Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:696
Date: 2025-09-11
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary  C-384/24 – 1 
Case C-384/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
29 May 2024 
Referring court:  
Raad van State (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
21 May 2024 
Applicant:  
Russisch-Kirgizisch Ontwikkelingsfonds 
Defendant:  
Belgische Staat 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Annulment of the decision of the algemene administratie (General 
Administration) of the Thesaurie van de federale overheidsdienst Financiën 
(Treasury of the Federal Public Service Finance) of 26 January 2023, confirming 
that the funds of the Russian-Kyrgyz Development Fund remain frozen. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Interpretation of Article 4(1)(b) and (d) 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.  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Must Article 4(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 
2014 ‘concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-384/24 
 
2  
threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine’, 
whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 9 of that Regulation (EU) 
No 269/2014 and with the concept of ‘services’ as defined in Article 57(1) of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and whether or not in 
conjunction with the fundamental right of access to justice as guaranteed in 
Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and 
whether or not in conjunction with the obligation on Member States laid down in 
the second paragraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union to provide 
remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by 
Union law, be interpreted as excluding from the scope of application of the 
‘incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services’ as defined in 
the aforementioned provision of the Regulation the roll fee and the contribution to 
the Begrotingsfonds (Budgetary Fund) imposed on an applicant by national law, 
and which are classified as taxes under national law, to be paid when lodging an 
appeal before a national court against a national action in implementation of 
Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, with the result that the competent authorities may 
not authorise the release of certain funds or economic resources in order to pay 
that roll fee and that contribution arising from an appeal against a national action 
in implementation of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014?  
2. Must Article 4(1)(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’, 
whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 9 of that Regulation (EU) 
No 269/2014 and whether or not in conjunction with the fundamental right of 
access to justice as guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
of the European Union, and whether or not in conjunction with the obligation on 
Member States laid down in the second paragraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty 
on European Union to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal 
protection in the fields covered by Union law, be interpreted as excluding from the 
scope of application of the funds ‘necessary for extraordinary expenses’ as 
defined in the aforementioned provision of the Regulation the roll fee and the 
contribution to the Begrotingsfonds imposed on an applicant by national law, and 
which are classified as taxes under national law, to be paid when lodging an 
appeal before a national court against a national action in implementation of 
Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, with the result that the competent authorities may 
not authorise the release of certain funds or economic resources in order to pay 
that roll fee and that contribution arising from an appeal against a national action 
in implementation of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014?  
Provisions of EU law relied on 
Treaty on European Union: Article 19 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: Articles 57, 75, 215 and 352 
RUSSIAN-KYRGYZ DEVELOPMENT FUND 
 
3 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Article 47 
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: recital 6, Article 2, Article 4(1)(b) and 
(d), Articles 6, 6b and 9 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Grondwet (Constitution): Articles 170 and 172 
Wetten op de Raad van State (Laws on the Council of State), coordinated on 
12 January 1973: Article 30, § 1, second paragraph 
Wet van 13 mei 2003 inzake de tenuitvoerlegging van de beperkende maatregelen 
die genomen worden door de Raad van de Europese Unie ten aanzien van Staten, 
sommige personen en entiteiten (Law of 13 May 2003 on the implementation of 
restrictive measures taken by the Council of the European Union against States, 
certain persons and entities): Article 6 
Wet van 19 maart 2017 tot oprichting van een Begrotingsfonds voor de juridische 
tweedelijnsbijstand (Law of 19 March 2017 establishing a Budgetary Fund for 
Second Line Legal Assistance): Article 3 and Article 4, § 4 
Besluit van de Regent van 23 augustus 1948 tot regeling van de rechtspleging 
voor de afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (Regent’s Decree of 
23 August 1948 establishing the procedure before the Administrative Law 
Division of the Council of State; ‘Algemene Procedureregeling’): Articles 66, 70, 
71, 78 and 89 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 In the period October 2022 to January 2023, the applicant, the Russian-Kyrgyz 
Development Fund (‘RKDF’), submitted several requests under Articles 6 and 6b 
of Regulation No 269/2014 to the Algemene Administratie of the Thesaurie van 
de federale overheidsdienst Financiën for exemption from financial sanctions and 
for authorisation for Euroclear Bank to transfer balances in the amount of 
162 945 017.64 American Dollars (USD) to one of its accounts.  
2 On 26 January 2023, the Administrateur-Generaal (Administrator General)of the 
Thesaurie confirmed that under Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014, the RKDF’s 
funds must remain frozen at Euroclear until the RKDF has demonstrated that it is 
not in fact controlled by any person or entity designated or targeted by the 
sanctions. In fact, the RKDF’s highest decision-making body, which consists of 
five people, includes two people who are part of the Russian Government and a 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-384/24 
 
