The cancellation of a hearing scheduled for this week (12 April) at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has fuelled confusion surrounding Mikhail Fridman’s legal situation (a Russian oligarch whose assets have been frozen, ed.). “The claimant has withdrawn from this case. Consequently, the hearing will not take place,” the court stated.
An interpretation that his lawyer disputes. “Mr Fridman did not withdraw from the proceedings that led to the ruling finding his 2022 sanctions to be unlawful, but from separate proceedings before the Court,” he states, adding that he wishes to “dispel any risk of confusion”.
Sanctioned in February 2022, and again in September of the same year, Mikhail Fridman was accused by the European Union of belonging to circles close to the Russian government and of having participated in actions threatening Ukraine’s sovereignty. On 11 April 2024, however, the CJEU ruled that “none of the grounds in question had been established”. According to his counsel, “the EU did not challenge this decision on appeal before the CJEU”. Only Latvia lodged an appeal. The proceedings continued until the advocate general’s opinion was delivered on 30 October 2025, concluding “that the judgment upholding Mr Fridman’s case should be upheld in its entirety”. “We have been awaiting the CJEU’s decision ever since. Mr Fridman has not withdrawn his case,” insists the lawyer.
No longer a shareholder in Alfa Bank or invested in the Russian economy
At the same time, a second set of proceedings had been brought against the continuation of the sanctions on new grounds. Following the Court’s decision, the European Union (EU) did indeed alter its argument, accusing the businessman of being an “influential businessman” due to his indirect shareholding in Alfa Bank. However, according to his counsel, “as of 2024, Mr Fridman has ended his shareholding in Alfa Bank and has, more broadly, divested himself of the Russian economy”. In this context, “he should have been removed from the list”.
The continuation of the sanctions is now based on an interpretation that his lawyer implicitly describes as inconsistent: “The [EU] Council considered, in particular, that by withdrawing from the Russian banking sector, Mr Fridman would have undermined the sanctions against him.” He goes on to denounce “the absurdity of this new position”, which “amounts to saying that the more you distance yourself from the reasons for your inclusion on the list, the more you deserve to be sanctioned!”
The situation was also played out on the political front. On 13 and 14 March, the Member States examined his case. “Several Member States, led by Slovakia, argued that by winning his case before the General Court and divesting himself of his interests in the Russian financial sector, Mr Fridman had taken the necessary steps to be removed from the list,” his counsel stated. However, “several Member States, including the Baltic states, ruled out any possibility of lifting the sanctions against him”, without, according to him, citing any new evidence. “For these states, the sanctions against Mr Fridman were therefore to be maintained as a matter of principle.”
A compromise solution was proposed, involving the lifting of sanctions in the event of a further favourable court ruling. “This solution […] was rejected by the Member States opposed to Mr Fridman’s withdrawal, and the sanctions were renewed.” Under these circumstances, the outcome of the parallel proceedings appeared, according to his lawyer, inevitable: “Mr Fridman must therefore choose between withdrawing and devoting his energy and resources to a lost cause. This is obviously no choice at all. He has therefore withdrawn from this other set of proceedings only.”
The arbitration is still ongoing
The international arbitration proceedings brought against Luxembourg, in which the claimant is seeking $14bn, are currently pending before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which is proceeding with the case independently of the European legal proceedings, the court states, referring the matter curtly to its website and the case file.
His lawyer draws a broader conclusion: “There is no longer any objective reason to maintain the sanctions against Mr Fridman.” He points out that “as regards the allegations of ties to the Russian regime, these have been dismissed by the European courts” and that “as regards involvement in the Russian banking sector, that situation is a thing of the past”. Despite this, “Mr Fridman remains subject to sanctions”. A situation which his lawyer places in the context of the Union’s founding principles: “The Treaty on European Union states that ‘the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights’. It must be noted that this does not apply to Mr Fridman.”
