In brief
- The Council of the European Union has added ten persons to the sanctions list covering the internal situation in Russia, that is, repression and human rights violations in that country. These are entries 99 to 108 in the section for natural persons of Annex IV to Regulation (EU) 2024/1485: six judges, two prosecutors, an official of the Prosecutor General’s Office and one of the Central Election Commission. The common reason is the removal of the Yabloko party from the race for the State Duma, in September 2026, and the proceedings brought against the leaders of that party.
- In Romania the effects begin on 28 September 2026, with no transposing law and no decision of any Romanian authority. The funds and economic resources of the ten are frozen, nobody may any longer make money or goods available to them, and their entry into and transit through the country are to be prevented. The regulation brings the freezing, and Decision (CFSP) 2026/2192, adopted the same day, brings the entry ban.
- This is a different regime from the one concerning Ukraine, although both bear Russia’s name. This one rests on Regulation (EU) 2024/1485 and concerns what happens inside Russia. The one on the territorial integrity of Ukraine rests on Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 and received, likewise on 28 September 2026, another ten persons and seventeen entities. The practical effects look alike, the lists are separate, so a compliance check is run against all of them, not against one.
Published: Official Journal of the European Union, L series, 2026/2193 of 28 September 2026
In force from: 28 September 2026, that is, on the day of publication, under Article 2 of the regulation
On 28 September 2026 the Council of the European Union adopted two acts that say the same thing in two different instruments and that add ten names to the list of sanctions for internal repression in Russia. The mechanism is the one used four days earlier, for the listing of the former head of Russia Today France, but the legal basis is different, and those targeted are this time judges, prosecutors and officials. All ten took part, in one form or another, in the exclusion of the Yabloko party from the elections to the State Duma of September 2026 or in the criminal proceedings brought against the leadership of that party, the only one that openly opposed the war waged by Russia in Ukraine.
The two acts are Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/2193, adopted on the basis of Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1485, and Council Decision (CFSP) 2026/2192, adopted on the basis of Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which amends Decision (CFSP) 2024/1484. The split is not a formality. The decision is the common foreign and security policy act and is the one that obliges Member States to prevent the person’s entry into, or transit through, their territories, while the regulation is the instrument that makes the freezing of funds directly applicable in all Member States, with no national measure. We compared the annexes of the two acts word for word: they are identical, including the column with the date of listing, 28 September 2026.
What this regime actually is. Regulation (EU) 2024/1485 and Decision (CFSP) 2024/1484, both of 27 May 2024, concern the situation in Russia, that is, what happens inside the country: serious human rights violations, the repression of civil society and of the democratic opposition, activities seriously undermining democracy or the rule of law in Russia. The criteria are written in Article 6(3) of the regulation and come in three points: who is responsible for such acts, who provides financial, technical or material support for them, and who is associated with the one or the other. Ukraine is nowhere mentioned.
The other regime, the one the reader usually has in mind on hearing „sanctions against Russia”, rests on Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 and on Decision 2014/145/CFSP, both of 17 March 2014, and concerns actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. The two regimes have different criteria, different lists, different legal bases and different review cycles. The coincidence that makes them easy to confuse is that on 28 September 2026 the Council worked on both: to the Ukraine regime it added ten persons and seventeen entities, for the deportation and forcible transfer of Ukrainian children, while to the regime on the internal situation it added the ten persons at issue here. Thirty-seven names in a single day, in two lists that do not mix.
Who the ten are. Three are judges of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation: Vyacheslav Kirillov, who delivered on 10 August 2026 the judgment by which Yabloko was stopped from taking part in the elections, plus Igor Zinchenko and Denis Tyutin, who sat on the panel that upheld it. The other two from the same story are not judges: Sergey Sakharov heads the division for electoral disputes and judicial representation of the Central Election Commission of Russia and argued the request for a ban before the Supreme Court, while Ilya Rusakov, an official of the Prosecutor General’s Office, took part in the same proceedings.
