The subject matter of this dispute is a claim to declare unlawful and set aside the Decree of the President of Ukraine in the part concerning the enactment of the decision of the National Security and Defense Council on the application of personal five-year sanctions to the plaintiff.
****: In this decision, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court clarified and departed from its previous position, ruling that judicial review in sanctions cases cannot be limited solely to a formal verification of the procedure, but must necessarily include an assessment of whether there is a sufficient factual basis for the application of the restrictions. The Court emphasized that, by their legal nature, sanctions are preventive measures for the protection of national security rather than a form of legal liability; therefore, their imposition does not require holding the person criminally liable or opening a counterintelligence case. Having examined the materials provided by the Security Service of Ukraine, including restricted-access documents, the court was satisfied of the existence of convincing factual evidence confirming that the plaintiff’s activities and connections posed potential threats to the national security of Ukraine in the context of the ongoing armed aggression of the Russian Federation. The restriction of the plaintiff’s property rights was held to be lawful and proportionate, as it is temporary, does not permanently deprive him of his right of ownership, and provides for an effective out-of-court mechanism for lifting the sanctions in the event of a change in circumstances. The Court also noted that although the text of the Decree itself lacked individualized justification, this deficiency was fully compensated for during the judicial proceedings, where the plaintiff’s representative had access to the restricted materials of the case and was able to submit their objections. In view of this, the Grand Chamber concluded that the President and the NSDC acted solely within the scope of their discretionary powers, and the challenged decision contains no indications of arbitrariness or discrimination.
Ultimately, the court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the reasoning part of the decision of the court of first instance in accordance with the new standards of judicial review, but left its operative part unchanged regarding the refusal to lift the sanctions.
