Interactions between International Law and EU Law

By Bruno Lebrun

We are continuing our series of brief articles on the actions of the European Union in the international legal order, exploring the legal complexities surrounding its external action and its evolving role on the global stage.

In this new article, Bruno Lebrun examines the complex relationship between International Law and EU Law, focusing on the delicate balance between the EU’s autonomy as a legal order and its openness to international norms.

The article looks in particular at the constitutional autonomy of EU Law, the place of International Law within the EU legal order, and the Kadi judgments as a key illustration of the tensions between both systems. It raises a fundamental question: how can the European Union remain embedded in the international legal order while preserving its own constitutional framework?

The 20th Package: Widespread impact of EU restrictive measures over last four years

More than four years after the outbreak of armed conflict in Ukraine, the EU has adopted its 20th package of restrictive measures against Russia. The package reinforces existing measures across energy, finance, trade and military supply chains, while introducing new anti-circumvention tools and enhanced legal protections for EU operators. It also reflects a growing focus on third-country actors involved in sanctions evasion, signalling a shift towards an EU model closer to “secondary sanctions”.

For a detailed analysis of the legal and practical implications of the 20th package of EU restrictive measures against Russia :

CJUE, 12 février 2026, C-313/24 : les sociétés dont les administrateurs sont de nationalité russe doivent-elles être exclues des marchés publics ?

Dans l’arrêt du 12 février 2026, la Cour a précisé qu’une société adjudicataire dont un administrateur est un ressortissant russe n’implique pas qu’un pouvoir adjudicateur doive automatiquement exclure cette société d’un marché public sur la base de l’article 5 duodecies, paragraphe 1, sous c), du règlement n° 833/2014.

Voici les principaux enseignements de cet arrêt en matière de marchés publics.

Pas d’exclusion automatique

La Cour confirme que la présence de ressortissants russes au sein du conseil d’administration d’un soumissionnaire ne suffit pas, en soi, à justifier son exclusion. Les marchés publics sont attribués à la société et les fonds ne sont en principe pas destinés à ses administrateurs.

Une appréciation concrète est requise

La Cour précise que les pouvoirs adjudicateurs doivent procéder à un examen consistant à déterminer si une société qui n’est pas établie en Russie mais qui est gérée par un administrateur de nationalité russe, est contrôlée par cet administrateur, même si celui-ci ne dispose pas d’une participation dans son capital lui assurant un contrôle juridique de celle-ci.

Cette analyse doit reposer sur des éléments objectifs, tels que

• la structure de propriété et de contrôle ;
• les liens personnels et professionnels entre les personnes concernées ;
• la manière dont les parties assurent la gestion et le fonctionnement de cette entité ;
• l’existence d’instructions ou de coordinations avec des entités sanctionnées par le passé ;
• des déclarations de tiers et d’autres indices suffisamment concrets, précis et concordants.

Une approche fondée sur le risque

Le critère déterminant est l’existence d’un risque plausible de détournement de fonds publics vers l’économie russe. Une telle appréciation doit reposer sur des indices concrets, et non sur de simples présomptions.

En définitive, cet arrêt fournit un cadre aux pouvoirs adjudicateurs, en confirmant que la prévention du contournement des sanctions doit s’appuyer sur une analyse fondée sur des preuves, proportionnée et spécifique à chaque situation, plutôt que sur des exclusions automatiques.

Sources : EUR-Lex - 62024CJ0313 - EN - EUR-Lex

Pour plus d’informations :
Marie Vastmans – Partner – m.vastmans@janson.be
Bruno Lebrun – Partner – b.lebrun@janson.be

The EU External Action: A Shared Policy under a Common Supervision

By Bruno Lebrun

We are launching a series of brief articles on the actions of the European Union in the international legal order, exploring the legal complexities surrounding its external action and its evolving role on the global stage.

In this first article, Bruno Lebrun goes back to basics and examines the EU’s competence to adopt restrictive measures, as well as the legal framework underpinning their use.

Since 2022, the European Union has emerged as one of the most active global actors in the field of sanctions. Faced with geopolitical paralysis at the United Nations, the EU has developed an increasingly sophisticated regime of autonomous restrictive measures. This raises a fundamental legal question: what is the legal basis grounding these measures, and how is this competence structured within the EU legal order? 

Directive (EU) 2026/799: targeted harmonisation of insolvency law in the EU

I.                    Background

On 30 March 2026, the EU Parliament and the Council adopted Directive (EU) 2026/799 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of insolvency law (“Directive”) proposed by the EU Commission in 2022.

Based on Article 114 TFEU, the Directive forms part of the broader Capital Markets Union agenda and addresses long-standing divergences between national insolvency regimes. These differences (particularly regarding recovery rates, duration of proceedings and creditor treatment) have been identified as key obstacles to cross-border investment and legal certainty within the internal market.

Rather than introducing a fully harmonised insolvency regime, the Directive adopts a targeted minimum harmonisation approach, concentrating on specific areas—such as avoidance actions, pre-pack proceedings, directors’ duty to file for insolvency, creditor committees and asset tracing—that are considered to have a decisive impact on efficiency, predictability and value recovery.

Crucially, the Directive does not seek to standardise national insolvency frameworks in a rigid or exhaustive manner. It operates by defining a set of core requirements, leaving Member States with discretion as to how these are implemented within their domestic systems.

II.                  Scope

The Directive applies to collective insolvency proceedings within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings, while excluding preventive restructuring frameworks and certain regulated sectors such insurance undertakings, credit institutions, investment firms and other firms, institutions or undertakings covered by Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and collective investment.

Its intervention is deliberately selective. It introduces common rules in a limited number of areas where divergences have proven particularly detrimental to market integration, without altering the core structure of national insolvency laws.

III.                Key features

The central pillars of the Directive are :

1. The introduction of harmonised rules on avoidance actions. It establishes minimum look-back periods and conditions under which transactions detrimental to creditors may be declared void, voidable or unenforceable. The framework distinguishes between preferential transactions, transactions at undervalue and intentionally fraudulent acts, while also strengthening presumptions, especially in relation to closely connected parties;

2. The enhancement of asset tracing capabilities. Insolvency practitioners will benefit, through designated authorities, from access to bank account registers, beneficial ownership registers and national databases, including on a cross-border basis;

3. The introduction of an EU framework for pre-pack sales. These procedures allow for the preparation of a business sale prior to the formal opening of insolvency proceedings, followed by a swift execution phase. The process is supervised by an independent monitor and must comply with requirements of transparency, competitiveness and fairness;

4. The impositions of clear obligations on directors in situations of insolvency. In principle, directors must file for insolvency within a maximum period of three months after becoming aware—or when they should reasonably have become aware—of the company’s insolvency. Failure to do so may trigger civil liability for the deterioration of the company’s recovery value, reinforcing the duty to act in the interest of creditors at an early stage; and

5. The improvement of the creditor involvement by requiring Member States to provide for the possibility of establishing creditor committees. These bodies are intended to enhance participation, oversight and representation of creditor interests, particularly in cross-border situations, while ensuring that their functioning remains proportionate and efficient;

6. The introduction of standardised information tools designed to improve transparency. Member States will be required to publish key information sheets describing the essential features of their insolvency regimes. This is expected to facilitate risk assessment and investment decisions, especially for cross-border investors.

The Directive remains an instrument of minimum harmonisation, leaving Member States considerable discretion in its implementation. However, in the areas it addresses, it introduces binding standards that are likely to require significant adjustments in several national systems,

The Directive was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 1 April 2026 and entered into force on 21 April 2026, i.e. on the twentieth day following its publication. Member States must transpose it by 22 January 2029, with certain technical provisions extending to mid-2029.

IV.                Conclusion

The Directive represents a significant step towards a more coherent and efficient EU insolvency framework. By addressing key sources of legal fragmentation, it enhances predictability, strengthens creditor protection and supports the functioning of the internal market.

While its scope remains targeted, its practical implications are substantial and it is likely to play a central role in shaping the future landscape of EU insolvency law and in advancing the objectives of the Capital Markets Union.

Sources : Directive - UE - 2026/799 - FR - EUR-Lex

For more information, please contact:

Guillaume Bouton – Consuel – g.bouton@janson.be

Wafa Lachguer – Associate -  w.lachguer@janson.be

Le Conseil d’État a annulé l’arrêté royal relevant les seuils d’agréation dans le secteur de la construction : quelles conséquences concrètes ?

Le Conseil d’État a annulé l’arrêté royal relevant les seuils d’agréation dans le secteur de la construction : quelles conséquences concrètes ?

Par son arrêt n° 265.188, le Conseil d’État a annulé l’article 1er de l’arrêté royal du 14 avril 2024, qui avait relevé les seuils applicables aux marchés publics de travaux exécutés par des entrepreneurs agréés. Cet arrêt a été publié au Moniteur belge du 8 janvier 2026.

Pourquoi cette hausse a-t-elle été annulée ?

Selon le Conseil d’État, les nouveaux seuils étaient illégaux, dès lors que :

• La hausse n’était pas proportionnée, les critères de capacité technique et financière étant restés inchangés ;

• L’intention initiale était de procéder à une indexation régulière des montants, ce qui n’a jamais été mis en œuvre ;

• Le régime actuel entraîne une distorsion de la concurrence, de sorte que le système d’agréation n’atteint plus son objectif.

Quelles sont les conséquences ?

L’annulation implique que les seuils relevés sont réputés n’avoir jamais existé et, par voie de conséquence, que les anciens seuils redeviennent dès lors applicables.

En pratique, qu’en est-il des procédures de passation ?

1. Procédures qui n’ont pas encore été lancées
Elles doivent être immédiatement menées sur la base des anciens seuils.

2. Procédures en cours sans décision d’attribution
Les anciens seuils s’appliquent également.

Cela peut impliquer que :

• Le mode de passation retenu n’est pas approprié ;

• Certaines dispositions du cahier spécial des charges ne sont plus légales ;

• La procédure de passation doit être interrompue et recommencée.

3. Procédures avec décision d’attribution déjà prise

Ces décisions ont été prises sur la base d’un arrêté royal inexistant ; leur légalité peut donc, dans le cadre d’un recours, être remise en cause.

4. Marchés déjà définitivement conclus et exécutés

Leur légalité pourra difficilement être remise en cause, au regard des principes de sécurité juridique.

