The European Union General Court annulled the 2020 sanctions listings of three former Ukrainian officials. The separate July 7 judgments were for the former Prime Minister Sergej Arbuzov, former Prosecutor General Viktor Pshonka and Pshonka's son Artem Pshonka, a former parliament member, according to unofficial translations. The court said the EU Council hadn't proved that Ukrainian authorities respected the individuals' right to effective judicial protection during the criminal proceedings on which the council relied. The Pshonkas were relisted by the council on March 5 and remain subject to EU sanctions, according to two implementing decisions.

The Court of Justice of the European Union found that Venezuela has standing to challenge restrictions made on it by the Council of the EU, according to a June 22 judgment. The CJEU, which overturned a General Court of the European Union ruling that came to the opposite conclusion, said Venezuela can challenge the financial sanctions in European court because the measures are liable to harm Venezuela's economic interests. The General Court originally found that Venezuela had no standing to bring a complaint because it is not an EU member state and had not shown it was directly affected by the sanctions.

The European Union General Court annulled the sanctions listing of Sayed Shamsuddin Borborudi, the former deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, in a June 9 judgment. Borborudi was originally listed under the EU's Iranian nuclear sanctions regime for his position with AEOI and his work with Iran's nuclear program since 2002. The general court said he stopped working for AEOI in 2013, and the European Council failed to show evidence of his continued involvement in Iran's nuclear program. His prior work did not justify a continued listing, the court said.

The Shanghai-based Xin Bai law firm released a May report on sanctions in China (see 2101110042), providing an overview and “practical information” on China’s evolving sanctions regime. The report lays out the framework of China’s sanctions legislation, including what types of sanctions it can impose, the scope of those restrictions, potential penalties, compliance requirements for businesses, and the export licensing and reporting process.

The European Commission in a May 27 opinion clarified two questions on national competent authorities (NCAs) requirements regarding assets frozen under various sanctions. One question asked whether it's legal under the EU's Libyan sanctions to liquidate an EU investment fund compartment that holds a listed entity's shares if the proceeds are then immediately frozen in a segregated EU bank account. The second involves whether it is possible under the Syrian sanctions to transfer a frozen bank account from an EU-based branch to the United Kingdom parent bank. In answering both, the commission focused on ensuring no one could use the assets.

New European Union export controls on dual-use goods meant to promote human rights have the effect of shifting legislative authority from a member state's legislative body to its regulatory arm, Sheppard Mullin said in a May 14 analysis. Officially passed on March 26, the human rights export controls allow, among other things, a member state to impose a prohibition on the exports of items not on the Dual-Use Control List for human rights considerations. Subsequently, other member states are also prohibited from making unlicensed exports of these items if they have been notified by the appropriate competent authorities that the items are intended to be used for human rights violations. “In Member States whose legislation does not empower their licensing authorities unilaterally to impose export licensing requirements on new items, the Regulation effectively transfers legislative authority from one organ of Member State government (the legislature) to another (the export licensing authority),” Sheppard Mullin said.

European individuals and entities should not be allowed to cancel contracts with entities in Iran, or other countries sanctioned by third parties, solely on the basis of seeking to avoid third party sanctions on that nation, a legal adviser to the Court of Justice of the European Union said in a May 12 opinion. Advocate General Gerard Hogan said in the non-binding opinion that a German company's decision to cut ties with an Iranian bank could be met by a European blocking statute that was passed to counter U.S. sanctions and to ensure that the bloc does not recognize any court ruling that enforces American penalties.

In two separate decisions, the European Union General Court dismissed two applications from listed individuals urging the court to annul the acts maintaining their designations on the EU's sanctions list. In an April 28 order, according to an unofficial translation, the court rejected a bid from Syrian businessman Ammar Sharif to depart from the sanctions list because he had failed to rebut the notion that he is no longer an “influential businessman” conducting business in Syria. Sharif did not present sufficient evidence to dispute the European Council's assessment on three of his business activities in Syria, leading to the court's decision.

The European Union's proposal for new legal framework for artificial intelligence distinguishes among different types of risk and highlights what sorts of applications would be barred under the new regulation, Mayer Brown said May 5 in an analysis. The proposal distinguishes among unacceptable, high and low risks that AI poses to users of the technology and recommendss differing levels of restrictions accordingly.

Following the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union, the European Commission does not want to see the U.K. join the bloc's 2007 Lugano Convention -- a pact that recognizes jurisdiction and enforcement of judgment in civil and commercial matters. In a May 4 communication from the EC to the European Parliament and Council, the commission said the Lugano Convention is meant for the internal market of the EU. and because the U.K. is now a “third party without a special link to the internal market,” it does not warrant access to the convention. In its stead, the commission recommends taking the normal course of action in recognizing jurisdiction with Britain and following the framework laid out by the Hague Conventions in the field of civil judicial cooperation.