Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:672
Date: 2025-09-04
Language of the case: Latvian

Translation C-480/24 – 1 
Case C-480/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
9 July 2024 
Referring court: 
Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
4 July 2024 
Appellant in the appeal by way of protest in cassation (available only to the 
Public Prosecutor’s Office): 
Ģenerālprokuratūra (Principal Public Prosecutor’s Office) 
Other parties in the proceedings: 
SIA ČIEKURI-SHISHKI (applicant at first instance) 
SIA COUNTRY HELI (defendant at first instance) 
  
[…] [procedural information] 
Civillietu departaments (Civil Chamber) 
Latvijas Republikas Senāts (Supreme Court (Senate) of the Republic of 
Latvia) 
DECISION 
In Riga, on 4 July 2024 
The Senate, […] [composition of the court] 
[…], in the course of proceedings in cassation being conducted before that court 
further to an appeal by way of protest in cassation (available only to the Public 
Prosecutor’s Office) brought by the acting principal public prosecutor of the 
Republic of Latvia against the judgment of the Rīgas rajona tiesa (Riga District 
Court) of 13 September 2023, has examined the question of the possibility of 
making a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 7. 2024 – CASE C-480/24 
 
2  
Union in a civil case arising from the action brought by SIA ČIEKURI-SHISHKI 
against SIA COUNTRY HELI for repayment of the debt connected with, and 
interest for the use of, a loan.  
Subject matter and relevant facts of the dispute in the main proceedings 
1 On 19 May 2015, SIA ČIEKURI-SHISHKI and SIA COUNTRY HELI concluded 
a loan agreement to which additions and amendments were subsequently made by 
mutual agreement between the parties. Under that agreement, the lender handed 
over EUR 3 407 347.10 to the borrower. 
On 19 January 2023, SIA ČIEKURI-SHISHKI brought an action against SIA 
COUNTRY HELI for recovery of a debt of EUR 3 587 415.46, which is the sum 
of adding to the principal of the loan, in the amount of EUR 3 407 347.10, interest 
for use of the loan of EUR 180 068.36. The application states that SIA 
COUNTRY HELI is formed of two members, 50% of the shares being owned by 
SIA ČIEKURI-SHISHKI, the other 50% of the shares being owned by a company 
registered in the Republic of Cyprus by the name of ABACUS (CYPRUS) 
LIMITED, the beneficial owner of which is [person D] […]. 
2 In its judgment of 13 September 2023, Riga District Court upheld that action and 
ordered SIA COUNTRY HELI to repay to SIA ČIEKURI-SHISHKI a debt of 
EUR 3 407 347,10, interest for use of the loan of EUR 180 068.36, calculated in 
respect of the period from 22 May 2015 to 22 May 2021, and court costs of 
EUR 25 970.88, making a total of EUR 3 613 386.34. 
After assessing the evidence submitted by the applicant, together with the 
statement of settlement of reciprocal accounts drawn up by the parties as at 
31 December 2022, Riga District Court considered that it was apparent from the 
case that the applicant had handed over to the defendant the sum of 
EUR 3 407 347.10, that the defendant had failed to meet the deadline laid down in 
the loan agreement for repayment of that money and that the defendant had not 
shown that it had paid the applicant the amount loaned and the interest for use of 
the loan or any part thereof. 
Riga District Court did not examine whether the restrictive measures adopted by 
the European Union in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial 
integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine were applicable to the 
applicant or the defendant. 
3 That judgment was not appealed and became final on 4 October 2023. 
On 12 October 2023, an enforcement order was issued in the civil case and was 
sent to the Register of Enforcement Cases. 
4 Exercising the rights recognised in Articles 483 to 484 of the Civilprocesa likums 
(Law of Civil Procedure), the acting principal public prosecutor lodged an appeal 
by way of protest in cassation (available only to the Public Prosecutor’s Office) 
ČIEKURI-SHISHKI 
 