The other five come from the criminal proceedings. Viktoria Malyamova, a judge of the Pskov Regional Court, sentenced the politician Lev Shlosberg to 11 years and one month in prison, while the prosecutor Anna Goryachova had asked for 12 years and one month. Elina Babayants, a judge of the Zamoskvoretsky District Court in Moscow, sentenced Maxim Kruglov to seven years in detention and banned him from the internet for three years, after the assistant prosecutor Yulia Guznyaeva had asked for eight years. Elizaveta Truskalenko, a judge in Saint Petersburg, fined Nikolai Rybakov, the party’s chairman, for posting a photograph with Alexei Navalny, and the judgment prevented him from standing as a candidate. None of the ten has any connection with Romania: all are Russian nationals, holding offices in Russia, and the annex mentions no address, no company and no asset located on Romanian territory.
What it changes in practice
The first effect is the freezing, and it takes place of its own accord. Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1485 freezes all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by the persons on the list in Annex IV, and paragraph (2) prohibits making funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to those persons or for their benefit. There is no intervening Romanian decision and no grace period: the bank, the notary, the estate agent or the company about to make a payment has to stop from 28 September 2026.
The second effect concerns who is bound by the prohibition, and here many get it wrong. Article 23 of the regulation sets its reach: within the territory of the Union, including its airspace; on board any aircraft or vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State; to any natural person who is a national of a Member State, whether inside or outside the Union; to any legal person incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State; and to any legal person in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union. A Romanian company cannot conclude the contract through a subsidiary outside the Union either, and a Romanian national cannot make the payment even if he works in another country.
The third effect is the duty to report, and it falls on everyone, not only on banks. Article 12(1)(a) requires any natural or legal person to supply immediately to the competent authority of the State where they reside or are established any information that would facilitate compliance with the regulation, including data on accounts and amounts frozen, while point (b) requires cooperation in verifying that information. For Romania, the website indicated in Annex III to the regulation is that of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The domestic mechanism is written into Government Emergency Ordinance no. 202/2008 on the implementation of international sanctions: Article 18(1) requires persons who report suspicious transactions under the anti-money-laundering legislation to apply customer due diligence measures in order to establish whether designated persons are among their customers, and paragraph (2) sends the report immediately to the National Agency for Fiscal Administration and to the supervisory authorities, among them the National Office for Prevention and Control of Money Laundering. Anyone who does not fall within those categories is left with the general duty to notify under Article 7(1) of the same ordinance.
The fourth effect is borne by the listed persons. Article 12(2)(a) requires them to report, within six weeks of the date of listing, the funds and economic resources within the jurisdiction of a Member State that belong to them or are under their control, to the competent authority of the State where they are located. Calculated from 28 September 2026, the deadline falls on 9 November 2026. Paragraph (3) says plainly what happens if they stay silent: failing to comply with that obligation is regarded as participation in the circumvention of the measures in Article 6, that is, it falls under the same regime as a direct breach.
The fifth effect is the entry ban, and it comes from the decision, not from the regulation. Article 1(1) of Decision (CFSP) 2024/1484 requires Member States to take the measures necessary to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the persons in the annex, so through Romania’s airports and border crossing points as well. The ban is not absolute: paragraph (2) relieves a State of the obligation to refuse entry to its own nationals, and paragraphs (3) and (4) provide derogations for the obligations of international law of the State hosting an international organisation, a United Nations conference or the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Any derogation is to be brought to the knowledge of the Council.
The sixth effect is the criminal one and it is strictly Romanian. Since December 2025, breaching a European sanction is no longer merely an administrative offence here. Law no. 224/2025, published in Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial), Part I, no. 1164 of 16 December 2025, introduced into Government Emergency Ordinance no. 202/2008 a chapter of criminal offences transposing Directive (EU) 2024/1226. Article 271(1) punishes with imprisonment of 1 to 5 years and a ban on the exercise of certain rights, among other things, making funds or economic resources available to a designated person, failing to comply with the freezing obligation, allowing entry into or transit through Romania, and circumvention by concealment, while paragraph (2) raises the penalty to 2 to 7 years if the value involved reaches the equivalent of EUR 100,000. Where the act is not a criminal offence, the administrative fine goes up to 100,000 lei.
