Freezing of assets held through trusts: Case C-483/23 (T Trust) and joined Cases C-428/24 and C-476/24

The first set of judgments arose from three Italian references for a preliminary ruling concerning the freezing of funds and economic resources linked, indirectly through trust arrangements, to persons designated under EU restrictive measures adopted in response to Russia's military aggression against Ukraine. In each case, assets were held through trusts established under the laws of Bermuda, and the Italian authorities imposed freezing measures notwithstanding that the trust instruments purported to bar any transfer to, or control by, the sanctioned individuals.

The CJEU held that the concepts of "belonging to" and of "control" within the meaning of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 must be interpreted broadly, so as to encompass all forms of power or influence exercised over funds and economic resources, including in the absence of any formal legal link between the assets and the designated person. Assets may therefore be regarded as belonging to, or being under the control of, a settlor or beneficiary of a trust where those persons retain the power to use, benefit from, or dispose of such resources, or to exert influence over the decisions made by the trustee in relation to them, or indeed if they are or can exert such influence over other power-holders..

The CJEU emphasised that this interpretation is consistent with the purpose of asset-freezing provisions, which is to limit as far as possible the transactions that may be carried out with the assets concerned, and with the overarching objective of restrictive measures, namely the protection of Ukraine's territorial integrity and the maintenance of international peace and security. Critically, the CJEU noted that indications of belonging or control may be inferred from factual circumstances, such as the relationships between the beneficiary or settlor and other persons involved in the trust, such as the trustee and other power-holders, or the allocation of economic resources to activities intended primarily for the benefit of the designated person, as well as from the presence of needlessly complex legal structures.

Examples of relevant indicators include a majority shareholding in the trustee held by the beneficiary or settlor, the establishment or reorganisation of entities shortly before the imposition of sanctions, and close relationships between directors of the entities subject to freezing and the designated person.

The line of thinking adopted by the CJEU is, in many ways, broadly consistent with the reasoning adopted by the English Court of Appeal in the so -called “Eurochem judgment” of 31 July 2025 (LLC EuroChem North-West-2 and Eurochem Group AG v Societe Generale S.A. and others  [2025] EWHC 1938 (Comm)), which we issued an advisory on here.

Beneficial ownership transparency for trust mandates: Joined Cases C-684/24 and C-685/24

The second judgment concerned the validity and interpretation of the beneficial ownership transparency regime under the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (Directive (EU) 2015/849), as applied to mandati fiduciari  (trust mandates) governed by Italian law. Italian fiduciary companies challenged the requirement to disclose beneficial ownership information to members of the public demonstrating a legitimate interest, arguing that trust mandates do not entail a transfer of ownership and should therefore fall outside the scope of the Directive's transparency obligations.

The CJEU confirmed the validity of the challenged provisions, holding that the requirement for public access to beneficial ownership information, subject to the demonstration of a legitimate interest, is compatible with the rights to private and family life and to the protection of personal data guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The CJEU found that the EU legislature is pursuing a legitimate and important objective, namely, the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing through enhanced transparency and that the measures adopted are proportionate to that objective. This is clearly an evolution of the precedent and standards set by the European Court of Justice in Sovim v Luxembourg in 2023, see our blog here

On the classification question, the CJEU held that EU law permits the Italian legislature to regard trust mandates concluded with Italian fiduciary companies as "other types of legal arrangements" having a structure or functions similar to trusts, notwithstanding that the mandato fiduciario  does not entail a transfer of ownership of the relevant property. The CJEU considered that the Italian legislature did not exceed the margin of discretion available to it in implementing the access regime.

As regards procedural safeguards, the CJEU accepted that EU law permits the task of ruling on exemptions from disclosure, for instance, where access would expose the beneficial owner to a disproportionate risk of fraud, violence, or intimidation, to be entrusted to non-judicial administrative bodies, such as Italian chambers of commerce. However, the CJEU underscored that, where such an exemption is not granted, the beneficial owners concerned must be afforded the right to obtain interim legal protection.

Key takeaways for compliance and regulatory practitioners

These judgments signal a firm judicial endorsement of the EU's expansive, effects-based approach to both sanctions enforcement and anti-money laundering regulation in the context of trust and fiduciary structures. For practitioners advising in relation to trust structures with any nexus to sanctioned individuals, the broad interpretation of "belonging to" and "control" demands heightened due diligence and a careful assessment of all factual indicators of influence, not merely formal legal title.

For fiduciary service providers subject to AML obligations, the confirmation that trust mandates and similar arrangements fall within the Directive's transparency regime reinforces the need for robust beneficial ownership identification, record-keeping, and disclosure processes. The requirement that beneficial owners retain access to interim judicial protection, even where exemption decisions are taken by administrative bodies, is a notable safeguard that Member States must ensure is effectively available in practice.

For more information see below the cases and the relevant press releases:

Press release No 73/26 for Case C-483/23 and in Joined Cases C-428/24 / C-476/24 - here

C-0483-23

Joined Cases C-428/24 and C-476/24

Press release No 74/26 for Cases C-684/24 and C-685/24 - here

C-0684-24

C-685/24