German Lawyer Seeks to Sue EU Council for Defamation Over Usmanov Sanctions Rationale

A German attorney has lodged a case before the country’s highest court in a bid to secure permission to sue the Council of the European Union for defamation over statements made in connection with its sanctions against Russian businessman Alisher Usmanov. If the appeal currently before Germany’s Federal Court of Justice succeeds, the Council could be forced to defend itself in a Hamburg court—an unprecedented move in relation to EU sanctions decisions, according to filings obtained by Euronews.

The challenge focuses on the Council’s statement of reasons adopted in September 2023 for including Usmanov on the sanctions list. His lawyer, Hamburg-based Joachim Steinhoefel, maintains that critical assertions cited by the Council have since been discredited. One controversial passage alleged that Usmanov had “reportedly fronted for President Putin and solved his business problems,” a claim the Council attributed to Forbes. Steinhoefel contested that in Hamburg’s Regional Court, which deemed the allegation unlawful. Forbes has appealed the ruling, arguing that the piece constituted protected opinion rather than a factual assertion.

“A journalist’s expression of opinion cannot serve as a basis for sanctions. The Council cannot publish it as a purported statement of fact if the author has clarified it was opinion,” Steinhoefel told Euronews.

The lawyer also highlights a claim from Austrian daily Kurier that President Putin once referred to Usmanov as “his favourite oligarch.” He says the statement has been ruled unlawful and prohibited from further circulation. Another example involves a tweet relied upon by the Council that was subsequently retracted.

According to Steinhoefel, hundreds of reports—including coverage by prominent European media—have since been retracted or corrected, particularly those alleging links between Usmanov and Russia’s political leadership. He asserts that more than sixty court judgments or binding undertakings have barred journalists and politicians from repeating such allegations. Just this week, he said, a major European newspaper agreed to a cease-and-desist order and withdrew accusations of editorial interference at Kommersant, Usmanov’s business newspaper—claims which closely mirrored those advanced by the Council.

“Our concrete examples appear to show that the Council does not meaningfully verify sources and is satisfied with unverified press cuttings—even where the author recants, including in court,” Steinhoefel said. He argues that this falls short of EU case-law requirements, which permit reliance on press accounts only if they derive from multiple independent sources, contain specific details, and are consistent with the broader record.

The lawsuit further challenges another segment of the Council’s reasoning, which declared: “Furthermore, he is a leading businessperson operating in Russia and a businessperson involved in an economic sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation … Therefore he actively supported the Russian government’s policies of destabilisation of Ukraine.”

Steinhoefel disputes the logic, claiming Usmanov is labelled as “actively supporting” destabilisation merely because he holds shares in a holding company that earns profits and is legally obliged to pay taxes. “The exercise of a lawful, constitutionally protected economic liberty (owning shares) together with compliance with a legal duty (paying taxes) is being re-labelled as geopolitical support,” he argued. “To avoid that label one would have to evade taxes—a crime—or abandon one’s business—an unreasonable demand in any rule-of-law order.” He condemned the reasoning as “a perverse inversion of basic rights.”

The complaint portrays the Council’s sanctions methodology as “coercion by proxy”—that is, penalising business figures presumed to have sway over the Kremlin in an effort to force them into applying political pressure. According to Steinhoefel, this tactic undermines democratic principles by transforming lawful private conduct into an instrument of foreign policy leverage.

Because EU law offers no tort-style defamation remedy against its institutions, Steinhoefel initially sought to serve proceedings on the Council in Hamburg. An appeals court ruled, however, that the Council enjoys immunity from suit in German courts. Steinhoefel contends that this breaches Article 19(4) of Germany’s Basic Law, which guarantees access to judicial relief against violations of fundamental rights.

He has now taken the matter to the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe. The case does not directly contest Usmanov’s inclusion on the sanctions list but instead seeks an injunction preventing the Council from disseminating the contested statements further. A ruling from the court is awaited.

By fLEXI tEAM