Recovery of sanctioned assets and the rule of law

Identifying sources of funding to support victims of aggression - in the current context in Ukraine – is a necessary and justified endeavour. Forcing aggressors to compensate victims of their aggression is also in the interest of justice. In an effort to achieve this, it is understandable that governments are exploring ways to confiscate the assets of aggressors or those closely associated with them who are subject to sanctions. However, it is important that any such mechanisms used for this purpose comply with established legal rights. If not, attempts to use them are likely to be undermined by the inevitable legal challenges that will be brought against them. In view of the above, the legal framework should be improved to criminalise liability for circumventing sanctions, to form an evidence base and to file new claims with the HACC. A separate problem is the need to legislatively regulate the protection of the property rights of non-sanctioned co-owners in the course of applying sanctions in the form of recovery of assets of sanctioned persons to the state. In general, restrictive measures are introduced to change the policies or activities of a country, part of a country, government, organisations or individuals. They are preventive, non-punitive instruments that should allow the EU to respond quickly to political challenges and events. Sanctions should be used as part of an integrated and comprehensive policy approach that includes political dialogue, additional efforts and other instruments. The ability to impose and actually enforce financial sanctions is limited by the jurisdiction of the imposing state. For most states, this will mean that financial sanctions can only be effectively imposed on assets, persons and companies located within their geographical borders or operating abroad but still having a connection to the state.