Eugene Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
[2023] EWHC 2121 (Admin)
Anzhelika Khan v The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
20 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 361 (Admin)
High Court
A British woman was sanctioned because her husband is a wealthy Russian oligarch. She argued the sanctions were unfair and hurt her family. The court agreed the sanctions were harsh but said the goal of pressuring Russia was more important. The government's action was deemed proportionate, even though it caused problems for her and her kids.
Key Facts
- •Anzhelika Khan, a Russian-born British citizen, challenged the maintenance of her sanctions designation under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
- •Ms. Khan's designation was based on her association with her husband, German Khan, a sanctioned Russian oligarch, due to her receiving substantial financial gifts from him.
- •Ms. Khan argued that her designation was disproportionate, failing to further the statutory purpose and violating her human rights.
- •The Secretary of State argued that Ms. Khan's designation was a legitimate tool to indirectly pressure the Russian government through her husband.
- •The court considered various legal principles, including the Padfield principle, proportionality, and the 'prescribed by law' requirement under the ECHR.
Legal Principles
Padfield principle: A statutory discretion must be exercised to promote the policy and objects of the statute.
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food [1968] AC 997
Proportionality: A measure must be necessary to achieve a legitimate aim and strike a fair balance between individual rights and the interests of the community.
Bank Mellat, various ECHR cases cited
'Prescribed by law': A measure must have a basis in domestic law and be accessible and foreseeable in its effects, with safeguards against arbitrariness.
Catt v United Kingdom (2019) 69 EHRR 7; R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2020] EWCA 9
Anxious Scrutiny: When a decision affects fundamental rights, it requires a more thorough review.
R (YH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] 4 All ER 448
Outcomes
Ms. Khan's claim was dismissed.
The court found that the Secretary of State's decision to maintain Ms. Khan's designation was proportionate, considering the significant weight of the foreign policy objective and the indirect pressure Ms. Khan's designation could exert on the Russian government. While acknowledging the severe impact on Ms. Khan and her family, the court determined that the available mitigations and the overall importance of the objective outweighed the individual hardship.
Similar Cases
Mazepin v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth and Development Affairs
[2023] EWHC 1777 (Admin)
PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Boris Mints & Ors
[2023] EWHC 118 (Comm)
Dalston Projects Limited & Ors v Secretary of State for Transport
[2024] EWCA Civ 172
Dalston Projects Limited & Ors v The Secretary of State for Transport
[2023] EWHC 1885 (Admin)