• The EU General Court ruled in Euro Asia Cargo v Council that simply appearing as shipper or consignee on an air waybill for restricted goods constitutes participation in a prohibited transaction, establishing sanctions liability without ownership, physical handling, or control of the cargo.
• The judgment signals that intermediaries—including freight forwarders, agents, and third-party logistics providers—are now clearly targeted under EU sanctions, making documentation roles a critical compliance control and requiring robust screening of cargo descriptions, codes, routing, and partners.
• The ruling confirms the extraterritorial reach of EU sanctions, meaning non-EU entities involved in EU-linked shipments face the same legal scrutiny, emphasising the need for proactive sanctions risk management to avoid operational, financial, and reputational consequences.

The EU General Court has sent a clear signal to the logistics industry: even routine involvement in the movement of restricted goods can count as participation in a prohibited transaction.

In Euro Asia Cargo v Council, the Court ruled that simply appearing as the shipper or consignee on an air waybill (AWB) during the transshipment of restricted components is enough to meet the legal threshold for sanctions liability. Companies don’t need to own the goods, handle them physically, or control their end-use. What matters is objective involvement in the transaction — and being listed on shipping documentation is enough.

The case arose from EU sanctions imposed under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in response to Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. The framework restricts the export and transit of dual-use goods and technologies that could be used for military purposes, and it allows the EU to list entities that facilitate these shipments. Euro Asia Cargo, a Sri Lankan logistics company, challenged its inclusion on the sanctions list, arguing that its role as a transshipment operator did not constitute participation in prohibited trade and that the listing was disproportionate.

The General Court rejected those arguments entirely. It confirmed that the Council had a solid factual and legal basis for including the company and found no breach of procedural rights, including the right to be heard. Crucially, the judgment makes clear that sanctions liability does not hinge on ownership or control of the cargo — it focuses on objective participation in moving the goods.

For compliance and logistics professionals, the ruling is a wake-up call. By recognising that documentation roles alone can trigger liability, the Court has reinforced the EU’s approach of targeting the wider network of “enablers” in the trade chain. Historically, enforcement focused on end-users or those directly handling transactions. Now, intermediaries such as freight forwarders, agents, and third-party logistics providers are clearly on the radar.

The practical implications are significant. Being listed as a shipper or consignee — even during routine transshipment operations — can carry legal consequences far beyond administrative responsibility. Logistics operators must now view documentation as a critical compliance control rather than a simple operational step.

Experts emphasise that screening processes need to go beyond checking counterparty names. Cargo descriptions, ECCN and HS codes, and routing details should all feed into risk assessments. Red-flag logic must be integrated into booking and transport management systems to catch high-risk shipments before they move. Auditing agents, GSAs, and third-party logistics partners in high-risk hubs is no longer optional — it’s essential.

The ruling also has financial ramifications. Banks and payment processors are increasingly proactive, often restricting accounts or rejecting payments for entities involved in high-risk logistics operations long before regulators intervene. In this environment, robust, proactive sanctions risk management is critical to avoid operational disruption.

For global operators, the judgment is a stark reminder that logistics sits at the heart of the export control ecosystem. The movement of goods — even in a seemingly procedural or administrative role — is now firmly part of EU enforcement. Companies must embed sanctions awareness throughout operational processes to stay on the right side of the law.

By upholding the listing of a non-EU logistics provider, the Court confirmed the extraterritorial reach of EU sanctions. Entities outside the Union participating in shipments linked to EU trade flows face the same legal scrutiny and potential exposure as EU-based actors. For multinational supply chains, this underscores the need for rigorous compliance protocols, particularly for dual-use or otherwise sensitive cargo.

The post Court issues ruling for logistics providers over sanctions violations   appeared first on Air Cargo Week.