Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 4 November 2026.#Russian Maritime Register of Shipping v Council of the European Union.#Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list of entities to which restrictive measures apply – Withdrawal of the applicant’s recognition – Prohibition preventing ships certified by the applicant from accessing ports and locks in the territory of the European Union – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Action for annulment – Lack of direct concern – Inadmissible in part – Competence of the Council – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Right to effective judicial protection – Proportionality – Freedom to conduct a business – Review obligation.#Case T-535/24.

Statutory Authority and Scope of Case T-535/24

The General Court of the European Union, in its judgment of 4 November 2026 (Case T-535/24), adjudicated the challenge brought by the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping against the Council of the European Union. The litigation concerns the maintenance of restrictive measures, including investment bans, transaction prohibitions, and the withdrawal of EU-level recognition, effective from the dates of the respective Council decisions and regulations enacted between 2022 and 2025.

Regulatory Definitions and Compliance Thresholds (CELEX-62024TJ0535)

Investment Ban

Prohibits the purchase, sale, or provision of investment services for transferable securities and money-market instruments issued by Russian state-controlled entities listed in Annex VI of Decision 2014/512.

Transaction Ban

Prohibits EU nationals and entities from engaging in any transaction with listed Russian state-owned bodies, effectively barring the provision of any economically valuable benefit to the applicant.

Recognition Withdrawal

Mandates that Member States revoke all authorizations granted to the applicant for ship inspection, survey, and certification activities under EU maritime safety directives and regulations.

Operational Compliance and Restrictive Measures Matrix

Key Operational Mandates and Judicial Findings

• Mandatory Withdrawal of Authorizations: Member States are legally required to terminate all delegations of authority to the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping for statutory ship inspections and survey activities.
• Termination of Statutory Certificates: All statutory certificates issued by the applicant on behalf of EU Member States acting as flag States must be formally withdrawn and terminated within the specified regulatory windows.
• Prohibition on Performance of Tasks: During the transition period prior to full withdrawal, Member States are strictly prohibited from allowing the applicant to perform any tasks reserved for EU-recognized organizations.
• Judicial Review Scope: The Court confirmed its jurisdiction to review the legality of the Council’s restrictive measures while clarifying that certain heads of claim regarding the underlying regulations were inadmissible due to a lack of direct concern.
• Proportionality and Environmental Obligations: The Court evaluated the applicant’s claims regarding disproportionate interference with environmental protection and freedom to conduct business, ultimately upholding the Council’s competence to impose these measures in response to the destabilization of Ukraine.

Table of Contents

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, sitting with five Judges) 4 November 2026
Judgment
I. Background to the dispute and events subsequent to the bringing of the action
A. Provisions disputed by the applicant
1. The investment ban
2. The transaction ban
3. The withdrawal of the applicant’s recognition
4. The ban on access to ports and locks in the territory of the European Union
B. Procedure before the Council
II. Forms of order sought
III. Law
A. Jurisdiction of the Court
B. Admissibility
1. The first plea of inadmissibility, alleging that the second head of claim seeking annulment of the disputed provisions of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended, is inadmissible
2. The second plea of inadmissibility, alleging that the application for annulment of Article 4ha(1a) of Decision 2014/512, as amended, is inadmissible
C. Substance
1. The third plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons
(a) The investment ban
(b) The transaction ban
(c) The withdrawal of recognition
(d) The extension of the contested restrictive measures
2. The first plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 391/2009
3. The second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality
(a) Admissibility of the second plea in law
(b) The merits of the second plea in law
(1) Preliminary observations
(2) The first part of the second plea in law, alleging that the contested restrictive measures are manifestly inappropriate
(3) The second part of the second plea in law, alleging that the contested restrictive measures go beyond what is necessary to achieve their objectives
(4) The third part of the second plea in law, alleging disproportionate interference with environmental protection obligations
(5) The fourth part of the second plea in law, alleging disproportionate interference with the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business
4. The fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection
5. The fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the Council’s review obligation
IV. The temporal effects of the present judgment
V. Costs