The Court of Cassation rejected Poroshenko's lawsuit against Zelensky's sanctions

The court's decision closes another stage in the long legal battle surrounding the restrictions imposed against the fifth president of Ukraine.

On October 7, 2026, the Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court finally denied Petro Poroshenko's claim to lift the sanctions that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had imposed against him in February 2025. Presiding judge Olesya Radyshevska read out the operative part of the decision, by which the court confirmed the legality of the head of state's decree. The process lasted a year and a half and ended with two separate opinions of the judges, which indicates the complexity of the legal arguments of the parties.

Chronology of the introduction of sanctions and their legal basis

On February 13, 2025, the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine adopted a decision to impose personal sanctions on several individuals, including businessman Ihor Kolomoisky, Kostyantyn Zhevago, Hennadiy Bogolyubov, Petro Poroshenko, and Viktor Medvedchuk. President Zelensky approved the decree on the same day. The restrictions affected assets, business interests, and the ability to participate in the country's political life. For Poroshenko, the sanctions became a restriction on ownership of shares in a number of enterprises, including media assets and industrial facilities.

Poroshenko filed an administrative lawsuit a few weeks after the decree was published. The plaintiff claimed that the NSDC decision did not contain sufficient evidence of a threat to national security on his part. However, the courts of first and appellate instance consistently rejected the claims, and the cassation instance put an end to this case.

Arguments of the parties during the hearings

Poroshenko's representatives insisted on the absence of concrete facts confirming the former president's involvement in actions threatening the state. They referred to the absence of criminal proceedings against him and the political nature of the sanctions. Instead, representatives of the president and the National Security and Defense Council provided materials that, in the court's opinion, indicate possible coordination with persons under international sanctions and financial transactions that could contradict the interests of Ukraine in times of war.

The court noted that sanctions are a preventive tool, not a punishment. This allowed the authorities to act proactively without having to wait for a court verdict in a criminal case. This position is in line with the practice of many European countries that apply similar restrictions against politicians and businessmen in times of crisis.

International context and partners' reaction

The Ukrainian court's decision coincides with increased coordination of sanctions policy between Ukraine, the EU and the US. In July 2026, the European Commission published an updated list of individuals subject to restrictions on suspicion of financing destabilizing processes. Poroshenko's name remained in the documents, although without direct references to Ukrainian sanctions. Analysts from the Brussels-based European Policy Centre note that Ukrainian courts are increasingly becoming a platform for verifying the validity of national restrictions, and this increases the partners' trust in the Ukrainian legal system.

In Washington, representatives of the US State Department, in a press statement on October 8, 2026, noted that the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine demonstrates the independence of the judicial branch, even in cases involving high-ranking officials. This is an important signal for continued financial support for Ukraine.

Economic consequences for Poroshenko's assets

After the decision came into force, the assets that were under sanctions remain blocked. These are shares in companies engaged in mining, logistics and media. According to analysts of the investment company Dragon Capital, the total value of the frozen assets exceeds $ 1,2 billion. Part of these funds could be used to support the country's defense capabilities if they were transferred to state management.

Poroshenko's lawyers have already announced their intention to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. However, practice shows that such lawsuits take years to consider, and interim protective measures rarely lead to the immediate lifting of national sanctions.

Political implications for “European Solidarity”

The European Solidarity Party found itself in a difficult situation. The leader of the faction in the Verkhovna Rada, Artur Gerasimov, stated on October 9, 2026, that the court decision was “politically motivated” and called on international organizations to conduct independent monitoring. At the same time, the party’s ratings, according to the sociological group “Rating”, fell by 3,4 percentage points compared to August 2026.

Political analysts believe that the sanctions limit not only Poroshenko's financial capabilities, but also his ability to finance media projects that have traditionally supported the party. This could affect the results of the upcoming parliamentary elections, the date of which has not yet been determined.

Legal precedents and prospects for appeal

The decision of the Administrative Court of Cassation has become an important precedent for other cases regarding sanctions. It confirms that Ukrainian courts are ready to consider such claims on the merits, and not just formally. At the same time, the judges noted that the mechanism for appealing sanctions needs to be improved, in particular regarding the terms of consideration and access to NSDC materials.

Two separate opinions of the judges included in the decision address issues of proportionality of restrictions and the need for regular review of sanctions. These observations may provide a basis for future legislative changes.

Reaction of civil society and experts

Civil society organizations monitoring sanctions policy welcomed the court's decision. The Anti-Corruption Center issued a statement stressing the importance of maintaining the sanctions instrument as a means of exerting pressure on individuals whose actions may conflict with national interests. At the same time, human rights activists called on the authorities to ensure transparency in the procedure for applying restrictions.

Experts from the Institute of Legislative Ideas believe that Ukraine is gradually approaching European standards in the area of ​​sanctions regulation. This is especially important in the context of negotiations on EU accession, where the issue of the rule of law is of key importance.