The use of sanctions against Ukrainian citizens directly contradicts the law "On Sanctions" and creates serious legal risks, writes Serhiy Lyamets, former editor-in-chief of "Ekonomichna Pravda".
Sanctions against Ukrainian citizens directly contradict the law "On Sanctions" itself. However, they are applied, and this creates legal conflicts.
According to the author, in Ukraine, sanctions are often applied to citizens against whom there are no verdicts, investigations have not been completed, or even criminal proceedings have not been initiated. This violates the right to private property and bypasses the Criminal Code, Civil Code, and the judicial system.
The author refers to an article by lawyer and former people's deputy Valeriy Karpuntsov. He cited the conclusions of the Constitutional Courts of Germany (1985), Italy (1997), and Ukraine, as well as the European Court of Human Rights (1993), which indicate that punishment without trial or by decree is a violation of law and justice.
"When the government begins to punish without trial, it abolishes law as such" (FRG, 1985).
"When the state begins to punish not through a court, but through a decree - this is no longer justice, but political reprisal" (Italy, 1997).
"Sanctions are an instrument of the state's foreign policy, not a mechanism of criminal law influence on Ukrainian citizens, to whom only the judicial system should apply" (CCU).
"Sanctions in Ukraine are increasingly applied not to foreign entities or collaborators, but to Ukrainian citizens against whom investigations have not been completed and even no proceedings have been initiated. This is a circumvention of courts and advocacy," Karpuntsov himself believes.
According to the author, sanctions were conceived as an instrument of foreign policy. However, they later began to be applied domestically, effectively turning into a way of "quick punishment" without trial. In his opinion, this creates conflicts that could result in billions in lawsuits against Ukraine.
The negative effect is amplified by the low economic efficiency of sanctions. This raises suspicions that they may have been imposed intentionally, and that revenues from asset management may not have gone to the Ukrainian budget.
"A direct logical chain emerged: sanctions are a way to seize and redistribute other people's property. This connection seemed like a certain achievement as long as the property of Russian oligarchs was being seized. But it became toxic when sanctions were imposed on perfectly legal businessmen for reasons that could be called far-fetched," the author writes.
Until 2025, the mentioned conflicts did not turn into real court decisions because the courts refused to accept such cases for consideration.
"The technical reason was that the NSDC simply did not issue a document with a seal and signatures to sanctioned individuals, and it is impossible to challenge an NSDC decision in court based on a news item on the Internet. The patriotic reason was that Ukrainian courts had so far refused to accept cases regarding sanctions for proceedings. They motivated their refusal by saying that there is no clear understanding of whether the President of Ukraine actually imposes sanctions or only signs the NSDC decision. In fact, the judges were afraid to stand in the way of the sanctions mechanism so as not to provoke a reaction from the authorities against themselves," the author explains.
However, in 2025, the Supreme Court for the first time lifted personal sanctions against an individual – French banker Louis-Michel Durey.
"It's hard to imagine what surprises to expect now from the consideration of similar cases," the author believes.
He is convinced that sooner or later, Ukrainian courts will be forced to begin a mass review of sanction cases. Multi-billion dollar compensation is a very likely outcome of this process.