Conclusion

Cette annulation impose une vigilance accrue des pouvoirs adjudicateurs, en particulier pour les procédures en cours. Nous attirons votre attention sur le fait que des recours ont déjà été introduits contre des décisions d’attribution, au motif que l’adjudicataire choisi n’est pas un entrepreneur valablement agréé …

Mises à jour des cahiers des charges en Wallonie : l’essentiel en ce début d’année

Comme chaque année, le SPW Mobilité et Infrastructures a actualisé le cahier des charges type Qualiroutes, document de référence regroupant les spécifications techniques standard applicables aux travaux d’infrastructures routières en Région wallonne.

La version entrée en vigueur le 1er janvier 2026 comporte plusieurs adaptations, dont une évolution importante sur le plan administratif.

Ce qui change

Parmi les évolutions importantes, on relève une modification du chapitre A (clauses administratives), avec l’adaptation de l’article 80 du RGE pour les marchés de génie civil.

Pour rappel, l’article 80 encadre la manière dont le pouvoir adjudicateur formule ses ordres modificatifs. Par ailleurs, il prévoit, pour les travaux faisant l’objet d’une modification ou d’un ordre modificatif ce qui suit :

• Les modalités de détermination du prix des travaux modifiés (par. 2) ;

• Les règles de révision des prix unitaires lorsque des travaux sont concernés (par. 3).

L’adaptation de l’article 80 du RGE applicable aux marchés de génie civil se traduit par la suppression de la phrase suivante : « La redevance au CRR est appliquée en plus des coefficients pour frais généraux et bénéfices. »

En clair : la redevance n’est plus explicitement indiquée comme étant “hors FG+B”. Cela peut modifier l’assiette de calcul et, par voie de conséquence, le prix.

Ce que cela implique

La redevance au CRR est calculée en fonction de la valeur des travaux réalisés par les entreprises du secteur.

L’arrêté royal du 5 mai 1952 accueillant la requête introduite par la Fédération des Entrepreneurs de Voirie tendant à la reconnaissance du « Centre de Recherches routières » prévoit une redevance annuelle de 0,5% du montant total des travaux exécutés, avec un calcul par marché sur le montant du décompte final, c’est-à-dire sur la base du montant du marché, ajustée le cas échéant par les modifications de ce dernier.

Les entreprises concernées par cette redevance devront donc l’intégrer dans leurs prix, ou éventuellement, dans leurs frais généraux.

Autres mises à jour à signaler

D’autres chapitres du Qualiroutes ont également été mis à jour. Par ailleurs, les canevas de cahiers des charges du Gouvernement wallon (CSC GW) ont aussi été actualisés cette semaine, notamment pour intégrer les nouveaux seuils de publicité 2026–2027.

Champ d’application

Ces modifications ne concernent pas les marchés en cours. Elles s’appliquent uniquement aux nouveaux marchés dont la procédure de passation est lancée à partir du 1er janvier 2026. 

EU 19th package : a severe reinforcement of the sanctions

On 23 October 2025, the EU adopted its 19th package of sanctions against Russia and Belarus which deepens the existing framework and extends its enforcement beyond the Union’s borders, targeting third-country operators, crypto platforms, and service providers facilitating Russia’s war economy.

Announced by President von der Leyen in Copenhagen in September 2025, this new package confirms a shift towards a more extraterritorial application of EU restrictive measures, bringing under the scope of enforcement non-EU actors contributing, directly or indirectly, to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.

With 69 new listings, 117 additional vessels, and expanded enforcement powers over third-country networks, the 19th package represents one of the EU’s most comprehensive sanctions updates to date .

Key regulations include: Regulation (EU) 2025/2037, Regulation (EU) 2025/2033 and Implementing regulation (EU) 2025/2035.

For more information, please contact:

Bruno Lebrun – Partner – b.lebrun@janson.be

Cédric Alter – Partner – c.alter@janson.be

The Draft FSR Guidelines : What they mean for businesses operating in the EU?

On 18 July 2025, the EU Commission published the draft guidelines on the application of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (“FSR”). The draft is open for public consultation until 12 September 2025, and stakeholders are invited to submit feedback via the EU Commission’s website (see Consultation on FSR Guidelines - European Commission).

The guidelines aim to clarify how the Commission intends to apply key provisions of the FSR, as there is currently little case practice to illustrate its enforcement. The EU Commission has indicated that the guidelines will be updated regularly to reflect future developments and emerging case law.

While providing an analytical framework, the Commission emphasises that they “do not constitute a ‘checklist’, to be applied mechanically”. Instead, the FSR guidelines outline how the EU Commission will exercise its discretion across three central areas:

1. Determining the existence of a distortion caused by a foreign subsidy (Section 2);

2. Applying the balancing test to weigh negative and positive effects of a foreign subsidy (Section 3);

3. Exercising its power to request the prior notification of concentrations and foreign financial contributions in public procurement procedures (Section 4).

 These areas have been among the most debated by stakeholders since the adoption of the FSR, with concerns raised about the scope and predictability of enforcement.

