Innovations in the New Draft Investment Law

In March 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a judgment in several appeals joined into a single set of proceedings: C-696/23 P (DmitryPumpyanskiy v Council), C-704/23 P (Tigran Khudaverdyan v Council), C-711/23 P (Viktor Rashnikov v Council), C-35/24 P (Dmitry Mazepin v Council) and C-111/24P (German Khan v Council).

SUBJECT MATTER: CRITERION (G)

These are so-called joined cases, where the Court examines several appeals together because they raise the same legal issues. In this instance, the central question concerned the interpretation of one of the key criteria of the EU sanctions regime against Russia – criterion (g).

This criterion allows for the listing of “leading businesspersons operating in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Russian Government”. Its interpretation was at the core of all five appeals.

The applicants – including some of Russia’s largest businessmen and top executives – challenged the EU Council’s decisions, pointing to a systemic issue: in practice, criterion (g) had been applied in an almost automatic manner. It was often sufficient to state that a person is a major business figure operating in an economically significant sector, and this was treated as enough to justify listing.

THE COURT’S POSITION: SECTOR-BASED, BUT NOT AUTOMATIC

In its judgment, the Court began with an important clarification of the structure of the criterion. In paragraphs 98–127, it held that the requirement of “providing a substantial source of revenue” relates to economic sectors, not to individual businesspersons.

In other words, the EU legislature deliberately designed criterion (g) as sector-based rather than person-based: it is the sector that must constitute a significant source of revenue for the State.

At first glance, this may appear to ease the Council’s burden of proof: there is no need to demonstrate how much tax a particular individual pays or what share of the State budget they generate. However, the Court immediately introduced an important limitation.

While criterion (g) refers to economic sectors, the inclusion of a person on the list still requires an individualised assessment and cannot be based solely on that person’s presence in a relevant sector.

Put differently, criterion (g) does not allow for the automatic transposition of sector characteristics onto any individual operating within that sector. Otherwise, it would effectively amount to a form of collective responsibility, which is incompatible with the inherently individual nature of EU restrictive measures.

According to both the judgment and the accompanying press release, the Court’s reasoning operates on two distinct levels.

On the one hand, it must be established that the relevant sector indeed generates substantial revenue for the State. This is a macroeconomic element that may be supported by general data on the industry.

On the other hand – and this is the central point of the judgment – the Council must demonstrate that the individual concerned is genuinely connected to that sector in a manner that makes them relevant for the application of the criterion.

The Court does not require proof of direct financial flow sfrom the individual to the State, such as specific tax payments or dividends. However, it does require evidence that the person is not a merely incidental or peripheral participant. Rather, the individual must occupy a meaningful position within the sector, allowing them to be regarded as part of the economic structure that generates revenue for the State.

Accordingly, in the Court’s logic, the link between the individual and State revenue is indirect: it operates through participation in the sector, not through direct payments.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CHALLENGING EU SANCTIONS

The judgment in the joined cases C-696/23 P, C-704/23 P,C-711/23 P, C-35/24 P and C-111/24 P does not fundamentally alter the architecture of the EU sanctions regime. However, it significantly refines the applicable standard of proof – and this is where its practical importance lies.

First, the Court clearly limits the Council’s ability to rely solely on categorical reasoning. A mere reference to a “strategic sector” combined with the status of “leading businessperson” is no longer sufficient without a more detailed analysis of the individual’s role within that sector.

Second, the requirement of individualization is reinforced. This opens the door to arguments that the applicant:

• does not exercise control over the business,

• does not hold a key position in the industry,

• operates in a limited or ancillary segment, or

• does not materially influence the economic performance of the sector.

Third, the judgment confirms an important principle: belonging to a sector is not equivalent to contributing to State revenue. This is particularly relevant for minority shareholders, investors and managers without decisive influence.

Finally, the Court implicitly raises the bar for the Council’s evidentiary standard. General references to the importance of a sector or reliance on public sources without a concrete assessment of the individual’s role are now more vulnerable to challenge before the EU courts.

The group operates under the Council of Heads of Legal Services of Enterprises - members of the Belarusian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and is headed by Sergei Mashonsky, a senior partner of Arzinger Law Firm.

The working group identified the following priority areas:

• Monitoring sanctions and counter-sanctions regulation in foreign countries and in the Republic of Belarusm: evaluation of its impact on Belarusian business;

• Analysis of EU case law and practical assistance in protecting the intererst of domestic enterprises;

• Identification and systematization of common issues in international trade and investment activities, from payments to contractual risk mitigation mechanisms;

• Risk assessment of long-term projects involving foreign counterparties: supply of equipment, construction, investment activities; 

• Preparation of practical materials: analytical reviews, guides, checklists, and standard contract clauses.

The main objective of the group is to provide Belarusian enterprises with access to up-to-date legal expertise and practical tools to protect their interests in the field of international trade and investment.

On March 19, 2026, an extended conference of the Republican Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs was held on the topic “Investments and Product Quality of Private Companies - Reserve for Growth of the Economy of the Republic of Belarus”.

The event was held at the Waldorf Astoria Minsk Hotel and gathered members of the Council for Entrepreneurship Development, managers and owners of large private companies of the country, representatives of government agencies, as well as companies with foreign participation operating in Belarus.

The central topic of discussion at the conference was the role of private companies in ensuring sustainable growth and improving the quality of products, including import-substituting and export products.

The participation of Sergey Mashonsky in this forum confirms the active position of Arzinger Law Firm in the dialog between business and the state. The company's team consistently supports the development of the legal environment that creates favorable conditions for investment and growth of private entrepreneurship in the Republic of Belarus.

Key highlights of our experience:

• advising projects involving Chinese state-owned enterprises, policy banks, private investment funds, and technology leaders;

• structuring project finance, joint ventures, and manufacturing projects with Chinese capital;

• in-depth understanding of projects with state participation, EPC contracts, and infrastructure initiatives;

• adaptation of Chinese corporate, financial, and governance models to Belarusian legal and regulatory requirements;

• advising on projects in sensitive areas, including currency regulation, sanctions and counter-sanctions, cross-border payments, and compliance;

• acting as a local legal navigator, facilitating clear and effective interaction between Chinese investors and state authorities and regulators.

I. State-Owned Enterprises, Banks, and Infrastructure Projects

1. Advised on the credit financing of the first phase of construction of the China–Belarus Industrial Park “Great Stone”, where China Merchants Commerce & Logistics Corporation acted as the borrower and China Development Bank as the lender. Our team adapted the Chinese financing model and contractual structure to Belarusian regulation, ensuring full compliance with currency control and legal requirements. As a result, the Chinese side obtained a transparent and predictable project structure, clear interaction with state authorities, and confidence in the project’s stable implementation.

2. Advised China Merchants Group on corporate governance matters in a joint venture in Belarus, as well as on labour, tax, corporate, licensing, and other regulatory issues. We took into account the specifics of state participation in the joint venture’s share capital, the features of corporate governance, and the operational aspects of companies with mixed ownership. With our support, the client established and continues to maintain constructive and sustainable cooperation, successfully operating in Belarus and advancing one of the region’s key infrastructure projects.

3. Advised China Development Bank on amendments to a project finance loan agreement of a Belarusian enterprise. Following the cessation of publication of USD LIBOR rates as of 30 June 2023 (to which the loan agreement was linked), the parties planned to enter into a supplemental agreement to replace the benchmark interest rate. Our team analysed the documentation for potential risks, which were promptly mitigated based on our recommendations.

4. Ongoing advice on a project to establish a premium engineered wood flooring manufacturing facility in Belarus with the participation of China International Trust and Investment Corporation. Within the project, we advise on legal aspects of investment in Belarus, including the analysis and potential application of preferential investment regimes, which increased the project’s attractiveness for the foreign partner and supported the development of long-term cooperation.

5. Represented a Belarusian state-owned manufacturer in structuring a strategic partnership with Shanghai Rich Yield Private Fund Management Co., Ltd. for the launch of a new woodworking production facility in Belarus within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. Our team developed the cooperation structure, allocating roles between the Belarusian industrial platform and the Chinese investor, taking into account the specifics of using a mothballed pulp production site and establishing a mechanism for the subsequent creation of a joint venture. We translated the Chinese fund’s expectations regarding investment protection, phased project preparation, valuation of non-cash contributions, and application of incentives into clear and enforceable obligations for the Belarusian side. This case demonstrates how a Chinese institutional investor can enter complex, capital-intensive projects in Belarus on a structured and transparent basis, relying on local legal expertise that takes into account both state interests and Chinese decision-making logic.

