1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** Challenging the Decrees of the President of Ukraine on the enactment of National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) decisions regarding the application of personal special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions) against the plaintiff.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The Court emphasized that the application of sanctions is a preventive measure to protect national security, rather than a form of legal liability; therefore, the existence of a court verdict or criminal proceedings is not a mandatory prerequisite for their implementation.
* The Grand Chamber established new standards for judicial review, which require the court not only to verify the procedure but also to assess whether there is a sufficient factual basis to conclude that there is a threat to national interests.
* The Court acknowledged that although the challenged decrees lacked sufficiently individualized justification, this deficiency was compensated for by a full judicial proceeding, during which the plaintiff had access to the case files and the opportunity to refute the defendant’s arguments.
* Based on the evidence examined (in particular, linguistic and religious expert examinations), the Court confirmed that the plaintiff’s actions created real threats of dividing society along religious lines and supporting aggression against Ukraine.
* The Court noted that the interference with property rights is proportionate, as sanctions are temporary in nature, do not permanently deprive one of ownership rights, and provide for a mechanism of early cancellation in the event of a change in circumstances.
* **Conclusion:** The Court noted that it is departing from the previous position held in other Supreme Court rulings regarding the limited scope of judicial review in sanctions cases, by specifying the need to verify the factual basis and proportionality of such decisions.
3. **Court Decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court amended the reasoning part of the court of first instance’s decision while leaving the operative part concerning the refusal to satisfy the claim unchanged.
