The EU’s Extralegal Sanctions Regime
What Goes Around
EU Sanctions against the block’s own citizens and residents are a horrible development toward a totalitarian future. Their extralegal nature is what gives them their force. A proffered explanation.
It has come as a shock to many of us in the alternative media sphere when, on December 15, the EU put the esteemed analyst, political commentator, and former Swiss Army colonel Jacques Baud, on its Russia-Sanctions list. He was one of several newly sanctioned individuals (alongside, for instance, the popular French journalist, Xavier Moreau). Baud is already the second Swiss to be sanctioned. In June 2025, the EU announced that Nathalie Yamb, a Swiss-Cameroonian activist against neocolonialism, would be sanctioned.
Being on the EU sanctions list is a devastating event for the people concerned, especially if they reside in an EU country or a closely associated state like Switzerland, Norway, or the UK. It means banks will freeze their accounts, credit companies will cancel their cards, they are not allowed to enter into contracts with EU-affiliated companies or private persons, and no business in the EU is allowed to have dealings with them, which, in theory, even precludes them from buying bread and other necessities of life. Furthermore, many international businesses will cancel all their services to them, including mail providers, social media platforms, etc. Even Swiss banks freeze or cancel accounts, out of fear they might get in trouble if they don’t comply with EU regulations. I recently interviewed two sanctioned people, Nathalie Yamb and Hüsseyin Dogru, and their testimonies are heartbreaking. For an equally harrowing account by Jacques Baud, see the most recent interview with him on Nima Alkhorshid’s Dialogue Works channel. Nathalie also posted a short video, in which she gives an overview of the ordeal (post in French, subtitles in English).
Are Sanctions Against EU Citizens and Residents Illegal?
As of early January 2026, there were 59 private individuals on the EU’s Russia sanctions list. Originally, this tool was levied only against Russian businessmen and people living in Russia (which was already problematic in my view), but since 2024, the EU has begun using sanctions as a political sledgehammer to crack down on various forms of dissent. Yamb, for instance, was sanctioned mostly for her activism against France’s neocolonial behavior in Africa, and Dogru for being a vocal German journalist for the Palestinian cause. The little text snippets that serve as justifications for the decision to include them in the sanctions list even mention those non-Russia-related activities for their listing.
Naturally, one would assume that in a free and liberal society, based on the rule of law, sanctions against citizens and residents must be illegal. Right? In fact, the EU parliamentarian Michael von der Schulenburg has commissioned a report that is very clear in its verdict. Sanctions, it holds, break existing EU law on individual freedoms (see my interview with him here).
Foreign Policy, For Domestic Purposes
I will not go into the details of the accusations against the sanctioned individuals. That would be beside the point. Whether the reasons given for the sanctions have merit or not is not the issue. The problem everyone should understand is that the accusations don’t need to constitute illegal behavior. There are no laws in the EU or its member states that forbid doing what the people on the Russia-Sanctions list have been doing. On the contrary. Many of the activities, including civil activism (Nathalie Yamb), journalism (Hüsseyin Dogru), or the publication of geopolitical analysis (Jacques Baud) are explicitly protected liberties.
That’s the point. Since the acts committed are not crimes, the sanctions against them are not judicial measures, either. The EU explicitly says so on its sanctions explainer homepage:
Restrictive measures or ‘sanctions’ are an essential tool of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. They allow the EU to respond to global challenges (sic) and developments that go against its objectives and values.
Decisions on sanctions are taken by the Council of the European Union by unanimity.
EU sanctions are targeted and aim at those responsible for the policies or actions the EU wants to influence. They do not target a country or population.
Sanctions are not punitive (sic) and instead seek to bring about a change in the policy or conduct of those targeted, with a view to promoting the objectives of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy.
Great. Isn’t it?
The EU has managed to create a system under which the executive branch is within its legal rights, under its foreign policy arm to designate behavior of its citizens as “undesirable” and then impose the most draconian measures imaginable—all without trial or conviction. Everything Baud, Yamb, Dogru, and others did (and still do) is perfectly legal in the EU. But the Council of the European Union has the power to impose coercive measures on them to “encourage” a change of behavior. And because member states are treaty-bound to implement EU sanctions, there is no recourse to domestic courts for the victims.
What an accomplishment. The EU has sneakily outmaneuvered the legal safeguards of its member states against arbitrary political persecution.
Not illegal. Extralegal.
So, I think this is key to understanding what’s happening: the sanctions are not illegal in the sense of a breach of protocol. They are part of the powers the Lisbon Treaty grants the EU Council, and they have a set and well-defined process behind them. They are legal in a purely formal sense of the word (leaving aside the questions of conflict with other branches of EU law that the von der Schulenburg’s Report raises). What the sanctions do is they create a regime that allows the circumvention of safeguards against political persecution. In this sense, they must be understood as extralegal measures. They create a space for the persecution of people not subject to the legal system as we know it.
That is why all the usual principles of justice do not apply to the sanctions question. Due process, the assumption of innocence, the right to be heard before conviction, etc. All of these fundamental bedrocks of the legal system don’t come into play because the sanctions themselves are not judicial measures.
The only recourse victims of this system have is to appeal to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). But—and here comes a very big but—the ECJ will only check if the sanctions decision is formally consistent. It will not check whether the accusations and the imposed sanctions regime are proportional or infringe on basic rights of the sanctioned individuals. The ECJ will only make sure the rationale given is correct. What this means is that only if the victims can show that the little blurb in the sanctions database is factually incorrect, the ECJ might issue an order for the EU Council to delist them. However, if the accusations are consistent, then the ECJ will uphold the sanctions. Hence, as long as the Council doesn’t lie in the sanctions rationale, more or less anything goes. The ECJ will defer to the EU Council regarding the political importance of sanctioning someone. It does not interfere with the logic of taking sanctions. Sounds incredible, but I talked to a sanctions law scholar, Alexandra Hofer, from the University of Utrecht, and she explains the situation in these terms.
The right of the sanctioned individuals to appeal to the ECJ is at best a paper-thin fig leaf for the EU to pretend that proper legal recourse is possible. In fact, granting the victims this form of fake access to the ECJ makes it (probably) even harder for them to win in other courts. For instance, since the sanctions create a severe infringement on their human rights, there is no question that human rights courts (there are several) might be used to challenge the regime. However, for the courts to act, one of the largest hurdles is proving that all domestic remedies have been used up. Hence, before the ECJ has been addressed, the chances for the victims to have a human rights court pick up their case seem relatively slim (it is, nevertheless, an avenue the victims should probably explore with their legal teams).
Turning the Weapons Inward
I wish I could say that this is the first time a Western institution has pulled such a dirty trick on civil society. But it is not. As Nathalie Yamb, in my interview with her, pointed out, EU countries and the USA have been using sanctions for decades to put extralegal pressure on activists and journalists in Africa and elsewhere. In fact, this is standard neocolonial behavior. This is why we cannot discuss sanctions without addressing Europe’s unresolved colonial mindset.
The USA, too, has been using sanctions as a tool to crack down on legal behavior, for instance, with its attack on personnel from the International Criminal Court (ICC) or, most recently, the sanctions on the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese.
Just as the Patriot Act after 9/11, suddenly gave the US government the ability to use security services internally that were meant to protect the nation from external enemies only, the expansion of EU sanctions against people within the EU (or Schengen area) is transforming a dirty foreign policy tool into an even uglier domestic policy tool.
The weapons to fight dirty outside are being turned inward. This is a prime example of why being silent when our states commit crimes overseas will, in the end, come to haunt us domestically. The chickens are coming home to roost. Unfortunately, as always, the first ones to suffer this are the people who fought against the injustices abroad already. Nathalie Yamb being the prime example.
Right now, there are various pundits in the blogosphere and in mainstream media who more or less argue along the lines of “deserves them right, traitors.” These people, too, one day will understand what this system means if it is allowed to foster and grow in its draconian scope. By then, it will be too late. Either this stops now, or the future for freedom and democracy in the EU is bleak.
The Eurocratic Death of Democracy
The only hope I have is in popular uproar against this sanctions regime of doom. Political repression needs political answers. However, it will take a lot to put this genie back in the bottle. Even on a national level, the member states seem pretty happy with the new tool.
Florian Warweg, a courageous German journalist who was on my show before, actually asked his government spokespeople at the Federal Press Club (Bundespressekonferenz) on December 17 about the case of Jacques Baud and the legality thereof. The smug answer he got from Martin Giese of the German Foreign Ministry tells us most of what we need to know about how these gray bureaucrats perceive their actions and what they have in store:
(…) people who do such things can be sanctioned if the legal grounds exist and if there is a corresponding decision by the Council of the European Union. That happened this Monday, it will continue to happen, it has happened in the past, and anyone operating in this field must expect that it could also happen to them. (…)
All those who do not agree with their sanctioning have all possible legal means to challenge it. They can appeal to the Council, and they can also bring the case before the European Court of Justice.
What a blatant intimidation attempt. Seems like a pretty straightforward admission that there is more to come. After all, as I established above, the sanctions do have legal grounds in the purely formal sense, and the victims can indeed call on the very institution that took the sanctions decision and its rubber-stamp court that will only check the formalities. Seems very fair, right?
Here you go. This is how democracy dies (again). By executive decree and bureaucratic smug. Well done, European Union.