II. Manufacturing Projects and Joint Ventures

6. Represented Midea in the creation and structuring of a joint venture for the production of refrigerators and other household appliances in Belarus. We translated the Chinese investor’s expectations regarding control, sanctions and regulatory compliance, shareholding protection, and exit mechanisms into Belarusian legal terms, embedding the Chinese governance model into local corporate and public law realities. This approach enabled the Chinese side to retain strategic control over production, minimise regulatory risks, and fully leverage Belarus’s potential as a manufacturing and logistics hub for the EAEU markets.

7. Advised on Midea’s project to structure a joint production of microwave ovens with a large state-owned plant. Within the project, we conducted a risk analysis, developed a restructuring strategy with a roadmap, and prepared a full set of corporate documents (minutes, notices, share purchase agreement, charter, and shareholders’ agreement). Chinese documents were adapted to local requirements and included provisions to protect the client’s interests.

8. Assisted a major Chinese household appliance manufacturer in launching a new manufacturing facility in Belarus under preferential conditions. Our scope included negotiations with the administration of a free economic zone, substantiation of the client’s investment business plan, and preparation of an agreement governing the operating conditions of the client’s subsidiary within the zone. Our support enabled the client to agree on production and export volumes to the EAEU countries. We also advised on membership in a regional technology park, which opened access to grants for the development of innovative production.

9. Represented China Triumph Engineering in connection with its incorporation in Belarus and preparation for the commencement of construction activities. We assisted the client in establishing a company in the preferential industrial park “Great Stone” in the Minsk region, prepared all necessary corporate documentation, and substantiated compliance of the client’s investment project with the park’s eligibility criteria. In addition, we conducted legal due diligence of the client’s first planned project in Belarus, including verification of legal encumbrances and restrictions related to the proposed construction site.

10. Ongoing advice on a project for the construction of a new printing facility implemented by a general contractor on a turnkey basis, including design, construction and installation works, manufacturing and supply of complex technological equipment, and commissioning of the completed facility.

III. Trade, Supply Chains, and Operational Structuring

11. Assisted a Chinese equipment manufacturer in organising supply chains and payment flows between the group’s parent company in China, subsidiaries, and distributors in Belarus and Russia. The client faced difficulties in ensuring stable supplies from China to its distributors due to payment and logistics issues. The client engaged us to develop an appropriate resale model involving its Belarusian subsidiary. We analysed tax and foreign trade legislation, identified risks related to the regulation of intermediary payment services, and helped ensure stable and secure supplies of goods within the EAEU.

12. Assisted a Chinese manufacturer of electric vehicle components in defining the legal framework for doing business with Belarusian partners. We adapted the client’s operating model to applicable tax, currency, and payment regulations that could affect exports to Belarus and helped structure a transaction flow between Belarus and China in full compliance with international compliance requirements.

IV. Sanctions and Counter-Sanctions Compliance, Regulatory Risk Management

13. Advised a Chinese equipment manufacturer on US and EU sanctions compliance in connection with projects implemented in Belarus. Following a comprehensive analysis conducted with the involvement of US and EU counsel, we confirmed the absence of sanctions risks, enabling the client to continue its operations in Belarus.

14. Advised a Chinese private manufacturing company on Belarusian counter-sanctions legislation in response to restrictions imposed by foreign states (asset seizure, external administration, etc.). As a result of our work, steps were taken that allowed the client to continue implementing projects in Belarus.

V. Technology Projects, Digital Platforms, and Crypto Industry

15. Ongoing advice to ByteDance (TikTok) in Belarus. We provide legal support on the application of Belarusian law to the platform’s activities, including regulation of information, personal data, intellectual property, and advertising. We monitor key legislative developments affecting the client’s business and ensure timely adaptation of the platform’s operations to applicable requirements.

16. Advised a major Chinese manufacturer of mining equipment on expanding its business in Belarus. We adapted the client’s business model to tax, customs, and foreign trade regulations governing the supply of specialised mining equipment to Belarusian companies, taking into account specific restrictions applicable within the Belarusian IT cluster – the High-Tech Park. We outlined restrictions and conditions related to settlements with local partners in cryptocurrencies, as well as the legal framework for the operation of commercial trusts. We also provided a comprehensive overview of tax incentives available to crypto-mining companies resident in the High-Tech Park.

17. Advised Bitmain on the launch of the first large-scale crypto mining data centre in Belarus. Based on our analysis, we prepared recommendations to optimise the project, identified legal and regulatory risks, and proposed effective mitigation mechanisms. As a result, the implemented solutions enabled the client to launch the crypto mining data centre smoothly and ensure full compliance with applicable legislation.

