Sanctions in Ukraine are increasingly being applied inappropriately—instead of targeting individuals beyond the reach of justice, they are being imposed on Ukrainian citizens, often without a proper evidentiary basis. Attorney Oleksiy Shevchuk, a partner and spokesperson for the Barristers law firm, considers this practice to be flawed and one that undermines the law enforcement system. According to him, an increasing number of sanctions are being challenged in court, and international support for such decisions is rapidly declining. Below is a direct quote from Oleksiy Shevchuk.

Why Sanctions Against Ukrainian Citizens Are a Flawed Practice

From a legal standpoint, the imposition, adoption, and implementation of sanctions against Ukrainian citizens is a flawed practice. Current legislation, even in cases where an individual poses a certain information-related threat to the country, does not provide for the imposition of sanctions against that individual. 

If that person is a citizen and poses a threat, there is a specific list of articles in the Criminal Code that clearly define the offenses that the person has committed, could have committed, or will commit. Whether it be the financing of terrorism, direct opposition to the Armed Forces, and so on. These criminal cases must be investigated, and the individual must be charged and subject to an appropriate preventive measure. 

Sanctions should be imposed on those individuals who, within the country and under national law, are beyond the reach of the state. 

In other words, the national legal framework does not provide effective protection for the interests of a country at war. The practice of imposing sanctions against Ukrainian citizens is misguided. I am confident that all these restrictions will be reversed in the near future. 

International bodies will be forced to acknowledge the violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens resulting from the imposition of sanctions against them. 

This is because, for the most part, the sanctions imposed on Ukrainian citizens are based on nothing more than a report from an employee of some agency, such as the Security Service. We do not even know the educational background of this employee, yet he or she decides that a person who is a public figure, politician, or prominent businessman poses a threat.  I would like to understand whether the specialist who prepares such a report has basic knowledge and, for example, a degree from the SBU Academy. Usually not. Does such a specialist have basic knowledge in the field of national information security? No.  

Therefore, the practical application of these sanctions raises serious doubts when it comes to Ukrainian citizens. 

Regarding evidence against individuals subject to sanctions

The
evidence is contained in the relevant classified materials, which serve as the basis for a submission to the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC). 

And there is a comprehensive list of what, in the Service’s opinion, may constitute grounds for imposing sanctions against a particular individual.  

Sometimes there really is evidence. For example, a person sought to seize the property of a Russian businessman who was financing subversive activities in Ukraine. 

And sometimes, the basis for imposing sanctions is a Wikipedia article or a repost from a Telegram channel or newspaper. 

So, 80% of the time, the answer is no rather than yes.

Can Ukrainians challenge sanctions? 

Ukrainian
citizens against whom sanctions have been imposed have the right to challenge these decisions in court. And they do challenge them.   

Alexander Shadrin, an attorney and partner at our firm, obtained a high-profile dissenting opinion from the Supreme Court. It clearly states that:

This is the dissenting opinion of Supreme Court Justices Kryvenda and Mazur. 

And today there are already more cases where judges write dissenting opinions. This concerns the lack of grounds for the sanctions and the impossibility of applying sanctions to Ukrainian citizens. 

But in this case, the president plays a passive role. And the responsibility does not lie with the president. The responsibility lies with the National Security and Defense Council, because it is a collegial body. It is composed of educated people. The president has a very heavy workload—he is presented with a document and merely asks whether everything in it is correct. Enacting the NSDC’s decision by presidential decree is an organizational matter. And the fact that we will challenge the head of state’s decree is merely a procedural step. 

By and large, collective responsibility should be borne by all members of the National Security and Defense Council, who are implementing sanctions and effectively replacing the entire law enforcement system. If that’s the case, then let’s abolish the Office of the Prosecutor General, NABU, and the National Agency for Corruption Prevention, and instead expand the NSDC’s staff so that the NSDC can make decisions regarding specific individuals—guilty or not guilty, to prison or not. And in that case, we might as well just reinstate the death penalty. The NSDC holds a meeting, makes a decision, and if someone is deemed a threat to the state—well, they’re executed. No costs, no problems, no questions asked.

Sanctions Are Not Being Used as Intended 

Today, sanctions mechanisms have begun to be used for purposes other than their intended ones. The negative aspect is that previously, all foreign partners implemented our domestic sanctions against certain citizens in their own countries without reservation. Now, that percentage stands at only 15%.

Sanctions Mechanisms in Other Jurisdictions

Every country has its own sanctions mechanism. In each country, sanctions have a different legal nature, although the goal is the same. 

Some countries do not have an effective sanctions mechanism at all and are facing this for the first time. The nature of sanctions is not political but economic. Sanctions are a means of protecting a country’s economy. That is the primary nature of sanctions. 

It’s difficult to say that we could borrow anything from them. This is because there is the Yermak-McFaul sanctions group, and I believe it is staffed by quite capable experts. Credit is due to Mr. Vladislav Vlasyuk, the President’s advisor on sanctions—he is a very competent individual. But sometimes even his opinion goes unheard. 

Therefore, this raises a question for the National Security and Defense Council as a collegial body, which should develop a specific vision regarding international sanctions experience and cooperation with other countries through joint working groups. 

Not all countries have a competent body or representative capable of implementing sanctions in a mirror-image fashion. Sometimes an entire legislative body needs to be involved in the process of adapting Ukrainian sanctions. For example, Portugal does not have such an agency, so these matters must go through parliament. 

When it comes to best practices in sanctions, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Netherlands are clearly the leaders. And, surprisingly, so is Norway. These are countries that, in my opinion, have excellent sanctions mechanisms.

Future Appeals in Sanctions Cases

80% of sanctions cases should be resolved in favor of the plaintiffs. This is due to various grounds: procedural violations or the objective lack of grounds for imposing sanctions. As of June 2025, only 20% of sanctions cases actually fulfill the purpose for which sanctions were intended to be imposed.