At the “Business vs. Sanctions” professional conference, organized on June 19 by the publishing house “Yuridichna Praktika,” one of the key sessions was devoted to the topic of sanctions justice, judicial practice, and legislative changes. Alexander Shadrin, a partner at Barristers Law Firm, participated in the session and shared his personal experience representing clients in cases challenging sanctions.

The attorney focused on the procedural challenges that arise during the consideration of such cases in the Supreme Court—the sole court with jurisdiction to hear claims seeking the annulment of presidential decrees on sanctions. Mr. Shadrin highlighted the dominant role of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) as the initiator of sanctions and the problems associated with the use of documents classified as “for official use only” or “top secret” in such cases.

“The principle of transparency in the imposition of sanctions is not a mere formality. The public must understand exactly why a person has been included on the sanctions list. When a lawyer is unable to review the case materials and the decision is classified, this is no longer a judicial process but a mockery of justice,” the speaker emphasized.

The lawyer shared examples from his practice: he has already represented clients in more than 20 cases challenging sanctions, and in many of them he faced the need to obtain clearance for state secrets. According to him, the procedure for obtaining such clearance is extremely complicated and, at times, humiliating. “It’s enough to fail to provide a certain email address created back in high school—and that can be grounds for denial,” the attorney emphasized.

Mr. Shadrin drew particular attention to abuses in the field of expert analysis. He criticized the practice whereby the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) commissions linguistic expert analyses from government agencies, which then refuse to issue alternative conclusions due to potential pressure. “When there is only one conclusion—and it benefits only one side—that is no longer evidence, but an element of manipulation,” he noted.

Another significant problem, according to the attorney, is the restriction of access to court decisions. Often, these decisions are classified in their entirety, which makes it impossible not only to file an appeal but also to communicate with the client. “You have to memorize the essence of a ruling you saw in a restricted-access courtroom and somehow explain it to your client without breaching confidentiality. This is a legal absurdity,” he explained.

In conclusion, Oleksandr Shadrin emphasized the need for legislative changes that would ensure genuine transparency, equality of the parties, and well-reasoned court decisions in cases related to sanctions. “Sanctions must not become a tool of political expediency. If the state claims to uphold the rule of law, then justice cannot be kept secret,” the attorney concluded.