What has changed compared with the previous situation
The length of the list has changed. Until 28 September 2026, the section for natural persons in Annex IV stopped at entry 98. The regulation adds entries 99 to 108, so the list reaches 108 natural persons, next to the 7 legal persons, entities and bodies in the second section, that is, 115 entries in all. The regime created on 27 May 2024 has got here in 854 days.
The criteria have not changed. The text of Article 6(3) has remained as it was written in 2024, and the ten new entries rest on its first two points. Eight of them end with the formula of point (a), responsibility for human rights violations, for the repression of the democratic opposition and for activities undermining democracy and the rule of law. Two, those of Sakharov and Rusakov, end with the formula of point (b), material support, because the role of those two stopped at arguing, in the proceedings, the request for a ban on the party. The distinction is nowhere set out expressly; it becomes visible only by reading the ten statements of reasons side by side.
What has widened, on the other hand, is the type of act the regime reaches. Five of the ten entries, from 99 to 103, have no sentence behind them: they have behind them a court judgment and the arguing, before the court, of the request by which a party was taken off the ballot paper. The Council therefore treats exclusion from an election as a form of repression of the democratic opposition, on a criterion that has not changed on paper.
For the ordinary citizen in Romania nothing has changed in daily life. For anyone with compliance obligations, the content of the screening list has changed, and that from the very day of publication.
Advantages and disadvantages
What it improves
- The measure is operational at once, with no national intermediary. The regulation applies directly from the day of publication, so there is no window in which funds could move while States write transposing acts.
- The annexes of the two acts coincide. We compared the annexes word for word: the only difference is the full stop at the end of the last cell. There is no repeat of the situation, familiar from other regimes, in which a person is listed in one act and absent from the other.
- The statements of reasons are concrete and dated. Each entry names the court, the case, the act and, where there is one, the sentence, with the day and the month. An act that says „on 10 August 2026, he delivered the judgment by which” gives the listed person something to challenge and makes it easier for the Council to defend itself before the Courts of the Union.
- The regime catches the chain, not only its top. Listed alike are the judges who ruled, the prosecutors who asked for the sentences and the officials who argued the request, which closes the gap through which responsibility is shared out until it disappears.
- The operator acting in good faith is protected. Article 14 removes the liability of anyone who freezes funds believing they are complying with the regulation, except in case of negligence, and Article 15 blocks the listed person’s claims relating to contracts affected by the sanction.
What remains a problem
- The identifying information is thin for an effect this heavy. None of the ten entries contains a passport number, an identification code or an address, and the place of birth appears at only two of them. A Romanian bank checks a transliterated Russian name, a date of birth and a function, while failing to comply with the freezing obligation has become, since December 2025, an offence punishable by imprisonment.
- The names appear in Latin and Cyrillic transcription, but not in the transcription used by Romanian systems. The same person may end up in the records as Goryachova, Goriaciova or Goreaciova, and automatic string matching is done against the form in the act, not against the variants.
- The measure comes after the fact. The judgment that took Yabloko out of the elections dates from 10 August 2026, the elections were held in September 2026, and the sanction was adopted on 28 September 2026, 49 days after the judgment and after the vote had ended. A deterrent effect for that ballot was already impossible.
- The deadlines are asymmetrical. The listed person has six weeks in which to declare the funds, that is, 42 days, while the Council requires itself to review the list „at least every 12 months”, that is, almost nine times less often than the deadline it gives the addressee.
