US sanctions against the International Criminal Court: what EU companies should examine now

What happened on 9 October 2026

On 9 October 2026 the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) added the International Criminal Court (ICC) as an organisation to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) (OFAC, Recent Actions of 9 October 2026¹). The legal basis is Executive Order 14203, "Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court", of 6 February 2025, implemented in 31 CFR Part 528 (OFAC, ICC-Related Sanctions²).

What is new is the target. Since 2025 OFAC had already designated individuals connected with the Court on the same basis, as reflected in General Licenses 1 to 12 issued since then (OFAC, ICC-Related Sanctions³). Now the institution itself is covered. Under US law, a designation generally means that assets within the control of US persons are blocked and US persons may not deal with the designated party unless a licence applies.

Transitional rules: General Licenses 13 to 16

At the same time OFAC issued four general licences (OFAC, Recent Actions of 9 October 2026⁴):

General License 13 authorises certain transactions to maintain or wind down the Court's operations, contracts and agreements. It is valid until 12:01 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on 7 April 2027 (GL 13⁵).
General Licenses 14, 15 and 16 concern telecommunications and enterprise software, pension payments, and certain detainees of the Court.

The EU has described this as a postponement of the measures taking effect that leaves room for dialogue.

The EU Blocking Statute: how it works

With Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 (the "Blocking Statute"), the EU has an instrument against the extraterritorial application of third-country law (European Commission, Blocking Statute⁶). As described by the Commission, it

applies only to the foreign measures listed in its Annex,
prohibits EU operators from complying with requirements or prohibitions based on those measures [Art. 5 – CHECK BEFORE PUBLICATION],
declares foreign court rulings based on them to be without effect in the EU and gives rise to claims for damages,
obliges affected operators to inform the Commission,
and allows the Commission, on application and by way of exception, to authorise compliance where non-compliance would seriously damage the interests of the operator or of the Union.

The Annex currently covers US measures concerning Cuba and Iran (European Commission⁷). It was last extended in 2018 by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1100 in connection with the Iran sanctions. Extensions are made by a Commission delegated act, to which Parliament and Council may object [Art. 1, 11a – CHECK BEFORE PUBLICATION].

Current status: not activated

The US sanctions against the ICC are not listed in the Annex to the Blocking Statute; the Commission's page still names only Cuba and Iran (accessed 16.10.2026). Several Member States and Members of the European Parliament are calling for activation. On 15/16 October 2026 the European Council regretted the sanctions, called on the US to reverse them and asked the Commission to help protect the Court and mitigate their impact, in particular on EU companies providing services to the Court (European Council, meeting of 15–16 October 2026).

The dilemma for companies

EU companies providing services to the Court – such as banks, IT and cloud providers, insurers, facility and security service providers – face a tension that could intensify if the Blocking Statute were activated: under US law, continuing business with the Court may carry risks, especially where there is a US nexus (US staff, US dollar payments, US parent companies or technology). Under EU law, if the measures were added to the Annex, complying with them would be prohibited. Whether and how an individual company is affected depends on the specific case.

Companies in this position typically examine:

Inventory: Which contracts, payment flows and services exist with the Court, directly or through third parties?
US nexus: Where are there links to US persons, US dollar clearing, US group companies or US technology?
Deadlines: Which services fall under which general licence, and what does the 7 April 2027 expiry mean for ongoing contracts?
EU developments: How would a possible activation of the Blocking Statute be handled, including the duty to inform and the authorisation procedure?
Documentation and governance: Who decides internally, and how are decisions reasoned and recorded?

Open questions

Key open questions are whether the US will amend or lift the measures before April 2027, whether the Commission will activate the Blocking Statute, and how it would handle applications for authorisation. We are following developments and will update this post.

This post provides a general overview and does not replace legal advice on individual cases.

Sources

← All posts