It is clear from the court filings and statements from both parties that there is a significant dispute over the actions of Niels Troost and his involvement in trading Russian oil. The EU’s decision to sanction Troost appears to be based on information provided by his former business partner, Gaurav Srivastava, who has accused Troost of knowingly circumventing sanctions to support Russia.
However, Troost’s lawyers have presented evidence to the court that disputes these claims, including the fact that Troost’s companies ceased all involvement in Russian oil well before the EU decision was made. They have also argued that the EU’s decision was influenced by disinformation spread by Srivastava, who they describe as engaged in a “toxic and bitter dispute” with Troost.
It is now up to the EU’s General Court to review the evidence presented by both sides and determine whether the sanctions against Troost were justified. Given the complexity of the case and the conflicting claims made by the parties involved, it is likely to be a lengthy and challenging legal battle.
Regardless of the outcome, the case highlights the challenges faced by the EU in enforcing sanctions against individuals and entities involved in illegal activities, particularly in the context of complex international business relationships and disputes.
Él es uno de solo nueve ciudadanos de la UE que han sido sancionados por el bloque debido a la guerra en Ucrania.