Terrorists and oligarchs fight back

By James Panichi

New court challenges threaten a key political tool in the crisis.

The EU’s main weapon for punishing pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs has come under fire from a group of businessmen who have filed several new court challenges to a blacklist that has frozen their assets and interests in Europe.
The multiple legal appeals argue that EU leaders imposed the sanctions based on a back-of-the-envelope list provided by the new government in Kiev, breaching human rights rules and procedures.

The plaintiffs, who were linked to the former pro-Russian president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, ended up on the EU sanctions list drawn up in 2014 following the upheaval in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. That list was renewed earlier this year, with a majority of the blacklisted Ukrainians now facing an asset freeze until March 2016.
Among them are: Serhiy Kurchenko, a 29-year-old gas billionaire; Oleksandr Klymendko, the former head of Ukraine’s tax agency and minister for revenues in the Yanukovych government; and Andriy Klyuyev, a businessman who was a close confidant of Yanukovych.

Sanctions have been the cornerstone of the West’s response to the violence in eastern Ukraine.

The stakes are high for Europe’s fledgling sanctions regime, which has been under increased scrutiny after a string of high-profile losses before EU courts in cases involving organizations such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers. Both of those groups, listed by the EU as terrorist organizations, successfully challenged their inclusion on the sanctions list.
Sanctions have been the cornerstone of the West’s response to the violence in eastern Ukraine, with the EU and the U.S. blacklisting Ukrainians and Russians linked to the unrest as well as imposing a raft of restrictions on the Russian economy. These broader economic sanctions were extended just last month for a further six months.
Judges’ zeal in reviewing sanctions has sparked concerns from Brussels to Washington, amid fears that vulnerabilities in the EU list could undermine the West’s response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its role in destabilizing eastern Ukraine.
The European Council, representing the leaders of the EU’s 28 member countries, and the Foreign Affairs Council, representing foreign ministers, have suffered a number of setbacks before the General Court over the use of sanctions — both those targeting individuals as well as organizations.
The U.S. government is “increasingly concerned about weaknesses in the European sanctions mechanism,” according to Anthony Gardner, the U.S. ambassador to the EU. In a speech earlier this year, Gardner expressed concern that Brussels had yet to develop “records that will withstand rigorous judicial scrutiny.”

As well as freezing a person’s assets, the targeted sanctions can block an individual or a company’s exports to the EU and can impose travel bans with real-life implications.

Twenty-two people with links to the Ukrainian administration had their assets frozen by the EU in March and April 2014, amid claims they had misappropriated state funds. After several individuals were removed from the sanctions list over the past year, 17 people remain on it, with at least 15 of those taking action in the Luxembourg-based EU General Court.
The court has given no indication of when the cases will be examined and there is no timeframe of when the men should expect a court ruling.
As well as freezing a person’s assets, the targeted sanctions can block an individual or a company’s exports to the EU and can impose travel bans with real-life implications, such as denying access to holiday villas in southern France or, as in the case of one Russian oligarch, a stud farm in Italy.
While the U.S. administration enjoys a relatively free hand in imposing sanctions, EU courts have clamped down on the European sanctions regime, citing the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which codifies political, social and economic rights into law.
Human rights lawyers support the EU courts’ cautious approach to sanctions, arguing that efforts to single out Ukrainians over recent events should be based on solid intelligence.
The EU’s main weapon for punishing pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs has come under fire from a group of businessmen who have filed several new court challenges to a blacklist that has frozen their assets and interests in Europe.
The multiple legal appeals argue that EU leaders imposed the sanctions based on a back-of-the-envelope list provided by the new government in Kiev, breaching human rights rules and procedures.

The plaintiffs, who were linked to the former pro-Russian president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, ended up on the EU sanctions list drawn up in 2014 following the upheaval in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. That list was renewed earlier this year, with a majority of the blacklisted Ukrainians now facing an asset freeze until March 2016.
Among them are: Serhiy Kurchenko, a 29-year-old gas billionaire; Oleksandr Klymendko, the former head of Ukraine’s tax agency and minister for revenues in the Yanukovych government; and Andriy Klyuyev, a businessman who was a close confidant of Yanukovych.

Sanctions have been the cornerstone of the West’s response to the violence in eastern Ukraine.

The stakes are high for Europe’s fledgling sanctions regime, which has been under increased scrutiny after a string of high-profile losses before EU courts in cases involving organizations such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers. Both of those groups, listed by the EU as terrorist organizations, successfully challenged their inclusion on the sanctions list.
Sanctions have been the cornerstone of the West’s response to the violence in eastern Ukraine, with the EU and the U.S. blacklisting Ukrainians and Russians linked to the unrest as well as imposing a raft of restrictions on the Russian economy. These broader economic sanctions were extended just last month for a further six months.
Judges’ zeal in reviewing sanctions has sparked concerns from Brussels to Washington, amid fears that vulnerabilities in the EU list could undermine the West’s response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its role in destabilizing eastern Ukraine.
The European Council, representing the leaders of the EU’s 28 member countries, and the Foreign Affairs Council, representing foreign ministers, have suffered a number of setbacks before the General Court over the use of sanctions — both those targeting individuals as well as organizations.
The U.S. government is “increasingly concerned about weaknesses in the European sanctions mechanism,” according to Anthony Gardner, the U.S. ambassador to the EU. In a speech earlier this year, Gardner expressed concern that Brussels had yet to develop “records that will withstand rigorous judicial scrutiny.”

As well as freezing a person’s assets, the targeted sanctions can block an individual or a company’s exports to the EU and can impose travel bans with real-life implications.

Twenty-two people with links to the Ukrainian administration had their assets frozen by the EU in March and April 2014, amid claims they had misappropriated state funds. After several individuals were removed from the sanctions list over the past year, 17 people remain on it, with at least 15 of those taking action in the Luxembourg-based EU General Court.
The court has given no indication of when the cases will be examined and there is no timeframe of when the men should expect a court ruling.
As well as freezing a person’s assets, the targeted sanctions can block an individual or a company’s exports to the EU and can impose travel bans with real-life implications, such as denying access to holiday villas in southern France or, as in the case of one Russian oligarch, a stud farm in Italy.
While the U.S. administration enjoys a relatively free hand in imposing sanctions, EU courts have clamped down on the European sanctions regime, citing the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which codifies political, social and economic rights into law.
Human rights lawyers support the EU courts’ cautious approach to sanctions, arguing that efforts to single out Ukrainians over recent events should be based on solid intelligence.