“Lawyer, Barristers partner Oleksiy Shevchuk reported that the European Court of Human Rights recognized that the freezing of assets and the suspension of the activities of M.S.L. LLC (one of the largest lottery operators in Ukraine) is an interference with the right to peaceful possession of property. This is stated in the decision of the ECtHR. Decision of the ECtHR The ECtHR recognized that the freezing of assets and the suspension of activities constitute an interference with the right to peace”, — write on: ua.news
Lawyer, Barristers partner Oleksiy Shevchuk reported that the European Court of Human Rights recognized that the freezing of assets and the suspension of the activities of M.S.L. LLC (one of the largest lottery operators in Ukraine) is an interference with the right to peaceful possession of property.
This is stated in the decision of the ECtHR.
Decision of the ECtHR
The ECtHR recognized that the freezing of assets and suspension of activities is an interference with the right to peaceful possession of property. The intervention did not meet the criterion of legality — the national legal framework was unclear and unpredictable as to what criteria would justify the application of sanctions to private companies. It was also disproportionate — the sanctions were applied without assessing the specific behavior of the company, but only based on a formal connection with other entities.
The court noted that the applicant had no real access to an independent court that could assess the legality of the sanctions. The decisions of the National Security Council and the Presidential Decree are of a “political nature”, the courts are limited in reviewing the substance of such acts, the lack of independent control creates a risk of arbitrariness.
It was also established that the applicant did not have an effective means to obtain the cancellation or revision of the sanctions. Appeals to the courts of general jurisdiction turned out to be fruitless, because the courts recognized that such decisions cannot be evaluated on their merits.
Key motives of the Court:
• Insufficient legal certainty of the Law on Sanctions (too broad powers of the National Security Council and the President).
• Lack of judicial control – the company could not effectively protect its assets.
• Excessive intervention — complete blocking of activities without risk assessment and without the temporary nature of sanctions.
• There is no appeal mechanism within domestic law, contrary to Articles 6 and 13.
Consequences for Ukraine
The ECtHR indicated that the state should clarify the legal grounds for applying sanctions to private entities. It is also necessary to create a real judicial mechanism for reviewing such decisions and to ensure proportionality and predictability of sanctions.
The court also noted that national sanctions regimes, even in the context of war, must comply with the principles of the rule of law.
Position of the parties
The government of Ukraine claimed that the NSDC sanctions had a legitimate purpose — the protection of national security in the context of Russian aggression. In his opinion, the intervention in the company’s activities was in accordance with national legislation. Also, the company was not allowed the right to apply to national courts with a claim for the cancellation of sanctions.
In LLC “M.S.L.” note that the sanctions were imposed without trial, the legislation on sanctions did not provide for clear criteria for their application to private companies, and no effective remedy was provided. Sanctions effectively destroyed the economic activity of the company.
