(AGENPARL) – mar 10 settembre 2024 PRESS RELEASE No 136/24
Luxembourg, 10 September 2024
Judgment of the Court in Case C-351/22 | Neves 77 Solutions
Restrictive measures against Russia: the confiscation of the entire
proceeds of a brokering transaction covered by the prohibition on
providing brokering services for military equipment is permitted
In addition, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret a measure of general scope of a CFSP decision which should
have been implemented in a regulation and which forms the basis for a national sanction
The prohibition on providing brokering services for military equipment to an operator in Russia, which forms the
basis for a national sanction, should have been implemented in a regulation. That prohibition applies even if those
goods were never imported into a Member State. EU law permits the confiscation of the full amounts received in
relation to the provision of such services.
Neves 77 Solutions SRL (Neves), a Romanian aeronautics company, acted as intermediary in a transaction between a
Ukrainian company, SFTE Spetstechnoexport, and an Indian company for the sale of 32 radio sets, 20 of which were
manufactured in Russia. The Russian authorities informed Neves in the summer of 2019 that the brokering activities
related to those goods were covered by the prohibition on providing brokering services in relation to military
equipment to an operator in Russia, adopted by the European Union in response to Russia’s actions destabilising
the situation in Ukraine.
Shortly afterwards, Neves nevertheless received close to €3 million from SFTE Spetstechnoexport for the provision
of its brokering services. This led to the Romanian authorities imposing a fine of 30 000 Romanian lei (RON)
(approximately €6 000) on Neves and confiscating the amount received for those services.
A Romanian court asks the Court of Justice whether that prohibition applies where the military equipment
concerned was never imported into the European Union and whether the national sanctions imposed for
infringement of that prohibition are compatible with the right to property of the undertaking concerned.
First, the Court of Justice confirms that it has jurisdiction to interpret a measure of general scope of a CFSP decision
which forms the basis for national sanctions imposed on an undertaking. The Court’s jurisdiction to give a uniform
interpretation of EU law cannot be circumvented where, as in the present case, the restrictive measure of general
scope concerned should have been included in a regulation, in respect of which the Court has, in any event,
jurisdiction.
On the substance, the Court considers that the prohibition on providing brokering services in relation to military
equipment to an operator in Russia applies even if those goods were never imported into a Member State.
Indeed, such a prohibition could be circumvented easily if it were sufficient, in order to escape it, for that equipment
to be routed without passing through EU territory.
The Court also observes that EU law permits the automatic confiscation of the full amounts received in
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
relation to the provision of brokering services concerning military equipment to an operator in Russia.
Admittedly, this limits the provider’s right to property over those amounts. Such a limitation is nevertheless
appropriate in order to ensure that the prohibition in question is effective and, consequently, proportionate in
principle in the light of the legitimate objectives pursued by the European Union, that is, the protection of Ukraine’s
territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of EU law or the
validity of an EU act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to
dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or
tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text and, as the case may be, an abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.
Stay Connected!
Communications Directorate