ECtHR, EU Sanctions and Human Rights: How to Challenge Restrictive Measures

Consider the following situation: a journalist discovers that a European bank has refused to open an account because the journalist has been included in an EU sanctions list over alleged involvement in disinformation or serious human rights abuses.

The consequences may extend far beyond a single banking decision. Sanctions can affect access to financial services, professional activity, reputation, freedom of movement, family life, and the ability to manage property.

A person in this position may have more than one legal remedy. However, proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union and applications to the European Court of Human Rights are different procedures with different respondents, deadlines, and legal objectives.

The European Court of Human Rights, commonly referred to as the ECtHR, is a judicial body of the Council of Europe. It examines complaints alleging violations of the European Convention on Human Rights by states that are parties to the Convention.

The ECtHR does not impose sanctions, freeze assets, or issue travel bans. Its role is to determine whether a state violated rights protected by the Convention. When it finds a violation, the Court may award just satisfaction under Article 41. Final judgments are binding on the respondent state, and their execution is supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

A person challenging EU sanctions must distinguish between two possible legal routes.

The first is an action before the General Court of the European Union in Luxembourg. This is the principal procedure for directly challenging an EU act that places a person or company on a sanctions list.

The second is an application to the ECtHR in Strasbourg. This procedure may become relevant when the actions of a Council of Europe member state in implementing or enforcing sanctions violate Convention rights.

The ECtHR is not an appellate court for the General Court or the Court of Justice of the European Union. The European Union itself has not yet become a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, so acts of EU institutions cannot, as such, be challenged directly before the ECtHR. Applications may nevertheless concern actions taken by an EU member state when implementing EU law.

Key Points

• EU sanctions are normally challenged directly before the General Court of the European Union.
• An action for annulment generally must be brought within two months of publication, notification, or the date on which the applicant became aware of the contested act. Procedural rules may provide an additional extension on account of distance.
• The ECtHR examines the responsibility of states, not the legality of an EU sanctions decision as such.
• An ECtHR application normally must be lodged within four months of the final domestic decision.
• Before applying to the ECtHR, the applicant must use the effective legal remedies available in the relevant state.
• Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 may be relevant, depending on the nature of the proceedings and the consequences of the restrictive measures.
• The ECtHR cannot directly remove a person from an EU sanctions list.
• A judgment finding a Convention violation may nevertheless require the respondent state to take individual or general measures to remedy the violation.

What Is the ECtHR and Can It Cancel EU Sanctions?

The European Court of Human Rights cannot directly annul an EU sanctions decision.

Its jurisdiction is narrower. The Court determines whether a state party to the European Convention on Human Rights has violated one or more Convention rights.

For example, a Convention issue may arise when national authorities:

• freeze assets without providing access to an effective judicial remedy;
• refuse to disclose the essential grounds for restrictive measures;
• prevent a person from meaningfully challenging the evidence;
• enforce restrictions in a disproportionate manner;
• fail to examine relevant arguments;
• maintain restrictions without adequate review;
• interfere excessively with private or family life;
• deprive a person of the peaceful enjoyment of property without sufficient safeguards.

The Court does not generally replace the decision of national authorities with its own decision. It establishes whether the Convention was violated.

When the Court finds a violation, the respondent state must comply with the final judgment. Depending on the case, execution may require payment of compensation, a new examination of the applicant’s case, changes to administrative practice, legislative amendments, or other individual and general measures.

The Committee of Ministers supervises execution until the necessary measures have been taken.

EU sanctions may include:

• an asset freeze;
• a travel ban;
• a prohibition on making funds or economic resources available to a listed person or entity;
• restrictions on financial and commercial transactions.

These are the principal measures used under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime.

Such measures may affect rights protected by the Convention. An asset freeze may interfere with property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Restrictions affecting family relationships, reputation, professional life, or personal autonomy may raise issues under Article 8.

Article 6 may also be relevant where the dispute concerns the determination of civil rights and obligations and the person has not received a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.

However, the applicability of each Convention provision must be assessed individually. The existence of sanctions does not automatically establish a Convention violation.

Important: An application cannot be brought against the European Union itself before the ECtHR. The applicant must identify an act or omission attributable to a state that is party to the Convention.

How Do ECtHR Judgments Differ from EU Sanctions?

An ECtHR judgment and an EU sanctions decision have different legal purposes.

An ECtHR judgment determines whether a respondent state violated the European Convention on Human Rights.

An EU sanctions decision imposes restrictive measures on a person, company, organisation, or other entity in pursuit of the European Union’s foreign and security policy objectives.

