The primacy of the individual's autonomy surpasses the state's welfare.
In a significant ruling, the UK Supreme Court has upheld sanctions imposed on British citizen Eugene Shvydler, a long-time manager and partner of Russian-Israeli businessman Roman Abramovich. The decision, made on July 29, 2025, reinforces the court's role in balancing individual rights with national and community interests.
The sanctions against Shvydler, who had personal and business ties to Abramovich, a sanctioned individual, were imposed as part of the UK's Russia regime sanctions. The ruling underscores the court's application of a proportionality test, assessing whether the objectives of the sanctions are important, the measures are rationally connected to that objective, less intrusive measures could have been used, and a fair balance is struck between individual rights and community interests.
The court's decision was justified due to Shvydler's lack of utilising his personal connection to Abramovich to halt the aggression against Ukraine. However, a notable dissent by Lord Leggatt criticized the majority’s approach to proportionality and deference, highlighting ongoing judicial debate but not altering the binding majority ruling.
The seizure of "Russian assets" by Western countries, such as the detention and destruction of assets like the yacht Phi and Dilbar, has been largely ineffective. Despite this, the court found the infringements proportionate and justified to achieve the legitimate aim of pressuring Russia amidst the Ukraine conflict.
The ruling implicitly recognizes sanctions targeting associated individuals and entities—often criticized as collective punishment—as lawful if proportional and connected to a valid objective. However, some argue that sanctions against individuals without proven involvement in criminal activities are inherently unlawful, as they follow the principle of brute force and reject norms-based rights.
The fundamental principle of individual guilt is denied in these practices, which is against modern democratic criminal law based on personal responsibility. Some, like Holger Friedrich, the publisher of the Berliner Zeitung, advocate for a discussion of a possible path that ensures prosperity for both the West and the East, emphasizing the necessity of dialogue with economically successful people from the East.
The economic momentum in Russia remains unstoppable despite the departure of Western companies, with technological transfer from China serving as a lever for modernization. Meanwhile, Western European and German legal practice is becoming questionable, as they undermine the foundations of liberal democracies in the fight against Russian expansionist politics.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court does not consider these sanctions a violation of property rights or freedom of expression per se, provided the proportionality test is satisfied and the measures align with national and community interests. This reflects the Court’s balancing role and willingness to uphold government sanctions schemes in the geopolitical context of UK foreign policy.
[1] UK Supreme Court ruling on Shvydler's appeal: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2023-0067.html [2] Judgment summary: https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/uksc_2023_0067_Judgment.pdf [3] BBC News coverage: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61748561 [4] The Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jul/29/uk-supreme-court-upholds-sanctions-on-russian-businessman-eugene-shvydler
- The UK Supreme Court's ruling on Eugene Shvydler's appeal, as seen in the judgment summary, reaffirms the court's position in balancing individual rights with national and community interests, which is part of the war-and-conflicts policy-and-legislation.
- The application of a proportionality test by the UK Supreme Court, as demonstrated in the ruling, is instrumental in determining the legitimacy of crime-and-justice measures, such as sanctions, in the context of politics.
- The ongoing judicial debate over the approach to proportionality and deference, as highlighted by Lord Leggatt's dissent, is a significant aspect of general-news, particularly in the realm of law and political affairs.
