Zurich, 04 November 2026
By Dr Laura Melusine Baudenbacher, attorney-at-law, and Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Carl Baudenbacher
Baudenbacher Law AG represented the appellant in these proceedings.
Any person whose assets the state freezes is entitled to a fair hearing before a court. In judgment 2C_477/2025 of 16 September 2026, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle for Swiss sanctions law. It upheld the appeal of Alexander Pumpyanskiy against his listing in Annex 8 of the Swiss Ukraine Ordinance and set aside the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 23 June 2025 (B-3584/2023) because that court had infringed his right to a public hearing under Article 6(1) ECHR. The Federal Administrative Court must now hold a public hearing and decide afresh, on the basis of the current listing and the latest developments at the Council of the EU. In this post we put the judgment in context: what was decided, what remains open, and what it means for judicial protection against sanctions in Switzerland.
Starting point: who lists, delists, and enforces in Switzerland
Switzerland adopts the EU’s Russia-related listings almost word for word in Annex 8 of the Ukraine Ordinance. Responsibilities are allocated at three levels: the Federal Council decides to adopt the EU sanctions and enacts the Ordinance (Article 2 of the Embargo Act). The Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research (EAER) updates Annex 8 (Article 16 of the Embargo Act) – it lists and delists persons – and decides on delisting requests by way of an appealable decision. The State Secretariat of Economic Affairs SECO, an office within the EAER, supervises the enforcement of the sanctions – asset freezes, reporting duties of financial intermediaries, exemptions – but has no competence in delisting proceedings.
Alexander Pumpyanskiy, a Swiss-Russian dual national, was added to Annex 8 on 16 March 2022, one week after his listing by the Council of the EU and on identical grounds. On 22 May 2023, the EAER rejected his request for delisting of 29 March 2022. During the ensuing proceedings before the Federal Administrative Court, the EAER amended the grounds for the listing three times (2 November 2023, 22 March 2024, 24 September 2024), each time tracking the Council’s decisions. The General Court of the EU twice annulled the acts maintaining Mr Pumpyanskiy on the EU list (T-734/22 of 29 November 2023; T-221/24 of 2 April 2025). On the same day as the second judgment, it annulled in T-272/24 the acts maintaining his father on the list, holding that he could no longer be regarded as a “leading businessperson”. Both nevertheless remained listed, based on new implementing decisions of the Council with reworded grounds.
What the Federal Supreme Court decided
The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal and refused a public hearing as having been requested out of time: the request had been made only on 2 August 2024, after a third exchange of written submissions.
The Federal Supreme Court disagreed. The request had indeed not been made during the ordinary exchange of submissions. But the Federal Administrative Court had itself continued the exchange for more than ten months thereafter, had admitted new evidence and relied on it in its judgment, while telling the appellant that it would rule on his request “in due course”. A court that prolongs proceedings itself cannot invoke the principle of expedition to reject a request for a public hearing as belated (consid. 3.3–3.5). The request was therefore made in time, and its refusal infringed Article 6(1) ECHR (consid. 3.6). In line with its settled case law (ATF 139 II 384, consid. 2.3), the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that sanctions proceedings concern civil rights within the meaning of that provision and must therefore guarantee access to a court.
Two practical lessons follow. A request for a public hearing must be made clearly and unambiguously, ideally during the ordinary exchange of submissions. At the same time, the objection of lateness may not be applied in a purely formalistic way where the court itself continues the taking of evidence and relies on new material. Otherwise, it infringes Article 6(1) ECHR and the principle of good faith in the conduct of proceedings (consid. 3.1.2).
What the Federal Supreme Court left open
The Federal Supreme Court expressly left open whether the listing is substantively lawful. It did, however, direct the Federal Administrative Court to assess the facts as they stand at the time of its new decision, taking account of the most recent amendment of the grounds for listing and the latest developments at the Council of the EU. This puts the key question centre stage: can the family criterion – son of a “leading businessperson” – still support an asset freeze where, according to the General Court, the father has lost that status and the son resigned from his board positions as early as 9 March 2022?
Developments at EU level since the judgment under appeal
Since the Federal Administrative Court’s judgment of 23 June 2025, the position in Luxembourg has developed further in favour of the Pumpyanskiy family. On 10 September 2025, in T-541/24, the General Court annulled the acts of September 2024 and March 2025 maintaining the father’s listing as well: former positions, membership of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs and attendance at meetings with President Putin did not suffice to show that he was still a “leading businessperson”. Two days later, on 12 September 2025, the Council relisted father and son by Decision (CFSP) 2025/1895 with substantially reworded grounds; Switzerland followed on 30 September 2025. On 15 October 2025, in T-235/25, the General Court annulled the listing of the mother, Galina Pumpyanskaya, because T-541/24 had removed the premise that she benefited from a “leading businessperson”, the same premise on which the son’s listing is built. On 2 September 2026, in T-799/25, the Court also annulled her relistings of September 2025 and March 2026, the fourth annulment in her case.
On 11 February 2026, in Tokareva (T-693/25), the General Court held for the first time expressly that the Council infringes Article 266 TFEU when it relists a person after annulments without new evidence and without remedying the defects found. The Court of Justice did dismiss, on 26 March 2026, the father’s appeal against his initial listing of March 2022 (C-696/23 P, Grand Chamber); for the period after his resignation, however, the General Court has to date found no proof that the listing criteria continue to be met.
On 22 September 2026, the Council extended all listings for the first time by three years, until 22 September 2029 (Decision (CFSP) 2026/2161); father and son remained listed. Under the Federal Supreme Court’s instructions, the Federal Administrative Court will have to take these developments into account in its new assessment.
The sanctions carousel: judicial protection that leads nowhere
In our view, this raises a fundamental rule-of-law question: judicial protection that leads nowhere is no protection at all. In the Pumpyanskiy family’s proceedings, the Council of the EU has established a pattern best described as a sanctions carousel: the Council lists; the person concerned sues; as soon as an annulment looms, the Council adjusts the legal basis or the grounds and relists the person at the next renewal, in the father’s case two days after the judgment. The Council has not appealed any of the annulments to the Court of Justice, although that route is open to it; it thereby avoids a final ruling that could end this practice. Final judgments of the General Court are thus left without effect. That is irreconcilable with the rule of law – whoever is affected.
The Federal Supreme Court does not expressly address this practice. But the review on the basis of the current facts that it requires pulls the ground from under it: an autonomous Swiss sanction must stand up before Swiss courts on its own law and its own evidence. Merely adopting the Council’s reasoning is not enough. The EAER and the Federal Administrative Court should have scrutinised the Council’s practice critically instead of setting aside final judgments of the EU judiciary.
Kadi and Al-Dulimi: the benchmark for effective judicial protection
In Kadi (Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, judgment of 3 September 2008), the Court of Justice of the EU held that even sanctions implementing UN Security Council resolutions are subject to full judicial review in the light of fundamental rights. In Kadi II (Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P, judgment of 18 July 2013), it required the Council to establish a sufficiently solid factual basis and to disclose the evidence. The European Court of Human Rights found Switzerland in breach of Article 6(1) ECHR in Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland (Grand Chamber, no. 5809/08, judgment of 21 June 2016) because the Swiss courts had not even reviewed a UN listing for arbitrariness.
Judgment 2C_477/2025 sits in this line, all the more so as Switzerland adopts the sanctions autonomously and no obligation under international law limits the scope of review. Effective judicial protection requires a public hearing, access to the file, and full review of the substantive criteria, including proportionality. In the appellant’s view, the sanction, despite its legitimate aim, is neither suitable nor necessary nor proportionate in the strict sense.
Conclusion and outlook
These proceedings are not about whether sanctions against Russia are right. They are about the principle that any person whose assets the state freezes is entitled to a fair and public hearing before a court that examines the facts as they stand today. That applies to everyone, whatever their origin or name. A rationale that the General Court of the EU has twice rejected cannot simply be carried forward. And whoever loses in court must comply with the judgment or appeal it, the Council of the EU included.
The case now returns to the Federal Administrative Court, which will for the first time hear the substantive listing criteria in public. No court fees were charged for the proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court; the Confederation must pay the appellant CHF 5,000 in costs. We are proud to stand up for the rule of law in this case, and for the principle that a fair hearing does not depend on who is before the court. We will report on further developments.
