google.com, pub-8701563775261122, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
UK

Sarvar Ismailov: Ex-Everton director loses High Court appeal against Russia sanctions over Putin links

A former manager of Everton Football Club has failed in his High Court case against the Foreign Office over sanctions linked to his billionaire uncle’s ties to Vladimir Putin.

Since Sarvar Ismailov is the nephew of Uzbek-Russian oligarch Alisher Usmanov, he was sanctioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 with his brother Sencer.

He asked ministers to review their decision in 2023, and although the text of the appointment under sanctions laws was changed in 2024, he remained sanctioned.

Mr Ismailov’s lawyers told a hearing earlier this month that the decision was “extremely unfair” and that he was sanctioned “simply because he is his uncle’s nephew”.

The Foreign Office defended the claim, with its lawyers telling the court in London that sanctioning people based on family relationships “serves a number of rational and legitimate purposes”.

In his ruling on Monday, Mr Justice Saini dismissed the claim, finding that the State Department was “uniquely placed to assess whether sanctions decisions would achieve their intended purpose” and that the decision was not “unreasonable”.

Because Sarvar Ismailov is the nephew of Uzbek-Russian oligarch Alisher Usmanov, he was sanctioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 together with his brother Sencer.
Because Sarvar Ismailov is the nephew of Uzbek-Russian oligarch Alisher Usmanov, he was sanctioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 together with his brother Sencer. (social media)

The judge also acknowledged in his 46-page ruling that it was reasonable to assume that Ismailov could “exert pressure” on his uncle and that the decision to continue sanctioning him was “clearly linked” to the goals of the sanctions plan, including showing that associating with those with ties to Russia had “adverse consequences.”

He said: “The question is not whether naming the plaintiff would automatically end the conflict.

“Rather, the question is whether the measure can contribute to the stated objective as part of the overall sanctions regime. So much for the decision to pursue the determination of the plaintiff.”

He continued: “The identification of the plaintiff and others like him ‘associated’ (Mr. Usmanov) makes a significant contribution to the overall cumulative effect of the sanctions and increases the pressure on Russia regarding its actions in Ukraine.”

Born in Uzbekistan, Mr Ismailov joined Everton in 2019 and served on the club’s board in the summer of 2021, but stood down from that role and other roles at the club in November after being charged with a criminal offense that was later dropped.

Born in Uzbekistan, Mr Ismailov joined Everton in 2019 and served on the club's board in the summer of 2021, but stood down from that role and other roles at the club in November after being charged with a criminal offense that was later dropped.
Born in Uzbekistan, Mr Ismailov joined Everton in 2019 and served on the club’s board in the summer of 2021, but stood down from that role and other roles at the club in November after being charged with a criminal offense that was later dropped. (PA Archive)

His lawyer, Hugo Keith KC, said in written submissions earlier this month that Mr Ismailov moved to the UK when he was 13 and had never lived in Russia as an adult, had no political profile or connections in the country and had no contact with or access to Mr Putin or anyone in the Russian government.

He also said there was no evidence that Mr Ismailov supported the Russian government or the war in Ukraine, and told the court that sanctioning his client was “completely pointless” and that the decision was “clearly unreasonable” and “capricious”.

In written submissions, the State Department’s Jason Pobjoy KC said the decision to maintain sanctions against Ismailov was open to the department because it “furthers the overall purpose of the sanctions regime” despite its “significant impact” on him.

He also said the State Department had “broad discretion” in sanctions decisions and that there was “no defensible basis” to say the decision was unlawful.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also
Close
Back to top button