I. INTRODUCTION

1. On 23 April 2026, the European Union (“EU”) adopted its 20th package of restrictive measures against Russia. The package was implemented, among other instruments, through Council Regulation (EU) 2026/506 (“Regulation 2026/506”),^[1] which amended Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (“Regulation 833/2014”),^[2] and Council Regulation (EU) 2026/511 (“Regulation 2026/511”),^[3] which amended Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (“Regulation 269/2014”).^[4] Both amending regulations were published in the Official Journal of European Union on 23 April 2026, while Regulation 2026/506 entered into force on 24 April 2026.
2. The package is designed to increase pressure on Russia’s energy, finance, trade, technology, and military-industrial sectors. It also targets third-country actors and structures used to evade the EU sanctions. This anti-circumvention focus is reflected, among other measures, in the first activation of the EU’s Article 12f of Regulation 2014/833, an anti-circumvention tool to extend specified export restrictions to Kyrgyzstan. The package also strengthens financial restrictions, including restrictions relating to Russian crypto-assets, central bank digital currencies, and Russia-based crypto-asset service providers.^[5]
3. However, this alert focuses specifically on the dispute-resolution and enforcement-facing measures introduced by Regulation 2026/506 and Regulation 2026/511. It first provides a brief background to the relevant regulations and how the key provisions stood immediately before the latest amendments. It then discusses the recent amendments and their potential implications for legal practitioners and parties involved in cross-border litigation or arbitration.

II. BACKGROUND TO THE AMENDED REGULATIONS

4. The EU’s restrictive measures framework against Russia is principally built around two regulations. The two regulations operate cumulatively, such that a transaction may engage both simultaneously.

(a) Regulation 269/2014: It is the asset-freeze and listings regulation. It freezes all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held, or controlled by designated persons, entities, and bodies listed in Annex I, and prohibits making funds or economic resources available to them. It was adopted on 17 March 2014 in response to actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine.^[6]

(b) Regulation 833/2014: It is the sectoral measures regulation. It prohibits or restricts a wide range of economic activities, transactions, and services by EU operators, regardless of whether the counterparty is individually designated. It was adopted on 31 July 2014 in response to Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine.^[7]

5. Both regulations have been amended repeatedly since 2014. After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, the EU increasingly used these regulations not only to limit economic activity but also to address the legal consequences that arose when parties complied with sanctions. This includes claims, litigation, arbitration, Russian countermeasures, and related enforcement measures.^[8]

A. Legal advisory services and access to justice

6. Before the 20^th package, Regulation 833/2014 already restricted the provision of specified professional services to Russia. Article 5n prohibited the direct or indirect provision of specified services, including legal advisory services, to the Government of Russia and to legal persons, entities, or bodies established in Russia.^[9]
7. However, Article 5n does not prohibit the provision of legal advisory services in contentious matters. The basic distinction is this: non-contentious legal advisory services are legal services in commercial, transactional, or corporate matters that are not tied to actual, probable, or reasonably foreseeable proceedings. This may include advice on transactions, negotiations, or legal documentation.^[10] Contentious legal representation concerns services connected with proceedings before any court or administrative body, or with a preliminary assessment of whether such proceedings are necessary, likely, or avoidable.

8. The EU courts have considered this distinction. In GM and ON v PR, also referred to as Jemerak, the Court of Justice held that notarial authentication of a sale contract for immovable property owned by a Russian-established legal person, related notarial implementation steps, and translation assistance during authentication were not covered by the prohibition under Article 5n.^[11] Separately, in October 2024, the General Court upheld the validity of Article 5n against challenges brought by bar associations and lawyers. The Court treated the restriction as aimed at non-contentious legal advisory services. It also recognised that access to legal advice remains protected where there is a sufficient link with judicial proceedings.^[12]
9. The same policy underlies the 20th package: the new measures target abusive litigation and enforcement activity by sanctioned parties but do not eliminate access to courts, tribunals, or legal representation.

B. Claims, damages, and Russian countermeasure provisions

10. Regulation 833/2014 already contained a no-claims provision in Article 11. In broad terms, Article 11 prevented the satisfaction of claims connected with contracts or transactions affected by EU sanctions where those claims were made by Russian persons, entities or bodies, listed persons, or other specified persons.
11. Articles 11a and 11b already gave EU operators means to recover damages incurred in legal proceedings initiated in furtherance of claims arising from contracts hit by sanctions before the 20th package. Article 11a allowed certain EU persons to recover direct or indirect damages, including legal costs, in EU Member State courts where the damages resulted from claims lodged in third-country courts by specified Russian or Russia-linked parties in connection with sanctions-affected contracts or transactions.^[13]
12. Article 11b addressed a related but different scenario. It concerned Russian expropriation, temporary management, and countermeasure measures, including measures connected to Russian Presidential Decree No. 302 of 25 April 2023 and Federal Law No. 470-FZ of 4 August 2023.^[14] It provided the same remedy as Article 11a [see [11] above].
13. Article 5ab addressed another problem: the use of Russian courts in sanctions-related disputes. In substance, it enabled the EU to impose transaction bans on persons or entities that had brought claims before Russian courts under Articles 248.1 or 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code, or equivalent Russian legislation, in connection with contracts or transactions affected by EU sanctions. Articles 248.1 and 248.2 are central to Russian sanctions-related countermeasures as they provide a clear way to circumvent the prohibitions under Article 11 of Regulation 833/2014.^[15]
14. The 20^thpackage also follows earlier steps adopted by the EU on sanctions-related dispute resolution. In July 2025, Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 amended Regulation 833/2014 to add further protections connected with investor-State arbitration claims linked to EU sanctions.^[16]

III. THE LATEST AMENDMENTS

A. Regulation 2026/506: Amendments to Regulation 833/2014

15. Regulation 2026/506 introduces several litigation and enforcement-facing changes into Regulation 833/2014. The central amendments highlighted in this alert are the addition of Article 5aj and the amendments to Articles 11a and 11b.
    
    [i] Article 5aj: Annex LV and the new transaction ban
16. Article 5aj operates by reference to a new Annex LV, which is structured in two parts. Part A concerns persons and entities linked to the enforcement of judgments for the satisfaction of claims falling within Article 11a(1). Part B concerns persons and entities linked to the enforcement of decisions falling within Article 11b(1).
17. Article 5aj(1) prohibits, directly or indirectly, transacting with a natural or legal person, entity, or body listed in Annex LV, Part A, where that person or entity seeks to enforce, or is involved in enforcing, judgments for the satisfaction of Article 11a(1) claims outside the EU. The prohibition may also extend to persons or entities that own or control the listed person or entity. However, lawyers and members of the judiciary are excluded from this prohibition.
18. Article 5aj(2) applies the same structure to Annex LV, Part B. It targets persons or entities that seek to enforce, or are involved in enforcing, decisions falling within Article 11b(1) outside the EU. It also contains the same language on ownership and control, and exclusion for lawyers and members of the judiciary as Part A.
19. The practical result is that Article 5aj is not merely an anti-suit mechanism, it is a sanctions tool. Once a person or entity is covered by Annex LV because of its role in enforcing Article 11a or Article 11b judgments or decisions outside the EU, EU operators are prohibited from transacting with that person or entity, subject to the applicable exceptions and derogations.^[17]
20. Article 5aj should be read with Articles 11a and 11b. Articles 11a and 11b provide the damages-facing side of the framework, while Article 5aj adds a sanctions-facing consequence by creating exposure to a transaction-ban for persons involved in enforcement activity outside the EU.
    
    [ii] Article 11a: third-country enforcement of sanctions-related judgments
21. Regulation 2026/506 expands the damages recovery framework for legal proceedings initiated by sanctioned entities in third-countries under Article 11a (see [11] above) by addressing the enforcement stage. The amended Article 11a covers claims for damages incurred by EU operators in proceedings before a court of a third-country seeking the enforcement of a judgment upholding claims falling within Article 11a(1).^[18]
22. The amendment is important because it targets practical recovery. It addresses not only the filing of a sanctions-related claim, but also subsequent attempts to realise that claim into assets through enforcement proceedings in third countries.
23. Regulation 2026/506 expands Article 11b (see [12] above) by covering enforcement activity in third countries outside the EU and Russia. The amended framework permits EU operators to recover damages, including legal costs, where loss is caused by the enforcement, in a third country other than Russia, of decisions falling within Article 11b(1).^[19]
24. This should not be understood as limited to Russian presidential decrees, though Presidential Decree No. 302 and Federal Law No. 470-FZ are important examples. The provision is better understood as addressing Russian expropriation, temporary management, and related countermeasure scenarios more broadly.
25. Article 11ca forms part of the same protective framework and operates as a procedural mechanism comparable to an anti-suit or anti-arbitration injunction. It enables an EU person to apply to a competent court of a Member State for an order restraining a Russian party from initiating or continuing proceedings before third-country courts in relation to a sanctions-affected contract or transaction. This remedy is available where such proceedings are brought in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration agreement, or pursuant to Articles 248.1 or 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code, or equivalent provisions of Russian law.
26. The order may require the Russian party not to initiate, or to discontinue, the Russian proceedings, with non-compliance potentially resulting in financial penalties. Article 11ca is therefore different from Articles 11a, 11b, and 5aj. Articles 11a and 11b are damages provisions, Article 5aj is a transaction-ban mechanism, and Article 11ca is a court-based procedural tool aimed at the Russian proceedings themselves.

