EU General Court rejects claims brought by Lithuanian company against prohibitions on the transfer of potash products from Belarus through the EU

16 July 2026

T‑261/24, Birių Krovinių Terminalas v Council – The General Court of the EU has rejected a series of claims brought by Lithuanian company Birių Krovinių Terminalas (“BKT”). BKT (a transit operator that ships potash products from Belarus to third countries through Lithuania) brought the claims in relation to EU sanctions that prohibit the transfer of potash products from Belarus through the EU.

BKT applied, inter alia, for: (i) partial annulment of Regulation (EC) 765/2006 and Council Decision 2012/642 (ii) the Court to order the Council to adopt provisions/guidelines disapplying certain sanctions under Regulation (EC) 765/2006 (iii) annulment of FAQs and guidance on the meaning of “transfer” in Regulations (EU) 833/2014 and 269/2014 (“Russia Regulations”).

Application to annul Regulation (EC) 765/2006 and Decision 2012/642

Regulation (EC) 765/2006 (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/1030) and Decision 2012/642 prohibit the purchase, import, or transfer of potash products from Belarus to the EU under Article 1i and Article 2g respectively. The applicant applied to annul the Regulation in 2023. The Court dismissed the application as inadmissible in Birių Krovinių Terminalas v Council (T‑287/23) (not published).

In this case, BKT sought partial annulment of the Regulation and Decision insofar as they prohibit the transfer of Belarusian potash products through the EU to third countries. BKT argued that the prohibition is incompatible with other international agreements and EU law.

The Court dismissed the claim as inadmissible because:

• Article 2g of Decision 2012/642 relates to “common foreign and security policy”. The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine actions on the legality of provisions of this nature under Article 275 TFEU. Although Article 275 TFEU provides an exception where the Court is asked to review the legality of decisions providing for “restrictive measures against natural or legal persons”, Article 2g is a sectoral prohibition of general application, and does not fall within the exception;

• The time limit for bringing proceedings against the Regulation (EU) 2021/1030 amending Regulation (EC) 765/2006 had expired.

Application to disapply sanctions under Regulation (EC) 765/2006

The Court also rejected as inadmissible BKT’s application for the Court to order the Council to adopt provisions/ guidelines disapplying sanctions under Regulation (EC) 765/2006 to the rail transport of potash products from Belarus through the EU or between the Belarusian and Lithuanian borders and its port terminal. The Court has no jurisdiction to issue directions to EU institutions.

Application to annul FAQs/Guidance

Guidance published by the Commission in 2014 and FAQs adopted by it in 2022 define ‘transfer’ in the Russia Regulations to include ‘transit’ of goods through EU territory. This definition applied by analogy to the Belarus sanctions regime, such that BKT’s transfer of Belarusian potash through the EU fell within the conduct prohibited by Article 1i of Regulation (EC) 765/2006.

BKT applied for the Court to annul the FAQs and 2014 guidance documents, and to declare that the Commission misused its powers in adopting these interpretations of ‘transfer’. The Court rejected these applications as inadmissible because:

• The action for annulment must be brought against the EU institution that adopted the act in question. In this case, BKT brought the action against the Council but the institution that adopted the acts was the Commission;

• BKT failed to explain why/how the documents form the legal basis for the legal acts it sought to annul.

The Court therefore dismissed the action brought by BKT on all counts.