The European Court of Justice in June-July published the legal arguments of seven of the 13 former high-level Ukrainian officials who are challenging asset freezes and travel bans on suspicion of being “responsible for the misappropriation of Ukrainian state funds.”
The
seven whose legal arguments have been published are: former President Viktor
Yanukovych Sr., his lawmaker son Viktor
Yanukovych Jr., the ex- president’s son Oleksandr
Yanukovych, ex-Prime Minister Mykola
Azarov, lawmaker and the former prime minister’s son Oleksii
Azarov, ex-deputy presidential chief of staff Andriy
Portnov and Serhiy
Kurchenko, an associate of the Yanukovych family.
Whether
by chance or design, the seven legal arguments have shared uniformities, the
most glaring of which asserts that the EU’s decision was “based on erroneous
evidence,” says human rights lawyer Stanislav Batryn who is the deputy head of
the Civil Council for Investigating and Preventing Human Rights Abuses in
Ukraine.
Some
like Kurchenko and Portnov argue that on March 6 when the sanctions came into
force, they were not under criminal prosecution in Ukraine.
Alleging
that the EU Council “relied on materially inaccurate facts,” Kurchenko’s
complaint states “there is no information or evidence available that the
applicant was in fact subject to ‘investigation’ in Ukraine.”
Yet as
of March 6, Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said that criminal
cases had been opened against oil trading companies belonging to Kurchenko
on suspicion of “large-scale tax evasion” and “causing damages to the state.”
Summarizing
their complaints, Batryn said they referred to the violation of their property protection
rights and the right to conduct economic activities, “which have been rendered impossible
in view of the introduction of EU restrictions,” added Batryn.
In
conclusion, the pleas note that the EU Council didn’t have sufficient grounds
to impose sanctions because the criteria for applying them weren’t met. In
particular they referred to a May
5 EU Council regulation which “provides for the freezing of funds and
economic resources of certain persons identified as responsible for the
misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds and persons responsible for human
rights violations in Ukraine, and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies
associated with them, with a view to consolidating and supporting the rule of
law and respect for human rights in Ukraine.”
The
disgraced former
president’s pleas even allege that the EU sanctions were politically
motivated: “The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the Decision…was in
essence to try to win favor with the so-called ‘interim regime’ of Ukraine so
that Ukraine would proceed with closer ties with the EU (such closer ties
having been rejected by the democratically elected President of Ukraine and his
Government), and not the rationales stated on the face of the Decision and the
Regulation.”
The
following have not had their legal challenges published yet: ex-Prosecutor
General Viktor Pshonka, his son and parliament member Artem Pshonka, ex-deputy
Prime Minister Serhiy Arbuzov, ex-Income and Duties Minister Oleksandr
Klymenko, ex-presidential chief of staff Andriy Klyuyev and his lawmaker
brother Serhiy Klyuyev.
Portnov’s complaint was published on June 6; the Azarovs on June 27; the Yanukovychs and Kurchenko’s on July 18. According to lawyer Batryn, the defendant, in this case the Council of the EU, has six weeks to file defense arguments.
Kurchenko
is being represented by B. Kennelly and J. Pobjoy, Barristers, M. Drury and A.
Swan, Solicitors; the Yanukovychs by T. Beazley, QC; Portnov by M. Cesieux,
lawyer; and the Azarovs by G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers.
Kyiv Post editor Mark Rachkevych can be
reached at [email protected].
