Three ICC judges sue US over frozen assets

Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin, Kimberly Prost of Canada and Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda cannot use their credit cards, access their email or book a hotel. All three are judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC), the permanent tribunal in The Hague that prosecutes war crimes and genocide. On 24 June, they filed a lawsuit in a Manhattan federal court to get their own lives back (New York Times, Brussels Signal).

The sanctions come from Executive Order 14203, a presidential directive that freezes the assets of anyone involved in ICC cases touching US personnel or allies, in this case Israel. Washington maintains the ICC has no jurisdiction over nationals of countries that never joined the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the Court. The judges argue that punishing them for judicial decisions violates due process and exceeds presidential authority under IEEPA (the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the law US presidents invoke to freeze assets during declared emergencies) (Bloomberg Law, Al Jazeera).

The weak point the case exposes is Europe's dependence on US-controlled financial and digital systems.

How a Credit Card Becomes a Weapon

US blocking sanctions need no subpoenas in The Hague. They work through compliance. Any company with American financial exposure must refuse transactions with designated individuals. Banks close accounts. Card networks cut access. Cloud providers withdraw services (The Times). ARTE summarised the result: a European-based judge under US sanctions has no email and no credit card (ARTE).

The damage is granular. Failed cards, frozen accounts, restricted travel bookings, insurance cancellations, blocked access to family photos on iCloud (Merkur, Straits Times). French-language coverage called it a "financial death penalty," a phrase that overstates the legal comparison but captures the operational reality (upday FR).

The ICC remains physically open. Its judges can still enter the building. But the daily infrastructure of professional life runs through systems Washington controls.

Europe's Missing Shield

The ICC sits on Dutch soil. EU member states fund the Court and defend it publicly. On 19 June, the European Council (where heads of state set EU direction) pledged "effective protection" for international courts and their personnel (Demócrata). Pledges, however, do not restore bank accounts.

The EU's existing legal tool is the Blocking Statute (Council Regulation 2271/96), which bars EU companies from complying with specified foreign sanctions (EUR-Lex, European Commission). It only covers measures explicitly listed in its annex. The ICC-targeted executive order has not been added, so the statute does not currently apply. Updating the annex requires a proposal from the European Commission and approval by EU member states, a process that moves at diplomatic speed, not emergency speed.

Even where EU law offers fragments of protection, they are narrow. A recent European court analysis found that banks cannot refuse a basic payment account solely because someone appears on a US sanctions list (Kinstellar). That floor does not extend to credit cards, cloud platforms, travel systems or insurers. The judges' lawsuit names exactly those gaps.

European support for the ICC is also politically uneven. Italy arrested an ICC-wanted Libyan suspect in January 2025 and then flew him home on a state aircraft rather than surrendering him to the Court (Domani). Ireland's parliament recently blocked an expansion of trade restrictions linked to international law obligations, with the government acknowledging it had to weigh US anti-boycott laws (Irish Times). Governments that yield to Washington on smaller tests are unlikely to confront it on financial infrastructure.

MEPs are now talking about the payment system itself. The European Parliament's economics committee backed the digital euro partly to reduce dependence on US-controlled networks like Visa, Mastercard and PayPal (Euronews). German MEP Damian Boeselager linked the project directly to making politically motivated sanctions harder to execute through foreign payment rails (netzpolitik.org). That is a long-term redesign, not an emergency fix for three judges who cannot pay for lunch.

What Remains Open

The Manhattan lawsuit will test whether US courts can check executive sanctions power when it targets international judicial officials. A favourable ruling could lift the designations for these three judges. It would not prevent future sanctions against other ICC personnel.

Europe hosts the ICC, funds it, and defends it in communiqués. But the financial plumbing, digital services and payment networks that make daily judicial work possible remain substantially US-controlled. The Blocking Statute could be extended. The digital euro could reduce dependence. Neither exists as a working shield today. The Court can stay open. Whether its judges can function depends on decisions made in Washington, not The Hague.