Nearly two years after
With the anticipated roll-out of the thirteenth sanctions package, slated to appear on the second anniversary of the start of the war on
But because of the slipshod nature of much of the “evidence” used to justify the sanctions and seizure of their property, dozens of oligarchs and Russian politicians are challenging the legality of the sanctions in European courts, and the German-speaking press in particular, has been questioning the legitimacy and legality of the sanctions policy against individuals.
It’s a battle between the EU powers to freeze assets of potential wrong-doers vs Europe’s strong property right laws, which technically offer rich Russians the same level of protection for their assets in
The thorny legal question of how to ascribe guilt to successful Russian businessmen and their complicity in Russia’s war in
Volozh has just sold
The authorities have wide ranging powers to freeze assets during an investigation into wrongdoing, but those assets remain the property of their owner and can only be seized (ownership transferred away) if there is a criminal conviction in a court of law. And that is one of the problems as none of Russia’s oligarchs are facing criminal charges in a European court, nor are there any plans to bring charges, which they would welcome. They argue as a result, their assets are frozen indefinitely without legal cause or a mechanism to defend themselves, and that is a de facto appropriation of their property.
Following the Usmanov ruling, who denies he is “close to Putin” and says that he has never been an oligarch, European Interest polled independent legal experts and scrutinised the court's decision, who criticised the court’s ruling for seemingly endorsing the
According to the experts, the court’s judgement suggests that it is focused “on vindicating the position of the Council at any cost, no matter how far-fetched and speculative its allegations are,” European Interest reported.
Usmanov has been accused of being "Putin’s favourite oligarch”, an accusation that appears to have originated as an unsubstantiated accusation made by Swedish economist and high-profile Kremlin critic
In addition, the EU clashed with comments from one
“To put it simply,” the expert said, “the court is saying that the evidence of [Usmanov’s] alleged actions and Kommersant’s pro-government editorial policy is relevant, whereas the evidence to the contrary is irrelevant. Such an obvious logical fallacy can only be explained by a lack of impartiality,” one of the legal experts, who were granted anonymity due to the politically charged nature of the topic, told European Interest.
One of the most damning pieces of evidence held against Usmanov was Kommersant ’s decision to publish a pre-war op-ed by Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council
When Usmanov took control of the business daily Kommersant , the newspaper’s editorial freedoms were curtailed and it “took a manifestly pro-Kremlin stance,” something that Zhelonkin denied to bne IntelliNews in an exclusive interview, adding that the paper’s editorial policy is constricted by repressive media laws on reporting on the war that the Kremlin introduced after the start of hostilities.
European Interest’s legal experts opined that, “First, it suggests that the owner of a media outlet should be personally responsible for, and/or personally agrees with, every piece of content published by that outlet. This contradicts the generally established view that the owner of a news outlet should be impartial and avoid mixing personal views with editorial policy,” the experts said. “Second, the court appeared to disregard Kommersant’s long track record of publishing a variety of opinions from across the political spectrum,” that include the only wartime interview with Ukrainian President
The experts noted the court's narrow focus on Usmanov's alleged destabilisation efforts through Kommersant, disregarding other accusations, making it impossible for the sanctioned individuals to defend themselves.
“It is typical for the EU General Court to review only one accusation, leaving the rest unchecked,” one of the legal experts said. “In so doing, it avoids having to address the remaining allegations on their merit. While convenient for the EU General Court, this approach leaves sanctioned individuals without any means of defending themselves against defamatory statements made by the Council, even though these statements have major negative effects on their lives and reputations.”
Reviewing the case -- court’s detailed judgement was published online – the experts complained that the “evidence” presented as grounds for imposing sanctions was almost exclusively based on press reports that were taken at face value. The use of unsubstantiated press reports has become increasingly in focus. Usmanov and fellow tycoon
According to the legal experts consulted for this analysis, the court’s decision against Usmanov’s sanctions appeal suggests that the European legal system has lowered the bar, moving away from concrete evidence and logical reasoning towards a “good enough” approach.
“The court’s approach undermines the reputation of the EU’s judicial system and shows that the court has decided to act as an instrument to safeguard political decisions, and not as an institution responsible for restoring justice,” one of the legal experts, based in
©2024 bne IntelliNews
, source