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.”
