Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:125
Date: 2026-02-26
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Summary C-147/25 – 1 
Case C-147/25 
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:  
17 February 2025 
Referring court:  
Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
12 February 2025 
Appellant:  
Inter Rao Lietuva, AB 
Defendant: 
Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimų tarnyba prie Vidaus reikalų 
ministerijos 
Other parties to the proceedings:  
Lietuvos Respublikos užsienio reikalų ministerija 
Tarptautinių sankcijų koordinavimo komisija 
Įmonių bankroto administravimo ir teisinių paslaugų biuras, UAB 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Implementation of restrictive measures at national level. The reasonableness and 
lawfulness of a national measure applied in implementation of EU secondary 
legislation. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of Article 2 of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 
concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-147/25 
 
2  
the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, Article 2 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, and the second subparagraph of 
Article 19(2) of the Treaty on European Union. 
Third subparagraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Does Article 2 of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 
No 269/2014, read in conjunction with the principle of good administration 
enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter, permit a national measure under which a 
person who is not listed in Annex I to Decision 2014/145/CFSP or in Annex I to 
Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 is included on the list of persons whose assets are 
frozen on account of that person’s links with persons subject to sanctions, and the 
possibility of objecting to such a national measure before the competent authority 
is provided for only after such inclusion?  
2. Under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction 
with Article 47 of the Charter, is the requirement of effective judicial review 
satisfied by a review by a national court of the lawfulness of a decision to freeze a 
person’s assets in the context of the implementation of EU restrictive measures, 
involving an examination of whether procedural rules have been observed or 
whether the obligation to state reasons has been fulfilled, an examination of the 
accuracy of the facts, of whether there are any manifest errors in the assessment of 
those facts and of whether no misuse of powers has taken place? 
3. Do the provisions of Article 2 of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Article 2 of 
Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, read in conjunction with the second subparagraph 
of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter, require, when proving a 
person’s links with representatives of the political authorities of the Russian 
Federation before a national court, an assessment of the circumstances relating to 
the reality and effectiveness of the control exercised by the political authorities of 
the Russian Federation over legal persons operating in that country, which it may 
not be possible to prove by objective and sufficiently serious indicia adduced in 
the case, and which may recognise relevant representatives of the political 
authorities of the Russian Federation as exercising control over the person on the 
basis of the governmental powers they hold? 
Provisions of EU law and the case-law of the Court of Justice relied on  
Article 4(2), second subparagraph of the Article 19(1), Article 21(2)(a) and (3), 
Article 24(3) and Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union. 
INTER RAO LIETUVA 
 
3 
Article 2(4) and Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union. 
Article 41(1) and (2), Article 47 and Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union (‘Charter’). 
Article 2(1) and (2), Article 3 of 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 
(version of 21 April 2022). 
Recital 9, Article 1 of and line 669 of the Annex to Council Decision (CFSP) 
2022/331 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning 
restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial 
integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (‘Decision (CFSP) 
2022/331’). 
Article 2, Article 3(1), Articles 14 and 15 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 (version of 21 April 2022). 
Recital 12, Article 1 of and line 671 of Annex I 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 
(‘Regulation (EU) 2022/336’). 
Paragraph 18, first sentence of Paragraph 21, first sentence of Paragraph 26, 
Paragraphs 34, paragraphs 62-65 of EU Council document No 8519/18 of 4 May 
2018 ‘Best practices for the effective implementation of restrictive measures’ 
(‘Best Practices’). 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson, 
C-617/10, EU:C:2013:105, paragraph 20. 
Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2015, Ministry of Energy of Iran v 
Council, T-564/12, EU:T:2015:599, paragraph 64. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 April 2022, Commissioner of An Garda 
Síochána and Others, C-140/20, EU:C:2022:258, paragraph 57. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of March 2023, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft 
Bamberg, C-365/21, EU:C:2023:236, paragraph 55. 
Opinion of the Court of Justice of 8 March 2011, 1/09, EU:C:2011:123, 
paragraph 80. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-147/25 
 
4  
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, 
C-605/13 P, EU:C:2015:248, paragraph 45. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Article 1(2) and (3) of Lietuvos Respublikos nacionalinio saugumo pagrindų 
įstatymas (Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Basics of National Security 
Framework of 19 December 1996) (‘Law on the Basics of National Security’). 
Article 1(1), Article 12(1)(2) and (3), Article 13(5) of Lietuvos Respublikos 
ekonominių ir kitų tarptautinių sankcijų įgyvendinimo įstatymas (Law of the 
Republic of Lithuania on the Implementation of Economic and Other International 
Sanctions of 22 April 2004 (version of 27 April 2022)) (‘Law on International 
Sanctions’). 
Article 4(4), Article 11(1), Article (3)(1) and (4) of Lietuvos Respublikos 
tarptautinių sankcijų įstatymas (Law of the Republic of Lithuania on International 
Sanctions of 22 April 2004) (current version of the Law of the Republic of 
Lithuania on the Implementation of Economic and Other International Sanctions) 
(version of 17 May 2022). 
Point 11, sub-points 11.1 to 11.10. of Tarptautinių sankcijų įgyvendinimo 
priežiūros tvarkos aprašas (Description of the Procedure for the Supervision of the 
Implementation of International Sanctions), approved by Resolution of the 
Government of the Republic of Lithuania No 1679 of 30 December 2004 (version 
of 30 January 2019 to 27 May 2022). 
Point 13, sub-points 13.1 to 13.4, and point 15 of Tarptautinių sankcijų 
įgyvendinimo priežiūros tvarkos aprašas (Description of the Procedure for the 
Supervision of the Implementation of International Sanctions), approved by 
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No 535 of 25 May 
2022. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The appellant was engaged in the business of importing electricity and was an 
independent electricity supplier in Lithuania. 51% of the appellant’s shares are 
owned by RaoNordic, a Finnish company, which is 100% owned by Inter Rao 
Ues, a company of the Russian Federation. 
2 On 28 April 2022, the defendant included the appellant on the List of Natural 
and/or Legal Persons Linked with Entities Subject to International Sanctions and 
published that list on its website. The list indicated that the appellant’s assets were 
frozen because of its links with G. H., who is subject to sanctions under 
Regulation (EU) 2022/336. 
INTER RAO LIETUVA 
 
5 
3 On 12 May 2022, the appellant submitted an application to the defendant for it to 
be removed from the list and for confirmation that it is not subject to sanctions. 
4 On 25 May 2022, the defendant amended the list and removed the information 
regarding the appellant’s links with G. H., indicating that the appellant is linked 
with the President of the Russian Federation, who is subject to sanctions under 
Decision (CFSP) 2022/331. The defendant also indicated on the list that the 
appellant’s shares are frozen. 
5 On 27 May 2022, the defendant adopted the contested Decision ‘On the 
application of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 to Inter Rao Lietuva’ (‘Decision 
No 1’), in which the defendant stated that it had no legal basis for deleting the 
information concerning the appellant published on the website. Decision No 1 
states, inter alia, that the 51% of the appellant’s shares are owned by RaoNordic, a 
Finnish company, 100% of whose shares are owned by Inter Rao Ues, a company 
of the Russian Federation, and that the shareholders of Inter Rao Ues are 
Rosneftgaz, which holds 26.37% of the shares, Inter Rao Capital Group, which 
holds 29.56% of the shares, 34.24% of the shares are listed on the Moscow Stock 
Exchange and owned by minority shareholders, and PJSC FGC UES, which holds 
8.57% of the shares. Decision No 1 concludes that the major shareholders of the 
Russian company Inter Rao Ues are companies indirectly controlled by the 
Russian Federation, which is a presidential federal republic, and that the Head of 
State and the President of the Russian Federation, is subject to international 
sanctions by Decision (CFSP) 2022/331. 
6 On 30 May 2022, the appellant once more submitted an application for it to be 
removed from the list, arguing that none of the shareholders of Inter Rao Ues has 
a controlling shareholding and that those shareholders are not subject to sanctions. 
7 On 1 June 2022, the defendant amended the list and froze the appellant’s 
immovable property. 
8 On 23 June 2022, the defendant adopted the contested Decision ‘On the 
application of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/331 to Inter Rao Lietuva AB’ 
(‘Decision No 2’), in which the defendant stated that it had no legal basis for 
deleting the information concerning the company published on the website. 
Reiterating the circumstances set out in Decision No 1 regarding the appellant’s 
shareholding structure, the defendant noted that both Rosneftgaz and Inter Rao 
Capital Group hold more than 25% of the shares, and that therefore together they 
are regarded as holding 50% or more of the shares, and as indirectly owned by the 
Russian Federation, which has the right to make decisions in respect of the 
companies and to benefit from them. 
9 On 20 July 2022, the defendant adopted Order No V-174 (which entered into 
force on 22 July 2022), approving the list of sanctioned entities owned or 
controlled by legal entities or other organisations without legal personality and 
including the appellant on that list. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-147/25 
 
