Why Poroshenko had to divide his property and why the sanctions are unlike those in EU: a lawyer's assessment
European Pravda recently published an article by Tetiana Khutor using the case of opposition leader Petro Poroshenko as an illustration of how Ukraine's sanctions legislation differs from EU law.
The author emphasised that there are legitimate questions surrounding the sanctions imposed on the politician (the editors of European Pravda add that they consider them an instance of political persecution). However, the article focused specifically on the legal mechanism used to remove assets from the scope of sanctions.
We are also publishing a response from Petro Poroshenko's legal team. While it does not dispute the legal arguments made in the original article, it instead focuses on the alleged unlawfulness of the sanctions themselves and on other inconsistencies with EU practice. This, too, is an important aspect of the debate, and we are therefore giving the politician's legal team an opportunity to present its position.
Read more in the article by Illia Novikov, Petro Poroshenko's representative in the case challenging the presidential sanctions decree: What EU really thinks about Zelenskyy's sanctions against Poroshenko: a response from the politician's legal team.
The short answer to the question posed in the headline of the original article can be summed up in one sentence: because in Europe, sanctions are not imposed on a country's own citizens.
Editor's note (European Pravda): This claim is false. The EU has imposed sanctions on its own citizens in numerous cases.
Nor, of course, has anyone in the EU conceived of sanctions that are lifelong, all-encompassing and subject to no meaningful judicial review.
According to Novikov, the actual position of EU institutions specifically regarding sanctions against Poroshenko is reflected in the European Parliament's resolutions of 9 September 2025 and 24 February 2026, the Ukraine report by the European Ombudsman Michael O'Flaherty, and the European Commission's Rule of Law reports on Ukraine.
He argues that their position is unequivocally negative: the Ukrainian government's theory that the president has the authority to impose sanctions against political opponents finds no support among Europeans.
Editor's note (European Pravda): In fact, the European Parliament's 9.09.2025 resolution does not mention sanctions "specifically against Poroshenko". Instead, it contains a general, depersonalised call to "refrain from untimely and politically motivated judicial proceedings and sanctions against representatives of the opposition". The 24.02.2026 resolution does not even include this general wording.
Novikov argues that accusing Poroshenko of circumventing sanctions is illogical because circumvention implies secretly evading restrictions without the knowledge of the authorities or the public.
Poroshenko is not circumventing the sanctions - he is openly violating them, Novikov argues.
Every day, openly and without embarrassment. Every time Poroshenko fills up his motorcycle with fuel or buys even a loaf of bread, he is technically violating the sanctions, because he has been prohibited from entering into any contracts or legal transactions.
Incidentally, Novikov notes, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is already examining the question of how a person is supposed to live if a presidential sanctions decree effectively prevents them from purchasing food.
Returning to Tetiana Khutor's article, Novikov asks: What else was Maryna Poroshenko supposed to do besides asking a court to divide the couple's jointly owned property?
He argues that Maryna Poroshenko has no standing to challenge the sanctions herself because she is not personally subject to sanctions. Nevertheless, her lawful half of the marital property has effectively been frozen without any justification, regardless of her own needs.
The Law on Sanctions provides no procedure whatsoever to protect the rights of family members. Yet, Novikov argues, the authorities now seek to prevent the family from using ordinary civil court procedures to divide jointly owned property, claiming that doing so constitutes an abuse of rights.
Editor's note (European Pravda): In reality, the EU also does not allow a non-sanctioned spouse to freely use sanctioned property. Existing practice generally treats such attempts as sanction evasion. Tetiana Khutor's article instead described a legitimate mechanism under EU law that allows sanctioned individuals to access funds for essential living expenses despite sanctions. Ukraine currently has no comparable legal mechanism.
Instead, Novikov argues, the real "elephant in the room" in discussions about strengthening sanctions enforcement is what President Zelenskyy has allegedly turned sanctions into.
He contends that it is impossible to seriously discuss introducing criminal liability for sanctions evasion "in line with European standards" while, in his view, the president has transformed sanctions into both an imitation of the fight against Russian aggression and a genuine political weapon against his domestic opponents.