Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2026:408
Date: 2026-05-21
Language of the case: Italian

Summary C-483/23 – 1 
Case C-483/23 
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:  
26 July 2023 
Referring court:  
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
11 April 2023 
Applicants: 
A 
B 
C 
D 
T 
Defendants:  
Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Ministry of Economy and 
Finance) 
Comitato di Sicurezza Finanziaria (Financial Security Committee) 
Agenzia del Demanio (State Property Office) 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Administrative legal proceedings brought by commercial companies held in a 
trust, against the measure issued by the administrative authority ordering the 
freezing of shares and assets belonging to those companies, in so far as they are 
indirectly linked to the settlor of the trust, who was included in the list of 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-483/23 
 
2  
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 
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 a trust, with reference to the figure of the settlor of the 
trust. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
(1) Should Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 be interpreted as 
meaning that the freezing measure may also be taken in the event of the transfer of 
assets or resources to a trust by the settlor indicated in Annex I to the Regulation 
(designated or listed person), who is to be regarded as the party to whom the asset 
or those resources belong? 
(2) [In the event of a negative reply: should] Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) 
No 269/2014 be interpreted as meaning that the freezing measure may also be 
taken in the event of the transfer of assets or resources to a trust by the settlor 
indicated in Annex I to the Regulation (designated or listed person), who is to be 
regarded as the party associated with the person to whom the asset or resources 
belong? 
(3) [In the event of a negative reply: should] Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) 
No 269/2014 be interpreted as meaning that the freezing measure may also be 
taken in the event of the transfer of assets or resources to a trust by the settlor 
indicated in Annex I to the Regulation (designated or listed person), who is to be 
regarded as the party who controls the asset or the resources? 
Provisions of international law relied on 
Convention adopted in The Hague on 1 July 1985 on the law applicable to trusts 
and their recognition. Specifically,  
the first paragraph of Article 2: 
‘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’. 
T TRUST 
 
3 
The second paragraph of Article 2: 
‘… 
(a) the assets constitute a separate fund and are not a part of the trustee’s own 
estate; 
(b) title to the trust assets stands in the name of the trustee or in the name of 
another person on behalf of the trustee; 
(c) the trustee has the power and the duty, in respect of which he is accountable, 
to manage, employ or dispose of the assets in accordance with the terms of the 
trust and the special duties imposed upon him by law’. 
The first paragraph of Article 6: 
‘A trust shall be governed by the law chosen by the settlor. …’ 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 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. 
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 and implemented by Council Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022. 
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. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Decreto legislativo 22 giugno 2007, n. 109 – Misure per prevenire, contrastare e 
reprimere il finanziamento del terrorismo e l’attività dei Paesi che minacciano la 
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: in particular, Article 3 (establishment of the Financial Security 
Committee, a body within the Ministry of Economy and Finance which takes the 
freezing measures ordered by the United Nations, the European Union and the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-483/23 
 
4  
Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance) and Article 5 (prohibiting the 
transfer, disposal or use of frozen resources and prohibiting making available, 
directly or indirectly, funds or economic resources to or for the benefit of 
designated parties). 
Decreto legislativo 25 maggio 2017, n. 90 – Attuazione della direttiva (UE) 
2015/849 e del regolamento (UE) n. 2015/847 riguardante i dati informativi che 
accompagnano i trasferimenti di fondi (Legislative Decree No. 90 of 25 May 
2017 – Implementation of Directive (EU) 2015/849 and Regulation (EU) 
2015/847 on information accompanying transfers of funds. In particular, 
Article 2(1) of that legislative decree imposes an obligation on trustees of express 
trusts to keep adequate and up-to-date information on the beneficial ownership of 
the trust (settlor, trustee, protector, beneficiary or any other person who exercises 
effective control over the trust assets). 
Decreto legislativo 21 novembre 2007, n. 231 – Attuazione della direttiva 
2005/60/CE nonché della direttiva 2006/70/CE che ne reca misure di esecuzione, 
come modificato dal Decreto legislativo n. 90/2017 (Legislative Decree No. 231 
of 21 November 2007 – Implementation of Directive 2005/60/EC and Directive 
2006/70/EC laying down implementing measures, as amended by Legislative 
Decree No 90/2017. 
Legge 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 their recognition, adopted at The 
Hague on 1 July 1985), which allows the trust instrument to be used in Italy. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The applicant companies B, A, C and D engage in commercial activities and are 
wholly owned by a company established in Bermuda (‘the parent company’), 
which is in turn held in a trust (‘the Trust’). The Trust was created by a natural 
person (‘the settlor’) by deed of 18 July 2007, amended on 22 December 2014, 
and is governed by the law of the State of Bermuda. 
2 The Trust provides for the figure of the trustee, a role carried out by company T, 
to manage and administer the assets held in accordance with the provisions of the 
trust deed and to transfer the assets held to the beneficiaries, upon termination of 
the Trust or in accordance with it, as well as the figure of the protector, entrusted 
to a third party, a natural person, who is responsible for supervising the proper 
implementation of the plan provided for in the Trust. Those administrative bodies 
have changed over time. 
3 The settlor was initially one of the beneficiaries of the Trust, together with his 
sister and his nephew (removed from the Trust deed of 19 December 2017) and 
any descendants thereof, but he was removed by deed of 7 February 2022. It does 
T TRUST 
 
5 
not appear that the settlor can be reinstated as a beneficiary of the trust or that he 
has powers to manage or use the assets held therein. 
4 By decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022, amending decision (CFSP) 
2014/145, and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 that 
implements Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, the Council of the European Union 
included the settlor in the list of recipients of the measures provided for in that 
Regulation. 
5 Thus, by a decision notified on 16 March 2022 to the legal 
representative/managing director of companies B, A, C and D, the Financial 
Security Committee established by the Ministry of Economy and Finance 
declared, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (Article 2) and Legislative 
Decree No 109/2007 (‘Legislative Decree No. 109/2007’), the ‘freezing’ of the 
shares and assets owned by the companies B, A, C and D (‘the freezing order’), in 
so far as they are ‘indirectly linked to the [settlor]’ as their beneficial owner, 
included in the list provided for in the Annex to Regulation No 269/2014, as 
amended by Implementing Regulation No 336/2022. 
6 By an application lodged on 11 May 2022, companies B, A, C and D and 
company T (the trustee) asked the referring court to annul the freezing order. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
7 According to the applicants, the freezing order is based exclusively on Article 2(1) 
of Regulation No 269/2014, which, following the amendment made by Regulation 
No 476/2014, provides for the freezing of 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 to that regulation (‘the designated parties’). By that amendment, the 
words ‘directly or indirectly’ appearing after the words held or controlled’ were 
deleted; therefore, according to the applicants, the indirect connection between the 
assets and the designated party, or any situations other than those strictly stated in 
the provision, namely ownership, possession, holding and control, cannot be 
considered relevant as criteria for linking the frozen assets to the designated 
parties. 
8 The applicants therefore submit that the freezing order is unlawful considering 
they do not in any way fall within the sphere of influence of the designated party, 
namely the settlor. By the transfer to the Trust of their parent company, the 
applicants’ assets were separated from those of the settlor and, after that party was 
removed as a beneficiary of the Trust, the assets were transferred to the trustee, 
company T. The settlor has no power (direct or indirect) of management and 
control, by virtue of the trust deed and the applicable law, and could not therefore 
exercise any further influence. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-483/23 
 
6  
9 The Ministry of Economy and Finance contends the full lawfulness of the order 
and states that the transfer to the trust, which does not result in the transfer of the 
beneficial ownership, does not totally sever the link between the settlor and the 
assets and relationships held in the Trust, which include the assets and shares of 
applicants B, A, C and D. 
10 In support of its argument, the Ministry of Economy and Finance recalls Directive 
2015/849. According to Article 3(6)(b)(i) of that directive, in the case of a trust, 
the settlor falls within the definition of ‘beneficial owners’, that is, a party ‘who 
ultimately owns or controls the customer and/or the natural person(s) on whose 
behalf a transaction or activity is being conducted’. The Ministry observes 
moreover that, although currently the settlor is no longer a beneficiary of the 
assets, beneficial ownership/right to dispose of those assets could nevertheless 
‘revert’ to him if they were not definitively transferred for the benefit of the 
parties designated as beneficiaries (for example, if they are surrendered or upon 
the early dissolution of the trust). 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
11 The referring court has doubts regarding the correct interpretation of Article 2(1) 
of Regulation No 269/2014, in particular regarding the implications and effects of 
that legislation in a situation in which the trust instrument is used, on the role of 
the settlor, where he or she is not the manager or user of the assets held, does not 
hold any other position and is not the final beneficiary. 
12 In essence, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether the assets, resources and 
relationships transferred may nevertheless be considered as ‘belonging’ to the 
settlor, even though he is neither user nor manager of the assets held, nor the final 
beneficiary of the assets, or ‘belonging’ to an party associated with the settlor or, 
ultimately, ‘controlled’ by the settlor himself, in which case, if the assets were 
held in the trust by the settlor, the freezing measures provided for in Article 2(1) 
of Regulation EU No 269/2014 could be applied. 
13 As regards the criterion of belonging to the settlor, the referring court points out 
that, according to the trust scheme, which is internationally recognised, and on the 
basis of point (b) of the second paragraph of Article 2 of the Hague Convention, 
assets held by the settlor are transferred in the name of the trustee, who then 
administers and manages them in accordance with the trust deed and the 
applicable law. The trustee therefore has the power to dispose of the asset, which 
is the main characteristic of the right of ownership. That power of disposal is not, 
however, fully transferred to the trustee, as it is limited by the need to comply 
with the restrictions imposed by the trust deed and to transfer the asset to the 
beneficiaries, in accordance with that deed. The beneficiaries become absolutely 
entitled to the assets as soon as they are transferred. 
14 The aim of the institution, emphasised by the referring court, is primarily to 
achieve the intentions of the settlor, which obtains the separation of his or her own 
T TRUST 
 
7 
personal property from the total assets and rights held, at the same time freeing 
himself or herself of the managerial responsibilities which are transferred, 
together with formal title, into the name of the trustee, with the settlor’s assets and 
rights being further separated from the trustee’s own property.  
15 It could therefore be considered that the formal transfer into the name of the 
trustee does not give rise to the transfer of the beneficial ownership of the assets, 
but merely transfers their title in the name of the trustee, free of charge, essentially 
for the purpose of separating them (principally from the settlor’s personal assets). 
In support of that approach, the referring court cites the national case-law 
(Supreme Court of Cassation) according to which the transfer of title of the assets 
into the name of the trustee ‘takes place free of charge, but does not result in the 
transfer of the beneficial ownership, since it does not confer the assets definitively 
to the trustee, who is only required to administer and safeguard them under the 
separation of property regime, pending their transfer to the beneficiaries of the 
“trust”’. The asset transferred to a trust would therefore continue to ‘belong’ to the 
settlor, at least until it is transferred definitively to the beneficiaries. The condition 
whereby the asset is ‘belonging’ to the designated party, as laid down in 
Article 2(1) of Regulation No 269/2014, is therefore satisfied for the purpose of a 
freezing order in respect of that asset, at least until it is transferred to the 
beneficiaries. 
16 According to the referring court, the concept of ‘belonging’ indicated in that 
article may refer both to the conventional situation, in which the party listed to in 
Annex I has full and exclusive ownership of the asset, as well as ‘atypical’ or 
‘hybrid’ situations, such as those relating to the transfer of the asset to a trust, in 
which the title to the assets are transferred into the name of an individual (the 
trustee), without however, the trustee being considered in essence as the beneficial 
owner, as he or she does not have a full and unconditional power to dispose of the 
assets. 
17 The referring court points out that, as established by the Ministry of Economy and 
Finance, the assets transferred to a trust may, in any event, until they are 
transferred to the third-party beneficiaries, revert definitively to the formal 
ownership of the settlor, either when the early termination of the trust is ordered 
or where the beneficiaries do not accept the transfer of the assets held. In other 
words, following the transfer, the link of ‘belonging’ between the asset transferred 
and the settlor, is not definitively severed. 
18 In support of the interpretation that the settlor does not cease to have a legally 
relevant link with the assets following the formal change in their title, the referring 
court recalls Directive 2015/849, which seeks to prevent the use of the EU’s 
financial system for money laundering or terrorist financing purposes. For the 
purposes of Article 3(6)(b)(i) of that directive, in the case of a trust, the settlor, 
together with the other qualified parties referred to therein, represents the 
‘beneficial owner’, namely ‘the natural person(s) who ultimately owns or controls 
the customer and/or the natural person(s) on whose behalf a transaction or activity 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-483/23 
 
