CL-2022-000456 - [2025] EWHC 1938 (Comm)

There are several decisions of the European Court of Justice that are relevant to the interpretation and application of Regulation 269. It is not necessary to list them all here, in advance of referring to them as appropriate in the course of discussing the specific issues that arise. However, it is worth noting some that relate specifically to the EuroChem group and/or to Mr and Mrs Melnichenko:

There have also been some relevant decisions of the national courts of member states. In particular, I was taken to a decision of the Helsinki Court of Appeal, File No. U 24/498, on an appeal by SUEK AG concerning the decision of the Finnish Enforcement Office to seize its assets, on the basis that Mr Melnichenko neither owned nor controlled SUEK AG. Although the case involved SUEK AG, rather than the EuroChem group, many of the same issues arose as are before me, because SUEK AG has been owned by EuroChem AG since 2024. By its decision of 31 January 2025, the Court of Appeal concluded that SUEK AG is controlled by Mr Melnichenko, but that the firewall safeguards implemented by EuroChem AG had been accepted by the relevant NCAs, and the asset seizure therefore was not justified.

I was also taken to three references by which courts in Italy have lodged a request for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice: C-483/23 (lodged on 26 July 2023), C-428/24 (lodged on 13 June 2024) and C-476/24 (lodged on 5 July 2024). The copies of the requests provided to me are all anonymised, but it is objectively obvious that at least one of them (C-428/24) relates to Mr Melnichenko and the EuroChem group. All the parties before me, including the Claimants, addressed me in open court on that basis, so it would be artificial for me not to acknowledge this and proceed on the same basis. The questions in C-428/24 are as follows:

1.

Does Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 preclude an interpretation according to which – in the case of assets or resources held in a discretionary trust (the beneficiary of which is listed in Annex I to that regulation) – those assets and/or resources are nevertheless to be regarded as ‘belonging’ to the beneficiary of the trust, even if the national law applicable to the trust (or a contractual safeguard clause contained in the trust deed) expressly prohibits the beneficiary from performing any act of enjoyment or disposal of the trust assets or resources for as long as the beneficiary is listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, or in any event for as long as the use or disposal of such assets or resources would constitute an infringement of [EU] law?

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 preclude an interpretation according to which – in the case of assets or resources held in a discretionary trust (the beneficiary of which is listed in Annex I to the above-mentioned EU regulation) – those assets and/or resources are nevertheless to be regarded as subject to the ‘control’ of the beneficiary of the trust, even if the national law applicable to the trust (or a contractual safeguard clause contained in the trust deed) expressly prohibits the beneficiary from performing any act of enjoyment or disposal of the trust assets or resources for as long as the beneficiary is listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, or in any event for as long as the use or disposal of such assets or resources would constitute an infringement of [EU] law?”

These questions are highly germane to the issues before me. The questions in the two other cases are similar and/or raise similar points. I was told that, in each case, a response from the European Court of Justice is still pending.