Criterion	ECtHR Judgment	EU Sanctions
Legal nature	Judicial finding concerning a violation of the Convention	Restrictive measure adopted under EU law
Main purpose	Protection and restoration of Convention rights	Foreign policy and security objective
Possible consequences	Just satisfaction and individual or general execution measures	Asset freeze, travel ban, and financial restrictions
Respondent or decision-maker	A state party to the Convention	Council of the European Union
Direct legal challenge	Application against a state after exhaustion of effective remedies	Action for annulment before the General Court
Supervision or enforcement	Committee of Ministers supervises execution	Binding throughout the European Union
Geographic scope	46 Council of Europe member states	27 EU member states
Principal deadline	Four months after the final relevant domestic decision	Generally two months for an action for annulment

 

The Council of Europe currently has 46 member states, while the European Union consists of 27 member states. These organisations are separate and have different legal systems.

In practical terms, the General Court considers whether the EU listing decision complies with EU law. The ECtHR considers whether a state’s conduct complied with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Both proceedings may concern related facts, but they are not interchangeable.

What Measures Can the European Court of Human Rights Provide?

The principal outcome of ECtHR proceedings is a judgment establishing whether the Convention was violated.

A judgment may be important for several reasons:

• it formally recognises that the applicant’s rights were violated;
• it creates a binding legal obligation for the respondent state;
• it may support the reopening or reconsideration of domestic proceedings;
• it may require changes to national law or administrative practice;
• it may help restore the applicant’s reputation;
• it may influence the handling of similar cases;
• it may result in an award of just satisfaction.

Just Satisfaction

Under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court may award just satisfaction when this is necessary to compensate for the consequences of a violation.

Possible categories include:

Pecuniary damage: Documented financial losses directly caused by the violation. These may include lost income, loss of property, additional expenses, or other measurable economic damage.

Non-pecuniary damage: Distress, anxiety, damage to reputation, loss of opportunity, or other consequences that cannot be calculated precisely.

Costs and expenses: Reasonable and necessary legal and procedural costs supported by appropriate documentation.

Compensation is not automatic. The applicant must submit a proper claim and establish a causal connection between the Convention violation and the alleged damage. The ECtHR does not apply a fixed tariff for particular articles of the Convention. Awards depend on the specific facts of each case.

Individual Measures

Execution may require measures addressing the applicant’s personal situation.

Depending on the case, these may include:

• reopening or reconsideration of proceedings;
• restoring access to an effective remedy;
• conducting a new investigation;
• providing access to relevant material;
• reviewing the proportionality of restrictions;
• ending the continuing consequences of a violation.

The ECtHR does not routinely prescribe the exact method of execution. The respondent state generally has discretion to choose the measures required to comply with the judgment, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers.

General Measures

When a violation results from a systemic problem, execution may require broader reforms, including:

• legislative amendments;
• changes to administrative procedures;
• improved judicial safeguards;
• new remedies;
• training for public authorities;
• changes to an unlawful or arbitrary practice.

Supervision remains open until the Committee of Ministers is satisfied that the required measures have been implemented.

Interim Measures

Under Rule 39, the ECtHR may indicate urgent interim measures where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm to a Convention right.

These measures are exceptional. They are most commonly associated with risks to life or physical integrity, including removal or extradition to a country where a person may face torture or other serious ill-treatment.

Rule 39 should not be treated as a routine method for suspending financial sanctions. Purely financial damage will not usually meet the strict test of imminent and irreparable harm.

How Much Compensation Can the ECtHR Award?

There is no standard amount of compensation for an unlawful asset freeze, unfair sanctions procedure, or other Convention violation.

The Court considers factors such as:

• the nature of the violation;
• the duration of the interference;
• the seriousness of its consequences;
• the existence of a direct financial loss;
• whether the damage can be adequately documented;
• the causal connection between the violation and the loss;
• the applicant’s own conduct;
• the measures already taken by the respondent state.

Claims for pecuniary damage require evidence. A person alleging loss of income or loss of business must show that the loss was actually sustained and resulted from the violation established by the Court.

Relevant evidence may include:

• bank statements;
• tax records;
• contracts;
• invoices;
• business accounts;
• correspondence with banks;
• evidence of blocked transactions;
• expert financial reports;
• records of lost employment or commercial opportunities.

The Court may award non-pecuniary damages even where the precise emotional or reputational harm cannot be mathematically calculated. Nevertheless, the applicant should explain the consequences of the violation clearly.

