1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff challenged the Decree of the President of Ukraine, which enacted the decision of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) on the application of personal special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions) against him.<\/p>\n
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
\n – The Court emphasized that sanctions are not a form of legal liability, but a preventive tool of the state to protect national security; therefore, it is not necessary to prove a person’s guilt in committing a specific offense for their application.
\n – The key criterion for the application of sanctions is the existence of real or potential threats to national interests, rather than the list of subjects defined by law; therefore, citizens of Ukraine can be sanctioned persons.
\n – Regarding technical errors in the plaintiff’s personal data, the Court noted that correcting them does not constitute an “amendment to sanctions” within the meaning of the law, but rather the rectification of clerical errors, which does not affect the legality of the Decree itself.
\n – The Court emphasized that although the text of the Decree lacks individualization of the grounds for sanctions, this deficiency was compensated during the judicial proceedings, where the plaintiff gained access to the case files and the opportunity to challenge the factual basis for the restrictions.
\n – The Court acknowledged that under the conditions of armed aggression against Ukraine, the application of sanctions is a legitimate means of state self-defense, and the interference with the plaintiff’s rights is proportionate, as he retains the right of ownership of property, and the sanctions themselves have a review mechanism.
\n – The Court, in this decision, detailed the scope of judicial review, relying on the new legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (case No. 990\/224\/23), departing from previous approaches regarding the limited review of discretionary decisions of the NSDC, and established the court’s duty to verify the existence of a sufficient factual basis for the application of sanctions.<\/p>\n
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court fully dismissed the claims of PERSON_1, recognizing the President’s Decree as lawful.<\/p>\n