Court of Appeal judgment on ECHR jurisdiction in sanctions cases – Dana Astra

27/02/26

The Court of Appeal has dismissed Dana Astra’s appeal in Belarus sanctions de-listing case Dana Astra v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs.

Dana Astra was added to the UK’s Belarus sanctions list in 2020, and re‑listed in 2023, for being “complicit in the repression of civil society” by sponsoring the Belarusian National Olympic Committee at a time when it was criticised for supporting the regime’s crackdown on opposition after the 2020 election, and for obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Belarus Government by developing the Minsk World construction project.  It challenged its designation under s.38 of the UK Sanctions Act. It said it had sought to end the sponsorship as soon as the International Olympic Committee criticised the Belarusian Olympic Committee, and that far from benefitting from or supporting the regime, it had been subject to the wrath of the regime in the form of Belarus’ own sanctions which amounted to a corporate raid. 

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court judgment and held that:

1. Dana was not within the jurisdiction of the UK for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights because it had no property in the UK and the good will in its business was insufficient. Sanctioning Dana was in any event not disproportionate (this was “hopeless” in light of the Shvidler judgment, where the effects of sanctions were far more intrusive §107).

2. The designation was rational:

• Once the Government has reasonable grounds to suspect that someone is an “involved person” (the threshold for being considered for designation under the Sanctions Act), the Government has only the “theoretical scope for the excise of a discretion” as to whether or not to designate someone, but that scope is “narrow”, eg if the Secretary of State decides this is a “de minimis” case (§93).
• It was “irrelevant” to the decision to designate Dana (§97) that it had sought to terminate its sponsorship as soon as the Belarus Olympic Committee was criticised in the election’s aftermath, and irrelevant that instead of benefitting from the Belarus regime it had been subject to oppressive treatment by it (§98). 

The judgment is here [2026] EWCA Civ 160 – press summary.  Maya Lester KC and Malcolm Birdling act for Dana Astra, instructed by Fieldfisher.