ARTICLE
14 October 2025

Ukraine's Sanctions Maze: Why Challenging Sanctions Rarely Succeeds

K
Kinstellar

Contributor

Kinstellar acts as trusted legal counsel to leading investors across Emerging Europe and Central Asia. With offices in 11 jurisdictions and over 350 local and international lawyers, we deliver consistent, joined-up legal advice and assistance across diverse regional markets – together with the know-how and experience to champion your interests while minimising exposure to risk.
Ukraine currently maintains one of the largest sanctions lists in Europe, comprising roughly 21,000 entries but with only 114 removals over the past decade.
Ukraine International Law
Luke Wochensky’s articles from Kinstellar are most popular:
  • within International Law topic(s)
  • in United States
Kinstellar are most popular:
  • within Intellectual Property, Immigration and Environment topic(s)

October 2025 – Ukraine currently maintains one of the largest sanctions lists in Europe, comprising roughly 21,000 entries but with only 114 removals over the past decade. Sanctions have become a central instrument of national security policy in response to persistent external threats. At the same time, the likelihood of successfully overturning a designation remains extremely limited.

How sanctions are imposed

Under current law, the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (the “NSDC”) is the primary body responsible for initiating and approving sanctions proposals. These proposals may originate from the President, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (Ukraine's parliament), or other state authorities such as the Cabinet of Ministers, the Security Service of Ukraine or the National Bank of Ukraine, but they must pass through the NSDC before enactment.

The NSDC resolutions do not have legal force on their own. They become binding only once formalized by a Presidential Decree. As a result, NSDC decisions are not considered “acts” of a public authority within the existing legal framework and cannot be appealed directly.

A narrow path for appeals

Accordingly, the only possible route to challenge sanctions is to contest the final Presidential Decree, and such claims must be brought before only the Supreme Court of Ukraine (the “SCU”), which has exclusive jurisdiction as the court of first instance.

This structure creates a significant legal bottleneck: all challenges are funnelled directly to the SCU, leaving sanctioned parties with no intermediate avenues of appeal. Combined with the Court's heavy caseload and its deference to the executive, this makes the likelihood of success exceedingly slim.

Indeed, only two cases have resulted in successful annulment in court, although the second ruling is still under appeal:

  • The Tolexis case (2020): a Swiss firm sanctioned for its alleged involvement with a Russian-controlled titanium plant in Crimea. The SCU ruled in favour of the company after it demonstrated that it had ceased all operations in Crimea following the Russian occupation. The court annulled the decree as unlawful.
  • The Duray case (2025): a French national sanctioned in 2023 for his former role on the board of Cetelem Bank, a joint venture at the time between Sberbank of Russia and BNP Paribas. Sberbank became the sole shareholder in 2020, renaming the bank Drive Click Bank. Mr. Duray had already left the board by then. The court ruled in his favour, but the decision is still under appeal.

These rare victories highlight how exceptional the circumstances must be to succeed. The sanctioned party must demonstrate not only a lack of current ties to Russia or sanctioned activity, but also a complete severance from the original grounds for designation. Absent such clear and compelling evidence, challenges are almost invariably dismissed.

Lack of clear rules

Aside from such litigation, broader structural issues continue to pose challenges for Ukraine's current sanctions regime.

Since 2014, Ukrainian law has required the NSDC to adopt internal procedural regulations for imposing sanctions. But these rules have yet to be adopted. In their absence, sanctions are often applied without clear standards or transparent procedures, raising concerns about legality, consistency, and transparency.

Moreover, Ukrainian law does not provide an administrative mechanism for individuals or entities to request removal from the country's sanctions list. The only option available outside of the courts is to submit a written petition to authorized state bodies or to the Interagency Working Group on the Implementation of State Sanctions Policy (the “IWG”). However, the IWG is not legally obliged to review or to respond to such petitions.

An additional complication for sanctioned Ukrainian individuals and entities is access to legal support. Domestic legislation prohibits the provision of certain services to sanctioned persons, which may extend to legal services. This can create a paradoxical situation: sanctioned parties are denied meaningful legal representation precisely when they need it most to challenge their designation. While some Ukrainian lawyers are willing to test these limits, the risk of being accused of facilitating sanctions evasion discourages many from taking on such cases.

Role of the IWG

The IWG has served as an advisory body to the Government of Ukraine since 2022. The IWG plays a central role in reviewing submissions and forwarding recommendations to the NSDC. It has the power to recommend the imposition, modification, or the lifting of sanctions, but it lacks independent decision-making authority.

While the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions” No. 1644-VII, dated 14 August 2014 stipulates that sanctions should be lifted once their objectives have been achieved, the law does not define how such decisions are to be made, or how a sanctioned party can initiate a review process. In practice, submitting a petition to the IWG remains the only route available outside of judicial proceedings. However, the IWG has no legal obligation to respond to or act in response to such submissions.

In rare cases, well-supported petitions, especially those backed by strong evidence, or submitted in a favourable political context, may lead to reconsideration. For most affected parties, however, this informal process represents the only available path to challenge a designation.

Conclusion

The lack of formal procedures and judicial oversight raises legitimate concerns about the legal certainty surrounding Ukraine's sanctions regime. The country, therefore, must prioritise procedural clarity and greater transparency in order to strengthen its sanctions system. Such reforms will arguably enable Ukraine to protect its national security while also safeguarding basic fundamental rights.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More