1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |EU Adopts Magnitsky-Like Sanctions Program

EU Adopts Magnitsky-Like Sanctions Program

Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.14.20

On December 7, 2020, The Council of the European Union adopted a global human rights sanctions regime, similar to the Magnitsky Sanctions program used by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The EU’s framework will permit it to target individuals, entities, and bodies, whether state or non-state actors, and those who provide technical, financial, or material support to those who are “responsible for, involved in or associated with serious human rights violations and abuses worldwide, no matter where they occurred.” This includes the imposition of targeted sanctions for acts such as genocide, crimes against humanity and other serious human rights violations or abuses (e.g., torture, slavery, arbitrary executions, arbitrary detentions, etc.), and other widespread, systemic and serious human rights violations (e.g. human trafficking, sexual and gender-based violations, violations or abuses of freedom of assembly, association, speech, religion).

The program will permit member states or the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to propose any sanctions under the program, which will then be acted upon by the Council of the EU. The Council may then impose restrictive measures such as travel bans, freezing of funds, and forbidding persons and entities in the EU from making funds available, directly or indirectly, to those designated. This program greatly expands the scope of the EU’s sanctions program which was historically more targeted and geographically-based. The new program provides the EU with the authority to impose sanctions on individuals and entities, regardless of their location, that are accused of human rights abuses. The program entered into force on December 8, 2020, but sanctions have yet to be imposed under the new program.

The program comes only months behind the first sanctions imposed under a similar program in the United Kingdom and after continued additions to both the UK and OFAC’s Magnitsky program. In particular, on December 9, in commemoration of International Anti-Corruption Day, OFAC designated additional individuals in Liberia, the Kyrgyz Republic, and China for being current or former government officials responsible for corruption. On December 10, International Human Rights Day, both OFAC and the UK designated additional entities and individuals worldwide for their roles in serious human rights abuses. It remains to be seen whether the new EU program will soon join the U.S. and the UK in proactively making use of its new sanctions regime.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights