PB Legal | Panin, Bayramkulov & Partners is an international boutique law firm with offices in Russia and Kazakhstan.

Sanctions Against Shvidler: How the UK Supreme Court Put Individual Rights Under the Pressure of State Policy

Chapter 1. The Beginning of the Story

In the spring of 2022, the United Kingdom found itself at the forefront of international sanctions against Russia. Following the US and EU, London expanded the legal toolkit, allowing the government to block assets, seize property, and restrict the freedom of movement of persons "associated with the Kremlin."

On March 24 of that year, the name of Evgeny Shvidler, a British-American billionaire and long-time business partner of Roman Abramovich, appeared on the official sanctions list.

In an instant, everything changed: bank accounts were frozen, houses and property were under control, yachts became inaccessible.

Chapter 2. The Yacht "Phi" and Dalston Company

Almost simultaneously, another story broke in London. The Ministry of Transport ordered the detention of the M/Y Phi yacht, owned by Dalston Projects Ltd. Formally, its owner was considered to be Sergey Naumenko, who was not under sanctions. But the company's affiliation and the yacht's flag became a reason for demonstrating the resolve of the British authorities.

The yacht became a symbol of the sanctions policy: the luxurious ship stood at the Canary Wharf pier as a silent reminder of the new reality.

Chapter 3. Judicial Struggle

Shvidler and Dalston Projects went to court, arguing that the sanctions violated the right to property and the right to private and family life, guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

• In the High Court (2023) their complaints were dismissed.
• In the Court of Appeal (2024) – the same result: the judges recognized that the government has a wide margin of discretion in matters of foreign policy.
• And only in the Supreme Court (2025) the dispute acquired a final, precedent-setting character.

Chapter 4. Inside the Supreme Court

The consideration of the case in the Supreme Court became a turning point.

The majority of judges supported the government. They agreed that:

• sanctions serve a legitimate goal – pressure on Russia,
• they are connected to this goal,
• there is no alternative,
• the balance of society's interests outweighs private rights.

But Lord Leggatt issued a dissenting opinion. His position sounded like a warning.

Chapter 5. The Voice of the Dissenter

Lord Leggatt called the sanctions a "serious infringement on individual freedom."

On property rights:
Freezing assets effectively turns a person into a "hostage." Property becomes inaccessible, even when it comes to everyday needs.

On private and family life:
The restrictions hit Shvidler's children, his spouse, and the family's accustomed way of life. This is not an "inconvenience," but a radical intervention.

On uncertainty:
Sanctions have neither a term nor a criminal conviction. They hang in the air like a political mark, depriving a person of the opportunity to defend themselves.

His words sounded like a doubt that the state machine had maintained a balance between security and individual rights.

Chapter 6. PB Legal's Opinion

We believe that the Shvidler case is not just a dispute about sanctions, but a test for the entire UK legal system.

"Sanctions against a British citizen create a situation where he is effectively deprived of the ability to manage his property and lead a normal private life. This is not a temporary measure, but a state of uncertainty comparable to a restriction of legal capacity.

The main risk is that property rights can still be restored, but the destruction of family life and daily routine leaves consequences for years. The court recognized the balance in favor of the state, but it is precisely this line – between protecting society and invading private life – that will become the main field of future legal disputes."

Thus, in the opinion of PB Legal, the key direction for defense in similar cases will not be so much the economic aspect, but rather an emphasis on the consequences of sanctions for the family and personal sphere.

Chapter 7. The World's Reaction — Headlines

• ⁠Reuters: Oil tycoon Shvidler loses appeal over UK's Russian sanctions
• The Guardian: Abramovich business associate Eugene Shvidler fails to overturn UK sanctions
• ⁠Law Gazette: Supreme Court judges clash over sanctions appeal
• Dechert (OnPoint): UK Supreme Court Sets a High Bar for Challenges to Sanctions Designations
• Bloomberg: Oil tycoon Shvidler loses appeal over UK's Russian sanctions
• The Times: Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties
• The Independent: Sanctions challenge: accusations of "PR" against Minister Shapps after failure of Abramovich ally's case in Supreme Court
• Financial Times: UK Supreme Court upholds sanctions against Russia-born Evgeny Shvidler

Chapter 8. Conclusion

The case of Shvidler and Dalston Projects became a symbol of the clash of two worlds:

• state policy, where sanctions are a strategic weapon,
• individual rights, where interference in private life and property requires maximum protection.

The majority of judges made a choice in favor of the state. But the dissenting opinion of Lord Leggatt serves as a reminder: beyond political decisions, there are always the fates of specific people and their families.

The main lesson of the case is that the question is no longer whether sanctions are legal, but at what cost to individual rights they are introduced and where the line of permissible interference lies.

Decision: Shvidler_and_Dalston_Projects.pdf.

Investment Arbitration as a Mirror of Transformation: PB Legal | Panin, Bayramkulov & Partners’ Involvement in the FDI Moot Shenzhen National Round

Amidst a global rethinking of foreign investment protection mechanisms, not only do arbitral institutions’ decisions carry weight, but academic practices shaping the future enforcement framework also play a pivotal role. One such initiative is the international student competition on investment arbitration – FDI Moot – where the next generation of lawyers cultivates their legal acumen. In July 2025, Shenzhen hosted the Chinese National Round of this competition, FDI Moot Shenzhen, organized with the support of the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA).

Alan Bayramkulov, Partner at PB Legal | Panin, Bayramkulov & Partners, was invited to serve as an arbitrator for an online hearing between two competing teams. His participation highlights critical themes: the evolving role of arbitration in the global legal order, the growing influence of Asian arbitral institutions, and emerging challenges in cross-border investment protection.