Very large awards are exceptional and should not be used as a realistic benchmark for an individual case. The amount depends on the evidence and the particular circumstances.

Which Human Rights Violations Can the ECtHR Examine?

The ECtHR examines alleged violations of rights protected by the Convention and its protocols.

In sanctions-related cases, the following provisions may be particularly relevant.

Article 3: Prohibition of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

Article 3 prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This right is absolute. It does not permit exceptions on grounds of national security, public emergency, or foreign policy.

Article 3 may become relevant where sanctions or related measures expose a person to:

• an imminent risk of torture;
• removal to a country where serious ill-treatment is likely;
• deprivation of essential medical treatment;
• detention conditions reaching the required level of severity;
• other serious and irreversible harm.

Financial restrictions alone will not normally reach the minimum level of severity required under Article 3.

Article 5: Right to Liberty and Security

Article 5 protects individuals against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

A sanctions case may also involve Article 5 where restrictive measures are accompanied by:

• arrest;
• detention;
• immigration custody;
• extradition detention;
• enforcement of an international arrest request.

A person deprived of liberty must be informed of the reasons, brought promptly before a judicial authority where required, and provided with an effective opportunity to challenge the legality of the detention.

Article 5 § 5 provides an enforceable right to compensation where arrest or detention violates the provisions of Article 5.

Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial

Article 6 protects the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal where civil rights and obligations or a criminal charge are being determined.

In sanctions-related litigation, possible Article 6 issues may include:

• inability to obtain access to the essential grounds for a decision;
• excessive reliance on undisclosed evidence;
• inability to instruct a lawyer effectively;
• refusal to consider relevant evidence;
• lack of judicial independence;
• excessive delays;
• absence of an effective opportunity to challenge allegations;
• failure to provide adequate reasons.

Article 6 does not automatically apply to every administrative or foreign-policy decision. Its applicability depends on the nature of the right being determined and the proceedings available to the applicant.

Article 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life

Article 8 protects private life, family life, home, and correspondence.

Sanctions may interfere with Article 8 rights when they have serious effects on:

• personal reputation;
• family relationships;
• the ability to live with close relatives;
• professional activity;
• personal data;
• correspondence;
• freedom to develop social and professional relationships.

Any interference must have a legal basis, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Protection of Property

An asset freeze is an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

Such an interference is not necessarily unlawful. States may regulate the use of property in the public interest.

However, the measure must:

• be provided by law;
• pursue a legitimate aim;
• maintain a fair balance between the public interest and the individual’s rights;
• include adequate procedural safeguards;
• avoid imposing an excessive individual burden.

A prolonged freeze without meaningful review or access to an effective remedy may raise issues under this provision.

What Is Considered a Serious Human Rights Violation?

Serious human rights violations are acts that reach a particularly high level of severity, cause grave or irreversible harm, or form part of a widespread or systematic practice.

They may include:

• genocide;
• crimes against humanity;
• torture;
• slavery;
• extrajudicial or arbitrary executions;
• enforced disappearances;
• arbitrary arrest or detention;
• trafficking in human beings;
• serious sexual or gender-based violence;
• systematic repression of freedom of expression, assembly, association, religion, or belief.

The EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime allows restrictive measures against persons and entities responsible for, involved in, or associated with serious human rights violations and abuses worldwide. The regime is not limited to violations committed in a particular country.

The distinction between torture and other forms of ill-treatment may be legally important.

Torture generally involves deliberate infliction of severe suffering for a particular purpose, such as obtaining information, punishment, intimidation, or coercion.

Inhuman treatment may cause intense physical or psychological suffering without all the specific elements required for a finding of torture.

Degrading treatment humiliates or debases a person to a degree incompatible with human dignity.

The legal classification depends on the circumstances, including duration, severity, purpose, consequences, and the victim’s vulnerability.

How Does the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime Work?

The EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime was established in December 2020.

It applies to individuals, legal persons, entities, and bodies associated with serious human rights violations and abuses.

Restrictive measures may include:

• freezing funds and economic resources within EU jurisdiction;
• prohibiting EU persons and companies from making funds or economic resources available to listed parties;
• imposing travel restrictions on listed individuals.

The framework itself currently runs until 8 December 2026, while existing listings are reviewed and renewed separately.

The listing process usually involves:

1. A proposal supported by information concerning the person or entity.
2. Consideration by the Council of the European Union.
3. Adoption of the relevant legal acts.
4. Publication of the listing and a statement of reasons.
5. An opportunity for the listed party to submit observations and request reconsideration.
6. Periodic review of the listing.

