EU court keeps Belarus potash via Lithuania shut

BKT, a Klaipėda bulk cargo terminal specialising in rail transit of potash fertilisers from Belarus to third‑country markets, had asked the court to lift or soften key sanctions provisions so that shipments could resume. The company targeted Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 and Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP, which together prohibit the purchase, import or transfer of potash products from Belarus, and argued that “transfer” should not cover transit by rail through Lithuania.

The General Court rejected this position. It confirmed that the sectoral ban introduced in 2021 applies as drafted and that Article 1i of Regulation No 765/2006, which sets out the potash prohibition, cannot now be challenged because the legal deadline to contest that 2021 amendment has long passed. The judges also held that Article 2g of Decision 2012/642, which mirrors the potash ban on the foreign‑policy side, is a general sectoral measure and therefore falls outside the court’s review powers for sanctions decisions.

In addition to the core sanctions rules, BKT tried to attack Commission guidance on the meaning of “transfer”, including a May 2014 document and June 2022 consolidated FAQs that help authorities implement the EU’s restrictive measures. These texts treat “transfer” as covering transit flows, which is what closed the Belarus–Lithuania potash route. The court found that any challenge to those guidance documents would have to be brought against the Commission, which adopted them, not against the Council, and therefore rejected those claims as inadmissible.

BKT further asked the court to declare that the Council had unlawfully failed to act on a January 2024 request to define “transfer” more narrowly and to create a derogation for rail transit of Belarusian potash to the Klaipėda terminal. The General Court dismissed this “failure to act” argument, noting that the request was addressed to the President of the European Council rather than to the Council of the European Union itself and did not meet the formal conditions required under Article 265 TFEU. The court added that the Council has broad discretion in sanctions policy, can only amend Regulation No 765/2006 on the basis of a joint proposal from the High Representative and the Commission, and is not legally obliged to issue the interpretative guidance or exemptions sought by BKT.

In a final claim, the company asked the General Court to order the Council to adopt new provisions or guidelines stating that the restrictive measures do not apply to rail transport of potash from Belarus between the Belarusian and Lithuanian borders and the Klaipėda terminal. The court refused, reiterating settled case law that it has no jurisdiction to issue directions to EU institutions or Member States, and concluded that the action must be dismissed “in part as having been brought before a court that lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine it, in part as inadmissible and in part as in any event unfounded.”

As a result, the sanctions framework that blocks Belarusian potash transit via Lithuania remains fully in place, and BKT must bear its own costs and those of the Council, while the Republic of Lithuania, which intervened in support of the Council, bears its own costs. For Fertilizer International readers, the practical consequence is clear: unless the EU’s political institutions change Regulation No 765/2006 or Decision 2012/642, Belarusian potash shipments cannot return to the Lithuanian rail‑and‑port route that previously served as a key export corridor.