Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2026:409
Date: 2026-05-21
Language of the case: Italian

Summary C-428/24 – 1 
Case C-428/24 
Summary of request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of the 
Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
13 June 2024 
Referring court: 
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
7 May 2024 
Applicant: 
FZ AR SpA 
Defendants: 
Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Dipartimento del Tesoro, 
Comitato di Sicurezza Finanziaria 
Comando Generale della Guardia di Finanza, Nucleo Speciale di 
Polizia Valutaria 
Agenzia del Demanio 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Administrative legal proceedings brought by a commercial company held in a 
trust against the decision of the administrative authority ordering the freezing of 
shares and assets belonging to that company, in so far as they are indirectly linked 
to the beneficiary of the trust, who was included in the list of addressees of the 
restrictive measures provided for by Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 276 TFEU concerning the 
interpretation of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning 
restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-428/24 
 
2  
integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as amended by Regulation 
(EU) No 476/2014; in particular, interpretation of the concepts of ‘belonging’ and 
‘control’ of assets held in trust, with reference to the beneficiary of the trust or a 
person ‘associated’ with the beneficiaries. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Does Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 preclude an 
interpretation according to which – in the case of assets or resources held in a 
discretionary trust (the beneficiary of which is listed in Annex I to that 
regulation) – those assets and/or resources are nevertheless to be regarded as 
‘belonging’ to the beneficiary of the trust, even if the national law applicable to 
the trust (or a contractual safeguard clause contained in the trust deed) expressly 
prohibits the beneficiary from performing any act of enjoyment or disposal of the 
trust assets or resources for as long as the beneficiary is listed in Annex I to 
Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, or in any event for as long as the use or disposal of 
such assets or resources would constitute an infringement of [EU] law? 
2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does Article 2(1) of 
Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 preclude an interpretation according to which – in 
the case of assets or resources held in a discretionary trust (the beneficiary of 
which is listed in Annex I to the above-mentioned EU regulation) – those assets 
and/or resources are nevertheless to be regarded as subject to the ‘control’ of the 
beneficiary of the trust, even if the national law applicable to the trust (or a 
contractual safeguard clause contained in the trust deed) expressly prohibits the 
beneficiary from performing any act of enjoyment or disposal of the trust assets or 
resources for as long as the beneficiary is listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 
No 269/2014, or in any event for as long as the use or disposal of such assets or 
resources would constitute an infringement of [EU] law? 
Provisions of international law relied on 
Convention adopted in The Hague on 1 July 1985 on the law applicable to trusts 
and on their recognition. In particular, 
Article 2(1): 
‘For the purposes of this Convention, the term “trust” refers to the legal 
relationships created – inter vivos or on death – by a person, the settlor, when 
assets have been placed under the control of a trustee for the benefit of a 
beneficiary or for a specified purpose’. 
FZ AR 
 
3 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive 
measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, 
sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. 
Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive 
measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, 
sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as amended by Council Regulation 
(EU) No 476/2014 of 12 May 2014. In particular, Article 2: 
‘1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled 
by any natural or legal persons, entities or bodies, or natural or legal persons, 
entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in Annex I [which lists the 
natural persons identified pursuant to Article 2 of Decision 2014/145/CFSP], shall 
be frozen. 
2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or 
indirectly, to or for the benefit of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies, or 
natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in 
Annex I.’ 
Implementing Regulations (EU) 2022/396 and (EU) 2033/878, implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 269/2014. 
Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the 
purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing. 
Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes 
of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) 
No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing 
Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and 
Commission Directive 2006/70/EC. 
In particular: Article 3(6)(b)(iv), under which the trust beneficiary is, together 
with the other entities referred to therein, the ‘beneficial owner’, that is to say, ‘the 
natural person(s) who ultimately owns or controls the customer and/or the natural 
person(s) on whose behalf a transaction […] is carried out’; Article 3(6)(b)(v), 
which provides for the possibility of ‘control over the trusts by means of direct or 
indirect ownership or by other means’. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Decreto legislativo del 22 giugno 2007, n. 109 – Misure per prevenire, contrastare 
e reprimere il finanziamento del terrorismo e l’attività dei Paesi che minacciano la 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-428/24 
 
4  
pace e la sicurezza internazionale (Legislative Decree No 109 of 22 June 2007 – 
Measures to prevent, combat and suppress terrorist financing and the activities of 
countries that threaten international peace and security), implementing Directive 
2005/60/EC, as amended by decreto legislativo del 25 maggio 2017, n. 90 
(Legislative Decree No 90 of 25 May 2017) (‘Legislative Decree No 90/2017’). 
Specifically: Article 3 established the Comitato di Sicurezza Finanziaria 
(Financial Security Committee, ‘CSF’), within the Treasury Department at the 
Ministry of Economy and Finance, a body that implements the freezing measures 
ordered by the European Union; Article 5 prohibits the transfer, disposal or use of 
frozen resources or the making available, directly or indirectly, of funds or 
economic resources to or for the benefit of such persons or entities; Article 22(5) 
reproduces the wording of Article 3(6)(b)(iv) of Directive (EU) 2015/849. 
Decreto legislativo del 21 novembre 2007, n. 231 – Attuazione della direttiva 
2005/60/CE concernente la prevenzione dell’utilizzo del sistema finanziario a 
scopo di riciclaggio dei proventi di attività criminose e di finanziamento del 
terrorismo nonché della direttiva 2006/70/CE che ne reca misure di esecuzione 
(Legislative Decree No 231 of 21 November 2007 on implementation of Directive 
2005/60/EC on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of 
money laundering and terrorist financing and of Directive 2006/70/EC laying 
down implementing measures (‘Legislative Decree No 231/2007’) 
Legge del 16 ottobre 1989, n. 364 – Ratifica ed esecuzione della convenzione 
sulla legge applicabile ai trusts e sul loro riconoscimento, adottata a L’Aja il 1° 
luglio 1985 (Law No 364 of 16 October 1989 – Ratification and implementation 
of the Convention on the law applicable to trusts and on their recognition, adopted 
in The Hague on 1 July 1985). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The Italian company FZ AR SpA, which is active in the production, import, 
export and trade in products for the care and growth of plants and equipment for 
the production of and trade in those products, forms part of a chain of control 
headed by Trust XT (‘the Trust’), established in the form of an irrevocable and 
discretionary trust under the laws of the Bermuda Islands. It is common ground 
that the resources held in the Trust include the controlling share of FZ AR SpA. 
2 The beneficiary of the trust was originally Mr ZU, who in 2022 was succeeded by 
his wife, Ms TU. Both were included in the list of persons subject to the restrictive 
measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, 
sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as referred to in Article 2 of Regulation 
(EU) No 269/2014, by means of Implementing Regulations (EU) 2022/396 of 
9 March 2022 and (EU) 2022/878 of 3 June 2022 respectively. 
FZ AR 
 
5 
3 On 28 September 2022, the CSF ordered the freezing of FZ AR SpA, as a 
subsidiary of Trust XT and thus constituting an economic resource indirectly 
linked to Ms TU. 
4 By application notified on 28 October 2022, FZ AF SpA asked the referring court 
to annul the freezing order adopted by the CSF. 
5 FZ GO AG intervened in the proceedings in support of the applicant, while PN 
SpA did so in support of the defendants. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
6 The applicant, FZ AF SpA, claims that the freezing order is unlawful on the 
ground that it infringes the law. In support of that plea, it claims that Ms TU does 
not have control, even indirectly, of the economic resource that has been frozen, 
even though she is a beneficiary of Trust XT, which is at the head of the chain of 
control of FZ AR SpA.  
7 It submits that the law of the Bermuda Islands governing Trust XT, and Trust 
XT’s own contractual terms and conditions, first, prevent the trustee from 
distributing to the beneficiary any economic benefit deriving from the Trust and, 
second, preclude the beneficiary from having any power to manage and/or control 
the Trust. 
8 In particular, Trust XT is, under Bermuda law, a ‘discretionary’ trust, which 
differs from other types of trust (such as ‘fixed trusts’) in so far as the 
discretionary beneficiary has no right to benefit from the trust’s assets and has no 
right of beneficial ownership or title to the trust’s assets; in short, the discretionary 
beneficiary has only a hope (‘wish’) that the trustee will exercise its discretion in 
the beneficiary’s favour. 
9 In addition, under the agreement signed on 30 May 2022, the parties to the Trust 
inserted into the trust deed a safeguard clause (or compliance clause) under which 
the trustee could never distribute any economic benefit from the assets of the 
Trust (which thus included FZ AR SpA) to any other person or entity (including 
the beneficiary entity) if that would constitute a breach of the restrictive measures 
provided for by EU law. 
10 All the trustee’s directors (who are entrusted with administering the Trust), as well 
as the Trust’s custodian, gave personal written undertakings confirming that they 
would comply with any sanctions imposed by the European, national or United 
Nations authorities and that they would not make funds or economic resources 
available to any designated person, and that they would not be subject to any 
influence or instructions from Ms TU, beneficiary of the Trust. 
11 Ms TU, beneficiary of the Trust, may not terminate the Trust before its end date 
(2106) or appropriate the Trust’s funds. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-428/24 
 
