The key facts
- The BGH found the refusal to serve the lawsuit unlawful and a violation of the applicant's rights
- The recommendation of the Federal Office of Justice, coordinated with the German Foreign Office, was ruled non-binding
- Usmanov was removed from the EU sanctions list on 22 September 2026, but the disputed publications remain on EU resources
Court lifts the block on the lawsuit
Germany's Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled unlawful the refusal of the president of the Hamburg Regional Court to arrange service of Alisher Usmanov's lawsuit documents on the Council of the European Union. The decision of 21 October 2026 overturned both the refusal itself and the ruling of the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court, which had previously upheld it. This was reported by Die Welt, which both Daryo.uz publications — the Uzbek-language and the Russian-language ones — cite.
The essence of the dispute
In December 2023, Usmanov applied to the Hamburg Regional Court seeking to prohibit the EU Council from disseminating information published in the Official Journal of the European Union as the justification for the sanctions imposed on him in 2022. The businessman considers these statements untrue and a violation of his personal non-property rights. On 29 December 2023, the judge handling the case ordered the lawsuit documents to be sent to the EU Council in Brussels, but the court's president refused to arrange their service. According to Die Welt, he coordinated his actions with the justice ministry and the German Foreign Office.
The Foreign Office's position and the BGH verdict
In one of his emails, a representative of the German Foreign Office explained that the authorities do not want national courts of EU member states to influence or review sanctions measures, since this would contradict the supranational nature of the EU sanctions system. The BGH, however, pointed out that the president of the Regional Court had no authority to independently block the execution of the judge's order, found the refusal to serve the documents unlawful and a violation of the applicant's rights, and also ruled that the recommendation of the Federal Office of Justice, coordinated with the Foreign Office, was not binding.
The role of the Forbes publication
One of the grounds for the sanctions was the claim that Usmanov had allegedly acted as a proxy for Russian President Vladimir Putin; the source was a Forbes publication. In January 2024, the Hamburg Regional Court prohibited the magazine from disseminating this claim: during the proceedings, Forbes failed to give specific examples of such activity or to name the expert it had relied on, and ultimately stated that the disputed wording was an expression of opinion. Despite this, the EU Council, after rewording the statement, retained a similar accusation in the justification of the sanctions, which became the subject of Usmanov's lawsuit.
Reaction and possible consequences
Usmanov's lawyer Joachim Steinhöfel called the BGH decision a confirmation of the right to judicial protection regardless of the government's foreign policy interests: «Access to justice is a fundamental right, and it does not depend on the foreign policy of the sitting government». In his words, the court's president in effect sided with the executive branch without having legal authority to obstruct the service of the lawsuit, and does not take instructions from the Foreign Office. Die Welt notes that the decision may matter for other people on the EU sanctions list, which includes more than 3,000 individuals: it may open the possibility of challenging in national courts the statements used to justify sanctions and of demanding that the EU Council confirm their accuracy. The author of the piece also suggests that the decision may prompt the EU Council to verify information more carefully when imposing restrictive measures.
Context: Usmanov has already been removed from the list
Usmanov himself was removed from the EU sanctions list on 22 September 2026, but the statements previously used to justify the restrictions remain published on European Union resources — which is precisely why the lawsuit retains practical significance. We should also note a limitation: the Die Welt articles cited by the publications are available in a paywalled version, so the tafs.uz editorial team has access to their summaries rather than the full text.

