Parliamentary Questions by Gideon van Meijeren on EU Sanctions - Minister Van Weel’s Responses

Questions from Member of Parliament Van Meijeren (FVD) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the EU sanctions regime
(submitted 12 January 2026)

Answer from Minister Van Weel (Foreign Affairs)
(received 27 January 2026)

Question 1

Are you familiar with the report “EU declares critics fair game”? (1)

Answer 1

Yes.

Question 2

Are you familiar with Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 of 8 October 2024 concerning “restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities”? Can you confirm that this decision provides for sanctions against natural persons, including EU citizens and residents, and not exclusively against states or foreign entities? How does this relate to the scope of Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which forms the legal basis for the decision and, by virtue of its inclusion in Title V of the TEU, concerns the Union’s external action and the Common Foreign and Security Policy?

Answer 2

Yes, I am familiar with Council Decision 2024/2643. This concerns the sanctions regime in response to Russian destabilising activities. The sanctions list attached to this decision includes persons involved in such activities, regardless of their nationality. The scope of Article 29 TEU is not limited to measures that affect only persons in third countries. What is decisive is whether the measures are necessary to achieve the objectives of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, as set out in Article 21 TEU. Subject to the applicable legal frameworks and safeguards, the Union may also impose sanctions on EU citizens and residents.

Question 3

How do you assess the fact that, in recital 8 of this decision, Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) is described as a “mostly non-illegal pattern of behaviour”, and that placement on the sanctions list therefore does not require a criminal offence or otherwise unlawful conduct? Can you confirm that EU residents who do nothing illegal may, under this decision, be subjected to far-reaching sanctions such as travel restrictions (Article 1 of the decision) and the freezing of funds and economic resources (Article 2 of the decision)?

Answer 3

The recitals to the decision provide explanatory context and are not legally binding. The decision concerns actions or policy measures by Russia that undermine or threaten democracy, the rule of law, stability or security in the Union or in one or more of its Member States, in an international organisation or in a third country, or that undermine or threaten the sovereignty or independence of one or more Member States or of a third country. The Government is of the view that these activities undermine or threaten the fundamental values and the security, independence and integrity of the Union. The conduct of persons involved in such activities does not necessarily have to be criminal. Sanctions are imposed to bring about a change in the policy or activities of external actors, not to hold individuals accountable for committing criminal offences.

Question 4

How do you assess the fact that the decision does not provide for rule-of-law safeguards such as the presumption of innocence, prior hearing of the person concerned, and substantive review by an independent court?

Answer 4

EU sanctions measures, such as Decision 2024/2643, do in fact comply with various legal requirements and rule-of-law safeguards. There is settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this regard. When a person is placed on an EU sanctions list, the Council must inform that person of the elements on which it bases its decision. Subsequently, the Council must give that person the opportunity to make his or her views on the reasons relied upon known in an appropriate manner (2). Listings are reviewed regularly (see Article 10 of the decision). If the Council takes new information into account in order to maintain a person on the list, that person must be heard in advance (3). Each time the Council adopts a decision concerning the person concerned—both the initial listing and decisions to maintain the listing—the person has the right to bring an action before the General Court of the European Union (Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). Appeals against judgments of the General Court may be brought before the Court of Justice. For the avoidance of doubt, the presumption of innocence does not preclude the adoption of restrictive measures. These measures are preventive in nature and do not constitute criminal prosecution (4). In view of these safeguards, I am of the opinion that adequate legal protection is afforded to persons placed on EU sanctions lists.

Question 5

Do you acknowledge that, when a natural person brings an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) under Article 263 TFEU against a sanctions decision, the Court generally limits itself to reviewing procedural requirements and applies only marginal substantive review? How do you assess this alleged lack of proper legal protection for those affected?

