The dissenting opinion of two judges of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (GC SC), Oleh Kryvenda and Mykola Mazur, regarding the sanctions not supported by evidence gives grounds for appealing and canceling the decrees of the President of Ukraine on their imposition, said Oleksandr Shadrin, attorney at Barristers.
Shadrin said that Barristers‘ lawyers, who supported the case of one of the clients, received a decision of the Supreme Court, which determined the dissenting opinion of the judges on sanctions cases and the possibility of appealing the imposed sanctions. The text of the dissenting opinion has not yet been published in the Unified Register of Court Decisions.
“The bottom line is that the number of sanction cases has increased, which are actually substituted for criminal proceedings, and most of the materials are being kept secret. Therefore, the dissenting opinion of the judges is resonant in terms of a complete change in the practice of considering sanctions cases, it says that each body must act within its powers and cannot substitute criminal proceedings with sanctions cases,” Shadrin said.
The lawyer believes that “this high-profile decision of the Supreme Court to completely change the practice of considering sanctions cases in Ukraine will enable judicial appeal against presidential decrees on sanctions.
“In the context of war and widespread use of sanctions, this position forms a fundamentally new field for law enforcement and human rights protection, in particular, it reinforces the idea of the need to ensure transparency, validity and judicial control over government discretion, even in areas related to national security,” the lawyer said.
According to him, the dissenting opinion of the judges proves that even with the president’s broad discretion in sanctions policy, his actions must remain within the framework of the Constitution and the rule of law, and the courts are obliged to check whether decisions are arbitrary and sanctions are unjustified.
“In this particular case, the state did not provide adequate evidence of a threat from the person against whom the sanctions were imposed, and therefore the claim should have been satisfied. This is the first known case when the judges of the Supreme Court publicly declare the need to satisfy the appeal and lawsuit against the Presidential Sanctions Decree, questioning the unconditional nature of such a mechanism as sanctions,” Shadrin said.
According to the lawyer, the position of the two judges “may become the basis for legal discussion, public control over the activities of the authorities, a tool for protecting the rights of persons who consider sanctions against them to be groundless and unjustified, and may also be taken into account by the initiators of the sanctions to assess the prospects for their lifting.”
Source: https://interfax.com.ua/news/general/1083242.html
