Alexander Abramov v Minister for Foreign Affairs (No 2) - [2023] FCA 1099

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Alexander Abramov v Minister for Foreign Affairs (No 2) [2023] FCA 1099

File number(s): VID 335 of 2022

Judgment of: KENNY J

Date of judgment: 15 September 2023

Catchwords:
JUDICIAL REVIEW – judicial review of Instruments made by the Minister designating and declaring the applicant pursuant to item 6A(a) of reg 6 of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (Cth) (Regulations) – where item 6A(a) of the Regulations required the Minister to be satisfied that the applicant “is, or has been, engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia” – proper construction of the Regulations – whether item 6A(a) of reg 6 requires a “clear and substantial nexus” – whether Instruments challenged are legislative or administrative in character – whether Minister’s public statements constituted her reasons or findings – whether the Minister constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction in failing to understand the discretionary nature of the power – whether the Minister’s state of satisfaction was reasonably formed on the material before her – whether the Minister acted on an error of fact resulting in the failure to perform the task required under item 6A(a) of reg 6 – whether the Minister denied the applicant procedural fairness in designating and declaring him without notice – whether the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2010 (Cth) and the Regulations exclude procedural fairness

JUDICIAL REVIEW – where the applicant made an application for revocation under reg 10 of the Regulations – where the Minister revoked the first Instrument of designation and declaration and immediately made a further Instrument re-designating and re-declaring the applicant – whether the Regulations permitted the Minister to re-designate and re-declare the applicant – whether the Minister departed from procedural representation to provide the applicant with an opportunity to comment on material by not disclosing a Departmental submission – whether Minister erred in not having applicant’s statutory declaration physically before her

Legislation:
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)

Autonomous Sanctions (Sanction Law) Declaration 2012 (Cth)

Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 (Cth)

Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Russia) Regulations 2022 (Cth)

Autonomous Sanctions Bill 2010 (Cth)

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)

Legislation Act 2003 (Cth)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

Statutory Declaration Act 1959 (Cth)

Cases cited:
ABT17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] HCA 34; 269 CLR 439
Amway of Australia Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia [1999] FCA 283; 41 ATR 443
Anderson v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts [2010] FCA 57; 182 FCR 462
Applied Medical Australia Pty Ltd v Minister for Health [2016] FCA 35; 246 FCR 555
Athavle v New South Wales [2021] FCA 1075; 290 FCR 406
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; 170 CLR 321
Australian Retailers Association v Reserve Bank of Australia [2005] FCA 1707; 148 FCR 446
Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 353
Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No. 2) [2014] AC 700
Bienke v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy [1994] FCA 626; 125 ALR 151
Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation [2019] FCAFC 116; 267 FCR 169
Burgess v Assistant Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 152; 271 FCR 181
Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 107; 252 FCR 352
Carroll v Sydney City Council (1989) 15 NSWLR 541
Chamoun v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 66; 276 FCR 75
Chief Commissioner of Police v Nikolic [2016] VSCA 248; 338 ALR 683
Commissioner of Taxation v Rio Tinto Limited [2006] FCAFC 86; 151 FCR 341
Commonwealth v Grunseit (1943) 67 CLR 58
CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 1; 255 CLR 515
Day v Harness Racing New South Wales [2014]; NSWCA 423; 88 NSWLR 594
Disorganized Developments Pty Ltd v South Australia [2023] HCA 22; 97 ALJR 575
Evans v Bread Manufacturers of New South Wales [1981] HCA 69; 180 CLR 404
Ex parte Hebburn Ltd: Re Kearsley Shire Council (1947) 47 SR (NSW) 416
Gardiner v Taungurung Land and Waters Council [2021] FCA 80
Greyhound Racing NSW v Cessnock & District Agricultural Association Inc [2006] NSWCA 333
Haoucher v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1990] HCA 22; 169 CLR 648
Harvey v Minister Administering Water Management Act 2000 [2008] NSWLEC 165; 160 LGERA 50
Hill v Green [1999] NSWCA 477; 48 NSWLR 161
Holmes v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) (No 2) (1988) 19 ATR 1173
Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; 159 CLR 550
Mackenzie v Head, Transport for Victoria [2021] VSCA 100
Marine Hull and Liability Insurance Co Ltd v Hurford [1985] FCA 548; 10 FCR 234
McQueen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 3) [2022] FCA 258
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30; 264 CLR 541
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH [2015] HCA 40; 256 CLR 326
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; 240 CLR 611
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18; 249 CLR 332
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB (2004) [2004] HCA 32; 207 ALR 12
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah [2001] HCA 22; 206 CLR 57
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen [2022] FCAFC 199; 292 FCR 595
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane [2021] HCA 41; 274 CLR 398
Minister for Industry and Commerce v Tooheys Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 260 at 265; 60 FLR 325
Minister for Local Government v South Sydney City Council [2002] NSWCA 288; 55 NSWLR 381
Minister for Primary Industries and Energy v Austral Fisheries Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 46; 40 FCR 381
MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 17; 273 CLR 506
Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26; 403 ALR 398
Nguyen v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 128; 270 FCR 555
O’Connor v Adamas [2013] FCAFC 14; 210 FCR 364
Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] HCA 31; 246 CLR 636
Port Phillip Scallops Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture(Vic) [2018] VSC 589; 238 LGERA 344
Queensland Medical Laboratory v Blewett [1988] FCA 708; 84 ALR 615
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; 214 CLR 1
RG Capital Radio Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority [2001] FCA 855; 113 FCR 185
Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] HCA 23; 241 CLR 252
SAT FM Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1997] FCA 647; 75 FCR 604
Sinnappan v State of Victoria [1995] 1 VR 421
Tickner v Chapman [1995] FCA 987; 55 FCR 316
Twist v Randwick Municipal Council (1976) 136 CLR 106
Visa International Service Association v Reserve Bank of Australia [2003] FCA 977; 131 FCR 300
Wilkie v The Commonwealth [2017] HCA 40; 263 CLR 487
Zhao v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 998