3 
against the judgment of Riga District Court of 23 September 2023, claiming that 
that judgment should be set aside and its enforcement suspended for the duration 
of the appeal proceedings. The appeal by way of protest in cassation (available 
only to the Public Prosecutor’s Office) states the following: 
[4.1] In its analysis of the case, Riga District Court failed to assess the 
applicability of the EU legislation on the adoption of restrictive measures in 
respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty 
and independence of Ukraine to the specific circumstances of that case. It follows 
from the documents in the civil case that the provisions of Regulation 
No 269/2014 are allegedly applicable to the defendant. Furthermore, the applicant, 
as owner of part of the defendant’s share capital, is also a person associated with 
the defendant and its shareholder ABACUS (CYPRUS) LIMITED. 
[4.2] In adjudicating on the merits of the action, Riga District Court should have 
examined the circumstances relating both to the fact of the imposition of sanctions 
and to the content of the restrictions established and their applicability to the 
defendant. In deciding whether to uphold the heads of claim contained in the 
application, Riga District Court did not assess whether the real purpose of 
bringing the action could have been to evade the sanctions, given that the action 
was brought after the inclusion of [person D] in the list of persons affected by the 
sanctions. Riga District Court should have considered the possibility of upholding 
the claims contained in the application at the stage of hearing and determining the 
civil case, given that, at the stage of enforcing the judgment, the bailiff does not 
have that power.  
5 By decision […] of 8 February 2024 […], the Senate decided to initiate 
proceedings in the appeal by way of protest in cassation (available only to the 
Public Prosecutor’s Office) brought by the acting principal public prosecutor, and 
to suspend enforcement of the judgment of Riga District Court of 13 September 
2023 for the duration of those proceedings.  
Applicable provisions of European Union law and national law 
6 European Union law: 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 7, 8, 17 and 47(1). 
Article 2(1) and (2) and Article 11(1)(a) and (b) of 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 (‘Regulation No 269/2014’). 
Article 1 and point 674 of part 1 of the annex to Council Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 
concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening 
the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (‘Implementing 
Regulation 2022/336’). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 7. 2024 – CASE C-480/24 
 
4  
Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the 
processing of personal data and the free movement of such data, and repealing 
Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). 
7 Latvian law: 
Civilprocesa likums (Law of Civil Procedure) (available at: 
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/50500-civilprocesa-likums) 
Article 132 Grounds for non-acceptance of the application 
(1) The judge shall not accept the application where: […] 
5) in a dispute between the same parties, concerning the same subject matter 
and pursued on the same grounds, there is a final judgment given by a court […] 
8) the application is submitted by a person lacking capacity to bring civil 
actions […] 
Article 204.1 Voluntary enforcement of a judgment 
(1) When giving judgment ordering the reimbursement of a sum of money, […] 
the court shall fix a time limit for the voluntary enforcement of the judgment, 
other than in cases where the judgment is immediately enforceable. 
Article 214 Obligation on the court to stay the proceedings 
The court shall stay the proceedings where […] 
Article 222 Effects in the event of the inadmissibility of an action 
If an action is declared inadmissible, the applicant shall have the right to bring it 
again before a court in accordance with the procedure laid down by law.  
Article 225 Effects of the termination of proceedings 
If proceedings are terminated, it shall not be permissible to bring before the courts 
again a dispute between the same parties, concerning the same subject matter and 
pursued on the same grounds. 
Article 552.1 Initiation of enforcement proceedings 
(7) Where the bailiff establishes that the creditor is subject to sanctions, […] he 
shall not initiate enforcement proceedings and shall return the enforceable title to 
the applicant, except in cases where the enforcement of a specific decision does 
not have the effect of causing that person to infringe the requirements imposed by 
the sanctions, to evade them or to avoid complying with them. 
ČIEKURI-SHISHKI 
 
5 
Ministru kabineta 2009. gada 10. februāra noteikumi Nr. 123 „Noteikumi par tiesu 
informācijas publicēšanu mājaslapā internetā un tiesu nolēmumu apstrādi pirms to 
izsniegšanas” (Council of Ministers Decree No 123 of 10 February 2009, ‘Decree 
on the publication of judicial information online and the processing of judicial 
decisions before they are delivered’) (available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/187832-
noteikumi-par-tiesu-informacijas-publicesanu-majaslapa-interneta-un-tiesu-
nolemumu-apstradi-pirms-to-izsniegsanas) 
12.1. In the course of preparations for the publication of decisions, data by which 
natural persons may be identified shall be deleted and replaced with a suitable 
reference: in the case of the first name and the surname of the person concerned, 
with a freely chosen capital letter from the Latvian alphabet […] 
Reasons why the referring court has doubts about the application and 
interpretation of European Union law 
8 Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 does not provide a clear answer to the 
question of how to determine whether a legal person is to be regarded as an 
associated legal person within the meaning of that provision where its capital 
structure comprises several members and where it is established that the beneficial 
owner of a specific member is a natural person listed in Annex I to Regulation 
(EU) No 269/2014 or in the annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 
No 2022/336. 
More specifically, the applicant in the main proceedings (SIA COUNTRY HELI) 
is a legal person having its principal place of business in Latvia 50% of whose 
shares belong to a legal person registered in Cyprus [ABACUS (CYPRUS) 
LIMITED] the beneficial owner of which is a natural person listed in the annex to 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 ([person D]). It is reasonable to assume 
that the defendant is owned and possibly also controlled by that natural person 
(see EU Best Practices for the effective implementation of restrictive measures, 
04.05.2018, 8519/18, paragraph 62 et seq.). In such circumstances, the defendant 
may be capable of being regarded as an associated legal person within the 
meaning of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (first question referred for 
a preliminary ruling). 
For its part, the applicant in the main proceedings (SIA ČIEKURI-SHISHKI) is a 
legal person holding 50% of the shares in the defendant. For the purposes of 
freezing the funds and economic resources of the natural persons listed in Annex I 
to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 or in the annex to Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2022/336, in a situation in which the applicant and the defendant have a 
linked ownership structure, the applicant might also be regarded as an associated 
legal person within the meaning of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 
(second question referred for a preliminary ruling). 
9 Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 refers to natural or legal persons, 
entities or bodies ‘associated’ with the persons listed in Annex I to that regulation. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 7. 2024 – CASE C-480/24 
 
6  
On the other hand, Article 11(1)(b) of the aforementioned regulation refers to 
natural or legal persons, entities or bodies acting ‘through or on behalf of’ one of 
the persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I to that regulation. 
In the opinion of the Senate, Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 does not provide a 
clear answer to the question as to whether, in the case where a natural or legal 
person, entity or body is considered to be ‘associated’, within the meaning of 
Article 2 of that regulation, [with a natural or legal person, entity or body listed in 
Annex I to that regulation], which would be grounds for freezing the funds and 
economic resources of the former, the former should also be considered to be 
acting ‘through or on behalf of’ the latter, within the meaning of Article 11(1) of 
that regulation, which would be grounds for not ‘[satisfying any] claims’ by the 
former (third question referred for a preliminary ruling). 
10 Its examination of the circumstances referred to in paragraph 8 of this decision 
requires the court to carry out certain actions not directly related to the hearing 
and determination of the substance of a civil case. Although the national 
legislation governing civil procedure currently supports the inference of an 
obligation on the part of the court to carry out a limited examination to determine 
the capacity of the parties to the dispute to act in civil proceedings (namely, in the 
case of a legal person, to examine whether it is registered and has not been 
deregistered [Article 132(1), point 8, of the Civilprocesa likums (Law of Civil 
Procedure)]), the Senate nonetheless takes the view that conducting an exhaustive 
examination to determine whether the applicant, and, in circumstances such as 
those of the present case, possibly the defendant too, might be considered to be a 
person associated with or controlled by the person affected by the sanctions, or to 
determine whether, as a result of the transfer of funds or assets that will take place 
at the stage of enforcing a court judgment, the funds might remain available to 
those persons, is not a function to be performed by the court as part of its hearing 
and determination of a case. 
In the main proceedings, the applicant stated in its application that the shares in 
the defendant are owned by a legal person the beneficial owner of which is a 
natural person on whom a sanction was imposed. However, the parties to the 
proceedings do not always report those circumstances. In this regard, the Senate 
must ascertain to what extent Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 imposes on the court 
an obligation to verify on its own initiative whether any of the parties to the 
proceedings in a civil case is one of the persons mentioned in Article 2 or in 
Article 11(1)(a) or (b) of Regulation No 269/2014 (fourth question referred for a 
preliminary ruling). 
11 The Latvian version of Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 provides 
that ‘prasības neapmierina’, in other of words, that ‘no[ne of the] claims’ referred 
to in that paragraph ‘shall be satisfied’ if they are made by any of the persons 
mentioned in points (a) and (b) of that same paragraph. The expression ‘no 
claims … shall be satisfied’, which could be recognised as being an autonomous 
concept of EU law, since it does not contain any reference to the law of the 
ČIEKURI-SHISHKI 
 
