CJEU confirms the broad interpretation of "material or financial support" under EU restrictive measures against Russia

On 11 June 2026, the CJEU dismissed the appeal in NSD v Council (Case C-801/24 P), thereby confirming the listing of NSD, Russia's principal central securities depository, under the EU restrictive measures against Russia.

 The judgment confirms that entities may be designated not only where they directly finance the Russian State, but also where their activities play a sufficiently important facilitating role within the Russian financial system. It also confirms a broad interpretation of the derogation regime under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.

 Key takeaways

 1. Broad interpretation of material or financial support

 According to the CJEU, the notion of "support" encompasses not only direct financing or transfers of assets, but also assistance or facilitation capable of strengthening or enabling the actions of another party. The criterion does not distinguish between direct and indirect support and does not require a transfer of funds to the Russian State.

 What matters is whether the support provided is capable, by its quantitative or qualitative significance, of supplying the Russian Government with resources or facilities enabling it to pursue the objectives targeted by the restrictive measures regime. A direct link between the support provided and Russia's actions in Ukraine is not required.

 As a result, entities performing systemically important functions within the Russian financial infrastructure may be designated, even where their activities are essentially technical in nature.

 2. Standard of proof

 The Court further confirmed that the Council may satisfy its burden of proof through a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence establishing a sufficient link between the listed entity and the situations targeted by the restrictive measures.

 The Court acknowledged that while this evidentiary standard reflects the precautionary, temporary and reversible nature of restrictive measures, EU courts must nevertheless verify that at least one of the grounds relied upon by the Council is supported by sufficiently substantiated evidence.

 3. Statement of reasons

 The CJEU reiterated that the purpose of the obligation to state reasons is to enable the person concerned to understand why restrictive measures were adopted and to allow EU courts to review their legality.

 It recalled that the adequacy of the statement of reasons must be assessed in light of the wording of the measure, its context and the legal framework in which it was adopted.

 Therefore, the Court held that the Council had provided a sufficiently clear and specific statement of reasons. The listing measures identified both the context of their adoption and the factors justifying NSD's designation, including its role as Russia's central securities depository, its systemic importance within the Russian financial system, its access to the international financial system and its ownership structure. In those circumstances, NSD could not reasonably have been unaware of the reasons for its designation.

 Whether the factors relied upon by the Council were sufficient to establish that NSD provided "material or financial support" is a separate question going to the substantive legality of the listing rather than the adequacy of the statement of reasons itself.

 4. Proportionality and third-party clients

 The Court rejected arguments that the listing was disproportionate because of its effects on non-designated investors whose assets are held by NSD, and thus also frozen.

 It emphasised that derogation mechanisms, including those provided for in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, remain available and must be applied by national authorities in compliance with fundamental rights. The Court also confirmed that the concept of "payment" under Article 6(1) must be interpreted broadly and encompasses the restitution of securities, not only cash transfers.

 The Court further rejected the argument that the measure had become de facto permanent, stressing that restrictive measures are subject to regular review and that their continued application over a period of two years does not alter their temporary nature.

Source:  EUR-Lex - 62024CJ0801 - EN - EUR-Lex.

 For more information, please contact: Bruno Lebrun – Partner – b.lebrun@janson.be.