Overview

• The Supreme Court dismissed Shvidler’s appeal by a 4–1 majority, concluding that sanctions must be severe and open-ended to be effective.
• Majority justices held that freezing Shvidler’s assets is rationally connected to disabling him from enjoying his wealth and reinforcing the cumulative impact of the sanctions regime.
• In a dissent, Lord Leggatt called the measures “Orwellian,” arguing the government failed to show a logical link between the asset freeze and its policy goals.
• Shvidler remains under comprehensive asset freezes and maintains that the sanctions inflict disproportionate hardship, discriminate against him as a Russian-born dual national and reflect political motives by ministers such as Grant Shapps.
• The verdict cements a precedent for deferential judicial review of the post-Brexit sanctions framework and narrows the scope for future human-rights challenges.