Delisting Driven by Legal Disputes and Diplomatic Compromise
The European Union has removed Russian oligarchs Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman from its sanctions list following pressure from France and Luxembourg. The decision comes as Brussels renewed restrictions on approximately 3,000 other individuals and entities linked to Russia's war in Ukraine.
Usmanov, a Russian-Uzbek billionaire, and Fridman, a Russian businessman holding Israeli citizenship, were delisted after member states negotiated a broader agreement regarding the bloc's wider sanctions regime. The removal of the two oligarchs was part of a compromise that secured a three-year extension of sanctions on thousands of others, deviating from the standard six-month renewal cycle.
Luxembourg sought Fridman’s delisting in the context of a multi-billion-dollar legal dispute over his frozen assets. Fridman has filed an arbitration claim against Luxembourg worth approximately $16 billion regarding these assets. Reports indicate that Luxembourg feared its legal position would be weakened if it allowed Usmanov to be removed while Fridman remained sanctioned.
Slovakia also supported the removal of Fridman from the list. Because the renewal of EU Russia sanctions requires unanimous agreement from all 27 member states, these demands became integral to the final package deal that extended restrictions on other targets.
Reactions Highlight Contradictions in Sanctions Policy
The decision has drawn sharp criticism from Ukrainian officials and experts who argue it undermines the integrity of the EU's sanctions framework. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha condemned the move on X, describing the EU's decision as "shameful and unjustifiable." He stated that Moscow celebrated the delisting as a sign of impunity and noted that the action caused division among European nations.
Experts warn that exemptions driven by political or bilateral considerations risk damaging the credibility of the sanctions system. Linas Kojala, CEO of the Geopolitics and Security Studies Centre, stated that such exemptions weaken the logic of the sanctions regime. He noted that while removing Usmanov and Fridman is unlikely to significantly benefit the Kremlin's finances, it exposes a contradiction in Brussels' approach by sending an ambiguous message about politically negotiated exemptions.
Kojala further observed that the delistings set a precedent for using individual sanctions as bargaining chips in other disputes. The reasons for the removal of Usmanov and Fridman bear little relation to the grounds on which the restrictions were originally imposed, raising questions about whether national interests are overriding the bloc's collective sanctions policy.