Case C-610/26, Ametrin FK – can frozen assets pay a judgment against Russia?
The EU’s Russia sanctions freeze assets; they were not written as a means of enforcing judgments. A Latvian court asks how far they can be used as one.
Facts
Ametrin FK, a limited liability company established in Ukraine, has brought proceedings against the Russian Federation before the Rīgas apgabaltiesa (Riga Regional Court). The questions concern the enforcement of a foreign judicial decision against funds frozen under Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, which freezes the funds and economic resources of the persons and entities listed in its Annex I; the notice does not say which court gave the decision or whose funds are concerned. Article 5 allows the competent authorities to release frozen funds that are subject to an arbitral decision rendered before the listing, or to “a judicial or administrative decision rendered in the Union, or a judicial decision enforceable in the Member State concerned, prior to or after that date”, provided that the funds are used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by or recognised in that decision, that the decision does not benefit a listed person and that “recognition of the decision is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned”. Article 5a allows release where “a judicial or administrative authority of a Member State has adopted a decision, under the conditions provided by law, to deprive in the public interest” a listed person of funds, “provided that compensation paid for such deprivation of funds or economic resources is frozen”.
Questions Referred
1. Must Article 5 of Regulation No 269/2014 be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State may authorise, through the competent authority (the FID), the release of funds subject to sanctions for the purpose of enforcing a foreign judicial decision?
2. Must Article 5a of Regulation No 269/2014 be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State may authorise, in the public interest (for example, to compensate for damage caused by war crimes or armed aggression), the use of funds or assets subject to sanctions for the purpose of enforcing a foreign judicial decision?
3. Must the provisions of Regulation No 269/2014 on the release of frozen funds be interpreted as limiting or precluding the jurisdiction of a national court to recognise and enforce foreign judicial decisions where the principle of State immunity and considerations of public policy in the Member State must also be taken into account?
Sources
OJ notice C/2026/5204 (EUR‑Lex) · Case file on CURIA · Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, consolidated
Comment
The first question is about who decides. Article 5 gives the power to authorise a release to “the competent authorities of the Member States”, in Latvia the FID, and the referring court asks whether a court may authorise release through that authority. Article 5 does cover “a judicial decision enforceable in the Member State concerned”, whether given before or after the listing, and a foreign judgment declared enforceable in Latvia would fall into that category. But the derogation is permissive, since the authorities “may authorise” a release, and it is subject to public policy, so it leaves open what the third question raises: whether recognition and enforcement can proceed at all against a foreign State.
Article 5a fits the second question less easily. It was written for a decision of an authority of a Member State depriving a listed person of assets in the public interest, with the compensation itself frozen. It is a mechanism for measures taken by the Member States themselves, not for paying a third party’s damages. Whether compensation for war crimes or armed aggression can be brought within it, when the decision is foreign and the beneficiary is a private claimant, is what the Riga court asks, and the text of the provision points the other way.
The third question brings in what the sanctions regulation does not regulate. Immunity of a State and its property from enforcement is a matter of international law, and Regulation 269/2014 neither confers it nor removes it; it decides only whether frozen assets may move. The Court can say how far the Regulation constrains a national court that recognises and enforces a foreign judgment. The question of immunity will remain for the Latvian court.