The blanket approach characterising current sanctions regimes has inflicted catastrophic consequences on British citizens who bear no responsibility for Russian governmental actions. Supreme Court proceedings reveal how international sanctions designed to pressure Moscow have instead destroyed the lives of UK nationals caught within overly broad designation criteria, raising profound questions about proportionality, fundamental rights protections, and whether these measures serve any legitimate purpose.
The Shvidler Case Exposes Systemic Failures
Eugene Shvidler’s designation demonstrates the arbitrary nature of current sanctions frameworks. A dual US-UK national who has lived in England for years, Shvidler emigrated from the Soviet Union at age 24 as a stateless refugee, renouncing Soviet citizenship to do so. He became a US citizen before relocating to the United Kingdom in 2004 under the Highly Skilled Migrants Programme, obtaining British citizenship in 2010. Shvidler has never lived in nor been a citizen of the Russian Federation and has not visited Russia since 2007.
Despite these facts, all of Shvidler’s assets worldwide remain frozen since March 2022. The designation rests on two grounds: his association with Roman Abramovich through prior employment relationships, and his former role as non-executive director of Evraz plc, a FTSE-100 mining company. Neither ground involves accusations of criminal conduct or support for Russian governmental actions. Shvidler publicly condemned the invasion using the term “war” rather than “special military operation,” language that would result in imprisonment if used within Russia.
Devastating Personal Consequences
The human cost of blanket EU sanctions extends far beyond frozen bank accounts. Lord Leggatt’s dissenting judgment, discussed in the Solicitors Journal, details how Shvidler’s entire family has suffered severe consequences. His former wife and three adult children had banking services withdrawn. Most devastatingly, his two youngest children faced permanent exclusion from their schools with immediate effect, leaving them without education mid-academic year. They subsequently relocated to the United States to continue schooling, fracturing the family unit.
These consequences stem from regulations prohibiting anyone from dealing with any funds or economic resources owned by designated persons. The legislation criminalises using one’s own assets for any purpose, including purchasing food, without Treasury licences issued at governmental discretion. Licences permit only meeting basic needs such as medical requirements, food, rent, mortgage payments, and utility bills. Lord Leggatt observed that the licensing system “puts in the control and discretion of the government the ability of the designated person to use their own resources even to meet needs essential for survival,” as documented in BAILII.
Questionable Legal Justifications
Government justifications for maintaining Shvidler’s designation reveal the absence of coherent strategic rationale. FCDO official David Reed asserted that freezing Shvidler’s assets would send signals to others, disincentivise association with persons close to the Kremlin, and encourage more robust opposition to the invasion. Lord Leggatt characterised these justifications as “no more than armchair theories about how freezing Mr Shvidler’s assets could have consequences which would assist the desired aims,” noting they were “not even plausible” when viewed with common sense.
The assertion that sanctions are not working to achieve stated objectives whilst destroying innocent lives raises fundamental questions about proportionality. Lord Leggatt emphasised that “making it a criminal offence for an individual who has done nothing unlawful to deal with any of his own assets without the government’s permission, and imposing this sanction without any geographical or temporal limit, is a serious invasion of liberty,” as reported in the Solicitors Journal.
British Citizens Face Harsher Treatment
Perversely, British citizenship subjects individuals to more severe sanctions than foreign nationals would face for identical circumstances. Had Shvidler been a Russian national rather than British, only his UK assets would be frozen. British citizens face worldwide asset freezes because regulations apply extraterritorially to “United Kingdom persons.” Lord Leggatt noted this approach is “unfair and arbitrary to impose sanctions on Mr Shvidler which apply worldwide, not because of any assessment that such extra-territorial reach is necessary, but simply as an automatic consequence of his British citizenship.”
This discriminatory treatment punishes British nationals more harshly than foreign citizens without any rational justification. Shvidler has donated approximately £10 million to educational charities in the UK and maintained unblemished character. No evidence suggests he has economic resources or political influence in Russia. Yet he remains effectively imprisoned by financial restrictions that prevent him from living as he chooses.
Are Russian Sanctions Working as Policy Tools
The question are Russian sanctions working demands honest assessment when examining cases like Shvidler’s. Government ministers issued inflammatory statements describing him as among “Putin’s friends” and “Putin’s cronies” benefitting from Russia’s illegal actions, characterisations entirely without foundation. These aspersions, suggest designations serve political signalling purposes rather than strategic objectives.
Lord Leggatt warned that “if the courts are not prepared to protect fundamental individual freedoms even in a case like this, the right to a judicial review of the minister’s decision to curtail such freedoms under sanctions regulations is of little worth.” His dissent, described by barrister Ali Al-Karim as destined to become a constitutional law classic, emphasises that courts abdicate responsibility when they defer to executive assertions without critical scrutiny.
Safeguarding Rights Whilst Pursuing Legitimate Objectives
The documented failures of blanket sanctions approaches necessitate fundamental reforms prioritising precision over breadth. Effective sanctions should target individuals demonstrably connected to governmental actions rather than capturing British citizens whose only “offence” involves past lawful employment relationships. The Supreme Court proceedings expose how current frameworks sacrifice fundamental rights protections for political theatre that achieves no discernible strategic benefit. Reforming these systems requires acknowledging that destroying innocent lives whilst failing to compel policy changes in Moscow represents comprehensive failure deserving immediate remediation rather than continued defence through increasingly implausible justifications that insult both legal reasoning and common sense.