Answer 5

The General Court may review the legality of the decision to place a person on the list; this does not amount to merely marginal review. Judicial review includes, inter alia, an assessment of whether the decision is based on a sufficiently solid factual basis—that is, whether there is sufficient evidence in the file to substantiate the reasons put forward by the Council. At least one of the reasons must be adequately substantiated in order to serve as the basis for the decision (5). The General Court may also examine whether fundamental rights have been infringed, such as the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection. Case law recognises that, under the principle of proportionality, the Council enjoys a wide margin of discretion in areas involving political choices and complex assessments. Only where a decision is manifestly inappropriate in light of the objective pursued does it affect the lawfulness of the restrictive measure (6).

Question 6

Are you familiar with Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/2572 of 15 December 2025, by which, on the basis of the aforementioned decision, twelve natural persons and two entities were added to the sanctions list?

Answer 6

Yes.

Question 7

How do you assess the fact that the persons sanctioned under this implementing decision include journalists, scientists, academics, analysts and commentators, such as Jacques Baud, Xavier Moreau, Fyodor Lukyanov and Ivan Timofeev?

Answer 7

For each individual, a body of evidence is compiled prior to sanctioning, demonstrating that the criteria set out in the sanctions regime are met. The occupation of the person concerned is not, in itself, a decisive criterion.

Question 8

How do you assess the fact that the “Statement of Reasons” for these persons largely consists of characterisations such as “acts as a mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda”, “promotes Kremlin narratives” and “justifies Russian actions”, without any demonstrable criminal offences or even any (financial) links with the Kremlin? Do you acknowledge that, in this way, natural persons may be subjected to far-reaching sanctions purely on the basis of expressing an unwelcome opinion that is not a criminal opinion? Do you share the view that this effectively shifts the scope of the sanctions regime from combating external threats to disciplining expressions and viewpoints? How do you assess this in light of freedom of expression?

Answer 8

There is settled case law of the Court of Justice regarding the obligation on the Council to state reasons. The Council must give specific and concrete reasons why it considers that a measure should be adopted. However, it is not necessary for all relevant facts and circumstances to be specified. It is sufficient that the person concerned can understand the essence of the measure (7). The General Court may examine whether the obligation to state reasons has been fulfilled. The imposition of a sanction aims to bring about a change in the policy or activities of external actors and not to hold persons or entities accountable for committing criminal offences. Moreover, sanctions are not directed against the mere expression of an opinion by individuals, but against the destabilising actions or policy measures of Russia as described in the answer to Question 3. The Government acknowledges that the imposition of restrictive measures may limit freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. However, such limitations, laid down by law, may be justified under Article 51(1) of the Charter in view of the EU-recognised objective of general interest of promoting peace and the security of its peoples (see Article 3(5) TEU).

Question 9

Are you prepared to argue within the Council for limiting the application of this sanctions regime to persons who are guilty of criminal or demonstrably violent acts? Are you also prepared to argue that sanctions imposed on journalists, scientists, academics, analysts and commentators, particularly EU residents, who do not make criminal statements should be lifted or avoided? If not, why not?

Answer 9

No, I am not prepared to do so. Sanctions are administrative measures aimed at behavioural change and are not imposed for the prosecution of criminal offences. It is therefore not decisive for the imposition of sanctions whether the activities concerned are criminal or not. What is decisive for this sanctions regime is whether persons are responsible for, implement, support or benefit from destabilising actions or policy measures of Russia.

Question 10

Can you answer these questions separately and within the prescribed time limit?

Answer 10

Yes.

Notes

1. K. Beckman, EU declares critics fair game, De Andere Krant, 9 January 2026, available online via https://deanderekrant.nl/eu-verklaart-critici-vogelvrij/
2. See the judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraphs 111 and 112.
3. See the judgment of 18 June 2015, Ipatau v Council, C-535/14 P, EU:C:2015:407, paragraph 26.
4. See the judgment of 16 October 2024, CRA v Council, T-201/23, EU:T:2024:697, paragraph 67.
5. See the judgment of 1 August 2025, Timchenko, C-702/23, EU:C:2025:605, paragraph 38.
6. See the judgment of 23 July 2025, OT v Council, T-1095/23, EU:T:2025:744, paragraphs 208 and 209.
7. See the judgment OT v Council, T-193/22, paragraph 64.