6  
10 The appellant brought an action before the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court 
seeking (i) the annulment of the defendant’s decisions refusing to remove it from 
the list (Decision No 1 and Decision No 2), (ii) to be removed from the list, and 
(iii) to have that list removed from the defendant’s website in respect of the period 
from 28 April 2022 to 21 July 2022. The aforementioned court dismissed the 
appellant’s action by a judgment of 5 December 2023, and the appellant submitted 
an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, which is the 
referring court. 
Essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings  
11 The appellant contests the legal basis for its inclusion in the list and the 
restrictions imposed, claiming that the defendant imposed a freeze on its funds 
and economic resources (shares and immovable property) on the basis of the list 
in which it was included only by referring to its link with the person subject to 
sanctions. The appellant submits that the defendant did not adopt a separate 
administrative act setting out in detail the factual and legal grounds for the 
restrictions imposed and the reasons for the decision and the administrative action, 
and that it was therefore able to defend itself against the restrictions imposed only 
after the defendant had already included it on the list and published it on its 
website. The appellant submits that that infringed fundamental requirements of 
administrative law, inter alia, the principle of good administration. The appellant 
contests, inter alia, whether, in the present case, the President of the Russian 
Federation can be recognised as a person with whom it is linked solely on the 
basis of the governmental powers held by him. 
12 The defendant submits that, in including the appellant on the list and adopting the 
contested decisions, it was guided by EU secondary legislation, namely Decision 
2014/145/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, as well as by points 34 and 62 
of the Best Practices. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling  
13 The first question referred for a preliminary ruling concerns the requirements 
under EU law for a national administrative procedure in the context of the 
implementation in a Member State of restrictive measures imposed by the 
European Union. The referring court states that the dispute in the main 
proceedings covers the period from 28 April 2022, when the appellant was first 
included on the list, to 21 July 2022, when the restrictions imposed on it under the 
list ceased to apply, as the defendant’s Order No V-174 entered into force the 
following day. 
14 The referring court takes the view that, since secondary legislation of the 
European Union is directly applicable in the present case, the principle of good 
administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter is relevant for the purposes 
INTER RAO LIETUVA 
 