1. Distortion of competition by a foreign subsidy

We recall that two cumulative conditions for a foreign subsidy to be considered distortive:

1. The subsidy must be liable to improve the competitive position of the beneficiary in the internal market; and

2. It must actually or potentially have a negative effect on competition in the internal market as a result.

The FSR guidelines confirm that the Commission will interpret “distortion” broadly, covering not only subsidies used directly within the internal market but also those that indirectly strengthen an undertaking’s EU activities (for example, subsidies granted abroad that free up capital for operations in the EU).

a.     Is the subsidy liable to improve the undertaking’s competitive position?

The EU Commission identifies four categories of foreign subsidies in its assessment:

• Direct subsidies used in the internal market : the clearest case where the distortion condition is typically presumed;

• Subsidies directed towards EU activities : the EU Commission examines the purpose, scope, and conditions of the subsidy (e.g., subsidies linked to manufacturing in the EU, technology licensing to EU licensees, or subsidies conditioned on EU investments or acquisitions, including indirect contributions);

• General or indirect subsidies : the EU Commission examines the likelihood of cross-subsidisation and expects companies to provide credible evidence of safeguards (e.g., legal or contractual obligations, distinct shareholding structures, binding sectoral rules);

• Non-insignificant benefits : the benefit must exceed the de minimis thresholds set out in Article 4(2) and (3) of the FSR. The Commission considers the company’s EU footprint, sector dynamics, and value chain impact when assessing this.

b.     Does the subsidy actually or potentially negatively affect competition?

To determine whether a foreign subsidy negatively affects competition, the EU Commission examines whether it alters competitive dynamics to the detriment of other EU market participants. This includes not only the activities of the subsidised undertaking but also downstream, upstream, and related markets.

The assessment follows a two-step process:

1. Establishing a reasonable link between the foreign subsidy and the beneficiary’s behaviour in the EU market; and 

2. Comparing the competitive situation with and without the subsidy, taking into account factors such as the amount, purpose, sectoral characteristics, and the size of the undertaking.

The FSR guidelines provide illustrative examples of distortions, including: (i) subsidies enabling a company to outbid rivals in M&A transactions, (ii) subsidies allowing aggressive pricing or expansion beyond market norms, harming competitors, (iii) subsidies influencing investment decisions (including high-risk or strategically important projects) and (iv) subsidies affecting value chains, such as through the relocation of suppliers or acquisition of EU-based intellectual property.

c.     Distortion in Public Procurement Procedures

The FSR Guidelines dedicate a section to public procurement, where the key issue is whether the foreign subsidy allows an operator to submit an unduly advantageous tender (through reduced prices, higher quality, or improved terms). The EU Commission examines:

• Subsidies granted to the tenderer, its non-autonomous subsidiaries, parent companies, or key subcontractors and suppliers involved in the bid;

• In some cases, subsidies granted to other entities within the corporate group, if they are not legally or factually restricted and may indirectly benefit the tenderer;

• Comparisons with other bids or the contracting entity’s estimates to determine whether the tender is “advantageous.” 

The “undue” nature of the advantage is assessed solely by the EU Commission, although contracting entities must provide all relevant information. An offer will not be considered “undue” if objective factors (such as efficiency gains) explain its advantageous nature.

2. The Balancing Test

Article 6 of the FSR allows the EU Commission, in the in‑depth phase of an investigation, to balance the negative effects of a foreign subsidy (distortion of competition) against positive effects on the subsidised activity and broader policy objectives.

The FSR Guidelines outline the methodology the EU Commission applies but emphasise that the assessment remains case‑specific.

a.     Positive effects

The EU Commission examines two types of positive effects:

• Effects on the development of the subsidised economic activity in the internal market: The EU Commission assesses whether the subsidy enables the activity to exist, or significantly alters its development (e.g., by remedying a market failure). Market failure must be proven by the party invoking it and is narrowly construed ;

• Broader effects linked to EU or other relevant policy objectives: The EU Commission may consider positive effects on other undertakings in the supply chain or on other economic activities of the same group, provided these are relevant. EU policy objectives, including those in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (e.g., environmental and social standards, R&D promotion), are particularly significant. Objectives from non-binding EU acts (communications, guidelines) or even non-EU policy goals may also be relevant if connected to the EU’s interests;

• For tenders, the EU Commission considers the availability of alternative sources of supply. A subsidised tender may be deemed positive if no other eligible offers exist, provided the tender is structured so that non-subsidised bidders could realistically participate (i.e., no exclusionary design of tender terms).

b.     General principles for the balancing test

 The balancing test is guided by several principles that shape the EU Commission’s assessment:

• Positive effects must be directly linked to the distortive subsidy. The party invoking them must demonstrate, with sufficient likelihood, that the subsidy caused (or could cause) a change in behaviour leading to those effects; 

• Subsidies causing serious distortions (especially those listed in Article 5(1) the FSR) are less likely to be offset by positive effects;

• The EU Commission distinguishes between negative effects that are unavoidable to achieve the policy objective and those exceeding what is necessary; and

• The EU Commission does not require the parties to provide a quantified comparison of positive and negative effects. Instead, it relies on a qualitative assessment, considering the nature, scope, and intensity of the effects in question.

