Sanctions proceedings

Grounds for listing, consequences for assets, challenge routes.

Sanctions in Ukraine begin in the same way: a decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine put into effect by a decree of the President. The paths then diverge, and there are two, with different claimants, different courts and different subject matter.

• The first path is brought by the State: the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine files a claim to recover assets into State revenue, and the High Anti-Corruption Court hears it (Article 283-1 of «Кодекс адміністративного судочинства», the code governing procedure in the administrative courts).
• The second path is brought by the person: a claim challenging the presidential decree itself. Such cases are heard at first instance by a panel of no fewer than five judges of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court (part 2 of Article 266 of «Кодекс адміністративного судочинства»), and reviewed on appeal by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (part 5 of the same Article).

These are not two instances of one proceeding but two separate proceedings. An outcome in one is not an outcome in the other, and time limits are calculated separately.

This page describes the procedure and its limits and does not assess sanctions policy. The provisions are reference points; the advocate verifies them.

Basis

The presidential decree — the common starting point. The types of sanctions are listed in Article 4 of the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions”; Article 5 of the same Law governs their imposition, lifting and amendment. The National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine adopts the decision (Article 107 of the Constitution of Ukraine; the Law of Ukraine “On Council of National Security and Defense of Ukraine”). What matters is not the word “sanctions” but which items from the list are applied and for what term: the scope of a restriction follows from the type of sanction, not from the fact of its imposition. The limits on restricting rights are set by Article 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine «Про правовий режим воєнного стану».

Recovery of assets — the State’s claim. The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine brings the claim; the High Anti-Corruption Court hears it under the Law of Ukraine «Про Вищий антикорупційний суд» and Article 283-1 of «Кодекс адміністративного судочинства», the code governing procedure in the administrative courts. Article 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine distinguishes confiscation ordered by a court from unlawful deprivation of property.

Consequence · three addressees

The person under restriction Several types of sanction may apply to one person at once; each has its own scope from the statutory list, and the term is stated in the act itself. Some types are addressed not to the person but to those who implement them — a bank, a registrar, a public authority.

The assets Blocking of assets, «арешт майна» in criminal proceedings and recovery into State revenue are three separate institutions with different procedures and different effects. Blocking is described by the Law as a temporary restriction on using and disposing of property; ownership is retained. Recovery is a transfer of ownership, and only a court orders it.

The counterparty A person who is not on the list has separate questions: whether to perform the obligation and what happens to what has already been received. The law treats the fate of the contract separately: termination of an obligation because performance is impossible (Article 607 of «Цивільний кодекс України», Ukraine’s civil code), or amendment or dissolution of the contract because of «істотна зміна обставин» (Article 652 of the same Code). The interests of the counterparty and the person subject to the sanction do not coincide: these are different legal positions.

Where it can be challenged

Challenge to the decree — the person’s claim. The claimant is the person in respect of whom the decree was issued. The law provides no separate pre-court appeal: the Law of Ukraine «Про адміністративну процедуру» contains exceptions for national security. Article 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine provides the route to court; Article 266 of «Кодекс адміністративного судочинства» governs the procedure. At first instance, the case is heard by a panel of no fewer than five judges of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court (part 2); the appeal is heard by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (part 5). There is no cassation review here: both instances are within the Supreme Court.

Alongside the court route, there is an extrajudicial route, and it is not an appeal. A sanction is lifted or amended through the same procedure by which it was imposed (Article 5 of the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions”), while an application to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine goes through the advisory «Міжвідомча робоча група з питань реалізації державної санкційної політики» (Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 967 of 30 August 2022). The distinction is fundamental: the court reviews the lawfulness of the decree; the interagency working group does not review lawfulness.

Recovery of assets — the State’s claim. The claimant is the Ministry of Justice; the subject matter is the transfer of ownership of the assets to the State. A decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court is reviewed by its Appeals Chamber, within the limits set by procedural law. Beyond that lies the European Court of Human Rights, a separate practice area.

That is a separate practice area on this site. European Court of Human Rights

What the structure settles

Four different dates The date of the decision, the date of the decree, the date from which the restriction operates and the date from which a third party implements it are not one date. Expiry of a term and lifting of a sanction are different events.

Several regimes Ukrainian sanctions, restrictive measures of the European Union, sanctions of the United States and of the United Kingdom are different lists with different grounds and different consequences: a person may be on one and not on another. Foreign law is not analysed here.

Procedure and the public plane Public debate about sanctions policy and the procedure in a case are different planes; this page describes the second. Where there is institutional pressure and a public context, that belongs to the practice area on defence in political proceedings. Liability for failure to comply with restrictions has its own regulation and is not covered here.

The outcome is determined by the authority that takes the decision and by the court.