FDI Moot: An Educational and Legal Laboratory

Launched in 2008, the Foreign Direct Investment Moot (FDI Moot) simulates arbitral proceedings between investors and states. Over nearly two decades, it has become a training ground for future international investment law practitioners while serving a key methodological purpose: modeling both typical and edge-case legal scenarios faced by real tribunals.

The competition demands that students master international investment agreements, arbitral rules, and ICSID practice, while also approaching cases as multidimensional systems where argumentation, fact-finding, and procedural strategy converge. This is why the involvement of professional arbitrators like Alan Bayramkulov adds depth – transforming simulations from theoretical exercises into authentic reenactments of complex disputes.

The 2025 Case Study: Cybersecurity & Pharmaceutical Investments

This year’s FDI Moot case tackles issues at the forefront of global discourse, probing fundamental state-private obligations:

A pharmaceutical company invested in a nascent state successor amid institutional instability. The investor alleges rights violations after sensitive commercial data (including know-how and R&D) was leaked due to inadequate cybersecurity by the host state’s health authorities. The hypothetical yet plausible scenario explores collisions between:

• ⁠IP/confidential information protection under state regulation;
• ⁠State liability limits for cybersecurity failures;
• ⁠Jurisdiction and applicable law amid state succession;
• ⁠Balancing investor rights against sovereign interests (e.g., public health measures).

Beyond testing academic knowledge, the competition thus charts the future trajectory of investment arbitration.

SCIA’s Role and China’s Legal Transformation

SCIA, host of the National Round, continues solidifying its position as an institutional arbitral hub with global ambitions. Established under Shenzhen’s economic reforms and recognized as one of mainland China’s most progressive arbitral bodies, SCIA actively integrates international procedural standards – including investment arbitration – into its practice.

As a major player in bilateral/multilateral investment agreements (e.g., Belt and Road Initiative), China faces rising investment disputes involving both its investors and the state. Platforms like FDI Moot Shenzhen – bolstered by institutional arbitration – strategically equip future talent to navigate such international conflicts.

Practitioners in the Arbitrator’s Seat: Beyond Mentorship

For practicing lawyers, judging the FDI Moot transcends mentorship – it’s engagement in an intellectual crucible shaping tomorrow’s legal approaches. Alan Bayramkulov, an experienced moot arbitrator, emphasizes its value:

"Teams demonstrated not only deep case comprehension but also meticulous handling of international sources. Crucially, such competitions instill a culture of precision – in facts, citations, and procedure. SCIA is a dynamic institution, and participating in its events places us at the epicenter of arbitration’s new wave."

PB Legal actively handles international disputes, including foreign investor protection. These cases – where state sovereignty, private interests, and public international law intersect – epitomize arbitration’s multidisciplinary nature.

Conclusion: Arbitration as Culture, Not Just Practice

Competitions like the FDI Moot serve dual purposes: training future tribunal members while acting as living laboratories for urgent questions in investment law.

Participation of Russian lawyers in global educational initiatives – especially as arbitrators – is more than professional prestige. It’s dialogue with the global legal community, shaping universal principles.

FDI Moot is no longer a simulation. It’s a critical discourse on the future of international arbitration – and we’re honored to contribute.

Dear colleagues, we are delighted to share some great news with you!

Kommersant has published the results of its annual survey of the best legal practices in Russia. PB Legal | Panin, Bayramkulov & Partners was recognised in four categories:

• Arbitration: Commercial Dispute Resolution: High-End – Group 3.
• Arbitration: Corporate Dispute Resolution: High-end – Group 2.
• Corporate Law: Russian Mergers and Acquisitions: Mid-market – Group 2.
• International Litigation: Group 2.

You can read more about the ratings by clicking here.

On the 24th of April 2025 the Faculty of Law of the Lomonosov Moscow State University will host a scientific and practical conference "Controlling in corporate and bankruptcy law".

PB Legal partner Alan Bayramkulov will be speaking at the conference at 15:20, on the topic "Liability of top managers controlling a company: the thin line between entrepreneurial risk and legal liability".

The live webcast is available at the following link.

Forbes has published a commentary by PB Legal Managing Partner Alexander Panin on a new possible mechanism of payment for a share in an LLC

The government has approved a draft law allowing LLC participants to receive a payment for a share at market value rather than book value. The change is important because book value can be lower than market value, leading to disputes over the amount of the payment.

In his commentary, Alexander Panin stressed that the new mechanism could save companies from having to go to court in cases of disputes over the value of a share.

Payment of the market value will be made at the request of a participant. The valuation of the share will be carried out by a valuer appointed by the LLC or the person to whom the payment is to be made.

The draft law may reduce disputes and abuses in the event of a member's withdrawal from an LLC. However, the introduction of an alternative mechanism for calculating the actual value of the share requires detailed elaboration at this stage.

The publication is available at the following link.

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have some great news to share with you. We are pleased to present this information to you.

On 12 March 2025 "Pravo-300" presented a personalised ranking of recommended lawyers.

PB Legal partners were recognised in the "International Litigation" category. The selection of candidates was based on a comprehensive evaluation of cases during the year, client feedback, and professional awards.

Partner Alan Bayramkulov was recognised in the category "Partners and Practice Managers". Managing Partner Alexander Panin was recognised in the category "First Persons of Law Firms".

We congratulate our colleagues and wish them new professional achievements.

For more information, please click here to view the results of the federal rating "Pravo-300".