In a written answer published on 30 July 2026, the Council of the European Union defended the compatibility of its Russia-related restrictive measures with fundamental rights, while declining to comment on any intelligence regarding Hüseyin Doğru or his alleged ties to Russian state structures. The response, addressing a parliamentary question from Martin Schirdewan (The Left), reaffirms that listed individuals and entities retain the right to challenge their listings before the Court of Justice of the European Union and that the Council reviews listings regularly to ensure they remain justified and proportionate. The Council stressed that listing decisions are taken unanimously on the basis of legal and political considerations, but refused to disclose any specific information underlying individual listings, arguing that doing so could undermine the effectiveness of the measures and prejudice ongoing processes.
The answer comes in response to a question that referenced a Council press release of 20 May 2025 on measures to counter hybrid threats from Russia. Schirdewan had asked whether the Council possesses any intelligence or security-related information about Doğru and his possible connections to state or state-affiliated structures linked to Russia, and whether Doğru or his company AFA Medya has received or is currently receiving financial resources from Russian state sources, including indirectly or through circumvention structures. The Council's reply does not address these specific queries, instead referring to the legal acts and publicly available statements of reasons for listings, which set out the basis for individual listings as far as possible without compromising security considerations.
The response underscores a tension between transparency and the confidentiality of intelligence-based listings. On one hand, the Council affirms its commitment to fundamental rights, including freedom of expression and press freedom, and points to judicial review as a safeguard. On the other hand, it withholds detailed justification for individual listings, citing operational security. This approach balances the need to protect the integrity of restrictive measures against the rights of affected individuals to know the case against them. For listed persons and entities, the practical impact is that they must rely on the Court of Justice to obtain fuller reasoning, a process that can be lengthy and costly. For EU member states, the unanimous decision-making requirement ensures that no single state can impose a listing unilaterally, but it also means that listings may reflect political compromises rather than purely legal criteria. For civil society and media freedom advocates, the lack of specific information in this case may fuel concerns about due process, though the Council's reference to judicial review offers a formal avenue for redress.
The answer contains no concrete proposals or new measures, but rather reiterates existing procedures. It signals that the Council is unlikely to alter its approach to listing transparency in the near term, and that future challenges to listings will continue to be handled through the Court of Justice. The response also implicitly acknowledges the sensitivity of intelligence-sharing in the context of hybrid threats, suggesting that the Council will continue to prioritise the effectiveness of sanctions over public disclosure of underlying evidence.