7 
of determining the actions of a Member State in implementing European Union 
law. 
15 As regards the content of the principle of good administration at national level, the 
referring court observes that, in accordance with the requirements of national 
administrative law and the case-law of the administrative courts, when a public 
administrative body takes certain actions, in particular those relating to the 
restriction of the rights of persons (such as, in the present case, the freezing of the 
appellant’s assets), it is obliged to adopt an administrative act (a decision) setting 
out the essential elements of the act, the factual and legal basis for its adoption and 
the reasons for the action taken. 
16 It is apparent from the provisions of the EU secondary legislation applicable in the 
present case that, in accordance with the procedure laid down therein for the 
application of restrictive measures and for objections thereto, the Council takes a 
decision on the application of restrictive measures by including persons on lists 
which contain only the main reasons for such a decision, and that such persons 
may submit objections to the application of those measures to the Council only 
after the relevant decision has been adopted. 
17 The main proceedings concern a situation in which the defendant included the 
appellant on the list on the basis of the link with persons subject to sanctions, but 
did not adopt a separate administrative act stricto sensu, as required by the 
applicable national administrative law. That situation gave rise to legal 
consequences for the appellant under national law immediately after the 
publication of the list. In the light of the foregoing, the question for the referring 
court is whether – having regard to the procedure laid down in EU secondary law, 
which, following a decision at the level of the European Union to impose 
restrictive measures, allows the person concerned to submit objections after the 
decision has been adopted – a national measure such as that at issue in the main 
proceedings could be based by analogy on the procedure applied at the level of the 
European Union. 
18 The national court considers that the fact that, in imposing restrictive measures, 
the Council acts as a political institution at the constitutional level to ensure the 
protection of the fundamental interests of the European Union and its Member 
States, whereas the defendant in the present case acted as a public administrative 
body implementing the restrictive measures established by the Council in 
accordance with the powers conferred by national legislation, does not mean that 
the actions taken by the Council and the defendant are not similar in terms of their 
purpose. 
19 The referring court is of the opinion that, in order to prevent the restriction 
imposed by the defendant becoming ineffective, such a measure must take 
advantage of a surprise effect and apply immediately, otherwise there is a risk that 
the person on whom the restriction is imposed will take steps to avoid the freezing 
of the assets. The referring court therefore is of the view that, by analogy with the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-147/25 
 
8  
acts adopted by the Council in the present case, simply including the appellant on 
the list, indicating its link with a person subject to sanctions and, as a 
consequence, immediately freezing its assets, may be regarded as an appropriate 
administrative decision by the defendant, with the appellant’s right of defence 
being safeguarded after such a decision has been adopted: it can apply to be 
removed from the list after it has been included in the list, while the defendant 
assesses the grounds for removing the appellant from the list. 
20 However, since such a national measure is not typical in the practice of public 
administration bodies and has been applied in a Member State in the context of 
EU secondary legislation, the referring court takes the view that, in order to give a 
full and fair ruling on the reasonableness and lawfulness of the national measure 
applied in the present case, it is relevant in the present case for the Court of Justice 
to interpret the requirements of EU law in relation to the national administrative 
procedure in the situation where a Member State implements a restrictive measure 
of the European Union, having regard to the principle of good administration 
enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter. 
21 The second question referred for a preliminary ruling concerns the intensity of the 
judicial review by a national court of the decisions of a competent authority 
adopted to implement EU restrictive measures, having regard to the requirement 
of ensuring national security. The referring court states that, in the light of the 
provisions of national law applicable in the present case (Article 1(1) of the Law 
on International Sanctions (version of 27 April 2022) and Article 1(2) and (3) of 
the Law on the Basics of National Security), the defendant, by including the 
appellant on the list and freezing its assets, has taken a national measure to 
implement the restrictive measures established by the European Union in order to 
ensure, in particular, national security. The defendant sought to prevent any direct 
or indirect influence by the political authorities of the Russian Federation in the 
Lithuanian energy sector. The circumstances relating to the economic and political 
context of the dispute, i.e. the sector in which the appellant operates and the fact 
that the political authorities of the Russian Federation are exploiting the energy 
sector for purposes contrary to the national security interests of the European 
Union and the Member States, were objectively relevant. 
22 The referring court observes that, in the case considered, a fair balance must be 
ensured between national security and the protection of the appellant’s 
fundamental rights and freedoms, as well as its right to an effective remedy. In the 
light of the above, the referring court is uncertain of the extent to which the 
national court must assess the lawfulness of restrictive measures against persons 
in order to carry out a full and complete judicial review of their reasonableness 
and lawfulness. 
23 The referring court observes that the question of whether the activities of the 
relevant person constitute a threat to national security and the measures which are 
to be taken in respect of the persons concerned entail political and evaluative 
decisions which, in principle, can be taken only by the public authorities, and that 
INTER RAO LIETUVA 
 
