A former officer of Switzerland’s federal intelligence service, Jacques Baud, is preparing a legal challenge against the European Union after being sanctioned for what Brussels describes as systematic promotion of Russian propaganda.
The case highlights how the EU’s sanctions regime is expanding beyond state actors to individuals accused of shaping hostile information campaigns.
At the centre of the dispute is Jacques Baud, a retired analyst who now lives in Brussels and has become a familiar face on Russian state television. He has authored Kremlin-friendly articles on pro-Russian “alternative” online news websites.
On December 15, the EU added Baud to its sanctions list for repeatedly appearing on Russian television channels and publicly endorsing Moscow’s narrative of the war against Ukraine. According to SRF, EU officials concluded that his statements contributed to information warfare targeting European audiences.
Baud has consistently referred to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a “special military operation”, adopting Kremlin language rather than international legal terminology.
He has also argued that Ukraine bears responsibility for the war, claiming Kyiv provoked Moscow by allegedly seeking NATO membership. These positions place him squarely within a narrative framework that the EU classifies as destabilising.
Baud was not sanctioned alone. Alongside him, the EU imposed measures on eleven other individuals, including the Frenchman Xavier Moreau, a Russian military unit, and a propaganda group accused of hybrid operations aimed at undermining EU institutions and public trust.
The move builds on a decision made on October 3, when the Council of the European Union extended restrictive measures against Russian individuals and entities involved in hybrid destabilisation abroad, including interference in the information sphere.
Baud’s lawyers have confirmed that he plans to appeal directly to the Council of the European Union and file a complaint with the EU’s judicial authorities, most likely the Court of Justice of the European Union. His central argument is procedural rather than ideological.
According to Baud, there is no evidence that he committed a crime, and he was never given the opportunity to defend himself before the sanctions were imposed. From his perspective, expressing opinions, however controversial, does not meet the threshold for punitive measures.
Although familiar, that argument faces significant challenges. EU sanctions do not require a criminal conviction; they rely on assessments of threat and impact, particularly in areas such as disinformation and hybrid warfare.
Baud, a former employee of the Swiss Federal Intelligence Service, says he was informed of the sanctions indirectly. He received a call from the Swiss ambassador in The Hague, who sent him a link to the EU sanctions page and general appeal procedures.
“She didn’t give me any information about what Switzerland is doing or planning to do,” Baud noted, underscoring Bern’s careful neutrality. The Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs later confirmed it had contacted competent authorities to clarify what legal remedies were available but stopped short of political intervention.
This case sits at the uncomfortable intersection of free expression and security policy. The EU argues that repeated, coordinated appearances on hostile foreign state media during an active war go beyond personal opinion. In Brussels’ view, they form part of a broader ecosystem designed to erode support for Ukraine and fracture European unity.
Critics counter that sanctioning individuals for speech risks setting a dangerous precedent. Supporters respond that information warfare is a strategic domain, not a debate club, and actors within it are biassed commentators.
Baud’s appeal will be closely watched, not because he is uniquely influential, but because the ruling could shape how far the EU can go in sanctioning individuals over narrative alignment rather than material support. A successful challenge would embolden others already operating in the grey zone between commentary and propaganda.
If the sanctions stand, the message is equally clear. In the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine, narrative power is treated as operational power.
Why did the EU sanction Jacques Baud?
For repeatedly promoting pro-Russian narratives on Russian state media during the war in Ukraine.
Is Baud accused of a criminal offence?
No, EU sanctions do not require a criminal conviction.
How can he challenge the sanctions?
By appealing to the Council of the European Union and the EU courts.
What is Switzerland’s position?
Swiss authorities are providing legal guidance but have not intervened politically.
Why is this case significant?
It is, it tests how far the EU can sanction individuals for information and propaganda activities.
Bulgaria goes to the polls for the eighth time in five years — and this…
With Hungary's April 12 vote weeks away, Moscow has quietly mobilised its election interference machinery…
Russia's return to the world's most prestigious art exhibition for the first time since its…
The US-Israeli military campaign against Iran has rapidly become more than a regional conflict. For…
A logistics company staffed by veterans of Russia's defunct postal operation in Germany has been…
The Kremlin has dispatched a team of political technologists and intelligence operatives to Budapest with…