Court to continue hearing Poroshenko's lawsuit to lift sanctions against him in closed session on Nov 7 – lawyer
On November 7, the Cassation Administrative Court panel of judges within the Supreme Court will resume consideration of MP and European Solidarity Party leader Petro Poroshenko's lawsuit to lift the sanctions decree imposed on him, politician's attorney-at-law Illia Novikov said.
According to the European Solidarity website, the documents on which the sanctions were based have the "for official use only" stamp and require a closed hearing.
"We just finished another closed meeting, and the next one may be too. I would like to remind you that we have been in this process for more than six months. In early March, we filed a lawsuit, and from April to October, at each meeting, we received the same answer to our questions: 'You will hear the answer to this question when we examine the for-official-use-only -stamped evidence in a closed session.' I can say that we have not heard this answer, and I think that we will not hear it. There is no good answer to this question," said Novikov.
As reported, on February 13, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a decree on the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of February 12, 2025 on the application of personal special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions). According to the appendix to the document, sanctions were imposed against five individuals: Poroshenko, Ihor Kolomoisky, former owner of the Finance and Credit bank Kostiantyn Zhevaho, former co-owner of PrivatBank Hennadiy Boholiubov, and former MP Viktor Medvedchuk.
Poroshenko appealed the sanctions in the Supreme Court. According to lawyer Illia Novikov, the grounds for the sanctions were the so-called "coal case" and the Kharkiv accords.
According to him, two versions of documents on the application of sanctions against Poroshenko were published on the websites of the President of Ukraine and the National Security and Defense Council, one of them with errors in personal data, and the second with corrections. Novikov claims that this is a sign of falsification of the decree.
