April 23rd is dominated by a single landmark publication: the EU’s 20th Russia sanctions package, which combines a €90 billion Ukraine support loan, 37 new individual designations, 80 new entities, and five new sectoral prohibitions including an LNG terminal services ban and a digital rouble block. On the judicial side, four rulings cover competition inspection costs, consumer credit, in absentia criminal appeals, and a staff harassment case with an unusual defendant.
The 20th Sanctions Package: Gearing Up for a Long War
The EU published a €90 billion Ukraine support loan alongside the largest Russia/Belarus sanctions package since the invasion. The loan runs through 2026–2027 under enhanced cooperation, with Hungary, Czechia, and Slovakia opted out. The Russia package adds 37 persons across eight categories — drone manufacturers, chemical weapons commanders, cultural property looters, and sanctions evasion networks — plus 80 entities and 46 shadow fleet vessel listings. Five new sectoral prohibitions target LNG terminal services, Russia’s digital rouble, extended crypto-asset use, research funding, and shadow fleet due diligence. The Belarus package lists, for the first time, a Chinese state defence company.
C-744/24 · Consumer Credit · ECJ Banks may not charge interest on the portion of a loan earmarked to pay bundled credit costs — such as insurance premiums — that the consumer never actually receives. Ruling originated from Polish proceedings against Bank Pekao; applies EU-wide to bundled-premium credit agreements.
C-24/26 PPU · Criminal Procedure · ECJ Urgent ruling on Italy’s extraordinary review mechanism for in absentia convictions. Two questions answered: victim rights law does not require Italy to notify victims of post-conviction review proceedings; and Italy may lawfully require direct proof of deliberate evasion before granting a defendant a new trial.
T-682/24 · Competition · General Court Red Bull’s claim for reimbursement of IT and legal costs incurred during a Commission dawn raid rejected in full. Cooperation costs arising from an existing legal obligation cannot be transferred to the inspecting authority.
T-84/24 · Staff / Data Protection · General Court A Court of Justice staff member was partially denied access to their own harassment investigation file. The General Court confirmed blanket refusals are impermissible, with the institutional twist that the defendant in the case was the Court of Justice itself.
