1. **Subject of the dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of applying personal special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions) to Granit-001 LLC by putting into effect a decision of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) via a Decree of the President of Ukraine.
2. **Main arguments of the Court:**
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from its own previous position (set forth, in particular, in the rulings dated January 13, 2021, in case No. 9901/405/19), which limited judicial review of sanctions cases solely to verifying the procedure and the limits of discretion, without assessing the factual grounds. The Court emphasized that under the rule of law, discretion cannot be boundless; therefore, judicial review must include an assessment of the factual basis, legal qualification, and proportionality of the interference with a person’s rights. The Court established that sanctions are not a form of legal liability, but a preventive measure; therefore, a court verdict is not required for their application, provided there is evidence of the creation of potential threats to national security. The Grand Chamber confirmed that the determining factor for the application of sanctions is not the list of subjects, but the nature of the person’s activity that creates threats to national interests. Having examined the case materials, including those classified as “For Official Use,” the Court concluded that the plaintiff’s activity in the field of public procurement in the road sector was part of the coordinated behavior of a group of persons, which created potential threats to the transport security of the state. The Court also emphasized that in the conditions of armed aggression, the state has broad discretion regarding the choice of protection measures, and the interference with the right to property is proportionate, as sanctions are temporary and do not deprive one of the right of ownership of property, but only restrict its use in Ukraine.
3. **Court decision:**
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court partially satisfied the plaintiff’s appeal, amending the motivational part of the court of first instance’s decision (revising it to the wording of its ruling), but left the operative part unchanged, confirming the lawfulness of the application of sanctions.
