Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1472 of 18 July 2025 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1471 of 18 July 2025 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (1),

Having regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1) On 18 May 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (2).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 gives effect to the measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP (3).

(3) On 18 July 2025, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2025/1471 and Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2025/1461 (4).

(4) Decision 2012/642/CFSP prohibits the sale, supply, transfer or export to Belarus of arms and related materiel of all types. Decision (CFSP) 2025/1471 further prohibits the procurement from Belarus of arms and related materiel of all types.

(5) In order to strengthen the effectiveness of the restrictive measures imposed in response to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, it is necessary to address the risk of circumvention of those measures through indirect exports via third countries. Goods and technology listed in Annex Va might contribute to Belarus’s military and technological enhancement or to the development of its defence and security sector, including when exported under the guise of being intended for civilian end-use. The prohibition on indirect exports covers the export of items that are listed in the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, including via a third country. Competent authorities should take timely preventive action where there is a credible risk that such items exported to third countries might ultimately be diverted to Belarus. Therefore, Decision (CFSP) 2025/1471 provides Member States with an optional administrative mechanism that enables national competent authorities to require prior authorisation for exports of items listed in Annex Va to any third country, where the exporter has been informed that there is sufficient reason to suspect that the end destination of the items may be in Belarus or that the end-use of the items may be for Belarusian entities. That measure is not intended to impose a new blanket restriction, but to equip Member States with an effective and proportionate tool to investigate and prevent possible circumvention of restrictive measures, while ensuring a harmonised interpretation and legal clarity for exporters. The scope of the indirect export prohibition clause should not be affected by this measure. It is at the discretion of Member States to decide whether that measure or the indirect export prohibition clause is to be applied as a mechanism of enforcement in cases in which the end destination of the items may be in Belarus or the end-use of the items may be for Belarusian entities.

(6) Decision (CFSP) 2025/1471 expands into a transaction ban the existing prohibition to provide specialised financial messaging services to certain Belarusian credit institutions and their Belarusian subsidiaries, which are relevant for the Belarusian financial system, and which are already the subject of restrictive measures imposed by the Union. In addition, Decision (CFSP) 2025/1471 adds exemptions related to the functioning of diplomatic and consular representations of the Union and of the Member States or of partner countries in Belarus, and, to transactions made by nationals of a Member State who are residents in Belarus. It also adds a derogation for transactions which are strictly necessary for the divestment from Belarus or for the wind-down of business activities in Belarus. It is recalled that Union restrictive measures do not have extra-territorial effect and do not bind operators incorporated under the laws of third countries, including those of Belarus. Therefore, without prejudice to Article 8i of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, transactions between legal persons, entities or bodies incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State and their subsidiaries in third countries do not qualify as a violation of that prohibition, including if credit or financial institutions subject to the ban are involved in such transactions. The exemptions and the derogation in Article 1zb of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 are without prejudice to the prohibition on operators in the Union to provide financial messaging services to the entities listed in Annex XV to that Regulation.

(7) Member States should, with due respect for their applicable international obligations, not recognise or enforce any injunction, order, relief, judgment of a court other than a court of a Member State or other court, arbitral or administrative decision issued in proceedings other than those in the Member States pursuant to or derived from investor-State dispute settlement proceedings in connection with measures imposed under Regulation (EC) No 765/2006. The effective implementation of the no claims clause should be regarded as the public policy of the Union and the Member States for the purposes of the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards or judicial or administrative decisions. As a result, the recognition or enforcement by Member States of an injunction, order, relief, judgment of a court other than a court of a Member State or other court, arbitral or administrative decision issued in proceedings other than those in the Member States pursuant to or derived from investor-State dispute settlement proceedings which could lead to the satisfaction of any claims in connection with measures imposed under Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 should be regarded as violating the public policy of the Union and the Member States. This provision should be without prejudice to the obligation of a Member State to participate and to defend itself in proceedings initiated against it and to ask for the recognition and enforcement of an award that grants it the reimbursement of costs.

(8) While satisfaction of claims in connection with measures imposed under Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 is prohibited in the Union, including in out-of-court settlement proceedings, there is evidence to suggest that Belarusian persons, entities or bodies, or persons, entities or bodies acting through or on behalf of one of those Belarusian persons, entities or bodies, or owned or controlled by such persons, entities or bodies, seek or might seek to abusively initiate and pursue dispute settlement proceedings outside of the Union in connection with measures imposed under Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, or seek or might seek to illegally obtain recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards granted through such abusive dispute settlement proceedings. It is therefore necessary to enable competent authorities or the Union, where applicable, to recover in proceedings before a court of a Member State any damages caused, including legal costs and costs incurred in the event of non-compliance with the arbitral award by the other party, from those persons, entities or bodies and from persons, entities or bodies that own or control those persons, entities or bodies, as a consequence of an investor-State dispute settlement in connection with measures imposed under Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, provided that all available legal remedies in the relevant jurisdiction have been exercised. Competent authorities should recover such damages in accordance with Union law and customary rules of international law.