VI. Negotiations, Cooperation with Chinese Legal Counsel, and Dispute Resolution

18. Represented a Belarusian fertiliser manufacturer in negotiations with one of China’s largest state-owned corporations regarding the construction of a new industrial complex in Belarus. With our participation, key commercial parameters were agreed and preliminary documentation was prepared; however, the project was subsequently put on hold.

19. Together with a leading Chinese law firm, advised the world’s largest manufacturer of mining equipment on corporate governance matters in a joint venture incorporated in the PRC.

20. Represented Huawei in a dispute with a general contractor concerning the recovery of additional payments under a construction contract with a fixed price. We successfully demonstrated that the additional remuneration claimed by the contractor was not recoverable, as fixed-price contracts do not allow price increases due to exchange rate differences where the contract price is denominated in foreign currency with reference to the Belarusian rouble. The case was won in the court of first instance, and the contractor did not appeal the decision. 

The competition is aimed at developing students' practical skills in the field of international trade law and international commercial arbitration – from preparing memoranda to participating in oral hearings on complex, practice-oriented cases.

A special moment: just a few years ago, Ilona herself was a participant in this very competition, and today she evaluates student performances in oral hearings.

At Arzinger, we are convinced that investing in young professionals is an investment in the future of the legal profession. Supporting educational initiatives and passing on practical experience to the next generation of lawyers is an integral part of our work.

We thank the competition organizers for their contribution to the development of the legal community and the participants for their impressive level of preparation!

On November 15, 2025, the Lepel City Sports and Recreation Center turned into a real arena of sporting passion!

The Republican Open Championship of the Lepel District in handball among girls born in 2015-2017, for the prizes of Arzinger Law Offices brought together the best youth teams from all over Belarus.

Young handball players from different parts of the country took to the court to prove that Belarusian women's handball has a brilliant future!

The championship opening ceremony was attended by Boris Pukhovskiy, a legend of Belarusian and world handball, and Sergey Mashonskiy, Senior Partner at Arzinger.

For Arzinger it is a great honor to support youth sports. We are confident: these investments are the most important investments a business can make. 

Whether we want to accept it or not, artificial intelligence plays a moreimportant role in our society than ever before. From medical diagnoses tofinancial decisions — AI systems increasingly take on tasks performed bypeople.

I. What Can AI Errors in Production Lead To?

• Employee/consumer data breaches;
• Manufacturing errors that harm consumers — for example, defective goods;
• Workplace injuries;
• Financial losses (due to equipment downtime or increased product defects);
• And others

II. Subjectsof Liability

EU Regulation — at the forefront, but with its difficulties

In the EU, artificial intelligence is regulated by Regulation (EU)2024/1689 of June 13, 2024, which adopted the AI Act. This is the world's first comprehensive regulatory act governing AI. At the same time, this document essentially omits issues of liability for errors made by AI in its work, which raises many questions. To develop this issue, the EU prepared a draft AI Liability Directive, which was supposed to provide various liability measures for damage caused by artificial intelligence. However, in February of this year, the directive was withdrawn. The reason stated was the following — interested parties could not agree; calls for simplification of regulation in the digital sector also had an influence.

Thus, in the EU at the moment, the main regulation of liability for AI errors is a general act — the EU Directive on Liability for Defective Products (hereinafter — the Directive). The main provisions of the Directive to pay attention to:

• The Directive applies to autonomous software, including AI systems, with some exceptions;
• The liability measure under the Directive is compensation for damage;
• Any person entitled to compensation may bring an action against: (i) the manufacturer of the defective product; and (ii) the manufacturer of the defective component — in certain cases. If the manufacturer is located outside the EU, claims may also be brought against: (i) the importer; (ii) the manufacturer's authorized representative; or (iii) the fulfillment service provider. Joint and several liability is provided;
• The burden of proving the product's defectiveness, damage and causal link between defectiveness and damage lies with the injured party;
• Those who have paid compensation have the right to file a recourse claim against the party guilty of the damage;
• Interesting fact — as a ground for exemption from liability, the Directive provides the following circumstance: the objective state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time of placing the product on the market or putting it into operation, or during the period when the product was under the manufacturer's control, did not allow the defect that caused the damage to be detected.

It should be noted that the Directive does not have regulatory effect in member states and must be implemented into national legislation.