6  
12 Nor may Ms TU be regarded as the ‘beneficial owner’ of the applicant company 
under Directive 2015/849 (or the Italian transposing legislation), whose 
sanctioning rules are to be interpreted strictly and are not applicable by analogy, 
since the present case does not concern a question of combating money 
laundering. 
13 According to the applicant, the conditions laid down in Article 2 of Regulation 
(EU) No 269/2014 for the freezing of economic resources are therefore not met, 
including when taking into account the clarifications provided in that regard by 
the EU Best Practices adopted on 27 June 2022. 
14 The defendant authorities submit that the action should be dismissed. 
15 They maintain that the prohibition on any distribution of profits to beneficiaries 
under Bermuda law and laid down in the Trust’s trust deed does not preclude the 
addressee of the freezing order from using the frozen resource, since the Trust is a 
legal transaction based on the will of the parties, who may agree to extinguish the 
Trust, to reconstitute it in a different country, making it subject to a different law, 
and to amend or delete covenants contained in the trust deed. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
16 The referring court considers that the correct interpretation and application of 
Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, in particular Article 2(1) thereof, is relevant for the 
purpose of resolving the main proceedings, in so far as the contested freezing 
order is based on that provision. 
17 The question concerning interpretation relates to the implications and effects of 
that provision – which provides for the freezing of the economic resources of 
persons listed in Annex 1 to that regulation – where those resources are held in a 
trust and the person on that list is the beneficiary of the trust. 
18 The referring court states that it has already referred a question to the Court of 
Justice for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of that regulation, but with 
reference to a different situation, in which the person listed in Annex I to that 
regulation was the settlor of the trust, and not the beneficiary thereof. 
19 The present case concerns the particular situation of the beneficiary of a 
discretionary trust who, under the law governing that trust and an express 
‘safeguard clause’ contained in the trust deed, is unable to use or manage any of 
the economic resources of the Trust as long as that remains prohibited by 
Regulation EU No 269/2014 and Annex I thereto. In essence, the economic 
resources transferred to the Trust can never be transferred to the beneficiary as 
long as the latter is listed in Annex I to that regulation. 
20 According to the referring court, the concept of ‘belonging’ referred to in 
Article 2(1) of Regulation No 269/2014 may refer both to the traditional situation, 
FZ AR 
 
7 
in which the person referred to in Annex I has full and exclusive ownership of the 
asset, and ‘atypical’ or ‘hybrid’ situations, such as those relating to the transfer of 
the asset to a trust, in which the title to the assets is transferred into the name of an 
individual (the trustee), but is intended for a beneficiary listed in Annex I, even if 
that beneficiary cannot enjoy it as long as he or she remains listed in that annex. 
21 The referring court is therefore uncertain as to whether the assets, resources and 
relationships transferred into a discretionary trust may nevertheless be regarded as 
‘belonging’ to the beneficiary of the trust – even though the beneficiary is neither 
user nor manager of the assets held – or at least as ‘controlled’ by the beneficiary 
himself or herself, in which case the measures provided for in Article 2(1) of 
Regulation No 269/2014 could also apply to assets and resources held in trust 
intended for a beneficiary listed in Annex I to that regulation. 
22 That court notes that, given the assumption that the transfer to the trust results in a 
transfer of ownership to the trustee, but does not confuse the assets with the 
trustee’s personal assets, it was argued that the transfer of the assets into the name 
of the trustee by the settlor is to be regarded as an act which does not give rise to 
the transfer of the beneficial ownership of the assets, but is designed solely to 
separate the trust assets from the personal assets not only of the settlor, but also of 
the trustee. According to the case-law of the Corte de cassazione (Court of 
Cassation), moreover, the assets are not definitively conferred to the trustee, who 
is only required to administer and have custody of them under the separation of 
property regime, pending their transfer to the beneficiaries of the trust. 
23 In both cases, according to the referring court, it is necessary to ask whether, 
during the lifetime of the trust, it may be considered, by virtue of the particular 
nature of the relevant scheme, that the assets (or resources) ‘belong’ to some 
extent to the beneficiary, at least concurrently with the trustee and the settlor, thus 
rendering the beneficiary liable to be subject to the freezing measures provided for 
in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, notwithstanding the prohibition 
(by virtue of a specific clause contained in the trust deed) of any transfer of assets 
to the beneficiary as long as the beneficiary is listed in Annex I to that regulation. 
24 The concept of ‘belonging’ referred to in Article 2(1) of Regulation No 269/2014 
could therefore cover not only cases where the assets formally or directly belong 
to the person to whom the freezing measure is addressed, but also cases in which 
the state of ‘belonging’ is ‘substantial or indirect’, as in the case of the Trust, 
where a person (the beneficiary), although not directly owning the assets held or 
having the formal right to dispose of the assets or being the formal registered 
owner of the assets pursuant to an express clause contained in the trust deed, is 
objectively in a position to exercise substantial influence over the assets, as the 
ultimate recipient of those assets, whose material interest is the principal guiding 
criterion of the trustee in managing the Trust. 
25 The placing of the resource in trust would therefore, argues the referring court, not 
eliminate the link of substantial ownership between the resource and the person to 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-428/24 
 
8  
whom the freezing measure is addressed, and would therefore not preclude the 
possibility of adopting asset-freezing measures pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation 
(EU) No 269/2014. 
26 That interpretation could also be supported by the wording of Article 2(1) of 
Regulation No 269/2014, which provides for the freezing not only of assets 
belonging to a designated natural or legal person, but also of those belonging to 
natural or legal persons (or entities or bodies) who are ‘associated with them’. The 
words ‘associated with them’ could cover situations (as in the present case) where 
the asset is available to a person who, although not listed in Annex I to Regulation 
(EU) No 269/2014, nevertheless has a significant link to a person who is listed in 
that annex. 
27 Consequently, under a concept of ‘association’ which includes all situations in 
which the designated person and the ‘associated’ person, although not part of 
common associative entities such as companies or associations, nevertheless 
demonstrably share the same objectives and act in a coordinated manner in order 
to achieve them, the trustee could be considered to be a figure ‘associated’ with 
the beneficiary of the trust listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, in 
so far as it has a significant and qualified link with the beneficiary, evidenced by 
the undisputed obligation of the trustee to administer the assets in trust in the sole 
interest of the beneficiary. 
28 That interpretation would fully satisfy the purpose of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 
No 269/2014, which is to respond effectively to actions threatening the 
sovereignty of the Ukrainian State, by creating ‘inconvenience’ for persons 
considered by the European Union to support strategies aimed at usurping the 
political and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The use of trusts, at least until the 
assets are definitively allocated to wholly ‘third’ parties, constitutes, in the court's 
view, an easy means of circumventing the provisions introduced for that purpose 
in the European legal order, by making it formally impossible to ascribe 
ownership of the resource to the person listed in Annex I, while nevertheless 
enabling that person to continue to have and/or benefit, in essence, from that 
resource. 
29 The referring court cites, in that regard, the opinion delivered by the European 
Commission on 19 June 2020, which, referring to the judgment of the Court of 
Justice of 13 March 2012, Melli Bank plc v Council, C-380/09 P, 
ECLI:EU:C:2012:137, highlights the risk ‘that assets of a non-designated entity 
may be used by a designated person to circumvent the sanctions imposed against 
the latter’, taking the view that ‘making funds or economic resources available to 
a non-designated entity, which is owned or controlled by a designated person, 
entity or body, amounts to making them indirectly available to the latter’ and that 
such equivalence may not be ruled out ‘unless it can be reasonably determined, on 
a case-by-case basis using a risk-based approach, taking into account all of the 
relevant circumstances, that the funds or economic resources concerned will not 
be used by or be for the benefit of that designated person or entity’. 
FZ AR 
 