B. Regulation 2026/511: Article 5c of Regulation 269/2014

27. Regulation 2026/511 inserts Article 5c into Regulation 269/2014. Regulation 269/2014 provides the asset freeze framework and generally prohibits making funds or economic resources available to listed persons, within which Article 5c creates a narrow derogation for costs awarded in arbitrations.
28. Article 5c allows competent authorities of EU Member States to authorise the release of frozen funds or economic resources where those funds or economic resources are subject to an arbitral decision.^[20] However, this derogation is limited to costs. Article 5c(2) describes this as covering tribunal fees and expenses, arbitral institution fees, and reasonable legal costs incurred by the EU party. It does not extend to damages, interest, principal sums, or other substantive claims.
29. The rationale behind this measure is clear from the recitals. The EU intends to discourage listed persons from initiating arbitration proceedings after they have been made subject to restrictive measures, while still permitting non-listed parties to recover costs awarded in their favour where they have had to defend such proceedings.

IV. Potential Implications

30. The 20^th package marks a further shift in EU sanctions policy. The EU is not only preventing the satisfaction of sanctions-affected claims, it is also creating remedies. The amendments and insertions include the recovery of damages, exposure to transaction-bans, mechanisms to restrain proceeding by way of court orders, and targeted derogations to asset freezes to address how Russian and Russia-linked parties litigate, arbitrate, and enforce sanctions-related claims.
31. First, the third-country enforcement strategy adopted to circumvent the sanctions has been addressed. Article 5aj puts persons who seek to enforce, or cooperate in enforcing, relevant Article 11a or Article 11b judgments or decisions outside the EU, at risk of being hit with sanctions. The amendments to Articles 11a and 11b also give EU operators a route to recover damages where third-country enforcement activity causes them to incur losses. EU operators should therefore monitor not only Russian proceedings, but also enforcement steps taken in third-country courts.
32. Second, counterparty and litigation-risk screening will need to become more comprehensive in order to include parties that seek to enforce or assist in enforcing Russian judgments in violation of the EU sanctions in third countries. EU operators, financial institutions, litigation funders, assignees, enforcement agents, and other transaction participants should screen not only traditional asset-freeze lists, but also transaction-ban annexes such as Annex LV. Analysing the ownership and control of sanctioned entities will remain important because Article 5aj may extend beyond the specifically listed person or entity.
33. Third, Article 5c may affect arbitrations involving listed persons. Although it does not permit substantive recovery against frozen assets, it may, however, reduce the cost asymmetry faced by non-listed parties required to defend arbitrations initiated by listed persons after their listing. This may be relevant to security for costs, cost-allocation strategy, enforcement planning, and may provide leverage for settlements.
34. Fourth, Article 11ca gives EU operators a more direct procedural route to resist Russian proceedings brought in breach of jurisdiction or arbitration clauses. This complements the damages framework under Articles 11a and 11ab and the transaction-ban framework under Article 5aj.
35. The practical effectiveness of these measures will still depend on facts and vary from case-to-case. Relevant factors include asset location, the availability of Member State jurisdiction, the interpretation of effective access to remedies, the meaning of cooperation in enforcement, and the approach taken by third-country courts while considering these sanctions.
36. Overall, the 20^th package should be understood as part of the EU’s attempt to protect the effectiveness of its sanctions regime in cross-border disputes. The measures seek to prevent sanctioned or Russia-linked parties from using courts, arbitral tribunals, or third-country enforcement systems to obtain indirectly what EU sanctions directly prohibit. For EU operators, sanctions compliance now requires an integrated litigation, arbitration, and enforcement strategy, and is no longer limited to screening in relation to transactions.