EU sanctions decisions under the Common Foreign and Security Policy are adopted by the Council. Decisions on sanctions are generally taken unanimously.

A listed person may ask the Council to reconsider the decision. This administrative request does not necessarily suspend the deadline for bringing an action before the General Court.

Therefore, a request for reconsideration should not be treated as a substitute for timely court proceedings.

Who Can Be Sanctioned for Human Rights Violations?

EU restrictive measures may apply to:

• government officials;
• military commanders;
• members of law enforcement agencies;
• intelligence and security officials;
• prison authorities;
• judges and prosecutors;
• directors of private companies;
• members of non-state armed groups;
• companies and organisations supporting serious abuses;
• persons financing or benefiting from prohibited conduct.

Responsibility may be based on:

• direct participation;
• ordering or directing violations;
• providing material or financial support;
• facilitating unlawful conduct;
• controlling an organisation responsible for violations;
• benefiting from serious abuses;
• association with listed persons or entities where the legal conditions are met.

Category	Possible Grounds	Possible Measures
Government officials	Ordering or facilitating arbitrary arrests, torture, or extrajudicial killings	Asset freeze and travel ban
Military and security officials	Direct participation in torture, disappearances, or crimes against humanity	Asset freeze, travel ban, and financial restrictions
Company executives	Financing abuses or benefiting from forced labour or other serious violations	Asset freeze and prohibition on financial dealings
Judges and prosecutors	Participation in serious politically motivated repression	Asset freeze and travel ban
Non-state armed groups	Crimes against humanity, torture, or other serious abuses	Asset freeze and financial restrictions

 

EU sanctions are targeted measures. They are not intended to punish an entire population. Relatives and business partners are not automatically sanctioned merely because of their relationship with a listed person.

However, companies or assets owned or controlled by a listed party may be affected under applicable ownership and control rules.

How Can an EU Sanctions Listing Be Challenged?

A person or company included in an EU sanctions list should act promptly.

Requesting Reconsideration by the Council

The listed party may submit observations and request that the Council reconsider the listing.

The request may challenge:

• factual errors;
• mistaken identity;
• insufficient evidence;
• outdated information;
• lack of individualised reasoning;
• absence of a legal basis;
• failure to establish responsibility or association;
• disproportionality;
• changed circumstances.

Supporting documents should be submitted in an organised and verifiable form.

Bringing an Action Before the General Court

A direct challenge to an EU listing is normally brought before the General Court of the European Union under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Potential grounds may include:

• insufficient statement of reasons;
• violation of the rights of defence;
• manifest error of assessment;
• absence of sufficient evidence;
• incorrect legal classification;
• breach of proportionality;
• violation of fundamental rights;
• misuse of powers.

The action generally must be filed within two months of publication, notification, or the date on which the applicant obtained knowledge of the measure. Missing this deadline may make the action inadmissible.

Where a listing is renewed or maintained through a new legal act, that later act may create a new opportunity for challenge. However, this must be assessed carefully and should not be relied upon as a reason to ignore an existing deadline.

How Can Sanctions-Related Violations Be Brought Before the ECtHR?

An ECtHR application requires a separate legal analysis.

Identify the Responsible State

The applicant must identify a state party to the Convention whose act or omission caused the alleged violation.

The European Union cannot currently be named as the respondent before the ECtHR because it is not yet a party to the Convention.

A complaint may concern, for example:

• a national authority enforcing an asset freeze;
• a domestic court refusing an effective review;
• a state failing to disclose essential evidence;
• a national decision disproportionately affecting family or property rights;
• national detention or removal proceedings connected with sanctions.

Exhaust Effective Domestic Remedies

The applicant must first use the remedies available in the respondent state that are capable of addressing the Convention complaint.

This may include:

• administrative review;
• proceedings before national courts;
• appeals;
• constitutional proceedings where they constitute an effective remedy;
• other procedures required by national law.

There is no universal rule that every applicant must always complete proceedings before both national courts and the EU courts before applying to Strasbourg.

The correct route depends on whether the challenged act is attributable to an EU institution, a national authority, or both.

Observe the Four-Month Deadline

A complete application normally must be sent within four months of the final decision in the domestic process relevant to the Convention complaint.

The former six-month deadline is no longer applicable to current applications.

The deadline is strict. Correspondence that does not satisfy the Court’s formal requirements may not stop time from running.

Prepare a Complete Application

The application should explain:

• the relevant facts;
• the acts or omissions of the respondent state;
• the Convention provisions allegedly violated;
• the domestic remedies used;
• the date of the final decision;
• the personal and direct harm suffered;
• the remedy sought.