- The act does not indicate the point of Article 6(3) on which each listing rests. The reader infers it from the closing formula of the statement of reasons, comparing it with the text of the basic regulation, which presupposes having at hand an act from 2024 that the new regulation does not reproduce.
Practical advice
- If you have compliance obligations, update your screening list with entries 99 to 108 on the day of publication, not at the next periodic review. The regulation applies from 28 September 2026 and provides for no grace period for IT systems.
- Do not confuse the two regimes. If your filter is built on Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, the one concerning Ukraine, these ten names do not appear there. Check against the consolidated list of the Union’s financial sanctions, which gathers them all, not against the text of a single act.
- Check controlled legal persons as well. Article 6(1) also freezes funds held or controlled by the listed person, so a company they control falls under the measure even if it is not itself on the list.
- Do not pay through third parties either. The prohibition in Article 6(2) covers making funds available indirectly and for the person’s benefit, and Article 13(1) prohibits knowingly taking part in activities whose object or effect is the circumvention of the measures.
- If you find funds or resources falling under the measure, report immediately to the National Agency for Fiscal Administration and to your supervisory authority, with the data on persons, contracts and accounts, as required by Article 18(2) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 202/2008. The duty to notify under Article 7(1) of the same ordinance falls on anyone holding data about a designated person.
- For releases, apply for authorisation, do not read the text for yourself. Article 7(1) of the regulation allows the competent authorities to release funds for the basic needs of the person and of the dependent members of their family, for fees for legal services, for charges for the maintenance of frozen accounts and for extraordinary expenses, but only with prior authorisation.
- If you consider yourself wrongly listed, you have two routes, and they run in parallel. Article 17(2) and (3) give you the right to submit observations to the Council, which reviews the listing if substantial new evidence comes to light. Separately, the action for annulment is brought before the General Court of the European Union, within two months of notification or of publication, to which is added the extension on account of distance of ten days.
Frequently asked questions
What distinguishes this regime from the sanctions for Ukraine?
Why are there two acts for the same ten names?
Does Romania have to adopt anything for the measure to apply?
What does a company in Romania have to do?
Is any of the listed persons connected with Romania?
What does someone who ignores the measure risk?
How long do they stay on the list?
Can a listing be challenged?
Editorial analysis
The act is cleanly drafted and, on the substance, has the best quality a listing can have: each entry says who, when and what exactly was done, with the court, the case and the sentence. It rests on identifiable procedural acts, not on general assessments about a political regime, and some of them also have a public counterpart, the statement of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights of 19 August 2026, invoked in recital (2). Between that statement and the listing, 40 days passed, and for a measure that first goes through a foreign policy decision adopted unanimously by the twenty-seven Member States, the speed is remarkable.
The observation that cannot be seen by reading the act from start to finish comes from opening the legal basis the act invokes. The implementing regulation is adopted, as its own preamble says, on the basis of Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1485. We opened that article. It says that, when the Council decides to apply to a person „the measures referred to in Article 2”, it amends Annex IV accordingly. Except that Article 2 of that regulation has nothing to do with listed persons: it prohibits the sale and export to Russia of equipment which might be used for internal repression. The freezing of funds and the list in Annex IV sit in Article 6. We checked the Romanian, English and French versions of Regulation (EU) 2024/1485: all three say Article 2, so this is not a translation error but a wrong cross-reference carried over from Decision (CFSP) 2024/1484, where the freezing really is in Article 2. The practical consequence is nil, because the rest of Article 17 speaks expressly of Annex IV, but the legal basis on which all the listings of this regime rest refers, literally, to an article other than the one that produces their effect.
The second observation comes from comparing the deadlines the act sets on the one side and on the other. The person included on the list has six weeks, that is, 42 days, in which to declare the funds within the jurisdiction of a Member State, and if they do not, Article 12(3) treats the silence as participation in the circumvention of the measures. Calculated from 28 September 2026, the deadline falls on 9 November 2026. On the other side, the Council requires itself to review the list „at least every 12 months”, that is, 8.7 times less often. This ratio is not a matter of style: the review is the only mechanism by which a wrong listing is corrected of the administration’s own motion, and the person who bears the measure has eight times less time to comply than the administration has to check its own decision.