(9) Where Member States are confronted with arbitral awards rendered against them in investor-State dispute settlement proceedings in connection with measures imposed under Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, they should invoke any objection available to them in domestic or foreign proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of such awards. This includes raising the objection that the recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of the country where recognition and enforcement is sought, pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958.

(10) The application of the forum necessitatis provision should be extended to Article 8l.

(11) Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2025/1461 adds a new entity to the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies set out in Annex II to Decision 2012/642/CFSP, which is the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictions with regard to authorisations for the sale, supply, transfer or export of dual-use goods and technology, and goods and technology which might contribute to Belarus’s military and technological enhancement, or to the development of its defence and security sector.

(12) Decision (CFSP) 2025/1471 considers it appropriate to expand the list of items which might contribute to Belarus’s military and technological enhancement or to the development of its defence and security sector by adding items which have been used by Russia in its war of aggression against Ukraine and items which contribute to the development or production of Belarus’s military systems, including chemical precursors to energetic materials, spare parts for machine tools, additional computer numerical control (CNC) machines and constituent chemicals for propellants.

(13) Decision (CFSP) 2025/1471 considers it appropriate to expand the list of goods subject to export restrictions which might contribute to the enhancement of Belarusian industrial capacities, such as machinery, chemicals, some metals and plastics. In order to minimise the risk of circumvention of restrictive measures, Decision (CFSP) 2025/1471 considers it appropriate to extend the list of goods and technology subject to the prohibition on transit via the territory of Belarus.

(14) These measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and therefore, in particular with a view to ensuring their uniform application in all Member States, regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary.

(15) Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 is amended as follows:

(6) in Article 8d, the following paragraphs are inserted: ‘2a.   No injunction, order, relief, judgment of a judicial court other than a court of a Member State or other court, arbitral or administrative decision issued in proceedings other than those in the Member States pursuant to or derived from investor-State dispute settlement proceedings against a Member State which could lead to the satisfaction of any claims in connection with measures imposed under this Regulation shall be recognised, given effect or enforced in a Member State if it is invoked by any persons, entities or bodies referred to in paragraph 1, points (a), (b), (c) or (d), or persons, entities or bodies that own or control those persons, entities or bodies. 2b.   No request for assistance during an investigation or other proceedings, and no punishment or other penalty based on an injunction, order, relief, judgment of a court other than a court of a Member State or other court, arbitral or administrative decision issued in proceedings other than those in the Member States pursuant to or derived from investor-State dispute settlement proceedings against a Member State in connection with measures imposed under this Regulation shall be recognised, given effect or enforced in a Member State if it is invoked by any persons, entities or bodies referred to in paragraph 1, points (a), (b), (c) or (d), or persons, entities or bodies that own or control those persons, entities or bodies.’

(7) Article 8k is replaced by the following: ‘Article 8k Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction pursuant to other provisions of Union or Member State law, a court of a Member State may, on an exceptional basis, hear a claim for damages brought pursuant to Article 8h or Article 8l, provided that the case has a sufficient connection with the Member State of the court seised.’

(8) the following articles are inserted: ‘Article 8l Any Member State shall, where applicable, take any appropriate measures to recover or be entitled to recover, in judicial proceedings before the competent courts of a Member State, any direct or indirect damages, including legal costs, incurred by that Member State as a consequence of investor-State dispute settlement proceedings brought against a Member State in connection with measures imposed under this Regulation. The Member State shall, where applicable, be entitled to recover such damages from any persons, entities or bodies referred to in Article 8d(1), points (a), (b), (c) or (d), which initiated, intervened or participated in the investor-State dispute settlement or which seek to enforce any award, decision or judgment related to the investor-State dispute settlement and persons, entities or bodies that own or control any of those persons, entities or bodies. Where applicable, the Union shall be entitled to recover any damages incurred by it under the same conditions.

Article 8m

Member States shall raise any available objection to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards that were rendered against them in investor-State dispute settlement proceedings in connection with measures imposed under this Regulation.’

(9) the Annexes are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 July 2025.

For the Council The President M. BJERRE

(1) OJ L, 2025/1471, 19.7.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2025/1471/oj.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ L 134, 20.5.2006, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/765/oj).

(3) Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ L 285, 17.10.2012, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2012/642/oj).

(4) OJ L, 2025/1461, 19.7.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2025/1461/oj.