The outcome of the balancing test directly affects how the case is resolved. If the positive effects outweigh the negative ones, the EU Commission may decide not to impose commitments or redressive measures. Conversely, if the negative effects prevail, the balancing test helps determine the scope and nature of any commitments or measures, which can be tailored to preserve the positive effects identified. While the test is usually carried out separately for each foreign subsidy, the EU Commission may, where appropriate, assess multiple subsidies jointly.

c.     Procedural aspects

The burden of proof lies with the party invoking the positive effects, which may include the investigated undertaking, Member States, third countries, or other economic operators. These parties must provide detailed and substantiated evidence, addressing the nature, likelihood, and significance of the alleged effects, the timeframe in which they are expected to materialise, the reasons why they are specific to the distortive subsidy, and an analysis allowing the EU Commission to determine whether the distortive effects go beyond what is necessary to achieve the positive effects. They must also demonstrate why the benefits are capable of mitigating or outweighing the distortion identified by the Commission.

Although evidence can be submitted at any stage of the investigation, the EU Commission is not required to consider materials filed at the final stage of the proceedings, even if it will make reasonable efforts to do so. For parties other than the investigated undertaking, submissions should ideally be made within one month of the publication of the summary notice. The investigated undertaking itself can supplement the information included in its notification, particularly in merger or public procurement cases, within the timeframe specified by the Commission in its Statement of Grounds..

3. Prior Notification Powers

The FSR grants the EU Commission discretionary authority to require prior notification of certain operations that would not otherwise trigger mandatory filing. Specifically, under Article 21(5) of the FSR, the EU Commission may call in concentrations falling below the standard thresholds, while Article 29(8) of the FSR allows it to require the notification of foreign financial contributions in public procurement procedures that would not otherwise be subject to review.

The EU Commission may exercise these powers where it suspects that foreign subsidies have been granted to the undertakings concerned within the three years preceding the transaction or tender. In deciding whether to request notification, the EU Commission takes into account several factors, including the strategic importance of the sector, value chain, or assets involved, particularly where critical infrastructure or innovative technologies are concerned. It also assesses the economic significance of the transaction or tender, considering the contract value and duration, the market presence and influence of the parties, and whether the foreign subsidy falls within the “high risk” categories listed in Article 5(1) of the FSR.

Through these powers, the EU Commission signals its intent to maintain close oversight of transactions and tenders in sensitive sectors, even when they fall below the usual thresholds.

4. What Should Businesses Do Now?

The draft FSR Guidelines confirm that the EU Commission intends to adopt a wide-ranging and case-specific approach in enforcing the FSR. For companies receiving third-country funding, particularly those involved in EU investments, concentrations, or public tenders, the implications are considerable.

 Thus, businesses should take proactive steps to mitigate regulatory and compliance risks. This includes conducting a thorough review of all foreign financial contributions to identify potential exposure under the FSR and establishing internal procedures to prepare for possible investigations or notification requests by the EU Commission. It is important for companies to gather and maintain documentation demonstrating either that the subsidies they have received do not distort competition or, where relevant, that any negative effects are outweighed by positive impacts, such as contributions to economic development or EU policy objectives.

The consultation period remains open until 12 September 2025, offering an opportunity for stakeholders to influence the EU Commission’s approach before the FSR Guidelines are finalised. Businesses should engage actively in the ongoing consultation process to raise concerns about the scope, predictability, and administrative burden of the draft FSR Guidelines. 

The FSR Guidelines are scheduled to be adopted by no later than 12 January 2026.

For further information, please contact :
Bruno Lebrun - Partner - b.lebrun@janson.be
Wafa Lachguer – w.lachguer@janson.be

Upcoming FSR Guidelines: What to Expect

As the EU Commission continues to roll out the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (“FSR”), stakeholders across sectors are awaiting the publication of the FSR Guidelines that will shape its interpretation and enforcement.

These Guidelines, mandated under Article 46 of the FSR, will provide key clarifications on the EU Commission’s approach to foreign subsidies in mergers, public procurement, and broader market practices. The draft is expected for public consultation in July 2025, with final adoption planned by January 2026.

Objective

The Guidelines are not intended to amend the regulation itself, but to clarify how it will be applied in practice. According to Article 46 of the FSR, they must provide detailed information on:

• The criteria to identify distortive subsidies;

• How the Commission will conduct the balancing test, weighing distortions against positive market effects;

• The use of “call-in” powers, allowing the Commission to review transactions and subsidies not formally notifiable;

• The methodology for assessing foreign subsidies in public procurement procedures.

These clarifications are particularly important given the novel and cross-cutting nature of the FSR, which imports concepts from competition law, state aid control, and public procurement.

Contrary to the Commission’s guidelines in areas such as merger control or State aid, the upcoming FSR Guidelines will rely on a limited decisional practice. In both merger control and State aid, the Commission has drawn upon decades of experience and case-law. In contrast, the FSR only entered into force in mid-2023, and its implementation remains at a very early stage. To date, the Commission has published just one formal decision under the FSR — adopted on 24 September 2024 — which granted conditional approval, under the FSR, for the acquisition by Emirates Telecommunications Group Company PJSC (e&) of the non-Czech activities of PPF Telecom.

In this context, the Guidelines will play a particularly crucial role in establishing legal certainty for practitioners and companies.

Consultation process 

The Commission has already conducted targeted consultations, including:

• A questionnaire to all 27 Member States;

• Feedback from selected stakeholders: industry associations, academics, law firms, consumer groups, and others.

