic benefit rather than formal legal title alone.
For the EU, the judgment comes at a time when sanctions against Russia are becoming increasingly complex. The bloc has expanded its measures from direct listings of Russian officials, banks and companies to wider restrictions affecting energy, shipping, financial services, crypto-assets, dual-use goods and third-country circumvention networks. The EU’s 20th sanctions package, adopted in April, added further measures against Russia’s military-industrial base, trade routes and shadow-fleet operations.
EU’s 20th sanctions package targets Russia’s energy revenues, banks, crypto and shadow fleet
The trust-assets ruling is therefore not a narrow technical matter. It addresses one of the recurring problems in sanctions policy: the gap between listing a person on paper and ensuring that the assets connected to that person are effectively immobilised. If asset freezes can be bypassed through complex ownership arrangements, sanctions lose much of their practical force.
The decision will be particularly relevant for banks, trustees, corporate service providers, compliance teams and national enforcement authorities. They must assess not only who formally owns an asset, but whether a sanctioned person retains control, influence or economic benefit. That assessment may require closer scrutiny of trust deeds, beneficiary arrangements, settlor rights, powers of appointment, control over trustees and changes made shortly before or after sanctions were imposed.
The ruling may also increase pressure on jurisdictions and service providers that administer trust structures linked to sanctioned individuals. EU sanctions apply within the bloc and to EU persons and entities, but enforcement often depends on information held across several jurisdictions. Where structures involve offshore trusts, non-EU trustees or multi-layered companies, authorities may still face practical obstacles in tracing and freezing assets.
The judgment does not remove those enforcement difficulties. It does, however, make clear that EU law permits freezing where the relevant economic connection can be established. That matters because sanctions enforcement is now as much about asset tracing and legal interpretation as it is about political decisions in Brussels.
The ruling also comes against the wider background of disputes over frozen Russian assets. The EU has frozen large volumes of Russian state and private assets since 2022, while debates continue over how far those assets, or profits generated by them, can be used to support Ukraine. Separate proceedings involving Euroclear and Russian claims in Moscow have shown the legal exposure attached to frozen assets, with Euroclear stating in a May update that it contests Russian court actions against it and does not recognise the jurisdiction of Russian courts in such claims.
The CJEU ruling does not decide the larger political question of how frozen Russian assets should be used. Its significance is narrower but still substantial. It reinforces the principle that EU sanctions cannot be defeated by moving assets behind legal structures that obscure economic control. For Brussels, that strengthens the credibility of restrictive measures. For sanctioned individuals, trustees and intermediaries, it narrows the space between formal ownership and effective control.