7 
Member States, is expressed in French as il n’est fait droit à aucune demande, in 
English as no claims […] shall be satisfied and in German as Forderungen […] 
wird nicht stattgegeben. The Senate’s analysis of this concept shows that the 
relevant languages refer more to the substantiation of the claim and not so much to 
a specific procedural solution when the courts hear the merits of the case. 
[11.1] In the opinion of the Senate, that provision of the regulation does not 
provide a clear answer to the question of its legal effects, that is to say how a court 
must act in cases where the claim is made by a person referred to in points (a) or 
(b) of that paragraph. 
For example, the Latvian national legislation on civil procedure provides for the 
possibility of dismissing an action, declaring the application to be inadmissible or 
terminating the proceedings. Each one of those procedural actions creates 
different legal effects: if the application is declared inadmissible, the applicant is 
entitled to bring the same action before the courts again [Article 222 of the 
Civilprocesa likums (Law of Civil Procedure)]; if the proceedings are stayed, they 
will be resumed when the circumstances prompting the stay of proceedings cease 
to exist [Article 218 of the Civilprocesa likums (Law of Civil Procedure)]; if, 
however, the action is dismissed or the hearing and determination of a case is 
terminated, the applicant will no longer be entitled to bring the same action before 
the courts again [Article 132(1)(5) and Article 225 of the Civilprocesa likums 
(Law of Civil Procedure)]. It follows from the foregoing in particular that 
applying different legal effects may produce a different impact on the fundamental 
rights of the parties to a civil case, including the right to property and the right to a 
fair trial. 
[11.2] The Senate considers that it is appropriate to separate the resolution of a 
dispute relating to rights from the possibility of effective enforcement of a 
judgment. Given that sanctions are provisional, it would be unreasonable to deny 
the possibility of the dispute being heard or to postpone its hearing and 
determination solely because the applicant appears in the relevant list of persons 
affected by sanctions.  
The Latvian rules on civil procedure state that, if it is established that the applicant 
is a person affected by sanctions, the bailiff has an obligation not to enforce the 
judgment [Article 552.1, point 7, of the Civilprocesa likums (Law of Civil 
Procedure)], which might ensure compliance with the provision in Article 11(1) of 
Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 to the effect that ‘no claims’ made by that person 
‘shall be satisfied’. Nonetheless, the national legislation also provides for the 
voluntary enforcement of a judgment [Article 204(1) of the Civilprocesa likums 
(Law of Civil Procedure)], in which event there would be no guarantee of 
compliance with the requirements of the aforementioned provision of the 
regulation. 
In order to ensure that a judgment given in relation to a claim made by a person 
affected by sanctions is not enforced even at the stage of the voluntary 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 7. 2024 – CASE C-480/24 
 
8  
enforcement of judgments, […] the [Senate] proposes that consideration be given 
to the following solution. The court could include in the operative part of the 
judgment a statement to the effect that the judgment may not be enforced while 
that person appears on the list in question. If a person were to object to that 
statement in the operative part, that challenge would have to prevent the 
remaining part of the judgment from becoming final, thus ensuring that there is no 
possibility of the judgment being voluntarily or compulsorily enforced before the 
sanctions issue is definitively resolved. Once the judgment – the operative part of 
which contains the statement in question – became final, it would not be 
enforceable, either voluntarily or compulsorily, until the relevant sanctions were 
lifted. 
[11.3] In such circumstances, the Senate considers there to be justification for 
asking the Court of Justice of the European Union for an interpretation of the 
expression ‘no claims … shall be satisfied’ that is used in Article 11(1) of 
Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 and to clarify what legal effects arise from the 
application of that paragraph, in particular in the light of the broad interpretation 
of assets and restrictive measures adopted by the Court of Justice of the European 
Union in its case-law (on these issues, see the judgments of the Court of Justice of 
the European Union of 11 November 2021, Bank Sepah, C-340/20, 
EU:C:2021:903, and of 17 January 2019, SH, C-168/17, EU:C:2019:36), and the 
fact that sanctions are by their nature a temporary and reversible preventive 
measure which is not intended to deprive the persons affected of their property 
(see the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 15 December 
2022, Instrubel, Joined Cases C-753/21 and C-754/21, EU:C:2022:987, 
paragraph 50) (fifth question referred for a preliminary ruling). 
12 Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 provides that the funds and economic 
resources of the persons mentioned in that article are to be frozen. Article 1(e) and 
(f) of that regulation defines ‘freezing of economic resources’ and ‘freezing of 
funds’. In order for the freezing of economic resources and funds to be effective, it 
might be justifiable to apply the provision contained in Article 11(1) of Regulation 
(EU) No 269/2014 – to the effect that ‘no claims … shall be satisfied’ – not only 
where the person referred to in that provision is the applicant but also, albeit in 
certain circumstances, where that person is the defendant. 
In the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, it may be that it is not 
the applicant who acts ‘through or on behalf of’ the natural or legal person, entity 
or body listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, but the defendant who 
acts in that capacity. The Senate is of the opinion that, where the ownership 
structures of the applicant and the defendant are linked, there might be 
justification for the provision contained in Article 11(1) of that regulation – to the 
effect that ‘no claims … shall be satisfied’ – to be applied to the defendant too 
(sixth question referred for a preliminary ruling). 
13 As a rule, data relating to natural persons (including first names and surnames) are 
pseudonymised (anonymised) in court decisions, in accordance with the 
ČIEKURI-SHISHKI 
 
9 
requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation. However, if a court does 
not disclose the identity of the specific person affected by sanctions, it will not be 
able to set out the reasoned grounds for its judgment. Moreover, those details are 
important not only to the parties to the proceedings in a case but also to the public, 
as a means of providing information and allowing for public scrutiny of the 
exercise of judicial activities (see the findings on this issue in the case-law of the 
Court of Justice of the European Union: judgments of 22 November 2022, 
Luxembourg Business Registers, Joined Cases C-37/20 and C-601/20, 
EU:C:2022:912, and of 24 March 2022, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, C-245/20, 
EU:C:2022:216). 
The inclusion of a person on the list of persons affected by sanctions would be 
such as to deprive that person of the rights arising from the General Data 
Protection Regulation only in certain circumstances where the rights of other 
persons to obtain relevant information on the person affected by sanctions are 
considered more important than the data protection rights enjoyed by that person. 
In that context, it is important to clarify which of the regulations – the one on 
sanctions or the one on data protection – prevails and whether it would therefore 
be necessary to disclose data relating to the person affected by sanctions in the 
legal grounds of the court’s decision, and whether those personal data would have 
to be pseudonymised (anonymised) when the court’s decision is published 
(seventh question referred for a preliminary ruling). 
14 The Senate’s examination of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union has been inconclusive and has not clarified how the rules on the adoption of 
restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial 
integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine are to be applied. 
Consequently, the Senate considers it necessary to make a reference to the Court 
of Justice of the European Union. 
Operative part 
In accordance with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, […] the Senate (Supreme Court, Latvia): 
hereby decides 
to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for 
a preliminary ruling: 
(1) What circumstances indicate that a person is an associated person within the 
meaning of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 17 March 2014 
concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening 
the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (‘Regulation 
No 269/2014’)? And must a legal person be regarded as an associated legal person 
if 50% of its shares belong to a legal person and the beneficial owner of the latter 
is a natural person appearing on the list in the annex to Council Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 7. 2024 – CASE C-480/24 
 
10  
No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or 
threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine? 
(2) If the second part of the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is 
answered in the affirmative, must a legal person also be regarded as an associated 
legal person within the meaning of Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014 if it holds 
50% of the shares in the legal person described in the second part of the first 
question referred for a preliminary ruling? 
(3) Do the persons, entities or bodies mentioned in Article 11(1)(b) of 
Regulation No 269/2014 also include associated legal persons within the meaning 
of Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014? 
(4) Is a court obliged, when examining any claim, to verify on its own initiative 
whether any of the parties to the proceedings is one of the persons mentioned in 
Article 2 or Article 11(1)(a) or (b) of Regulation No 269/2014? 
(5) What are the legal effects of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 269/2014, 
which provides that ‘no claims’ made by the persons mentioned in points (a) or 
(b) of that paragraph ‘shall be satisfied’? Or would it be permissible for the 
substance of those claims to be heard and determined if the operative part of the 
court’s judgment contained a statement that the judgment may not be enforced as 
long as those persons appear on the list concerned? 
(6) Does Article 11(1) of Regulation No 269/2014 produce legal effects where 
the applicant is not one of the persons mentioned in points (a) or (b) of that 
paragraph, but the defendant is one of the persons mentioned in points (a) or (b) of 
that paragraph? 
(7) Should data relating to the natural person affected by sanctions (first name 
and surname) be disclosed in the legal grounds of the court’s decision? And 
should those personal data be pseudonymised when the court’s decision is 
published? 
The proceedings are stayed pending a ruling from the Court of Justice of the 
European Union. 
This decision is not open to appeal. 
[…] [signatures and procedural formula]