9 
30 In support of the interpretation that the beneficiary continues to have a legally 
relevant link with the assets held in the Trust, the referring court refers to 
Directive (EU) 2015/849, which seeks to prevent the use of the European Union’s 
financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing. For 
the purposes of Article 3(6)(b)(iv) of that directive, in the case of a trust, the 
beneficiary, together with the other qualified persons referred to therein, 
represents the ‘beneficial owner’, namely ‘any natural person(s) who ultimately 
owns or controls the customer and/or the natural person(s) on whose behalf a 
transaction or activity is being conducted (…)’. The referring court states that a 
similar provision applies in national law (Article 22(5) of Legislative Decree 
No 231/2007, as amended by Article 2(1) of Legislative Decree No 90/2017). 
31 In the view of the referring court, that fact that the objective scope of Directive 
2015/848 differs from that of Regulation No 269/2014 does not preclude the use 
of that directive, in particular the rationale underlying Article 3(6)(b)(iv), for the 
purposes of interpreting Article 2(1) of that regulation. In both cases, the situation 
is the same: all the persons involved in the trust (the settlor, the trustee and the 
beneficiary) have a significant link with the assets held, as they are able to 
influence their management in one way or other. 
32 It could therefore be considered that, for the purposes of the freezing measures 
provided for by Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, even if, pursuant to contractual 
agreements, the beneficiary cannot participate in the actual distribution of the 
benefits deriving from the economic resources transferred in trust, that beneficiary 
indirectly exercises ownership of those resources. The referring court points out 
that Article 3(6)(b)(v) of Directive 2015/849 envisages the possibility of ‘control 
over the trust by means of direct or indirect ownership or by other means’. 
33 Therefore, even if it were to be considered that the concept of ‘belonging’ does 
not apply to the beneficiary, since the assets in trust are formally attributed to the 
trustee, it could also be argued that the beneficiary is in any event in a position of 
‘control’ in relation to the assets held, since he or she is in a position to exercise a 
significant influence on those assets and may therefore be subject to the freezing 
measures provided for in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014. That 
influence could be inferred, as the referring court points out, given the 
configuration of the trust (and of Trust XT in the present case), in which the 
guiding criterion for the entire management of the trust by the trustee is, precisely, 
the material interest of the beneficiary, who thus continues to play a decisive role 
in the management of the assets held. That situation is therefore, in the referring 
court’s view, the case irrespective of the fact that the beneficiary does not have 
powers of direct management or disposal of the assets held. 
34 The referring court refers in that regard to the concept of control provided by the 
case-law of the Court of Justice (judgment of 4 March 2020, Mowi ASA v 
Commission, C-10/18 P, paragraph 49), as ‘the possibility, conferred by rights, 
contracts or any other means, of exercising decisive influence’. In the case of a 
trust (and of Trust XT specifically), the trustee’s duty to manage the economic 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-428/24 
 
10  
resources in trust in the sole interest of the beneficiary could in itself mean that the 
beneficiary exercises decisive influence over the assets (thus irrespective of 
whether there are indications that the beneficiary legally or in fact exercises 
control over those assets). That is therefore, the referring court submits, sufficient 
for a finding that the condition of ‘control’ over the assets held is satisfied.