The third observation concerns the calendar and explains why this act has the value of a precedent rather than of a measure. The judgment of the Supreme Court that took Yabloko out of the race dates from 10 August 2026, the elections to the State Duma were held in September 2026, and the sanction came on 28 September 2026, that is, after the result had become final. What is obtained in this way is not the prevention of the act but the shifting of responsibility onto persons rather than institutions: a judge of the Supreme Court and a prosecutor aged 28 learn that their signature closes their accounts and the European borders to them for at least a year. That is the only form of deterrence such a regime can produce, but it has to be called by its name.
What should be changed
- The cross-reference in Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1485 should be put right by a corrigendum, from Article 2 to Article 6. In practice, it would spare every defence lawyer and every judge of the Union a formal argument on a legal basis that, read literally, does not cover the freezing, and it would make the discussion pointless in any of the twenty-four language versions.
- Every entry should indicate the point of Article 6(3) on which it rests. It would shorten challenges and compliance checks: whoever reads the entry would see straight away which criterion applies, instead of comparing the closing formula of the statement of reasons with the text of a regulation from 2024 that the new act does not reproduce.
- The annex should contain at least one element of identification verifiable in a register, wherever one exists. A passport number, a tax code or the place of birth turns a name match into an identification. In a Member State where failing to freeze is an offence punishable by imprisonment, the difference between a transliterated name and an identifier decides whether an operator can act without risk.
- The six-week deadline should run from notification, not from listing. When the annex contains no address for the person, and here it contains none at any of the ten entries, notification is made by notice, so the day on which the person actually finds out does not coincide with the day from which the deadline is counted. Since failure to meet it is treated as circumvention, an obligation that can expire before it is known is hard to defend.
- The Council should publish, together with each listing, its position in the consolidated list of financial sanctions. An operator in Romania receives an act that says „the following entries are added” and has to work out alone, from the numbering, that the list has reached 108 natural persons, next to the 7 entities. A line with the total, in the listing act itself, would spare that step to every bank, notary and insurer updating their filters the same day.
Original text of the legal act
The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.
EMITENT: Consiliul Uniunii Europene Publicat în: Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene, seria L, 2026/2193 din 28 septembrie 2026 CONSILIUL UNIUNII EUROPENE, având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene, având în vedere Regulamentul (UE) 2024/1485 al Consiliului din 27 mai 2024 privind măsuri restrictive având în vedere situația din Rusia 1, în special articolul 17 alineatul (1), având în vedere propunerea Înaltului Reprezentant al Uniunii pentru afaceri externe și politica de securitate, întrucât: (1) La 27 mai 2024, Consiliul a adoptat Regulamentul (UE) 2024/1485. (2) La 19 august 2026, Înaltul Comisar al ONU pentru Drepturile Omului, Volker Türk, a emis o declarație în care și-a exprimat îngrijorarea cu privire la excluderea partidului politic Iabloko de la alegerile parlamentare din septembrie 2026 din Rusia și la condamnarea vicepreședintelui acestuia, Lev Șlosberg, la peste 11 ani de închisoare din cauza discursului împotriva războiului. Înaltul Comisar a solicitat autorităților să respecte libertatea de exprimare și drepturile cetățenilor de a participa pe deplin și în mod liber la procesele electorale. (3) Având în vedere gravitatea situației, Consiliul consideră că 10 persoane fizice ar trebui să fie adăugate pe lista persoanelor fizice și juridice, a entităților și a organismelor care figurează în anexa IV la Regulamentul (UE) 2024/1485. (4) Prin urmare, Regulamentul (UE) 2024/1485 ar trebui să fie modificat în consecință, ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT: Articolul 1
Anexa IV la Regulamentul (UE) 2024/1485 se modifică în conformitate cu anexa la prezentul regulament. Articolul 2
Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene. Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre. Adoptat la Bruxelles, 28 septembrie 2026. Pentru Consiliu
