Background
Dana Astra IOOO is a Belarusian real estate development and construction company that has been subject to EU restrictive measures (asset freezes) since 2020 under sanctions regimes against Belarus related to human rights violations and Belarus’s involvement in Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The Council justified including Dana Astra on sanctions lists by citing that it is one of Belarus’s main real estate developers, receives special development rights for major projects including the “Minsk World” center, and thereby benefits from and supports the Lukashenko regime. The company’s name was maintained on the lists by the Council through amendments adopted in February 2023 and February 2024.
Dana Astra challenged these restrictive measures before the General Court in case T-281/23. The General Court dismissed the action as out of time, finding that the Council had validly notified the 2023 maintaining acts to Dana Astra’s lawyers on 28 February 2023, thereby triggering the two-month deadline under Article 263 TFEU for bringing an annulment action. The General Court relied on a power of attorney dated 1 November 2021, which authorized Dana Astra’s lawyers to represent it in a different case (T-239/21) concerning earlier sanctions. Although finding the action inadmissible, the General Court examined the merits and upheld the grounds for maintaining the listing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Justice held that the General Court erred in dismissing the action as out of time. Notification of restrictive measure acts to a person’s lawyer does not constitute valid “direct communication” to that person under Article 8a(2) of Regulation No 765/2006, and therefore does not trigger the two-month limitation period under Article 263 TFEU, unless the power of attorney clearly and unequivocally authorizes the lawyer to receive such notification. A power of attorney must be examined solely on the basis of its wording, and contextual factors about how parties subsequently conducted themselves cannot supplement an insufficiently clear authorization.
The Court found that the power of attorney of 1 November 2021 was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal. The document explicitly limited the lawyers’ authorization to Case T-239/21 and to actions “in the course of pursuing this procedure.” The 2023 maintaining acts at issue were not part of that case; they were the subject of a separate proceeding (T-281/23). The combination of the explicit case reference and the language “in the course of this procedure” meant the power of attorney authorized representation only in the earlier case, not for receiving notification of new acts in a different case.
The Court emphasized that while an exception to the general principle against notification to lawyers is permissible where proper authorization exists, this exception must be strictly construed. As a derogation from the requirement of direct communication, it demands clear and unequivocal wording that leaves no room for alternative interpretation. The General Court’s reliance on subsequent correspondence patterns and the Council’s assertion that it used “all available channels” could not remedy the fundamental defect that the power of attorney did not clearly authorize receipt of the contested notifications.
Key Takeaways
- Notification of EU restrictive measure acts to a lawyer triggers the limitation period only if the power of attorney clearly and unequivocally authorizes that specific act of receipt.
- A power of attorney limited to a particular case does not automatically extend authorization to subsequent related proceedings or new acts affecting the same person.
- Courts must examine whether a power of attorney authorizes notification solely based on the document’s wording, not on contextual factors or parties’ conduct.
- The procedural framework for challenging restrictive measures affords strict protections around notification, and the limitation period does not begin until valid direct communication occurs.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly affects the procedural rights of entities and individuals subject to EU restrictive measures, particularly regarding the critical two-month deadline for challenging sanctions. By requiring that powers of attorney be clear and unequivocal, the Court prevents the EU from circumventing strict procedural requirements through notification to lawyers alone. For Dana Astra and other Belarusian entities and officials on EU sanctions lists, the ruling means that valid notification requires either direct communication to the sanctioned party or a power of attorney that explicitly authorizes lawyers to receive notifications of new or renewed sanctions decisions.
The judgment also reinforces the importance of procedural regularity in EU sanctions law, an area where fundamental rights concerns are heightened due to the severe impact of asset freezes. The Court’s insistence on clear authorization reflects a broader principle that persons subject to restrictive measures must receive effective notice to exercise their right to judicial review under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The decision thus establishes a protective doctrine that extends the ability of sanctioned parties to challenge measures when procedural defects in notification occur.