We successfully represented a leading telecommunications company in a sanctions‑related dispute arising from the suspension of retransmission in Estonia of 26 Russian‑language television channels.
Following the imposition of international sanctions in 2022, our client became concerned that certain licence fees might, indirectly or covertly, reach sanctioned persons. The company therefore suspended contractual payments until the ultimate beneficiaries and transaction chains could be thoroughly verified. The contractual partner refused to provide additional information and initiated court proceedings to recover the alleged debt.
Courts of all three instances agreed with our position that compliance with sanctions is not a box-ticking exercise limited to the immediate counterparty. Where there are even indirect indications that a transaction could ultimately make resources available to sanctioned persons, a company is obliged to immediately suspend payments and deliveries.
If a contractual partner refuses to provide information necessary to dispel such concerns, it is that partner who must approach the Financial Intelligence Unit to have these doubts assessed. For as long as the concerns persist, no contractual payments may be made, and services may neither be obtained nor provided.
This case is significant because it affects companies across all sectors and clarifies the duty of care imposed on management board members to prevent sanctions violations. The practical relevance of the courts’ guidance is even greater, considering that breaches of sanctions are criminally punishable both when committed intentionally and through negligence.
The client was represented and advised by senior associate Albert Linntam, co‑head of our White-Collar Investigations practice, and associate Aleksandr Šapovalov.