Președintele
M. HEYDON 1 JO L, 2024/1485, 27.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1485/oj.
ANEXĂ
În anexa IV la Regulamentul (UE) 2024/1485, se adaugă următoarele rubrici în tabelul cu titlul „A. Persoane fizice”: Vyacheslav Sergeevich KIRILLOV (Вячеслав Сергеевич КИРИЛЛОВ) Funcție: judecător la Curtea Supremă a Federației Ruse Data nașterii: 22.6.1966 Cetățenie: rusă Sexul: masculin Vyacheslav Kirillov este judecător la Curtea Supremă a Federației Ruse. La 10 august 2026, acesta a pronunțat o hotărâre prin care a interzis partidului politic Iabloko să participe la alegerile pentru Duma de Stat din septembrie 2026 din cauza unor presupuse încălcări ale drepturilor de autor, acte de extremism și alte abateri. Iabloko a fost singurul partid politic care s-a opus în mod deschis războiului de agresiune al Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei. La 9 aprilie 2026, s-a pronunțat în cauza privind organizația pentru drepturile omului Memorial, desemnând-o drept o organizație extremistă și interzicându-i să desfășoare activități în Rusia. Prin urmare, este răspunzător pentru reprimarea opoziției democratice și acțiunile sale subminează grav democrația și statul de drept în Rusia. Igor Nikolayevich ZINCHENKO (Игорь Николаевич ЗИНЧЕНКО) Funcție: judecător la Curtea Supremă a Federației Ruse, vicepreședinte al Camerei de Recurs a Curții Supreme a Federației Ruse Data nașterii: 25.3.1971 Locul nașterii: Shadrino, districtul Kozulsky, Krasnoyarsk Krai, fosta URSS, în prezent Federația Rusă Cetățenie: rusă Sexul: masculin Igor Zinchenko este judecător la Curtea Supremă a Federației Ruse. A făcut parte din completul de judecată care a confirmat decizia prin care s-a interzis partidului politic Iabloko să participe la alegerile pentru Duma de Stat din septembrie 2026 din cauza unor presupuse încălcări ale drepturilor de autor, acte de extremism, activități de sprijin pentru mișcarea LGBT și alte abateri. Iabloko a fost singurul partid politic care s-a opus în mod deschis războiului de agresiune al Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei. Prin urmare, este răspunzător pentru reprimarea opoziției democratice și activitățile sale subminează grav democrația și statul de drept în Rusia. Denis Vladimirovich TYUTIN (Денис Владимирович ТЮТИН) Funcție: judecător la Curtea Supremă a Federației Ruse Data nașterii: 25.4.1971 Locul nașterii: Gorky (în prezent Nijni Novgorod), fosta URSS, în prezent Federația Rusă Cetățenie: rusă Sexul: masculin Denis Tyutin este judecător la Curtea Supremă a Federației Ruse. A făcut parte din completul de judecată care a confirmat decizia prin care s-a interzis partidului politic Iabloko să participe la alegerile pentru Duma de Stat din septembrie 2026 din cauza unor presupuse încălcări ale drepturilor de autor, acte de extremism, activități de sprijin pentru mișcarea LGBT și alte abateri. Iabloko a fost singurul partid politic care s-a opus în mod deschis războiului de agresiune al Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei. Prin urmare, este răspunzător pentru reprimarea opoziției democratice și activitățile sale subminează grav democrația și statul de drept în Rusia. Sergey Fyodorovich SAKHAROV (Сергей Фёдорович САХАРОВ) Funcție: șef al diviziei Litigii Electorale și Reprezentare Judiciară din cadrul Departamentului juridic al Comisiei Electorale Centrale din Rusia Data nașterii: 15.11.1987 Cetățenie: rusă Sexul: masculin Sergey Sakharov este șeful diviziei Litigii Electorale și Reprezentare Judiciară din cadrul Departamentului juridic al Comisiei Electorale Centrale din Rusia. În această calitate, a luat parte la procedurile introduse în fața Curții Supreme a Federației Ruse care vizau împiedicarea partidului politic Iabloko să participe la alegerile pentru Duma de Stat din septembrie 2026. A susținut în mod deschis cererea partidului Rodina care a vizat interzicerea partidului Iabloko pe baza unor presupuse încălcări ale drepturilor de autor, acte de extremism, activități de sprijin pentru mișcarea LGBT și alte abateri. Iabloko a fost singurul partid politic care s-a opus în mod deschis războiului de agresiune al Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei. Prin urmare, el furnizează sprijin material pentru reprimarea opoziției democratice și pentru activități care subminează grav democrația și statul de drept în Rusia, inclusiv prin oferirea de asistență pentru astfel de acte și prin facilitarea sau încurajarea lor. Ilya Vladimirovich RUSAKOV (Илья Владимирович РУСАКОВ) Funcție: funcționar în cadrul Parchetului General al Federației Ruse Data nașterii: 15.8.1986 Cetățenie: rusă Sexul: masculin Ilya Rusakov este funcționar în cadrul Parchetului General al Federației Ruse. În această calitate, a luat parte la procedurile introduse în fața Curții Supreme a Federației Ruse care vizau împiedicarea partidului politic Iabloko să participe la alegerile pentru Duma de Stat din septembrie 2026. A susținut în mod deschis cererea partidului Rodina care a vizat interzicerea partidului Iabloko pe baza unor presupuse încălcări ale drepturilor de autor, acte de extremism, activități de sprijin pentru mișcarea LGBT și alte abateri. Iabloko a fost singurul partid politic care s-a opus în mod deschis războiului de agresiune al Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei. Prin urmare, el furnizează sprijin material pentru reprimarea opoziției democratice și pentru activități care subminează grav democrația și statul de drept în Rusia, inclusiv prin oferirea de asistență pentru astfel de acte și prin facilitarea sau încurajarea lor. Viktoria Mikhailovna MALYAMOVA (Виктория Михайловна МАЛЯМОВА) Funcție: judecător la Tribunalul din Pskov Data nașterii: 1.3.1973 Cetățenie: rusă Sexul: feminin Viktoria Malyamova este judecător la Tribunalul din Pskov. L-a condamnat pe Lev Shlosberg, un politician din opoziție, membru al partidului politic Iabloko, la 11 ani și o lună de închisoare pentru discreditarea armatei ruse și difuzarea de «știri false» cu privire la războiul de agresiune al Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei. Prin urmare, este răspunzătoare pentru încălcări grave ale drepturilor omului și abuzuri grave împotriva acestora și pentru reprimarea opoziției democratice, iar activitățile sale subminează în mod grav democrația și statul de drept în Rusia. Anna Sergeevna GORYACHOVA (Анна Сергеевна ГОРЯЧЕВА) Funcție: procuror Data nașterii: 9.4.1998 Cetățenie: rusă Sexul: feminin Anna Goryachova este procuror. Ea a solicitat o pedeapsă cu închisoarea de 12 ani și o lună pentru Lev Shlosberg, un politician din opoziție, membru al partidului politic Iabloko, pentru discreditarea armatei ruse și difuzarea de «știri false» cu privire la războiul de agresiune al Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei. Shlosberg a fost ulterior condamnat la 11 ani și o lună de închisoare. Înainte de respectivul proces, Anna Goryachova l-a urmărit penal pe Lev Shlosberg într-o cauză referitoare la încălcarea legislației privind «agenții străini», solicitând în contextul acelei cauze, 440 de ore de muncă obligatorie. Instanța l-a