On 5 March 2025, the EU Commission published a Call for Evidence seeking feedback from Member States and main stakeholders on the main objectives, scope and context of the upcoming Guidelines regarding the implementation of the FSR.

In total, 45 responses were received (available on : Foreign Subsidies Guidelines).

Stakeholders welcomed the guidance initiative, but raised concerns and requests in four key areas:

• Distortion analysis: Stakeholders are calling on the EU Commission to adopt a rigorous approach when identifying distortions. They emphasize the importance of a high standard of proof, with clearer boundaries around which subsidies — such as regional aid or small-scale support — should not be presumed distortive by default. Many also stress the need for robust, economically grounded assessments tailored to different sectors, and for overall consistency with existing state aid jurisprudence and market definition;

• Public procurement procedures : Stakeholders seek for a broader analytical framework that goes beyond price to include qualitative award criteria. Stakeholders request precise definitions of what constitutes a “genuinely advantageous” tender and greater clarity on when notification thresholds apply. There is also a strong call to limit the administrative burden placed on contracting authorities and economic operators, especially in low-risk or recurring scenarios.

• Balancing test : Although the FSR already foresee a balancing of positive and negative effects, stakeholders request clearer guidance on its concrete application. There is also broad support for aligning this balancing exercise with existing state aid rules ;

• Call-in powers : The EU Commission’s ability to “call in” transactions that fall below notification thresholds is viewed with caution. Some stakeholders advocate for a strict and exceptional use of this power, reserved for cases with strong preliminary indications of distortion. Others would welcome a more active and flexible approach — including voluntary notifications — to pre-empt risks.

What’s Next?

The draft Guidelines will be open for comment via an eight-week consultation starting in July 2025. The EU Commission will use this feedback to amend the text before presenting the revised Guidelines to the FSR Advisory Committee and Member States in September 2025.

Final adoption of the Guidelines is expected by the end of 2025.

For further information, please contact :
Bruno Lebrun - Partner - b.lebrun@janson.be
Wafa Lachguer – w.lachguer@janson.be

Janson ESG Report: Building a Sustainable, Fair & Inclusive Future

Janson and its people are convinced that the legal profession plays a key role in the development of a truly sustainable, fair, and inclusive society. Our commitment to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles reflects our dedication to responsible business practices that benefit not only our organization but also our people, partners, clients, and the environment. We strive to foster a culture of integrity, inclusion, and sustainability.

We take great pride in helping our people, advancing diversity and inclusion, and creating a workplace where every person feels encouraged to grow and develop. We’re also focused on reducing our environmental impact and finding better, more sustainable ways of doing business.  Moreover, we uphold the highest standards of governance, ensuring transparency, accountability, and ethical practices at every level of our operations.

We are proud to share our very first ESG report and invite you to learn more about the progress we have made in integrating ESG principles throughout our operations.

16th package of EU Sanctions against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

The EU Council adopted the 16th package of restrictive measures on 24 February 2025, precisely three years after the launch of the armed conflict in Ukraine.

This new package expands the scope of the prohibitions across numerous sectors of the Russian economy, with a heightened focus on tackling circumvention, particularly in the maritime sector.

I.                    GENERAL OVERVIEW

The 16th package introduces key updates to the listing criteria and broadens the range of individuals and entities subject to restrictive measures:

·       Assets freezing: 48 individuals and 35 entities are added to the list subject to an asset freeze and a prohibition on making funds and economic resources available to them.  These individuals and entities are considered significant support to the Russian military complex or actively involved in sanctions circumvention ;

 ·       Anti-circumvention:  74 vessels are listed as they are forming a shadow fleet and contributing to Russia’s energetic revenues.  Those vessels are subject to a port access ban, a prohibition to obtain maritime and other services (insurance and brokering, flag registration, ship supply services, cargo loading services…);

 ·       Trade restrictions: five additional categories of sensitive items as advanced technologies are subject to export restrictions (e.g., dual-use chemical precursors).  Additionally, minerals, chemical, steel, glass materials are subject to export bans;

 ·       Financial sector: extension of the transaction ban in an attempt to list financial institutions and crypto asset providers that participate in the circumvention of the Oil Price Cap and facilitate transactions with listed vessels of the shadow fleet;

 ·       Transport: prevention of Russian ownership of more than 25% in EU road transport companies. This measure aims to reduce any potential attempt of circumvention through purchase by Russian persons of EU road transport undertakings.

II.                  FOCUS

Ø  Including two new criteria for listing individuals and entities

The new package includes two new criteria for listing individuals and entities in an effort  to effectively tackle the so-called “dark/shadow fleet” transporting Russia’s energy exports and to align with the measures adopted by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on 10 January 2025.

The new criteria result in the listing of individuals and legal entities (i) involved in vessels transporting Russian crude oil through high-risk shipping practices (e.g., AIS manipulation, concealed ship-to-ship transfers, or document falsification), or (ii) linked to Russia's military-industrial complex, including those providing material, financial, or logistical support for military technology, defense operations, and related supply chains.

Ø  Protective measures for EU operators

The 16th package defines measure shielding EU operators from Russian retaliatory measures.

