High Court delivers judgment on sanctions de-listing challenge for family members of designated persons


Photo by Mahosadha Ong on Unsplash

The High Court today delivered judgment in Khan v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 361 (Admin).

The case involved a challenge by Ms Anzhelika Khan, a British citizen, to her designation under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Ms Khan was sanctioned on the basis that she was “associated with” her husband, Mr German Khan, a businessman. The Court accepted that the effect of Ms Khan’s designation was to cause “significant difficulty and disruption to Ms Khan’s life and that of her children” (§65), and described those effects as “significant and grave” (§68).

In its decision, the Court considered a number of issues regarding the imposition of financial sanctions upon persons who are “associated with” designated persons (including members of their immediate family). In particular:

  1. Whether the Secretary of State was required, pursuant to her ‘Padfield duty’, to consider whether designation of Ms Khan was likely to further the statutory purpose of the sanctions regulations, i.e. to further the purpose of dissuading the Government of Russia from destabilising Ukraine or undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, or independence of Ukraine.
  2. Whether the designation of Ms Khan was compatible with her right to privacy (Article 8), and her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions (Article 1 of the First Protocol), as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
  3. Whether regulation 6(2)(d) of the sanctions regulations, i.e. the power to designated a person because they are “associated with” another designated person, is compatible with Article 8 of, or Article 1 of the First Protocol to, the European Convention on Human Rights.

Clare Montgomery KC and Tim James Matthews acted for Ms Khan, instructed by George Maling and Matt Marshall of Enyo Law.

Useful Link(s)