Why Did the EU Lift Sanctions on Usmanov and Fridman? What Changes Now

Verified Baseline

The broader sanctions regime was renewed, with two exceptions

European Union governments agreed September 22 to renew Russia-related sanctions covering roughly 3,000 individuals and entities for three years, while removing billionaires Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman. The decision was reported by Reuters and the Financial Times.

This is not a general lifting of EU sanctions on Russia. Most listed people and entities remain subject to asset freezes and travel restrictions, now with a longer renewal period than the previous six-month cycle.

Why the Names Were Removed

Unanimity, litigation and national bargaining shaped the compromise

EU sanctions renewals require agreement among member states. Reuters reported that France pushed to remove Usmanov and Luxembourg supported delisting Fridman, while Latvia ultimately abstained rather than block the package. The reporting links the negotiations to legal exposure, diplomatic bargaining and pressure to preserve the wider list.

Those explanations are reported political motives, not judicial findings that either man committed or did not commit wrongdoing. Fridman previously won an EU court ruling concerning earlier sanctions periods, but later listings involved separate legal acts.

What Changes

EU freezes and travel restrictions end for the two men—other regimes do not automatically follow

• Within the EU: the specific asset-freeze and travel-ban consequences tied to their listings cease when the legal delisting takes effect.
• For banks and companies: compliance teams still must check whether controlled businesses, counterparties or transactions are restricted for another reason.
• Outside the EU: U.S., UK, Canadian or national restrictions are separate legal regimes; an EU delisting does not automatically erase them.
• For the wider list: restrictions on the other roughly 3,000 listed people and entities continue.

Financial/legal notice: This article is general reporting, not sanctions-compliance, legal or investment advice. Parties to a transaction should use the current official lists in every relevant jurisdiction.

Why It Matters

The three-year renewal adds stability but the exceptions test credibility

A longer renewal can give governments, banks and businesses more predictability and reduce the risk that the entire list lapses during twice-yearly bargaining. The tradeoff is precedent: critics argue that member states may seek more individual exceptions for unrelated national interests.

Ukraine condemned the two removals. Supporters of the compromise can answer that preserving restrictions on thousands of other targets was more consequential than allowing the full package to fail. Which interpretation dominates will depend on whether exceptions remain rare and legally grounded or become a recurring price of unanimity.

What Remains Unknown

Implementation documents and future national action still matter

The definitive legal effect depends on the EU’s published acts and updated consolidated list. Latvia or other countries may consider national restrictions, but any such step has to be evaluated under that country’s law. Delisting also does not guarantee immediate access to every asset: financial institutions may need time to update screening systems and resolve ownership questions.