Procedural guide: mapping the avenues for challenging international sanctions
Challenging an international sanction is never a single exercise. The available remedy depends on the nature of the measure (individual listing, sectoral measure, administrative penalty for a compliance failure), on its origin (Security Council resolution, EU regulation, US executive order, national freezing order) and on the objective pursued: annulment of the listing, release of funds for basic needs, or defeating the enforcement of a judgment or arbitral award. Six avenues structure the practitioner’s strategy.
1. Identify the measure before acting
The first step is to characterise precisely the measure affecting the applicant: an individual listing entailing an asset freeze and a prohibition on making funds available, a sectoral measure targeting a whole segment of the economy, a national freeze based on Articles L. 562-1 et seq. of the French Monetary and Financial Code, an administrative penalty imposed by the ACPR for a breach of due diligence obligations, or a US designation on the Specially Designated Nationals list kept by OFAC. This characterisation determines the competent court, the applicable time limits and the pleas that can be raised, including for an entity that is not itself listed but whose funds are held or controlled by a listed person, the Court of Justice having accepted that an indirect freeze may apply in that situation, notably where a 50% shareholding is present.
2. The action for annulment before the General Court of the EU: the ordinary remedy
For an individual EU listing, the action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU remains the most used remedy. A 1957 text, still at the centre of the game. The two-month period, extended by the ten-day flat extension provided by Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure, runs from publication in the Official Journal, from notification, or from the day the applicant became aware of the measure; notification frequently takes the form of a mere published notice where no address is known, which calls for particular care about the exact date of publication. Four pleas dominate the case law: inadequate reasoning, the Kadi line of cases requiring the institution to state the specific and concrete reasons for the listing; manifest error of assessment, which places on the Council the burden of producing sufficiently precise and consistent evidence; breach of the rights of the defence, for want of a sufficiently detailed summary of the incriminating evidence; and breach of the principle of proportionality, a plea steadily gaining ground in the most recent litigation.
3. Interim relief: a narrow path, rarely granted
Since the action for annulment has no suspensory effect (Article 278 TFEU) and the average duration of proceedings on the merits often exceeds eighteen months, an application for interim measures before the President of the General Court (Article 279 TFEU) requires three cumulative conditions: a prima facie case, urgency demonstrated by documented serious and irreparable harm (inability to pay employees, risk of cessation of business, loss of essential contracts) and a balance of interests, which structurally weighs against the applicant in a context of acute international crisis. The order of 30 March 2022 dismissing RT France’s application against the measures adopted after the invasion of Ukraine (Case T-125/22 R), confirmed on the merits on 27 July 2022, illustrates this litigation reality: interim relief is never a substitute for the action on the merits.
4. The complementary routes: appeal, damages, administrative delisting
The judgment of the General Court may be appealed to the Court of Justice, strictly on points of law (Article 256 TFEU); the Court thus clarified the requirements of reasoning and evidence in Bogoljub Karić v Council of 16 July 2026 (C-39/25 P). The action for damages based on non-contractual liability (Articles 268 and 340 TFEU), whose success remains statistically rare given the requirement of a sufficiently serious breach, is nonetheless a useful pre-litigation bargaining lever. Even a losing claim carries weight at the table. Finally, before any judicial action, a reasoned delisting request addressed to the Council before the annual periodic review (a step often neglected) may lead to a faster administrative delisting than proceedings before the General Court, and should be pursued in parallel with the action for annulment rather than as an alternative to it.
5. The French national remedies and the international delisting mechanisms
National freezing orders may be challenged by an action for annulment on grounds of ultra vires before the administrative court, supplemented by an application for suspension or, more rarely, for the protection of a fundamental freedom, a route the Conseil d’État strictly confined in its decision of 16 May 2024 (No 492346), finding no urgency where the administration had diligently processed requests for the release of funds for basic needs under Article L. 562-11 of the Monetary and Financial Code. Financial institutions penalised by the ACPR, such as the fifty million euros imposed on La Banque Postale and upheld by the Conseil d’État on 15 November 2019 (No 428292), have a full-jurisdiction appeal before the Conseil d’État sitting at first and last instance. One hearing, no appeal. For UN listings, the focal point established by Resolution 1730 (2006), strengthened by Resolution 2744 of 19 July 2024, and above all the Office of the Ombudsperson for the ISIL/Al-Qaida regime alone (Resolution 1904) offer adversarial routes distinct from OFAC’s administrative delisting procedure (31 C.F.R. § 501.807), which has no binding time limit but carries a theoretical judicial review before the federal courts.
6. Civil and arbitral litigation arising from the enforcement of sanctions
Beyond the direct challenge to a listing, sanctions generate distinct litigation before civil courts and arbitral tribunals. Characterised as overriding mandatory provisions within the meaning of Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation, they apply without reservation when they emanate from the forum, but are applied as foreign law only within the strict limits of Article 9(3), the Court of Justice having held in Nikiforidis (18 October 2016, C-135/15) that they may nonetheless be taken into account as a matter of fact outside that framework. Bank Melli Iran v Telekom Deutschland (CJEU, 21 December 2021) held that EU Blocking Regulation No 2271/96 may ground the nullity of a contractual termination motivated by the wish to comply with US secondary sanctions, subject to a proportionality review. Finally, the Plenary Assembly of the French Cour de cassation, in Bank Sepah (29 April 2022, No 18-18.542), clarified the effect of an asset freeze on the running of default interest and on civil enforcement, no attachment being possible over frozen assets without prior authorisation.
| Origin of the measure | Main remedy | Indicative time limit |
|---|---|---|
| EU listing | Action for annulment, General Court of the EU (Art. 263 TFEU) | 2 months + 10 days |
| French national freeze | Action for annulment (ultra vires), administrative court | 2 months |
| ACPR penalty | Full-jurisdiction appeal, Conseil d’État | 2 months |
| UN list (other than ISIL/Al-Qaida) | Focal point (Resolutions 1730/2744) | No binding time limit |
| ISIL/Al-Qaida list | Office of the Ombudsperson (Resolution 1904) | Multi-phase procedure |
| OFAC list (United States) | Administrative delisting (31 C.F.R. § 501.807) | No binding time limit |
The complete guide, with a map of remedies and practical recommendations
The firm has prepared a procedural guide detailing each of these remedies, the ECHR case law on the relationship between UN obligations and Convention guarantees (Nada v Switzerland and Al-Dulimi v Switzerland), and a combined litigation strategy for compliance practitioners. It is available as a free download in exchange for a professional email address:
Download the guide “How to Challenge International Sanctions?”
See also our practice page on international trade law.