9 
the assessment of whether the measure is politically expedient does not fall within 
the jurisdiction of the administrative courts under the rules of national procedure. 
Given that a national court cannot change preventive measures to address a threat 
to national security on the basis of its own assessment of the circumstances 
justifying the adoption of such measures, the question arises as to whether the 
requirement for comprehensive judicial review could be satisfied by a review of 
the reasoning of the contested decision, limited to an examination of whether 
procedural rules have been observed, whether the duty to state reasons has been 
fulfilled, an examination of the accuracy of the facts, of whether there are any 
manifest errors in the assessment of those facts and of whether no misuse of 
powers has taken place. 
24 The referring court seeks to ascertain the criteria to be taken into account by the 
national court in order to ensure that judicial review at national level in the present 
case concerning the implementation of EU restrictive measures satisfies the 
requirements of effective judicial review under Article 47 of the Charter, while at 
the same time ensuring that national security interests are adequately protected. 
The referring court considers that disputes of the type at issue in the main 
proceedings should be resolved by means of provisions on more specific aspects 
of the scope of judicial review, inter alia, taking into account the preventive nature 
of restrictive measures and the discretion of the national supervisory authority in 
assessing complex issues, both in relation to the definition or implementation of 
the common foreign and security policy and in relation to national security, in 
order to ensure that the requirement for comprehensive judicial review does not 
undermine the effectiveness of the implementation of that policy, the effective 
protection of national security and the application of restrictive measures. 
25 The third question referred for a preliminary ruling concerns the standard of proof 
of a person’s links with the persons subject to restrictive measures when deciding 
on the implementation of the EU restrictive measures in a Member State. 
26 The referring court observes that, in accordance with points 34, 62 and 63 of the 
Best Practices, the assessment at national level of whether a person is linked with 
persons subject to restrictive measures under EU secondary legislation takes into 
account the circumstances referred to in those provisions, which relate to the 
criteria of ownership or control of the person. 
27 According to the general standard of proof required under EU law, the assessment 
of such a link must be based on objective and sufficiently serious indicia. 
However, having regard to the factual and legal circumstances of the dispute, in 
particular as regards the State with whose entities the appellant’s link involving 
control has been established in the present case (the Russian Federation), the 
referring court doubts whether, in cases such as the present case concerning the 
imposition of EU restrictive measures on the basis of a link with the authorities of 
the Russian Federation, the reality of control over a person can be assessed 
properly and effectively in accordance with that standard of proof. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-147/25 
 
10  
28 The referring court observes, first of all, that there is no direct evidence in the case 
file to substantiate the appellant’s specific link with the President of the Russian 
Federation, which is based on the appellant’s shareholding structure in the light of 
points 34 and 62 of the Best Practices. 
29 However, the national court considers that the autocratic and oligarchic nature of 
the government regime in the Russian Federation (a well-known fact which does 
not require further proof) leads to effective and actual, but informal, control over 
the political authorities and business entities of that state, inter alia, over entities 
operating in economically and politically significant sectors, such as the energy 
sector which is at issue in the present case. The referring court therefore concludes 
that the President of the Russian Federation, by virtue of his de facto unrestricted 
powers, irrespective of the amount of shares held by him or by other persons in his 
entourage linked with the government of the Russian Federation, is in fact able to 
exercise real and effective control over persons operating in the Russian 
Federation, thereby pursuing political objectives hostile to the European Union 
and its Member States, while at the same time deriving economic benefits 
therefrom. 
30 The control referred to above may be exercised not only through legitimate 
means, such as via the shareholders or the controlling shareholding (more than 
50% of the shares) in a legal entity, but also in ways which it may not be 
objectively possible to verify or prove in the main proceedings by means of direct 
evidence. 
31 In that situation, the question from the referring court is, in essence, whether the 
circumstances set out above concerning the reality and effectiveness of control 
over a person should be assessed in the proceedings before the national court, in 
particular in view of the fact that circumstances of that nature cannot in principle 
be proven by means of objective and sufficiently serious indicia gathered in the 
case, on account of the informal and conspiratorial nature of the control exercised 
by the relevant authorities of the Russian Federation, i.e. there is no formal act 
implementing such control or acquisition of a controlling shareholding in the legal 
person in order to challenge the relevant link before the courts of the Member 
States and thereby undermine the effectiveness of EU restrictive measures.