A long-running attempt to use targeted sanctions as a tool of accountability in the face of systematic human rights violations in Russia is highlighted by the European Union’s decision in December to impose restrictive measures on two more Russian judicial officials.
The EU has once again made it clear that repression carried out through courts and prosecutorial offices will not be regarded as politically neutral or legally protected behavior by sanctioning Moscow City Court judge Dmitry Gordeev and prosecutor Lyudmila Balandina.
New EU sanctions target 2 members of the Russian judiciary responsible for:
— EU Council (@EUCouncil) December 22, 2025
🚫 violations of human rights
🚫 the repression of civil society and democratic opposition
🚫 undermining democracy and the rule of law in Russia
More information: https://t.co/GC2UVdxoiD pic.twitter.com/MosQRacEvz
Why target Russia’s judiciary?
The European Union directs its judicial and prosecutorial personnel against Russia instead of following the standard practice of targeting military commanders and political leaders because it understands that contemporary Russian repression operates through legal institutions.
Prosecutors, together with courts, function as essential mechanisms that restrict opposition activities by turning them into criminal offenses. They also label peaceful political actions as terrorist or extremist activities.
Human rights organizations have often criticized Judge Dmitry Gordeev because he produces political decisions that harm opposition members and activists who defend civil society. The way he depends on police reports that he copied or failed to verify, and his continuous denial of exonerating proof, demonstrate a fundamental breakdown in judicial independence.
Lyudmila Balandina works as a prosecutor who fights political cases against Ukrainian supporters, and Kremlin critics, by asking for extreme punishments in situations where no violence occurred.
The European Union has made it clear that legal formalism does not provide immunity to these individuals through its approval process. The statement clearly shows that participating in judicial repression leads to human rights violations instead of maintaining legal neutrality.
When did the EU begin sanctioning Russian officials?
Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, EU sanctions against Russian individuals really got underway. The initial sanctions targeted top political leaders, military commanders, and business leaders who supported the Kremlin.
The European Union established asset freezes together with travel limitations through its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which marked a shift from broad economic sanctions. This moved toward precise “smart” sanctions. The opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, experienced poisoning and imprisonment during 2020–2021. The second wave expanded extensively because of this development.
The EU responded by creating the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime, which functions as the EU’s “Magnitsky-style” framework to allow Brussels to sanction human rights offenders worldwide.
How many Russian individuals has the EU sanctioned so far?
As of late 2025, the EU had sanctioned more than 1,800 individuals and more than 400 organizations for Russia’s actions, according to official Council data. This group includes judges, politicians, military personnel, media figures, oligarchs, and local administrators.
Several dozen judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers have been singled out for human rights violations within this larger framework, especially in situations involving political prisoners, protest suppression, and persecution of anti-war voices.
The inclusion of Gordeev and Balandina is indicative of an ongoing endeavor to extend accountability to individuals who operationalize repression at the institutional level in addition to prominent elites.
Are EU sanctions legally and politically significant?
Three main legal restrictions are imposed by EU sanctions: travel prohibitions within EU territory, asset freezes, and prohibitions on making funds available. These actions may have a personal impact on people whose families and assets are frequently linked to European financial systems. Sanctions limit future mobility and have a negative impact on an official’s reputation, even if they have little exposure to the EU.
The sanctions have a signaling role in politics. They create an official record of accountability, record abuses, and uphold international standards for judicial independence and free speech. In this way, sanctions serve as a kind of naming and humiliation supported by tangible legal repercussions.
However, critics argue that the marginal impact of adding individual names diminishes as the sanctions list grows. Once an official has limited exposure to Europe, additional restrictions may have little practical effect on behaviour inside Russia.
Are EU sanctions “worth it”?
The way success is defined determines the effectiveness of EU sanctions. The current sanctions against Moscow have failed to produce an immediate change in its policies. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine continues to rage, while the Russian government has intensified its domestic crackdown.
However, the situation becomes more complicated if the goal is longer-term accountability, deterrence, and norm reinforcement. Sanctions impose financial and legal restrictions that endure beyond specific political cycles. The measures lead to higher expenses for authoritarian rule maintenance, while restricting Russian access to democratic systems, and resulting in international separation.
The targeted sanctions against judicial officials will generate a series of negative consequences that will multiply their effects. The warning message serves to inform legal professionals about the international consequences of supporting repressive actions, which damage the principle of judicial independence from political influence.
The program establishes long-term incentives that affect mid-level officials who maintain their commitment to international legitimacy even though it does not produce immediate behavioral changes.
The EU’s newest sanctions against Russian judges fail to stop the authoritarian development that Russia continues to pursue. The methods support a full plan that combines normative resistance with deterrence and documentation practices.
The EU is establishing a database through its expanding accountability measures, which now include judges and prosecutors, along with generals and oligarchs. This database will have major consequences for both current legal matters and future political rulings.