Sanctions Crackdown Falters? EU Renews Russia Penalties But Drops Billionaires Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman in Shock Move

BRUSSELS — In a decision that has sent shockwaves through Western diplomatic circles and global financial hubs, the European Union has formally renewed its sweeping sanctions package against Russia, but with two glaring omissions. Russian metals-and-telecoms tycoon Alisher Usmanov and banking magnate Mikhail Fridman have been quietly removed from the EU’s asset-freeze and travel-ban blacklists.

The move represents one of the most significant legal and political rollbacks since the G7 and EU launched their coordinated economic warfare against Moscow following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. While Brussels extended the broader sanctions framework against more than 1,000 individuals and entities, the delisting of two of Russia's most prominent oligarchs exposes growing legal vulnerabilities in the bloc’s sanctions apparatus.

Executive Summary: The Brussels Retreat

• The Core Decision: The EU Council renewed its Russia sanctions regime for another six months but officially purged Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman from the restricted list.
• The Legal Catalyst: The decision follows a series of highly contested legal battles at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), where judges repeatedly ruled that the EU failed to provide sufficient evidence linking these billionaires to the Kremlin's war effort.
• The Precedent: Legal experts warn this sets a massive precedent, potentially opening the floodgates for dozens of other sanctioned Russian billionaires to successfully challenge their asset freezes.
• The Financial Stakes: Usmanov and Fridman control tens of billions of dollars in global assets, spanning telecommunications, mining, retail, and banking, much of which has been frozen in European jurisdictions since early 2022.

The Anatomy of a Legal Defeat: Why the EU Backdown Happened

For over two years, the European Council has maintained that anyone deemed a "leading businessperson" in Russia was fair game for sanctions. However, European courts have increasingly demanded a higher burden of proof. Both Usmanov and Fridman mounted aggressive, multi-million-dollar legal defenses in Luxembourg, arguing that their inclusion on the blacklist was based on outdated press reports, hearsay, and guilt by association.

The European Court of Justice previously ruled that the EU’s justification for listing Mikhail Fridman—co-founder of Alfa-Group, Russia’s largest private bank—was legally flawed. The court concluded that while Fridman undoubtedly has ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the EU failed to demonstrate that he actively supported or facilitated the invasion of Ukraine, or that he derived a direct financial benefit from the war.

Similarly, Alisher Usmanov, whose net worth is estimated at over $14 billion, argued that his businesses, including metals giant Metalloinvest and telecom operator MegaFon, operate independently of the Kremlin's geopolitical decision-making. His legal team successfully argued that the sanctions violated fundamental rights to property and due process under European law.

A Comparison of Sanctions Status: Key Russian Tycoons

The following table outlines the shifting legal landscapes for high-profile Russian figures targeted by Brussels:

Geopolitical and Financial Fallout: What This Means for the West

The delisting is a major embarrassment for European diplomats, who have championed economic sanctions as their primary tool of deterrence short of military intervention. The decision reveals a widening chasm between political rhetoric in Brussels and the realities of European jurisprudence.

"This is a watershed moment," says Marcus Duwell, a senior international trade lawyer based in London. "It proves that the EU’s sanctions regime was built on shaky legal foundations. If you cannot prove a direct, causal link between an individual's commercial activity and the state's military actions, the European courts will eventually throw the sanctions out. Usmanov and Fridman have just provided the blueprint for every other oligarch on the list."

The decision has also drawn fierce criticism from Kyiv and Eastern European member states. Officials in Poland and the Baltic nations had lobbied heavily to keep both men on the list, arguing that any easing of pressure on Russia’s financial elite sends the wrong signal to Moscow at a critical juncture in the war.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Economic Statecraft

With Usmanov and Fridman successfully removed, the focus now shifts to other high-profile figures who are currently contesting their listings, including former Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich and chemical tycoon Dmitry Mazepin.

The EU Council is reportedly working to draft more robust, legally defensible criteria for future sanctions listings. However, the damage to the credibility of the Western sanctions coalition may already be done. If more oligarchs win their freedom in court, the EU risks losing its economic leverage over Russia’s business class, complicating efforts to negotiate a long-term resolution to the conflict.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the EU decide to remove Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman from the sanctions list?

The EU removed them primarily due to legal defeats at the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The court ruled that the European Council had not provided sufficient, verifiable evidence linking these businessmen to the financing or political decision-making behind the invasion of Ukraine. To avoid further legal defeats and potential damages claims, the EU chose not to renew their individual sanctions.

Does this mean their frozen assets will be returned immediately?

While the lifting of EU sanctions technically paves the way for the unfreezing of their European assets and permits them to travel within the Schengen zone, the process is complex. Both individuals still face scrutiny, and legal teams must navigate national regulators in countries like France, Italy, and Germany where specific assets (such as yachts and villas) were seized. Furthermore, they may still remain under sanctions in other jurisdictions, such as the United States and the United Kingdom.