EU court upholds Deripaska sanctions over Russian business ties

LUXEMBOURG, July 8, 2026 — The European Union’s General Court upheld sanctions renewals against Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska, finding sufficient support for linking his business activity to sectors that generate substantial revenue for the Russian government.

The ruling rejected Deripaska’s bid to annul EU Council measures adopted in September 2024, March 2025 and September 2025. Those measures kept him subject to an asset freeze through March 15, 2026. The underlying regime also bars funds or economic resources from being made available to listed people and restricts their entry into or transit through member states.

The court relied on the sanctions criterion covering businesspeople active in economic sectors that provide a substantial source of revenue to the Russian government. It found that the Council could treat Deripaska as a businessman under that standard based on his interests and roles connected with GAZ Group, aluminum producer Rusal and industrial group Basic Element.

Evidence supporting the renewals tied GAZ Group to Russia’s automotive sector and Rusal to metals and aluminum. The court found those sectors generated substantial government revenue and said Deripaska’s participation in the companies was qualitatively and quantitatively significant. It also cited his attendance at the Krasnoyarsk Economic Forum and his appointment as Russia’s representative to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation business advisory council for 2025-2027 as supporting his business status.

Because that economic-sector ground was sufficient, the court said it did not need to decide whether the Council had also properly applied criteria concerning support for actions threatening Ukraine or material or financial support for Russia’s military-industrial complex.

The judges also rejected claims that the Council improperly delegated its review to working groups. They found that preparatory bodies could assess the file while the Council retained and exercised final decision-making authority.

Deripaska’s proportionality and property-rights arguments also failed. The court characterized the freezes as temporary, reversible and reviewed at six-month intervals, and noted that the measures provide for specific derogations. It ordered him to pay his own costs and those of the Council.