EU operators are entitled to claim compensation for direct or indirect damages resulting from :

a.       Legal actions initiated by sanctioned entities or individuals in third countries (notably Russia);

and

b.      Disruptions to the performance of contracts or operations affected by EU sanctions.

To benefit from that protection, EU operators must demonstrate the lack of effective legal remedies in the jurisdiction where the foreign proceedings were initiated.

This provision aims to deter sanctioned entities from exploiting foreign courts to penalize EU operators complying with the EU sanctions.

Moreover, when no EU court has jurisdiction to hear such a claim, the new sanction Regulation provides for a forum necessitatis. This is a last-resort jurisdictional forum whereby EU courts may hear such claims when a sufficient connection exists with the Member State where the Court is located. For example (i) the EU operator’s domicile or place of business is in that Member State; or (ii) the EU company is incorporated under the laws of that Member State.

III.                KEY FIGURES FROM THE NEW LISTING

Notable figures highlight the 16th package's impact: 

a.       83 additional listings: 48 individuals linked to Russia’s military-industrial complex, circumvention efforts, and disinformation campaigns, and                35 entities involved in sectors such as maritime transport, crypto asset services, and industrial supply chains;

b.      74 additional vessels added to the sanctions list. The total listed vessels now number 153;

c.    53 new companies facing export restrictions, among which 34 companies based outside Russia, underscoring the EU’s focus on addressing international circumvention networks;

d.    13 additional financial institutions prohibited from accessing specialized financial messaging services and three banks added to the transaction ban due to their use of Russia’s SPFS to circumvent sanctions;

c.    two Moscow airports and four regional airports are targeted by the transport ban measures, plus five major ports;

e.    Eight additional media outlets in the EU where suspended.

See Regulation (EU) 2025/390, Regulation (EU) 2025/392, Regulation (EU) 2025/395 and Regulation (EU) 2025/398.

For more information, please contact:

Bruno Lebrun – Partner – b.lebrun@janson.be

Cédric Alter – Partner – c.alter@janson.be

Recent Developments in Football: EU Court Rulings Balancing the Unique Nature of Sport and EU Law

 Bruno Lebrun and Candice Lecharlier present the recent judgments from the European Union’s top court in the football area.  These rulings mark a pivotal moment in football governance, balancing the unique nature of sport and EU law.

The full article is available via the following link : EU Court Rulings and Football Bodies | Chambers Expert Focus.

 For more info, please contact: 

Bruno LEBRUN – Partner - b.lebrun@janson.be 

Candice LECHARLIER - c.lecharlier@janson.be

EU Adopts 15th Package of Sanctions against Russia’s Aggression Against Ukraine

Today, the Council of the EU adopted its 15th package of restrictive measures, aiming to curb Russia's ability to sustain its war effort and addressing the circumvention of existing sanctions.

• General overview

The new package introduces several significant measures, including:

Ø  Assets freezing measures: Targets 54 individuals and 30 entities involved in undermining Ukraine's sovereignty, including military units, energy sector leaders, and individuals responsible for deportations and propaganda. For the first time, sanctions were imposed on Chinese firms supplying critical components to Russia's military. This means the assets of these individuals and entities are frozen, restricting their access to and use of financial resources;

Ø  Circumvention of sanctions: The EU expanded bans on maritime transport services for vessels aiding Russia’s shadow fleet in circumventing oil price caps or transporting stolen Ukrainian grain. The EU expanded bans on maritime transport services for vessels aiding Russia’s shadow fleet in circumventing oil price caps or transporting stolen Ukrainian grain;

Ø  Trade restrictions: Export restrictions on dual-use goods and technologies now extend to 32 new entities, including companies in third countries such as China, India, and Iran, which have supported Russia's military operations;

Ø  Protection for EU Businesses : Prohibition on recognizing Russian court rulings (e.g., "anti-suit injunctions") that penalize EU companies. Also, measures allow central securities depositories (CSDs) in the EU to unfreeze cash balances to meet legal obligations while avoiding retaliatory asset seizures in Russia (see above).

Ø  Facilitating Divestment: Extended deadlines for EU businesses to exit Russia, enabling a swift and orderly withdrawal from the Russian market.

• Focus: Amendment to Article 6b of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014

The Council introduced an additional exemption framework applicable to the National Settlement Depository (“NSD”).

This amendment allows for the release of frozen funds held by NSD, provided the following cumulative conditions are met:

1.      The exemption applies to frozen funds held by a CSD;

2.      The CSD must have accounts opened with NSD, and vice versa;

3.      An amount must have been debited from the CSD's accounts by NSD under Russian law or an equivalent measure without the CSD's consent;

4.      The released funds must only serve to allow the CSD to fulfill its legal obligations to its participants; and

5.      The funds must not be used in any way that violates sanctions, ensuring no direct or indirect benefit to NSD.

This marks the second time the EU has introduced an exemption framework for NSD after imposing sanctions on it on 3 June 2022. The first exemption, adopted on 6 October 2022 (Article 6b(5) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014), allowed Member States' competent authorities to release frozen funds held with NSD, provided the applicant had terminated their relationship with NSD before 7 January 2023. The purpose of the 2022 exemption was to reduce the flow of fund release requests, primarily from non-sanctioned individuals and entities whose assets were trapped in custodial chains involving NSD. However, this measure proved insufficient, as the high volume of requests continued to overwhelm national authorities, leaving them unable to process them efficiently.

