Freedom of Speech NOW!
Initiative for the Rule of Law

EU sanctions against individuals often mean the end of their civilian existence – a form of “civil death” – without charges, without a verdict, and without a defense. We stand up for the human rights of those affected.

Sanctions must not be a substitute for justice. We demand an end to the practice of imposing sanctions “on suspicion” and stand up for the fundamental right to a fair trial. Because the rule of law must not be replaced by lists.

Case studies – it can happen to anyone

To illustrate that this is a matter of principle, we present cases in which the rule of law fell by the wayside:


The Hüseyin Doğru case:

In May 2025, German journalist Hüseyin Doğru was added to the EU sanctions list. The EU justified this move by citing alleged disinformation in support of Russian national interests.

Critics of the sanctions, however, view this as a political move to suppress his sharp criticism of Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza and of German foreign policy. They argue that there are no publicly documented financial or organizational ties to the Russian state.

The sanctions have far-reaching consequences: accounts have been frozen, an EU-wide travel ban imposed, and paid work prohibited. Providing financial support is a punishable offense. Critics therefore speak of a de facto ban on working and earning a livelihood.

The Jacques Baud Case:


A former intelligence expert and UN consultant who became a target due to his analyses and publications. This raises the question: Are sanctions being used to suppress unwelcome opinions and expert analyses?

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Our work is not about the political opinions or actions of specific individuals. It is about the principle of the rule of law. Fundamental rights are universal. They apply to everyone, regardless of whether one shares their views. If we allow due process to be bypassed in the case of one person, we create a precedent that could affect any of us tomorrow.

When a person is placed on a sanctions list, their bank accounts are frozen, their credit cards stop working, and they can no longer pay rent or insurance premiums. This is often followed by a ban on employment or travel. Without access to the economic system, participation in social life is impossible. This amounts to the destruction of one’s livelihood without a court ruling.

Yes, but only in hindsight – and often only years later. By the time a ruling is handed down, the person’s professional and personal life has usually long since been destroyed. Such proceedings are very costly. Furthermore, the Court of Justice has only limited access to the often “confidential” documents on which the EU Council’s decision is based. We demand transparency and fair treatment from the very beginning.

We do not dispute that. States must be capable of taking action. However, sanctions must not create a legal vacuum. If a political instrument has the power to ruin an individual without a court order, that instrument must be subject to the same rigorous oversight as criminal law. Foreign policy must never override the fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter.

The introduction of a genuine requirement for prior judicial authorization. Before a person is listed, the evidence must be presented to an independent judge. We also call for a “sunset clause.” Sanctions must automatically expire unless evidence admissible in court justifying their continuation is presented at regular intervals.

Unlike in criminal proceedings, sanctions lists often involve no public indictment, no requirement for judicial authorization, and no opportunity for a defense before the verdict (listing) is enforced. This results in a reversal of the burden of proof: the affected party must prove their innocence after having already been deprived of the financial means to secure legal counsel.

We are not criticizing the instrument of foreign policy itself, but rather the lack of oversight under the rule of law when it comes to individual sanctions. We demand that sanctions that profoundly infringe upon fundamental rights be subject to the same strict rules as any other legal proceeding in Europe.

Theoretically, yes. There are so-called “humanitarian exceptions” for rent or food. The reality, however, is different. The bureaucratic process required to release these funds through national authorities often takes months. In addition, many banks refuse to process transactions for sanctioned individuals at all—even when authorization has been granted—out of fear of “compliance risks.” The protection of basic needs often exists only on paper.

Share our content and sign the petition. We need people who are willing to stand up for the principles of the rule of law.

No. We are an independent citizens’ initiative. We receive no funds or instructions from the individuals mentioned in the case studies. Our client is the legal system itself. We use high-profile cases solely to highlight where the system fails and opens the door to arbitrary action.

Silence means consent –
Take action!

The rule of law cannot be taken for granted. It must be defended anew every day. Help us replace arbitrariness with transparency.
Sign the petition calling on the federal government to act. Every voice counts in increasing political pressure for reform of the sanctions system.

Sign the petition