Dana Astra IOOO v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Affairs

The claim concerned a challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision to impose financial sanctions on the Appellant, a high-profile Belarusian construction company, pursuant to the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The Appellant contended that its designation was (i) disproportionate and therefore unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998; and (ii) irrational at common law, principally on the basis that the Appellant was itself considered hostile to the Lukashenko regime, such that its designation could not rationally be said to further the objectives of the 2019 Regulations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s finding that, as a Belarus company with no place of business or assets in the UK, the Appellant was not within the UK’s jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 ECHR. A finding of extraterritorial jurisdiction under Article 1 was exceptional and required the relevant State to have control over the person himself or herself (or itself in the case of a company), rather than the person’s interests as such. That requirement was not met in this case.

The Court also held that, even if jurisdiction had been engaged under Article 1 ECHR, the High Court was entitled and correct to find that the designation decision was proportionate, and moreover that the Secretary of State's decision to designate the Appellant was rational.

Sir James Eadie KC, Jason Pobjoy KC, and Rayan Fakhoury acted for the Secretary of State in the Court of Appeal.

Jason Pobjoy KC, Rayan Fakhoury and Sean Butler acted for the Secretary of State in the High Court.