1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging by a legal entity of the Decree of the President of Ukraine on the enactment of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) decision regarding the application of personal special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions) against it.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Court emphasized that sanctions under the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions” are not a type of legal liability, but a preventive tool for protecting national security; therefore, establishing an individual’s guilt is not mandatory for their application.
– The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the previous narrow position regarding the limited scope of judicial review, noting that courts are obliged to verify the existence of a sufficient factual basis for the application of sanctions, rather than merely verifying compliance with the procedure.
– The Court emphasized that the discretionary powers of the President and the NSDC in the sphere of national security are not limitless and are subject to judicial review to ensure the absence of arbitrariness.
– It was established that the plaintiff’s activities related to obtaining special permits for subsoil use without auctions and the alienation of state assets created potential threats to the economic and energy security of Ukraine.
– The Court recognized that the interference with the plaintiff’s right to property is proportionate, as it pursues a legitimate aim of protecting the state under conditions of armed aggression and does not deprive the entity of its right to property, but merely limits its exercise.
– The Court indicated that the existence of a mechanism for reviewing sanctions (the possibility of their cancellation in the event of a change in circumstances) ensures a balance between public interests and the rights of the individual.
3. **Court Decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court partially satisfied the plaintiff’s appeal only in terms of amending the reasoning part of the court of first instance’s decision (to clarify the standards of judicial review); however, it left unchanged the operative part, by which the claim for the cancellation of sanctions was denied.
