OJSC Rosneft Oil Company, R (on the application of) v HM Treasury & Ors [2014] EWHC 4002 (Admin) (27 November 2014)

OJSC Rosneft Oil Company, R (on the application of) v HM Treasury & Ors [2014] EWHC 4002 (Admin) (27 November 2014)

Article 5A is not so uncertain as to be invalid under common law or EU law; the threshold for invalidity is not met. Interim relief (stay) is refused as the balance of convenience favours allowing Article 5A to come into effect, and there is no risk of serious or irreparable damage to Rosneft. The provisions are sufficiently clear for the majority of cases, and any ambiguity does not render them unlawful.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 4002 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: OJSC Rosneft Oil Company; Defendant: Her Majesty's Treasury; Defendant: Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills; Defendant: Financial Conduct Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interim Relief Application and Directions Hearing
Outcome
Interim relief refused; Article 5A allowed to come into effect.
Legal Topics
Sanctions, Legal Certainty, Implementation of EU Regulations, Interim Relief, Judicial Review, Standing, Interpretation of Criminal Offences
Administrative Law European Union Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Sanctions Legal Certainty Implementation of EU Regulations Interim Relief +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OJSC Rosneft Oil Company

Claimant

Her Majesty's Treasury

Defendant

Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

Defendant

Financial Conduct Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interim Relief Application and Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 5A of the Export Control Regulations is unlawfully uncertain and violates legal certainty under common law and Article 7 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether interim relief (stay) should be granted pending substantive hearing
  3. 3 Jurisdiction of UK courts to review implementing regulations of EU sanctions

Ratio Decidendi

Article 5A is not so uncertain as to be invalid under common law or EU law; the threshold for invalidity is not met. Interim relief (stay) is refused as the balance of convenience favours allowing Article 5A to come into effect, and there is no risk of serious or irreparable damage to Rosneft. The provisions are sufficiently clear for the majority of cases, and any ambiguity does not render them unlawful.

Court Disposition

Interim relief refused; Article 5A allowed to come into effect.

Orders

  • No stay granted on Article 5A of the Export Control Regulations.
  • Directions for a rolled-up hearing next term to consider permission and substantive claim.