123Sanctions
Advocate General Szpunar Delivers Opinion on the Indirect Making Available of Funds to Sanctioned Persons (Case C-842/24)
On 23 March 2026, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar delivered his Opinion in Case C-842/24, DNO Yemen AS v Petrolin Trading Limited. The case concerns the interpretation of the prohibition on making funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to sanctioned individuals under the EU Yemen sanctions regime.
The dispute arose from an ICC arbitration in which DNO Yemen AS, Petrolin Trading Limited, and Moe Oil & Gas Yemen Limited were ordered to pay damages to the Yemeni Ministry of Oil and Minerals and the state-owned Yemen Oil & Gas Corporation (YOGC). The oil companies challenged enforcement of the award before French courts, arguing that payment could indirectly benefit individuals designated under Council Regulation (EU) No 1352/2014 — specifically, leading figures within the Houthi movement — who, the companies contend, exert control over YOGC.
The Paris Court of Appeal had rejected this argument, finding insufficient evidence that the Ministry or YOGC acted under the control or instructions of sanctioned individuals. The Cour de cassation subsequently referred three questions to the CJEU, asking how broadly the concept of indirect availability of funds under the EU Yemen sanctions regulations is to be construed. In particular, the referring court asked whether the prohibition covers payments to non-designated public entities where sanctioned individuals exert a competing influence alongside a legitimate government, and whether a mere reasonable risk that funds could ultimately benefit designated persons is sufficient to trigger the sanctions prohibition.
The Opinion carries significant implications beyond the Yemen context. As commentators have noted, the CJEU's eventual ruling could affect any EU sanctions regime that prohibits the indirect provision of funds or economic resources to designated persons — including the sanctions frameworks currently in place against Russia and Iran. The case raises fundamental questions about the intersection of international arbitration, sovereign entities, and sanctions compliance in situations of contested sovereignty.
The Opinion of the Advocate General is not binding on the Court. A judgment by the CJEU is expected in due course.
Sources:
- CJEU, Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, Case C-842/24 — DNO Yemen AS v Petrolin Trading Limited and Others, 23 March 2026
The dispute arose from an ICC arbitration in which DNO Yemen AS, Petrolin Trading Limited, and Moe Oil & Gas Yemen Limited were ordered to pay damages to the Yemeni Ministry of Oil and Minerals and the state-owned Yemen Oil & Gas Corporation (YOGC). The oil companies challenged enforcement of the award before French courts, arguing that payment could indirectly benefit individuals designated under Council Regulation (EU) No 1352/2014 — specifically, leading figures within the Houthi movement — who, the companies contend, exert control over YOGC.
The Paris Court of Appeal had rejected this argument, finding insufficient evidence that the Ministry or YOGC acted under the control or instructions of sanctioned individuals. The Cour de cassation subsequently referred three questions to the CJEU, asking how broadly the concept of indirect availability of funds under the EU Yemen sanctions regulations is to be construed. In particular, the referring court asked whether the prohibition covers payments to non-designated public entities where sanctioned individuals exert a competing influence alongside a legitimate government, and whether a mere reasonable risk that funds could ultimately benefit designated persons is sufficient to trigger the sanctions prohibition.
The Opinion carries significant implications beyond the Yemen context. As commentators have noted, the CJEU's eventual ruling could affect any EU sanctions regime that prohibits the indirect provision of funds or economic resources to designated persons — including the sanctions frameworks currently in place against Russia and Iran. The case raises fundamental questions about the intersection of international arbitration, sovereign entities, and sanctions compliance in situations of contested sovereignty.
The Opinion of the Advocate General is not binding on the Court. A judgment by the CJEU is expected in due course.
Sources:
- CJEU, Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, Case C-842/24 — DNO Yemen AS v Petrolin Trading Limited and Others, 23 March 2026