EU General Court upholds ban on out-of-court legal advice to Russian entities

1. The facts

   The case stems from the adoption, in October 2022, of the EU's eighth package of restrictive measures in response to the Ukrainian crisis. These measures included a ban on providing legal advisory services to the Russian government and companies established in Russia. According to reports from outlets such as Il Sole 24 Ore and Reuters, the response from the legal profession was immediate: the Ordre des avocats à la cour de Paris and Julie Couturier filed an action for annulment before the EU General Court, supported by the intervention of the Bar Associations of Luxembourg, Geneva, and Brussels. At the first-instance procedural stage, the applicants argued that this ban violated professional secrecy, the independence of lawyers, and access to justice guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, the General Court of the European Union upheld the validity of the contested rule. The ruling clarifies that the ban is not absolute, as it explicitly excludes legal assistance related to judicial or arbitral proceedings, targeting only so-called strategic and commercial consultancy unrelated to pending litigation.

2. 

   The laws in play

   The legal pivot of the dispute is Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2022/1904, which in Article 5 nonies (5n) introduces the prohibition on providing legal advisory services. This rule must be read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which protect the confidentiality of communications and the right to an effective remedy, respectively.

   1. Article 5 nonies (5n) establishes the ban on advice to Russian entities but provides for exemptions for humanitarian purposes and the exercise of the right to defense.
   2. At the national level, the violation of such sanctions triggers Legislative Decree No. 221/2017, which provides for severe penalties for professionals who circumvent the Union's restrictive measures.

3. What the jurisprudence says

   The jurisprudence of the European Union has consolidated the principle of proportionality between the protection of fundamental rights and foreign policy objectives. The court clarified that professional secrecy is not an absolute prerogative, but may be subject to limitations when defensive activity in the strict sense is not at stake. In particular, the prevailing approach distinguishes between the lawyer's function as an officer of the court and their activity as a business consultant. While in the first case protection is maximum, in the second, consultancy may be restricted in the face of overriding public interests, such as international security or counteracting military aggression, provided that the measure is necessary and targeted at specific subjects, such as state or commercial legal entities of a third country.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Implement rigorous due diligence procedures to identify the actual registered office and control of Russian clients.
   2. Thoroughly document the link between the advice provided and any judicial proceeding in order to invoke the exemption.
   3. Clearly distinguish in engagement letters and invoices between defensive legal assistance and business consultancy to avoid challenges from supervisory authorities.

References: Regolamento (UE) n. 833/2014Articolo 5 nonies (5n) Regolamento (UE) 833/2014Articolo 47 Carta dei Diritti Fondamentali dell'UED.Lgs. 221/2017

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 22 September 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction