EU drops two oligarchs, keeps 3,000 listed

EU governments agreed on Tuesday to remove Russian billionaires Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman from the bloc's Russia sanctions list. In return, restrictions on more than 3,000 other people and entities (Kyiv Independent) stay in place until 22 September 2029 (The Guardian). Latvia and Estonia have since imposed national sanctions on both men, but those measures cannot rebuild the asset freeze that applied across all 27 member states.

Why one list reaches so far

The EU list matters because of what it forces private firms to do. Under Regulation 269/2014, the law that turns the Russia list into binding financial rules, anyone holding a listed person's money must freeze it, and nobody may pay them (EUR-Lex). The duty follows EU banks and companies wherever they operate. It also covers EU citizens abroad and any deal done partly inside the bloc.

In practice, a bank in Frankfurt, a notary in Milan and a fund in Luxembourg all check the same list and act on it. Once the removal takes legal effect, that list no longer names these two men. The removal ends restrictions under this list only. Any separate order on a specific asset is a different legal question.

The exact moment of that change is still being pinned down. BBC Russian reported that the decision appeared on Tuesday evening in the Official Journal, the EU's legal gazette, where acts must be published before they bind anyone (BBC Russian). To Brief has not yet confirmed the amending act's number or its start time against the gazette itself.

How two names held the list hostage

Renewing these listings requires unanimity, which means any single government can veto. At a deadline, that gives one disputed name leverage over thousands of others. If the renewal fails, everyone on the list walks free.

Diplomats told Euronews that France had joined Slovakia in pushing for Usmanov's removal (Euronews). Paris has not explained its position publicly. Other listings also lapsed in the renewal, but these two names held up the deal.

Latvia used its veto on 21 September, then stepped aside. Its argument was that letting the whole list expire would have freed everyone else on it (Kyiv Independent, The Guardian). Our earlier report traced how that veto collapsed (To Brief).

Estonia opposed the removals but abstained. Under unanimity, an abstention is not a veto, so Tallinn put its objection on record without stopping the decision. Its foreign ministry presented the outcome as a three-year extension of the sanctions on individuals (Estonian foreign ministry). That longer cycle removes the frequent deadlines at which one capital could threaten the entire list.

What Baltic sanctions can and cannot do

Latvia's government reported financial and entry restrictions on both men by 23 September (LSM). Estonia announced its own national sanctions after the removals. Both measures have been described only in general terms, and their exceptions and start dates remain unconfirmed.

Lithuania is further behind. Its foreign ministry has proposed barring both men from the country for five years (LRT). An asset freeze was still being drafted on 23 September, and no Lithuanian measure had taken effect (Lrytas/ELTA).

National sanctions stop where national law stops. A Latvian or Estonian freeze binds banks and firms under that country's jurisdiction. It cannot instruct a German or Italian bank, and it cannot put the men back on the EU list.

Entry bans can travel further. The Schengen Information System, a shared database used by border guards across the passport-free zone, lets one country's ban trigger refusals elsewhere (EUR-Lex). There is no evidence that Riga or Tallinn has filed such an alert. Even if they do, an alert governs travel, not money.

That is the core of the trade. The EU secured three years of stability for its wider list. The cost was the one instrument that obliged every bank and company in the bloc to freeze these two men's money. Baltic laws can restrict them at home, and Schengen alerts could keep them out of Europe, but neither reaches their accounts in Frankfurt or Luxembourg. Putting them back under a common freeze would take a new unanimous EU decision, which is the same veto that just let them off.