The new exemption introduced in Article 6b(5j) focuses on the increasing litigation and retaliatory measures in Russia, which have led to the seizure of EU CSD assets. Thanks to this measure, CSDs can now request Member States' competent authorities to unfreeze cash balances and use them to meet their legal obligations to clients. This ensures the stability of the EU’s financial infrastructure while protecting EU companies from retaliatory harm.

See Regulation (EU) 2024/3189, Regulation (EU) 2024/3192, Regulation (EU) 2024/3177 and Regulation (EU) 2024/3183

For more information, please contact:

Bruno Lebrun – Partner – b.lebrun@janson.be

Cédric Alter – Partner – c.alter@janson.be

How can an abused company evade its own criminal prosecution?

Lawyer Stien Dijckmans, a member of the white-collar crime team in Ghent, wrote an article about the criminal co-prosecution of the company and the lack of a legislative framework on which this company can rely to defend its rights.

Here is the link to the article:

Wat bij misbruik van een mee-vervolgde venootschap ?

State Aid : German State Aid to counter the IRA

On 9 January 2024, the European Commission authorised a German State aid worth €902 million (€700 million in direct subsidies and €202 million in guarantees) to finance a battery production plant for electric vehicles by the Swedish company Northvolt in Germany.

This aid is provided in the context of the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework adopted by the European Commission in March 2023 - amended in November 2023 - which enables Member States to support projects aimed at achieving the objective of transitioning to a net zero emissions economy.[1]

This text provides the possibility for a Member State to align itself with the offer of a non-EU country if there is a serious risk that a company will relocate and invest outside the EU.  In the present case, the Commission considered that the measure was necessary to prevent Northvolt from setting up in the United States where Northvolt had already received an offer.  This makes it unprecedented in that the Commission explicitly states that it is granting this State aid to counter the effects of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

Inflation Reduction Act

The denomination of the US Inflation Reduction Act could be misleading. In fact, it provides for a number of reforms with the central idea being the climate and not, as one might imagine, measures aimed at fighting inflation itself. 

One of the main objectives of this law is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by 2030.

However, behind these ecological stimuli lie tax incentives, as well as a binding mechanism that provides for the exclusive production and use of US energy resources.

Impact and challenges of the IRA on the European Union

It is easy to anticipate the IRA’s adverse effects on the European Union itself: companies based in the EU could be tempted to relocate some essential activities to the United States in order to benefit from significant tax advantages.

In 2022, President Ursula von der Leyen said in a speech to the European Parliament: "We have to come up with our own answer, our own European version of the Inflation Reduction Act".

The Temporary Crisis Framework for state aid is part of that answer and materialized in that German authorised state aid for the production of electric batteries by Northvolt.

This decision demonstrates the EU's determination to prevent significant strategic operators from flying out of the EU.

EU companies in the must take account of this regulatory possibility that has now become a reality.

Some would argue that this decision will no doubt reopen the debate on competition between those Member States that have the financial means to support this type of project, and the others.  Unfair, in our view, because such subsidies participates to the EU energy and digital sovereignty that will benefit the EU in its entirety.  

Moreover, companies should not lose sight of the support they can obtain directly from the European Union for projects concerning, in particular, the energy and digital transition.

[1] Communication from the Commission Temporary crisis and transition framework for State aid measures to support the economy following Russia's aggression against Ukraine 2023/C 101/03

Bruno LEBRUN

Zelia SELAMET

What does mediation mean ?

Our associate Nastassja Loriaux answers the legal question asked recently by the daily newspaper La Libre on Monday 8 January. In this article, she explains what mediation is and how it can be used to resolve a conflict and avoid going to court.

If you would like to read the full interview : La médiation, qu’est-ce que c’est ? - La Libre

Heritage succession: don't wait!

Are you wondering how to prepare your family succession? Our partner Arnaud Levy Morelle shares his 4 tips with you in an article published by Mediaplanet. He explains how to optimise your assets transfer and the steps to follow. Don't hesitate to contact us if you need personalised advice.

Here is the link to the article:

Succession patrimoniale : n’attendez pas ! - Planet Business (planet-business.be)

New Regulation Against Distortive Foreign Subsidies in the European Union

Bruno Lebrun and Candice Lecharlier presents the Regulation Against Distortive Foreign Subsidies in the European Union and its implications for the companies in an article for the Chambers Expert Focus (Chambers and Partners).

The full article is available via the following link : New Foreign Subsidies Regulation in the EU | Chambers Expert Focus.

For more info, please contact: 

Bruno LEBRUN – Partner - b.lebrun@janson.be 

Candice LECHARLIER - c.lecharlier@janson.be

EU Sanctions : Rationale and Challenges

 Bruno Lebrun and Candice Lecharlier presents the EU sanctions regime and its main challenges in an article for the Chambers Expert Focus (Chambers and Partners).

The full article is available via the following link : Challenges of the EU Sanctions | Chambers Expert Focus.

For more info, please contact: 

Bruno LEBRUN – Partner - b.lebrun@janson.be 

Candice LECHARLIER - c.lecharlier@janson.be