4  
third person who is a member of the board of directors of a sanctioned entity, 
namely, VEB.RF. 
3 On 6 April 2023, the RKDF lodged an appeal for annulment of this decision with 
the Council of State. The deadline for the payment of the required fees within the 
meaning of Article 70 of the Algemene Procedureregeling (‘the roll fee’) and of 
the obligatory contribution to the Begrotingsfonds voor de juridische 
tweedelijnsbijstand within the meaning of Article 66, 6°, of that Regulation (‘the 
contribution’), together amounting to EUR 224, was 14 August 2023. However, 
the applicant did not pay that amount until 1 September 2023.  
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
4 The RKDF argues that it could not pay the roll fee in time because all its funds 
were frozen at Euroclear under the contested decision, read in conjunction with 
Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014. To the extent it might have been able to 
make any payment at all, such payment would never have been processed and 
would have been blocked in interbank transactions. 
5 According to the RKDF, it could not invoke the exception for ‘reimbursement of 
incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services’ in 
Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 269/2014 and, on that basis, seek authorisation 
for the release or the making available of frozen funds or economic resources in 
order to use those funds or economic resources for the payment of the roll fee 
within the meaning of Article 70 of the Algemene Procedureregeling and the 
contribution within the meaning of Article 66, 6°, of that Regulation.  
6 The RKDF proceeds on the assumption that the concept of services used in 
Regulation No 269/2014 must be read in the light of Article 57 TFEU. That 
concept does not cover the work carried out by the Council of State in the context 
of litigation, as that work does not constitute an economic activity falling within 
the scope of the TFEU. The Council of State is therefore not a provider of (legal) 
services within the meaning of Article 57 TFEU. Accordingly, the roll fee and the 
contribution to be paid when an application for annulment is submitted to the 
Council of State are not costs related to the provision of legal services, but taxes 
levied by the State.  
7 The RKDF was thus not entitled to invoke the exception under Article 4(1)(b) of 
Regulation No 269/2014. In addition, the processing time for such requests for 
release under Regulation No 269/2014 is several months; therefore, a decision on 
a request for release would most likely have come too late. This situation, 
according to the RKDF, constitutes force majeure. 
8 Accordingly, application of the sanction provided for in Article 71(4) to (7) of the 
Algemene Procedureregeling for failure to pay the roll fee on time, namely, 
deeming the appeal lodged not to have been made or to striking it from the roll, is, 
according to the RKDF, manifestly unreasonable and would restrict the 
RUSSIAN-KYRGYZ DEVELOPMENT FUND 
 