CIS Model Law — trends in regional legislation development

In April 2025, the CIS model law "On Artificial Intelligence Technologies" was adopted — a recommendatory act that can be used by member states in developing national legislation in the field of AI.

Main provisions:

• The law extends its effect to AI technologies and systems using AI;
• The law introduces the principle of absolute and joint liability, according to which:

1. The principle of absolute liability is established (that is, liability occurs regardless of fault) in the sphere of relations related to high-risk AI technologies;
2. Joint liability of owners, possessors, developers and operators of AI technologies is established;

• The possibility of bringing to liability in accordance with the norms of criminal, administrative, civil and labor legislation is provided (while specific offenses must be determined by national legislation);
• The need to insure risks associated with AI errors is enshrined (the list of AI technologies subject to insurance must be determined based on national legislation by the authorized state body);
• Mutual insurance is allowed with the possibility of establishing special conditions for insuring risks of causing harm during testing and pilot operation of certain categories of AI technologies.

The situation in Belarus — how can an error madeby AI in production be regulated in theory now?

At the moment, Belarusian legislation lacks special regulation of liability for damage caused by errors of AI systems. There are many concepts about whether a person can be held liable for a robot's errors, especially when it comes to highly autonomous systems. The main approach currently is that a person/company bears responsibility for the actions of autonomous systems. Thus, those who may be held liable for the damage caused include:

• A company that created a defective product using AI that caused damage (for example, liability is possible under the Law "On Consumer Protection") / a company that introduced AI into production and is unable to ensure safe working conditions (when harming an employee of the enterprise). It is possible to hold the head of the organization or another person responsible for equipment safety, etc. liable (for example, a programmer in the company responsible for software technical support);
• An AI developer company integrated into production (it is possible to file claims in the order of recourse). An important point — the enterprise must be able to prove that defects in products / other errors were caused precisely by a poorly developed AI system.

III. Risk insurance

Today in Belarus there is no practice of insuring risks associated with the use of AI technologies.

At the same time, some countries have actively begun to implement insurance in the field of AI.

For example, in the Lloyd's of London insurance market, they began to offer insurance that covers risks and/or losses associated with errors of chatbot sand other artificial intelligence tools.

There is an opinion that liability insurance when using AI fits into the general concept of cyber risk insurance. The global market already has specialized insurance products, such as cyber insurance, professional liability insurance and technology risk insurance, which cover losses from incidents involving AI. For example, similar products already exist in Russia, and they can be adapted to cover risks associated with AI. However, the market is still at the beginning of its development.

At the same time, provisions on insurance of such risks are also enshrined in the CIS model law.

It can be expected that in the coming years, Belarusian legislation will be adapted taking into account global trends, and insurance organizations will begin to develop specialized products to cover losses arising from the use of AI in industry.

Even the most promising projects can encounter serious challenges, especially when a developer improperly fulfills its contractual obligations. This is exactly what happened with our client — a Belarusian company specializing in the production of industrial and household metering devices.

The client concluded a contract for research and development work. The goal was ambitious — to create an innovative device that meets modern requirements of industrial enterprises and can be sold in foreign markets as well.

However, it subsequently became obvious that the project implementation would not be simple. The developer deviated from the technical specification requirements without notifying the customer. Despite repeated attempts to resolve the problem peacefully, including negotiations and joint testing, the developer refused to acknowledge the validity of the customer's claims and demanded full payment under the contract.

For the client, this became a critical point: the developed product did not meet the contract requirements, and the developer, instead of constructive dialogue and problem resolution, took a "defensive" position, fearing court. Continuing cooperation under such conditions made no sense.

Legal Protection

Ultimately, the client decided to terminate the contract. Given the contract terms, this required going to court and proving violations by the developer. In addition to the need to explain technical nuances, an additional difficulty of the process was related to the client's signing of work completion certificates.

With the assistance of the Arzinger legal team, an analysis of the evidence base was conducted and a legal position and case strategy were developed. At the pre-trial negotiation stage, it was possible to obtain written confirmation from the developer about the existence of defects in the work, which was critically important fo rsubstantiating the customer's position in court. All this led to a successful result: the first instance court supported the client's stated claims.

The developer's attempts to challenge the court decision in appellate and cassation instances were unsuccessful: the judicial instances confirmed the validity of the decision.

What Other Clients Should Know

Key aspects of protecting customers' interests when developing innovative products:

1. Detailed Requirements and Project Stages

When agreeing on a contract, it is important to detail and unambiguously record product requirements, stages, criteria for accepting work results at each stage, consequences of deviations from contract requirements. Where possible — identify requirements whose deviations make the entire development meaningless. Any agreements on technical specification changes should be formalized in writing.

2. Timely Recording of Violations

When identifying deviations by the developer from contract requirements, document this (with letters, negotiation protocols, reservations in certificates).

3. Risk of Impossibility to Meet Development Requirements

As a general rule, the risk of impossibility to perform research and development work lies with the customer. However, the contract can transfer this risk to the developer. In any case, if the developer discovers that obtaining the required result is impossible or continuing the work is impractical, they are obliged to immediately inform the customer.

4. A Work Completion Certificate Signed Without Comments Is Not a Verdict

A certificate signed by the customer without comments certainly worsens their legal position. But even with such a document, a court case can be won, although it requires more serious preparation. It should be remembered: no evidence has a predetermined force for the court. The court evaluates evidence according to its internal conviction, based on a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the presented evidence.

5. Engage Technical Experts

The essence of a dispute related to innovative development may lie entirely or partially in the technical plane. In this case, at the stage of preparation for court, it is necessary to involve external technical experts (if the competencies of the customer's employees are insufficient), and in court — to petition for the appointment of an examination and the calling of a specialist.

6. Don't Be Afraid of Judicial Protection

When constructive dialogue is exhausted and continuing cooperation is impractical, resolving the dispute in court is an effective tool for protecting business interests. And it should not be delayed. Yes, such a step entails additional costs and the need to find another developer, however, as a rule, this is inevitable anyway.

A European parent company due to the introduction of another package of sanctions, decided to distance itself from its Belarusian subsidiary structure and did so radically. It sold its share and sent a notification of complete debt forgiveness for goods supplied to Belarus. It would seem that freedom from debts is excellent news, but how can such a transaction be legally formalized in Belarus? And won't this turn into foreign gratuitous assistance (FGA), which is associated with a number of additional obligations and risks for the recipient?

We thoroughly studied the situation and identified key points to consider:

• Debt forgiveness can be a unilateral transaction, so concluding an agreement between the parties is not mandatory. However, there must still be a document confirming the transaction (for example, a letter from the counterparty about debt forgiveness);
• Formally, the debt write-off procedure goes through an order from the company director with mandatory execution of primary accounting documents;
• As a general rule, debt forgiveness should not be recognized as FGA. This follows from the fact that such a transaction does not fall under the definition of FGA contained in Decree No. 3 of May 25, 2020 "On Foreign Gratuitous Assistance." In addition, the procedure for handling FGA (acceptance of assistance, its registration) does not imply that forgiven debt on a commercial transaction can subsequently be qualified as FGA.

However, nuances are important here, as always in our work: each situation needs an individual approach. We recommend coordinating details with the Department of Humanitarian Activities to avoid unpleasant surprises.

Special attention should bepaid to preventing the requalification of debt forgiveness into a gift agreement, the conclusion of which between legal entities is prohibited. For this, it is necessary to collect maximum evidence of the parties' commercial interest in the transaction and the impossibility of debt repayment — for example, confirmation of sanction restrictions, impossibility of making payment, etc.

As a result of the work done, we helped our client resolve disagreements between the legal and accounting departments and properly formalize debt forgiveness without the risk of violating the law.

If you have encountered a similar situation or want to secure your transactions — contact us. We will turn complex legal issues into understandable solutions so that your business operates calmly and efficiently.

Klim Stashevsky, Partner at Arzinger Law Offices, spoke at the Priorbank corporate business event on the 9th of October and shared invaluable insights from recent Belarusian and Russian EU General Court cases, revealing what actually works when challenging sanctions listings.

The main takeaways of Klim’s speech:

• The reality check: EU institutions protect EU institutions. Formal arguments rarely succeed – the Court follows "substance prevail over form”

• What can work: Demonstrating actual absence of connection/control and highlighting the EU Council's assessment errors – particularly effective when the evidence base is weak.

• The evidence challenge: The burden of proof largely falls on the applicant, while the Court doesn't require "ironclad" evidence from the Council.

• Critical lesson: Failing to disprove even one point means staying on the list. But the appeal process itself creates space for negotiations and reputational defense.

Winning is extremely difficult, but when the evidence base is genuinely weak, exclusion is possible. The sanctions landscape remains unstable, and the relevant practice continues to evolve.  Stay turned!