A billionaire sanctioned for his close ties to Roman Abramovich urged Britain's highest court on Wednesday to lift the measures in a landmark case that could redefine the government's financial crackdown on Russia after it invaded Ukraine.

Eugene Shvidler argued at the U.K. Supreme Court that the government's asset freeze in March 2022 had arbitrarily disrupted his life and deprived his employees of their livelihood — adding that "the effect on the appellant has been ... to shatter his reputation." The appeal is the first case to examine the tension between Russia sanctions and human rights to reach the Supreme Court.

Shvidler's counsel, David Anderson KC of Brick Court Chambers, said that his client was one of the few British citizens designated under the U.K.'s Russia sanctions regime, unlike almost all the rest of the 1,800 or so individuals targeted.

Unlike Russian oligarchs living abroad who simply can't "come shopping in London" because of sanctions, the asset freeze imposed on Shvidler meant that he was "suffering badly" — living in America, where he is not sanctioned, on the charity of friends, Anderson said.

"Sanctions which on a Russian might be a minor inconvenience take on an entirely different complexion when placed on a British citizen," Anderson told the court.

Shvidler is not said to have ties to Putin or Russia's war machine. The U.K. government has defended its decision to designate Shvidler — whose net worth is estimated by Forbes magazine at $1.6 billion — based on his friendship with Abramovich and his position as director of steel business Evraz PLC.

Anderson argued that Shvidler's friendship and business ties to Abramovich made the rationale for designating him marginal and was unlikely to send a tough message to the Kremlin. Abramovich, the former owner of Chelsea Football Club in London, also ran companies in strategic sectors in the Russian economy and had appointed Shvidler to leading roles.

Shvidler has argued that the courts have taken the wrong approach to assessing whether his designation was a proportionate interference with his rights under Articles 8 and 1 of the European Conviction on Human Rights.

Shvidler is not challenging the sanctions legislation itself but the government's interpretation of it in his case. Anderson has argued in written submissions to the court that the measures taken against Shvidler had little hope or "rational connection" to the government's foreign policy goals of pressing the Russian government to end the war.

He had renounced his Russian citizenship after leaving the former Soviet Union in 1998 to move to America. He was given a British visa in 2004 and became a British citizen in 2010. He has five children, all British.

Anderson said Shvidler has asked the Foreign Office five times for advice on what he should do to exert influence over Abramovich and, in turn, Vladimir Putin. Those requests have been ignored, Anderson said. The government's stance was arbitrary, seemingly "tantamount to, 'You never know, designation might do some good,'" Anderson said.

Shvidler lost his first attempt to overturn sanctions in August 2023 when the High Court ruled that the government was permitted to use the restrictive measures to send a signal about Britain's stance on benefiting Russia's regime, even indirectly.

The Court of Appeal upheld Shvidler's designation in February 2024, concluding that there did not need to be a "perfect fit" between sanctions and pressuring Russia to end the war if there was a "rational connection." But the appeals court ruled that the High Court had not gone far enough in assessing whether the government's decision met that test.

But Anderson argued Wednesday that the court had failed to act on its own guidance. Despite ruling that the High Court should have analyzed whether the Foreign Office's decision was proportionate, taking into account the evidence, the Court of Appeal failed to do just that, Anderson said. The Court of Appeal should have reheard the case rather than simply reviewing the High Court's findings, he argued.

James Eadie KC, counsel for the government, defended Shvidler's designation before the justices, arguing that the sanctions regime was "a key pillar of U.K. foreign policy in response to a grave threat to European and international peace and security."

Eadie said that the courts have some oversight of whether its decisions are proportionate but that the Foreign Office had broad authority to impose sanctions, a regime whose effectiveness depends on the cumulative effect of each individual measure.

The appeal is being heard over two days, with linked proceedings involving a super yacht in London that has been frozen as an asset to be heard by justices on Thursday.

Justices Robert Reed, Philip Sales, George Leggatt, Vivian Rose, and David Richards appeared for the court.

Shvidler is represented by David Anderson KC and Malcolm Birdling of Brick Court Chambers, instructed by Peters & Peters LLP.

The government is represented by James Eadie KC, Jason Pobjoy, and Rayan Fakhoury of Blackstone Chambers, instructed by the government legal department.

The case is Eugene Shvidler v. Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, case number UKSC/2024/0055, in the U.K. Supreme Court.