8  
is being conducted …’. The referring court states that a similar provision applies 
in the national law (Article 22(5) of Legislative Decree No 231/2007, as amended 
by Article 2(1) of Legislative Decree No 90/2017). 
19 Furthermore, Article 3(6)(b)(v) envisages the possibility of ‘control over a trust by 
means of direct or indirect ownership’. 
20  According to the referring court, the objective scope of application of Directive 
2015/848, which is different from that of Regulation No 269/2014, does not 
prevent that directive from being used for the purposes of interpreting Article 2(1) 
of that regulation: in both situations, the settlor of the trust is a figure who, 
together with the other figures who play an important role in the management or 
pursuit of the trust’s objectives (the trustee or the beneficiaries), maintains strong 
links with the assets held, with the ability, in one way or another, to influence their 
management. The concept of ‘belonging’ mentioned in Article 2(1) of Regulation 
No 269/2014 could therefore refer not only to cases of the assets’ formal or direct 
belonging to the designated party, but also cases in which the state of ‘belonging’ 
is ‘substantial or indirect’, for example, in a trust: here, a party (the settlor), 
although not having direct ownership of the assets held, nor having the right to 
dispose of the assets or having the formal title thereto, is objectively in a position 
to exercise substantial influence over them, either because he or she is able to 
reacquire formal title to them or because, by creating the trust and delegating the 
management and control to individuals of his or her confidence and choice, he or 
she is in a position, before all others, to direct their use (and above all, their final 
allocation). 
21 In the alternative, as regards the criterion of belonging to a person (natural or 
legal) associated with the settlor, the referring court notes that Article 2(1) of the 
Regulation, by ordering the freezing, not only of the assets belonging to a 
designated natural or legal person, but also of those belonging to natural or legal 
persons (or entities or bodies) ‘associated with them’, may also refer to a trust. 
The asset, which is in fact no longer held in the name of the settlor, the party listed 
in Annex I, continues to maintain close links with the settlor; the trustee represents 
the associated person, chosen by the settlor, who administers the assets held by 
him or her, according to the plan that he or she intended. 
22 In the further alternative, for the purposes of the lawfulness of freezing measures 
pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, the referring court takes 
the view that it may be argued that the settlor is in any event in a position of 
‘control’ in relation to the assets held, given the configuration of the trust, since he 
or she continues to play a decisive role in the administration of the assets held 
(creation of the trust, appointing key figures responsible for management and 
supervision, establishing the final plan and setting the rules for asset allocation). 
That situation would therefore be fulfilled irrespective of the fact that the settlor 
does not have powers of direct management and disposal of the assets held and is 
not included as one of the beneficiaries. The referring court recalls in this regard, 
the case-law of the Court, which has defined the concept of ‘control’ as ‘the 
T TRUST 
 
9 
possibility, conferred by rights, contracts or other means, of exercising decisive 
influence’ (judgment of the Court of Justice, Fourth Chamber, of 4 March 2020, 
Case C-10/18 P, ECLI:EU:C:2020:149). 
23 Lastly, the referring court takes the view that no changes affecting the 
administrative figures are envisaged during the period of validity of the trust, 
subsequent to the trust deed, which would, in any event, be specifically provided 
for by the settlor in that deed. The referring court invites the Court to provide any 
necessary clarifications on the conditions to be satisfied in order to consider the 
existence of the settlor’s ‘control’ over the assets even after any such changes 
have occurred, irrespective of the settlor’s consent and even if he no longer has 
powers of management or use with respect to the assets held.