Alisher Usmanov v Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

Tuesday 3 February 2026

The judgement delivered by a regional court in Hamburg in January 2026 in favour of Russian oligarch Alisher Usmanov against the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) marked the latest stage in a long and carefully pursued legal campaign by one of Europe’s most litigious sanctioned businessmen. While the case itself concerned a discrete set of allegedly defamatory statements published in 2023, it cannot sensibly be understood in isolation from the wider pattern of proceedings through which Mr Usmanov has sought, since the imposition of European Union sanctions in 2022, to dismantle what he maintains is a legally and factually unsound public narrative about his relationship with the Kremlin.

The Hamburg proceedings arose from an article published by FAZ in April 2023 under the headline ‘Im Auftrag des Kremls’, which presented Mr Usmanov as a figure operating, informally but effectively, on behalf of the Russian state. The article alleged that he had repeatedly deployed his wealth in support of Kremlin objectives, and that he had exercised improper influence over Russian media, most notably following his acquisition of the newspaper Kommersant in 2006. These claims were framed not as conjecture but as established fact, drawing in part on allegations previously circulated by the late Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny.

Mr Usmanov responded in the manner that has become characteristic of his post-sanctions strategy. Through his German counsel, Joachim Steinhöfel, he demanded a retraction and a legally binding undertaking that the statements would not be repeated. When FAZ declined to provide either, he initiated proceedings before the Hamburg Regional Court, a forum he has increasingly favoured for media litigation given Germany’s comparatively robust protection of personality rights.

In its judgement of 23 January 2026 the court found in Mr Usmanov’s favour on all contested points. It held that the impugned statements were assertions of fact rather than value judgements, and that FAZ had failed to demonstrate an adequate evidential basis for them. The court therefore prohibited the newspaper from further disseminating the allegations, subject to penalties of up to €250,000 per breach, or administrative detention in the event of non-payment.

What distinguished the Hamburg ruling from earlier defamation cases was the breadth of the prohibition. The court did not merely restrain FAZ from repeating its own formulations, but also barred it from reproducing specific allegations originating with Mr Navalny. These included claims that Mr Usmanov had effectively gifted luxury property to entities associated with Dmitry Medvedev, and that he had acquired shares in Gazprom Investholding through a transaction tantamount to the self-dealing sale of state assets. The court noted that these assertions had previously been rejected by Russian courts as unproven, and held that their repetition by a German newspaper could not be justified without independent substantiation.

This decision sits within a sequence of legal outcomes that, taken together, illuminate Mr Usmanov’s broader approach. Since 2022, he has brought or supported proceedings against media organisations in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the United States, often securing injunctions, retractions or settlements in respect of specific claims about his political influence or business dealings. In parallel, several criminal or quasi-criminal investigations in Germany have quietly fallen away. A money-laundering inquiry was discontinued in 2024, and a separate investigation into alleged breaches of foreign trade law was closed following a settlement payment, without any finding of guilt.

For Mr Usmanov’s legal team, these developments are not merely about reputation. They form part of a cumulative argument directed, ultimately, at the legality of the sanctions regime itself. The contention advanced by his counsel is that European sanctions were imposed on the basis of a media and political narrative which, when subjected to judicial scrutiny, has repeatedly failed to withstand evidential testing. Each successful defamation action is therefore presented as further proof that the factual substratum of the sanctions is defective.

From the perspective of press freedom, the Hamburg judgement is more troubling. German courts have long sought to balance robust investigative journalism against the protection of individual personality rights, but the extension of injunctive relief to the repetition of third-party allegations, particularly those associated with a prominent anti-Kremlin figure, has prompted concern amongst commentators. Critics argue that such rulings risk creating a chilling effect, especially in reporting on sanctioned individuals whose wealth and political proximity render independent verification exceptionally difficult.

The case thus illustrates a deeper tension at the heart of Europe’s legal order during wartime. As courts insist, quite properly, on evidential rigour and procedural fairness, they may simultaneously undermine the informal mechanisms through which political accountability has often been pursued in authoritarian contexts. Mr Usmanov’s victory in Hamburg does not resolve the question of his relationship with the Russian state, but it does demonstrate how effectively law can be used to narrow the range of permissible public discourse, even amidst a conflict that has fundamentally reshaped Europe’s political and moral landscape. It is depressing that a western European court has hampered free speech about Russian politics in this way, at a time when Europe is in direct confrontation with Russia. It suggests that there may be something very wrong with Europe's judiciary in some areas, and a profound misalignment of judicial determination and political realities.