As regards the situation in Ukraine in March and September 2015 and March 2016, it may be considered that the actions of the Russian Federation constitute ‘war or serious international tension constituting threat of war’ within the meaning of Article 99(1)(d) of the Agreement on partnership and cooperation between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Russian Federation, of the other part (‘the Partnership Agreement’). In view of the interest of the European Union and its Member States in having, as a neighbour, a stable Ukraine, it could be considered necessary to adopt restrictive measures in order to exert pressure on the Russian Federation to cease its activities undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence of Ukraine. It must be observed that, under the Partnership Agreement, a party that wishes to take measures on the basis of that provision is not required to inform the other party beforehand, nor to consult it or provide it with reasons for its action.

In view of the important role played by the media, in particular the audiovisual media, in modern society, it was foreseeable that large-scale media support for the actions and policies of the Russian Government destabilising Ukraine, provided, in particular during very popular television programmes, by a person appointed by a decree of President Putin as Head of a news agency described as a ‘unitary enterprise’ of the Russian State, could be covered by the criterion since it refers to natural persons actively supporting actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

The concept of ‘active support’ can only be understood as covering persons who — without being themselves responsible for the actions and policies of the Russian Government destabilising Ukraine and without themselves implementing those actions or policies — provide support for those policies and actions. The criterion at issue does not cover all forms of support for the Russian Government, but rather concerns forms of support which, by their quantitative or qualitative significance, contribute to the continuance of its actions and policies destabilising Ukraine. Interpreted, subject to review by the Courts of the European Union, by reference to the objective of exerting pressure on the Russian Government in order to force it to put an end to those actions and policies, the criterion at issue thus objectively establishes a limited category of persons and entities which may be subject to fund-freezing measures. When interpreting that criterion, account must be taken of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights which has recognised the impossibility of attaining absolute precision in the framing of laws, especially in fields in which the situation changes according to the prevailing views of society, and has accepted that the need to avoid rigidity and keep pace with changing circumstances means that many laws are couched in terms which are to some extent vague and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice. The condition that offences must be clearly defined in law is satisfied where a person can know from the wording of the relevant provision — if need be, with the assistance of the courts’ interpretation of it — what acts and omissions will render him or her criminally liable.

(see paras 43, 73-76)