5 
applicant’s right of access to justice in a manifestly disproportionate manner. 
Indeed, the RKDF made a request for annulment to the Council of State precisely 
because it considers that its funds have, wrongly, not been released as a result the 
contested decision.  
9 The defendant argued that the RKDF did have the option of requesting 
authorisation for the release or making available of funds or economic resources 
under Article 4(1)(b) or (d) of Regulation No 269/2014 if those funds or economic 
resources were to be used solely for the payment of the roll fee. Since the RKDF 
did not do so, it cannot invoke the freezing measures to justify the non-timely 
payment of the roll fee and the contribution, as is apparent from Guideline 80 of 
the EU Best Practices for the Effective Implementation of Restrictive Measures 
(No 10572/22 of 27 June 2022), issued by the General Secretariat of the Council.  
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
National rules and classification of the roll fee and the contribution  
10 According to Article 66 of the Algemene Procedureregeling, the costs of 
proceedings before the Council of State include the fees referred to in Article 70 
(1°) and the contribution referred to in Article 4, §4, of the Wet van 19 maart 2017 
tot oprichting van een Begrotingsfonds voor de juridische tweedelijnsbijstand 
(6°), which must be paid by means of a transfer or deposit into the financial 
account of the competent department of the federale overheidsdienst Financiën. If 
the fees and the contribution are not paid within the stipulated period, the action 
brought or appeal lodged will be considered not to have been made or will be 
struck from the roll, unless force majeure or insurmountable error is proven.  
11 The Grondwettelijk Hof (Constitutional Court), in Judgment No 124/2006 of 
28 July 2006 (BE:GHCC:2006:ARR.124), held that the roll fee cannot be 
considered as a fee for a service performed by the Government for the benefit of a 
taxpayer viewed individually. It is a tax within the meaning of Article 170, §1, of 
the Constitution. In addition, the Constitutional Court, in Judgment No 88/2012 of 
12 July 2012 (BE:GHCC:2012:ARR.88), held that the roll fee may be a condition 
for the initiation or continuation of judicial proceedings.  
12 With regard to the compulsory lump-sum contribution to the Begrotingsfonds 
voor de juridische tweedelijnsbijstand, the Constitutional Court, in its judgment 
No 22/2020 of 13 February 2020 (BE:GHCC:2020:ARR.22), ruled that that 
contribution constitutes a levy of general scope imposed by the public authorities 
to cover an expense of public benefit. It should therefore be considered a tax 
within the meaning of Articles 170 and 172 of the Constitution.  
13 It follows from the foregoing that both the roll fee and the contribution constitute 
taxes under national (constitutional) law. However, they are also elements of 
judicial proceedings the timely payment of which is a necessary condition for the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-384/24 
 
6  
initiation of those proceedings. Only in cases of (proven) force majeure or 
insurmountable error can the situation be different.  
Possibility of obtaining the release of goods or economic resources frozen under 
Regulation No 269/2014 
14 First, under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 269/2014, an exception may be made 
to the freezing measure if the funds to be released are ‘intended exclusively for 
payment of reasonable professional fees or reimbursement of incurred expenses 
associated with the provision of legal services’. Second, under Article 4(1)(d) of 
Regulation No 269/2014, an exception may be made if the funds to be released are 
‘necessary for extraordinary expenses’.  
15 The question is therefore whether those provisions, whether or not read in 
conjunction with the prohibition imposed in Article 2 of that Regulation and the 
enforcement of that prohibition provided for in Article 9 of that Regulation, can be 
interpreted as meaning that the roll fee and the contribution payable by an 
applicant when lodging an appeal before the Council of State against a national 
action in implementation of Regulation No 269/2014 can be regarded as ‘incurred 
expenses associated with the provision of legal services’ within the meaning of 
subparagraph (b) or as ‘extraordinary expenses’ within the meaning of 
subparagraph (d).  
16 Proceeding on the assumption that assistance to or representation of a sanctioned 
(legal) person in the context of, or associated with, the lodging of an appeal before 
a national court against a national action in implementation of Regulation 
No 269/2014 could be considered as ‘provision of legal services’ within the 
meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 269/2014, the roll fee and the 
contribution necessary to support such an appeal could, according to the referring 
court, be considered as ‘incurred expenses’ associated with the provision of those 
legal services. In that case, reliance on the exception in subparagraph (b) would be 
possible.  
17 In interpreting the prohibition in Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014 and the 
possibilities for derogation therefrom in Article 4(1)(b) and (d) of that Regulation, 
it is appropriate, according to the referring court, to have regard to the 
fundamental right of access to justice guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with the obligation on 
the Member States in the second paragraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on 
European Union to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection 
in the fields covered by Union law.