When law demands proof: What Advocate General Biondi’s opinion means for Europe

Biondi argued that the Council had failed to present “concrete, precise and consistent” evidence linking the two men to actions undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty. Latvia, backed by Estonia and Lithuania, cited the pair’s past leadership at Alfa Bank as proof of closeness to the Kremlin. The Advocate General disagreed: reputation and proximity are not evidence. Though non-binding, his view is likely to guide the Court and may redefine how the EU balances politics with legality.

The Context: A Broader Rule-of-Law Test

Biondi’s opinion comes as the EU faces a wider test of its legal identity. As Athanasios Papandropoulos, Honorary International President of the Association of European Journalists, wrote, the Union’s credibility depends on respecting its own legal limits, even when facing geopolitical crises.

Belgium’s resistance to using frozen Russian central-bank assets as collateral for a €140 billion “reparations loan” to Ukraine embodies the same concern. Prime Minister Bart De Wever warned that bending legal norms for political goals could damage the EU’s credibility: “If it looks like confiscation, and smells like confiscation, maybe it is confiscation”. Both De Wever’s caution and Biondi’s reasoning defend not Russia, but Europe’s legal integrity.

The question: What if law prevails over politics?

If the EU takes Biondi’s approach seriously that political context can never substitute for proof what follow next? It would not only raise the evidentiary threshold for sanctions but also shape how the EU defends its actions internationally. The opinion reinforces a core principle: decisions with major political impact must withstand judicial scrutiny based on facts, not assumptions.

This reasoning also echoes in another arena: investment arbitration. There, states often invoke “national security” or “public interest” to justify restrictive measures. Yet tribunals, much like the CJEU, demand evidence of necessity and proportionality. Biondi’s emphasis on verifiable proof aligns with these standards and signals that Europe’s internal commitment to legality strengthens its external credibility.

Why it matters beyond sanctions

Sanctions disputes and investment cases may seem unrelated, but both probe the same boundary — where politics ends and law begins. The CJEU’s insistence on proof-based reasoning sends a powerful message to international courts and arbitrators: even in moments of geopolitical pressure, Europe upholds legal consistency.

In an age of “lawfare,” such discipline is strategic. The Union’s influence has never rested on coercion, but on credibility — on the belief that its laws bind even its own ambitions. If that belief erodes, so does Europe’s moral authority.

Biondi’s opinion is more than legal advice; it is a reminder of Europe’s constitutional DNA. Upholding due process does not weaken Europe’s response to aggression — it legitimizes it.

By refusing to let politics override proof, the EU protects not only the rights of individuals but the legitimacy of its entire legal order.

As Papandropoulos warned, Europe’s challenge is not to bypass the rule of law but to innovate within it. Whether in sanctions or investment disputes, credibility remains Europe’s greatest power and its truest defense.

Share this article: