FOLLOW US

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.