The applicant should attach copies of all relevant decisions and supporting evidence.

Language of the Application

The Court’s official languages are English and French.

At the initial stage, however, an applicant may submit an application in an official language of a state that has ratified the Convention. After the case is communicated to the respondent government, the Court may require further submissions in English or French.

Examination of the Case

The Court first examines admissibility.

It considers, among other matters:

• whether the applicant is personally and directly affected;
• whether domestic remedies were exhausted;
• whether the four-month deadline was respected;
• whether the complaint falls within the Court’s jurisdiction;
• whether the application is sufficiently substantiated;
• whether the complaint is manifestly ill-founded.

When an application is communicated, the respondent state is invited to submit observations. The applicant may then respond.

A Chamber normally consists of seven judges. In cases raising serious questions of interpretation or general importance, a case may be referred or relinquished to the Grand Chamber.

A request to refer a Chamber judgment to the Grand Chamber must generally be made within three months.

What Evidence Is Required for an ECtHR Application?

The applicant must show that they personally and directly suffered from the alleged violation.

Relevant evidence may include:

• the EU sanctions decision or listing notice;
• the statement of reasons;
• national implementation measures;
• decisions of domestic courts;
• decisions of the General Court or Court of Justice, where relevant;
• correspondence with the Council of the European Union;
• bank notices confirming an asset freeze;
• rejected payment instructions;
• account statements;
• correspondence with financial institutions;
• evidence of refused entry or travel restrictions;
• employment or business records;
• contracts affected by the restrictions;
• evidence of family relationships;
• medical records;
• documents showing damage to reputation or professional activity;
• legal submissions made in earlier proceedings.

Where the complaint concerns lack of access to evidence, the applicant should identify:

• which materials were withheld;
• when access was requested;
• how the authorities responded;
• why the undisclosed material was necessary for an effective defence;
• whether the courts reviewed the confidentiality claim;
• how the restriction affected the outcome.

Documents may initially be submitted in an accepted language, although translations into English or French may later be required or strategically advisable.

Evidence should be arranged chronologically and clearly connected to each alleged Convention violation.

What Happens After a Person Is Removed from an EU Sanctions List?

Removal from a sanctions list does not always result in immediate access to funds.

Banks and other regulated institutions may carry out additional checks relating to:

• identity;
• ownership and control;
• source of funds;
• continuing sanctions exposure;
• other applicable sanctions regimes;
• anti-money laundering obligations;
• internal compliance requirements.

A formerly listed person should contact relevant financial institutions promptly and provide:

• the delisting decision;
• the relevant Official Journal publication;
• identification documents;
• ownership information;
• evidence concerning the source of funds;
• an explanation of the legal effect of the delisting;
• any necessary legal opinion.

Unexplained delays may require a formal complaint, regulatory communication, or court proceedings.

Practical Steps for a Sanctions Challenge

A person affected by EU sanctions should generally consider the following steps:

1. Obtain the complete sanctions decision and statement of reasons.
2. Confirm the date of publication, notification, and actual knowledge.
3. Calculate all procedural deadlines immediately.
4. Preserve evidence of frozen accounts, rejected payments, and other consequences.
5. Identify the legal and factual basis for the listing.
6. Determine whether the evidence relates to the correct person or entity.
7. Submit a reasoned reconsideration request where appropriate.
8. Prepare an action before the General Court without waiting for the administrative request to be decided.
9. Review how each EU member state is implementing the restrictions.
10. Challenge unlawful national enforcement measures through the available domestic remedies.
11. Assess whether the conduct of a Convention state raises issues under Articles 6 or 8 or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
12. Calculate the four-month ECtHR deadline from the final relevant domestic decision.
13. Prepare a complete evidential record before submitting an application.

Urgent Legal Assistance With EU Sanctions and Human Rights Cases

Every Day Matters — Do Not Delay

Receive an initial assessment of your case.

Our team handles legal matters involving international sanctions, cross-border restrictions, asset freezes, human rights, and international proceedings.

We can:

• analyse the legal basis for the sanctions;
• review the statement of reasons and supporting evidence;
• calculate procedural deadlines;
• assess the possibility of an action before the General Court;
• review national enforcement measures;
• identify potential Convention violations;
• prepare a strategy for protecting assets and procedural rights;
• assist with an ECtHR application where the jurisdictional and admissibility requirements are satisfied.

This article has been published by an independent legal organisation for informational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and does not claim or imply any affiliation with a government authority, international organisation, court, or official institution.