Gutseriev v Council: General Court annuls Belarus sanctions over inadequate assessment
Court finds Council failed to demonstrate ongoing support for Lukashenko regime
On 22 October 2025, the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered its judgement in Gutseriev v Council (Case T-233/24), annulling restrictive measures imposed on Russian businessperson Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev. The decision centred on the Council's failure to conduct a sufficiently updated assessment of whether Gutseriev continued to benefit from or support President Lukashenko's regime in Belarus at the time the contested measures were maintained.
The case arose from Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/769 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/768, both adopted on 26 February 2024, which maintained Gutseriev's name on EU lists restricting admission to Member States' territories and freezing funds. These measures formed part of the EU's broader restrictive framework addressing the situation in Belarus and its involvement in Russian aggression against Ukraine.
Background and listing grounds
Gutseriev's name was initially added to the relevant lists in June 2021. The Council's justification identified him as a prominent Russian businessman with substantial interests in Belarus across multiple sectors, including energy, potash and commercial property. The statement of reasons detailed various connections to President Lukashenko, including significant investments such as the USD 2 billion Slavkali potash project, charitable contributions, and attendance at Lukashenko's controversial September 2020 inauguration.
The Council also cited allegations that Russian media workers were transported to Belarus on aircraft belonging to Gutseriev and accommodated at the Renaissance Hotel in Minsk during the August 2020 media strikes, as well as his assistance in acquiring CT scanners during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Court's analysis
The General Court found critical deficiencies in the Council's reasoning. Significantly, the Court determined that the Council had failed to establish that Gutseriev continued to maintain business interests in Belarus at the time of adopting the contested acts. Evidence suggested his involvement with Slavkali had ceased by March 2020, and the Council's own documents indicated he had disposed of properties in Belarus, including the Renaissance Hotel, before February 2024.
Regarding the allegation of transporting Russian journalists, the Court noted the Council relied predominantly on a single press article whose veracity was disputed. The evidence proved insufficient to demonstrate, in a specific, precise and consistent manner, that Gutseriev had accommodated Russian media professionals or transported them on his aircraft. The Court observed that even if such events had occurred, they would relate to August 2020—more than three years before the contested measures.
Similarly, the supply of medical scanners during the COVID-19 crisis, whilst not denied by Gutseriev, dated from November 2020. The Court emphasised that reliance on exclusively historical events, without demonstrating ongoing support for the Lukashenko regime, rendered the grounds obsolete.
Error of assessment
The Court concluded that by failing to conduct an updated assessment of Gutseriev's situation, the Council committed an error of assessment. The case-law requires demonstrating that an individual's support for a sanctioned regime remains current at the time measures are adopted or maintained. The Council's reliance on events from 2020 and earlier, without establishing continuing activities or connections, proved insufficient.
The judgement annulled both contested acts insofar as they concerned Gutseriev, ordering the Council to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant. The Court rejected the Council's subsidiary claim regarding temporal effects of the annulment as moot, noting that subsequent measures adopted in February 2025 had superseded the contested acts.
This decision underscores the importance of maintaining current, substantiated evidence when imposing or maintaining restrictive measures, particularly where significant time has elapsed since the underlying factual basis was established.