Shvidler v FCDO, Dalston Projects and others v Secretary of State for Transport [2025] UKSC 30

Описание: On appeal from [2024] EWCA Civ 172
In Shvidler:

This application relates to the decision of the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to maintain the designation of Mr Shvidler as a sanctioned individual under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019 No 855) (the “2019 Regulations”).

Mr Shvidler was born in the USSR in 1964 and grew up in Moscow. He left the former USSR in 1989, before the Russian Federation was formed, and has never been a citizen of that state. Mr Shvidler was subsequently granted a British visa under the Highly Skilled Migrants Programme in 2004 and was naturalised as a British citizen in 2010.

Mr Shvidler has five children, all of whom are British citizens. Mr Shvidler has been friends with Roman Abramovich since 1986. From 1996 until 2005 Mr Shvidler held the roles of Vice-President for Finance and then President of Sibneft, an oil production company owned by Mr Abramovich. During this time, Mr Shvidler (along with other employees) was given a nominal shareholding in Sibneft.

In 2011, Mr Shvidler was appointed to the board of Evraz plc (“Evraz”), a UK listed company with subsidiaries in various jurisdictions, including Russia. By 2018, Mr Shvidler occupied this role as a nominee of Greenleas International Holdings Limited, a British Virgin Islands entity controlled by Mr Abramovich.

On 10 March 2022, Mr Abramovich was designated under the 2019 Regulations. On the same day, Mr Shvidler resigned from his position as a non-executive director of Evraz and Evraz’s shares were suspended from trading on the London Stock Exchange. On 5 May 2022, Evraz was designated.
On 24 March 2022, Mr Shvidler was designated himself under the 2019 Regulations. Following inquiries, Mr Shvidler was informed that the designation was made for two reasons, namely: (i) he was a business partner of Mr Abramovich; and (ii) he was a former longstanding non-executive director of Evraz.

In July 2022, Mr Shvidler sought a ministerial review of his designation, following which the designation was varied. Mr Shvidler subsequently brought a claim for statutory review under section 38 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, arguing that the designation was an interference with his rights under ECHR. The Administrative Court dismissed the claim and, save with respect to one ground, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Mr Shvidler now appeals to the Supreme Court.”

In Dalston:

This appeal challenges the SST’s decision to detain a luxury motor yacht, “the Phi”, under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (2019/855) (the “Regs”).

The First Appellant is a St Kitts and Nevis company. It is the legal owner of the Phi. The Second Appellant, Mr Naumenko, is a Russian citizen and resident. He is the ultimate beneficial owner of the Phi. The Phi moored at South Dock in London in December 2021. On the 28 March 2022, the SST issued a direction (the “Direction”) detaining the Phi and requiring it to remain at South Dock (the “First Decision”). Mr Naumenko is not (and has never been) himself sanctioned by the UK. However, regulations 57C and 57D permit the SST to detain vessels controlled by a broader class of “persons connected with Russia”. Shortly after the First Decision, Grant Shapps MP, the then-SST, made a public statement that the Phi belongs to someone who is a “friend of Putin”.

On 11 April 2022, the SST decided to maintain the detention Direction (the “Second Decision”). A further review was carried out by the new Transport Secretary, Mark Harper MP, in December 2022. On 3 January 2023, the SST confirmed the detention was to continue (the “Third Decision”).
On 27 March 2023, the Appellants applied to the High Court for the Direction to be set aside on various grounds, including an interference with Mr Naumenko’s rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and public law rationality grounds. The High Court judge dismissed the Appellants’ claim on all grounds. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellants’ appeal on all grounds.
The Appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.

The issue is:

In Shvidler:

(i) Did the Court of Appeal adopt the wrong approach to determining whether the Appellant’s designation was a proportionate interference with his rights under Article 8 and Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)?

(ii) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to conclude that maintaining the Appellant’s designation was not a breach of his rights under Article 8 and Article 1, Protocol 1 of the ECHR?

In Dalston:
Should the Secretary of State for Transport’s (“SST”) decision to detain a yacht in London under the UK’s Russian sanctions regime be set aside on (i) human rights, or (ii) public law, grounds?
The Supreme Court, by a majority, dismisses the appeal of Mr Shvidler and unanimously dismisses the appeal of Dalston Projects.
More information is available on our website: