EU lifts sanctions on Usmanov and Fridman: political bargaining instead of legal grounds

On September 22, the European Union, by unanimous decision of all 27 members, lifted personal sanctions against Russian billionaires Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman — despite the fact that both had spent four years unsuccessfully challenging the restrictions in court, and the Council of the EU’s evidentiary basis had held up in those proceedings.

This was reported by DW.

Sanctions were imposed on both businessmen in February 2022. Usmanov ranks 10th on Russia’s Forbes list, Fridman 9th. In the course of the legal proceedings, they argued that they do not influence Kremlin decisions and do not help it wage war against Ukraine, but they failed to have the restrictions lifted through the courts.

France’s role and a possible deal with Azerbaijan

France played a decisive role in lifting the sanctions on Usmanov. DW’s sources in Brussels said that Paris linked its decision to a “special national security matter” and a desire to “accommodate international partners,” without specifying details. Later, Le Monde, EUobserver, and the Financial Times established that the matter may involve a deal with Azerbaijan: in exchange for lifting sanctions on the Russian billionaire, Baku allegedly agreed to release several prisoners, including French citizens. One of them — businessman Martен Rayan, sentenced in Azerbaijan to 10 years on espionage charges — was freed as early as September 23.

What Azerbaijan’s interest in this arrangement is remains unknown. Political scientist and Central Asia expert Galiya Ibragimova, speaking to DW, suggested that Uzbekistan — whose citizenship Usmanov holds alongside Russian — may have lobbied on the billionaire’s behalf, since Baku and Tashkent cooperate actively. In addition, Uzbekistan and France announced a nuclear energy partnership in 2025 — Uzbekistan is one of the world’s largest uranium producers. Sources at the Financial Times also reported earlier this year that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had discussed the lifting of sanctions on Usmanov with European leaders. Ankara is a key partner of both Baku and Tashkent.

Luxembourg and the Fridman case

The lifting of sanctions on Fridman was sought primarily by Luxembourg, according to Reuters, with which the billionaire has been in litigation since 2024 over frozen assets. Fridman is demanding compensation of EUR 14 billion — roughly the same figure Forbes uses to estimate his entire fortune. The case is being heard at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre.

It has long been known that Fridman, Usmanov, and several other major Russian businessmen were seeking the lifting of sanctions not only through the courts but also through back channels — via senior European politicians. Sources at the Financial Times and Radio Free Europe reported that Slovak and Hungarian authorities had repeatedly lobbied on their behalf, and that this happened almost every six months — at the moment of each successive renewal of European sanctions against Russia.

Latvia blocked the decision until the very last moment — likely because parliamentary elections in the country were due in less than two weeks. As compensation, France promised to invite Latvia into its nuclear deterrence program and to increase its military presence on Latvian territory.

Consequences for EU sanctions policy

By lifting restrictions on Fridman and Usmanov, the EU simultaneously extended all other personal sanctions for three years at once — instead of the usual six months. For other Russian businessmen under restrictions, this is bad news.

Latvia responded by imposing national sanctions on Usmanov and Fridman and called on other countries to do the same. Lithuania and Estonia have already announced they will join.

“Authoritarian regimes now have a working template: detain European citizens, apply pressure on the relevant capital — and EU policy becomes a subject of bargaining,” wrote Latvian politician and Member of the European Parliament Rihards Kols on X.

In Kols’s view, by removing from sanctions people who had lost the relevant court cases, the EU effectively confirmed one of the Kremlin’s key propaganda narratives — that restrictions are imposed and lifted not on the basis of transparent procedures but for political reasons. He also pointed to a second dimension of what had occurred: “Sanctions were conceived as a shared instrument. Now they are becoming a bargaining chip” between individual EU members.

The precedent set by Usmanov and Fridman may also complicate the already difficult process of agreeing on new sanctions packages. As an example: during the negotiation of the 21st package, adopted by Brussels in July, Greece blocked — in the interests of its shipowners — the introduction of a ban on European companies transporting Russian liquefied natural gas.

Abandoning the unanimity rule in decision-making could add more teeth to sanctions policy. Germany and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had previously spoken in favor of abolishing the veto. However, on September 23, European Commissioner for the Economy Valdis Dombrovskis stated in an interview with Euractiv that this idea is unlikely to be implemented in the foreseeable future: abolishing the veto requires amendments to the EU’s founding treaties, and that in turn would again require unanimous approval from all 27 members.