Eugene Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
[2023] EWHC 2121 (Admin)
Dalston Projects Limited & Ors v Secretary of State for Transport
27 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 172
Court of Appeal
Two cases challenged UK sanctions against Russia. One involved a seized yacht, the other a sanctioned person. The court decided the government followed the rules and that the impact on the individuals was not too high compared to the need to stop Russia's actions in Ukraine. The appeals were dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Two appeals concerning decisions made under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019 No 855) and the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA).
- •Dalston Projects: Challenge to the detention of a luxury yacht owned by a Russian citizen.
- •Shvidler: Challenge to the designation of Eugene Shvidler under the 2019 Regulations.
- •Both appeals involved proportionality challenges under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), specifically Articles 1 of the First Protocol (A1P1) and Article 8.
Legal Principles
Principles for reviewing executive decisions on proportionality under the HRA.
Various House of Lords and Supreme Court cases, summarized in paras 9-21.
Four limbs of the proportionality test (Bank Mellat): (1) Legitimate aim; (2) Rational connection; (3) Less intrusive measures; (4) Fair balance.
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39
Appellate court's role in proportionality appeals: review, not rehearing; deference to first-instance fact-finding, unless 'wrong'.
In re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33; Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill [2022] UKSC 32
Padfield principle: Discretionary powers must be used to promote the policy and objects of the Act.
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997
Outcomes
Appeal in Dalston Projects dismissed.
The court found no breach of the Padfield principle or disproportionality. The detention of the yacht, while impacting the owner's property rights, was rationally connected to the legitimate aim of applying pressure to Russia and was deemed proportionate given the overall circumstances.
Appeal in Shvidler dismissed.
The court found the designation of Mr. Shvidler proportionate, despite acknowledging errors in the High Court's approach to proportionality. The court conducted its own proportionality assessment, concluding that the designation was rationally connected to the legitimate aim and that the impact on Mr. Shvidler's rights was not disproportionate to the public interest.
Similar Cases
Boris Mints & Ors v PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 1132
Dalston Projects Limited & Ors v The Secretary of State for Transport
[2023] EWHC 1885 (Admin)
Anzhelika Khan v The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
[2024] EWHC 361 (Admin)
PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Boris Mints & Ors
[2023] EWHC 118 (Comm)