The Blocking Statute
What the EU’s unused legal weapon tells us about its commitment to the rule of law
By Our Brussels Correspondent
In 1996, the European Union did something unusual. Facing a United States law that threatened to punish European companies for trading with Cuba — a country with which the EU had perfectly legal commercial relations — the EU passed its own law in response. The law, Council Regulation (EC) No. 2271/96, is known as the Blocking Statute. It says, in essence: foreign sanctions that we consider contrary to international law do not apply here. European companies are not only permitted to ignore them — they are required to. It has been used twice. The first time was against US sanctions on Cuba. The second was in 2018, when the Trump administration withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions on companies doing business with Tehran. European firms were caught between two legal systems: comply with US sanctions and break EU law, or comply with EU law and risk losing access to the US financial system. The Blocking Statute told them which law took precedence. The Commission called it “an important achievement of unified EU action.” It was. It still is. It has not been activated since.
On 5 February 2025, the Trump administration signed Executive Order 14203, imposing sanctions on anyone who assists the International Criminal Court in investigations of the United States or its allies. In the months that followed, the administration sanctioned the ICC’s chief prosecutor, four of its judges, and, on 10 October 2026, thirteen ICC officials including its president, Tomoko Akane of Japan. The sanctions mean that European banks, IT providers, insurance companies and logistics firms that do business with the ICC risk being cut off from the US financial system. The ICC is headquartered in The Hague. The Netherlands is legally bound, under its Headquarters Agreement with the court, to ensure its continued operation. European companies provide the ICC with banking services, technology infrastructure, and operational support. Without those services, the court cannot function.
The EU Blocking Statute has not been activated. The European Commission has expressed deep regret. Ursula von der Leyen posted on X that the ICC “holds perpetrators of the world’s gravest crimes to account and gives victims a voice.” Kaja Kallas, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said she had spoken with the ICC president following the latest sanctions and that “the six-month period before the measures take effect offers a window for dialogue.” Spain has passed national legislation protecting ICC officials on its territory from the effects of US sanctions — the first EU member state to do so. Eight EU member states, alongside Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom, have issued a joint statement of “continued and unwavering support” for the ICC. The Commission has issued a statement of deep regret. The distinction between unwavering support and deep regret has not been publicly examined by the Commission. This publication notes it.
The Blocking Statute requires a decision by the European Commission. The Commission has not taken that decision. Legal scholars, including those cited by the Atlantic Council, note that there is “no reason not to do the same now for the ICC” as was done for Iran in 2018. The mechanism is available. The precedent exists. The legal framework is established. The ICC’s operational exposure to the US sanctions is documented — banking services, IT systems, staff payments, detention facility contracts, all potentially disrupted. The Commission has not commented on why the mechanism has not been activated. This publication asked. It had not received a response at the time of going to press.
The EU’s Blocking Statute exists because the EU decided, in 1996, that foreign sanctions contrary to international law should not be allowed to operate within European jurisdiction. The EU has decided, in 2026, that US sanctions on the ICC — which its own member states and legal scholars consider contrary to international law — should be addressed through dialogue. The dialogue has a six-month window. The ICC’s bank accounts are exposed now. The Commission has not commented on the gap between these two timelines. The situation is being monitored.