condamnat pe Shlosberg la 420 de ore de muncă obligatorie. Prin urmare, este răspunzătoare pentru încălcări grave ale drepturilor omului sau abuzuri grave împotriva acestora și pentru reprimarea opoziției democratice, iar activitățile sale subminează în mod grav democrația și statul de drept în Rusia. Yulia Igorevna GUZNYAEVA (Юлия Игоревна ГУЗНЯЕВА) Funcție: procuror asistent în cadrul Districtului administrativ central al Moscovei Data nașterii: 30.5.1996 Cetățenie: rusă Sexul: feminin Yulia Guznyaeva este procuror asistent în cadrul Districtului administrativ central al Moscovei. A fost procuror în procesul lui Maxim Kruglov, unul dintre liderii partidului politic Iabloko. A solicitat o pedeapsă cu închisoarea de opt ani pentru postările lui Kruglov de pe platformele de comunicare socială referitoare la războiul de agresiune al Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei, mai ales la crimele de război comise la Bucea și Mariupol. Prin urmare, este răspunzătoare pentru încălcări grave ale drepturilor omului sau abuzuri grave împotriva acestora și pentru reprimarea opoziției democratice, iar activitățile sale subminează în mod grav democrația și statul de drept în Rusia. Elina Arturovna BABAYANTS (Элина Артуровна БАБАЯНЦ) Funcție: judecător la Judecătoria Zamoskvoretsky, Moscova Data nașterii: 25.7.1995 Cetățenie: rusă Sexul: feminin Elina Babayants este judecător la Judecătoria Zamoskvoretsky din Moscova. A fost judecător în procesul lui Maxim Kruglov, unul dintre liderii partidului politic Iabloko. L-a condamnat pe Kruglov la șapte ani de detenție într-o colonie penitenciară și i-a interzis să utilizeze internetul timp de trei ani pentru postările sale de pe platformele de comunicare socială referitoare la războiul de agresiune al Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei, mai ales la crimele de război comise la Bucea și Mariupol. Prin urmare, este răspunzătoare pentru încălcări grave ale drepturilor omului sau abuzuri grave împotriva acestora și pentru reprimarea opoziției democratice, iar activitățile sale subminează în mod grav democrația și statul de drept în Rusia. Elizaveta Sergeevna TRUSKALENKO (Елизавета Сергеевна ТРУСКАЛЕНКО) Funcție: judecător la Judecătoria Vyborsky din Sankt Petersburg Data nașterii: 18.10.1984 Cetățenie: rusă Sexul: feminin Elizaveta Truskalenko este judecător la Tribunalul districtului Vyborsky din Sankt Petersburg. A fost judecător în procesul lui Nikolai Rîbakov, președintele partidului politic Iabloko. L-a declarat pe Rîbakov vinovat și l-a condamnat la plata unei amenzi pentru postarea unei fotografii cu liderul decedat al opoziției din Rusia, Alexei Navalnîi. Hotărârea l-a împiedicat efectiv pe Rîbakov să candideze la alegerile pentru Duma de Stat din septembrie 2026. Prin urmare, este răspunzătoare pentru încălcări grave ale drepturilor omului sau abuzuri grave împotriva acestora și pentru reprimarea opoziției democratice, iar activitățile sale subminează în mod grav democrația și statul de drept în Rusia.Show the full legal textHide the full legal text
REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) 2026/2193 AL CONSILIULUI din 28 septembrie 2026 privind punerea în aplicare a Regulamentului (UE) 2024/1485 privind măsuri restrictive având în vedere situația din Rusia
Nume
Informații de identificare
Motive
Data includerii pe listă
„99.
28.9.2026
100.
28.9.2026
101.
28.9.2026
102.
28.9.2026
103.
28.9.2026
104.
28.9.2026
105.
28.9.2026
106.
28.9.2026
107.
28.9.2026
108.
28.9.2026”.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.