Division: General Division

Registry: Victoria

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs: 337

Date of hearing: 25 October 2022, 26 October 2022

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Merkel KC, with Mr S Rajanayagam and Mr J Maxwell

Solicitor for the Applicant: Levitt Robinson

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P D Herzfeld SC with Mr B Lim

Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

VID 335 of 2022

BETWEEN:
ALEXANDER ABRAMOV

Applicant

AND:
MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

KENNY J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 SEPTEMBER 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Unless a party notifies the Court in writing within 7 days of today that orders to give effect to these reasons have been agreed between them, then the parties are to file and serve submissions (limited to 2 pages) in support of such orders as they propose to give effect to these reasons, together with a minute of order, by 4 pm on 29 September 2023.
2.Unless a party notifies the Court in writing within 7 days of today that an order as to costs has been agreed between them, then the parties are to file and serve submissions as to costs (limited to 3 pages) by 4.00 pm by 4 pm on 29 September 2023.
3.The parties have liberty to apply on reasonable notice.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
KENNY J:

Mr Alexander Abramov, who is the applicant in this proceeding, has applied under s 5(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act) and ss 39B(1) and (1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) (Judiciary Act) for judicial review. For the following reasons, Mr Abramov succeeds on one ground of his application. He does not succeed on the other grounds.
Mr Abramov is a Russian national. Until comparatively recently, he was on the board of the Skolkovo Institute for Science and Technology (Skoltech) and the Russian Geographical Society (RGS). He was also the non-executive Chairman of Evraz plc (Evraz) for some years before his resignation on 11 March 2022. Evraz is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom, with a number of subsidiaries (Evraz Group). The company’s Annual Report & Accounts 2021 (to which both parties referred) disclosed that the Evraz Group is a very large multinational steel and coal-producing conglomerate, and that a substantial part of the Group’s business involves the manufacture of steel products in Russia and Kazakhstan for use in those countries. The same document disclosed that the Evraz Group is also engaged in the production of coal, much of which it supplies to Evraz steel mills, and other major Russian coke and steel producers. It also disclosed that Mr Abramov is effectively Evraz’s second largest shareholder.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Minister) is the respondent in the proceeding. This is because Mr Abramov challenges his inclusion by the Minister in the Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons – Russia and Ukraine) List 2014 (Cth) (Russia and Ukraine List 2014) in April 2022 and, again, in September 2022.
On 7 April 2022, the Minister (formerly, Senator the Hon Marise Payne) made the Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons — Russia and Ukraine) Amendment (No 11) Instrument 2022 (Cth) (First Designation Instrument). In so doing, the Minister amended the Russia and Ukraine List 2014. Relevantly for this case, the amendment added Mr Abramov’s name and details as item 103 in Pt I of Sch 2 to the Russia and Ukraine List 2014, as follows:

103 Name of individual Alexander Grigoryevich ABRAMOV

Date of birth 20 February 1959

Place of birth Moscow, Russia

Instrument of first designation and declaration Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons—Ukraine) Amendment (No. 11) Instrument 2022

Additional information Co-founder and Chairman of Evraz

In consequence, Mr Abramov became a “designated person” for Russia pursuant to reg 6(a) and “declared” pursuant to reg 6(b) of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (Cth) (Sanctions Regulations).

The Minister made the Russia and Ukraine List 2014 under reg 6 of the Sanctions Regulations. Relevantly for this case, item 6A in the table in reg 6 was introduced into that table by the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Russia) Regulations 2022 (Cth) (Russia Regulations) on 24 February 2022. The title, text and timing of the Russia Regulations and the relevant Explanatory Statement indicate that the Russia Regulations were made in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Explanatory Statement recorded:
The purpose of the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Russia) Regulations 2022 ... is to introduce new listing criteria under the existing autonomous sanctions regime in relation to Russia in response to that country’s significantly elevated threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine presents a serious threat to the international rules-based order which underpins global security.
...
The purpose of a designation is to subject the designated person or entity to targeted financial sanctions. ...
The purpose of a declaration is to prevent a person from travelling to, entering, or remaining in Australia. ...
On 16 September 2022 (and after this proceeding was instituted) the Minister (by then, Senator the Hon Penny Wong) made the Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons — Russia and Ukraine) Amendment (No. 19) Instrument 2022 (Revocation Instrument) under reg 10(3) of the Sanctions Regulations. The Revocation Instrument amended the Russia and Ukraine List 2014 by removing item 103 in Pt 1 of Sch 2, thus ending Mr Abramov’s “designated person” and “declared” status under reg 6 of the Sanctions Regulations.
After making the Revocation Instrument and on the same day, the Minister made the Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons — Russia and Ukraine) Amendment (No. 20) Instrument 2022 (Cth) (Second Designation Instrument). In so doing, the Minister again amended the Russia and Ukraine List 2014, relevantly by re-introducing Mr Abramov’s name and details (again as item 103 in Pt 1 of Sch 2), with the result that Mr Abramov again became a “designated person” for Russia pursuant to reg 6(a) and “declared” pursuant to reg 6(b) of the Sanctions Regulations.
MR ABRAMOV’S APPLICATION
Mr Abramov’s amended originating application (amended application: see [56] below) in terms sought review of:
(1)the decision on 7 April 2022 by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, pursuant to s 2 of Schedule 1 to the Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons — Russia and Ukraine) Amendment (No 11) Instrument 2022 (Cth) ... to amend the Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons — Russia and Ukraine) List 2014 (Cth) (the List) to:
(a) designate the Applicant as a “designated person” for Russia; and
(b)declare the Applicant for the purpose of preventing him from travelling to, entering or remaining in Australia; and
(2)the decision on 16 September 2022 by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, pursuant to s 1 of Schedule 1 to the Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons — Russia and Ukraine) Amendment (No 20) Instrument 2022 (Cth) ... to amend the List to:
(a) designate the applicant as a “designated person” for Russia; and
(b)declare the applicant for the purpose of preventing him from travelling to, entering or remaining in Australia.
THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME
It is worth bearing in mind that all of the Regulations to which I have so far referred, as well as the Russia and Ukraine List 2014, the First Designation Instrument, the Revocation Instrument, and the Second Designation Instrument are legislative instruments for the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth) (Legislation Act). Unsurprisingly, therefore, the legislative scheme of which they are part determined the immediate context in which the issues in this proceeding arise. This context is critical to the following discussion. The following paragraphs identify key provisions of the Sanctions Act and the Sanctions Regulations, to assist the reader in appreciating the parties’ arguments and my reasons for accepting or rejecting them.
The Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 (Cth)
The Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 (Cth) (Sanctions Act) provided the legislative framework for the Sanctions Regulations (and the Russia Regulations) under which the First Designation Instrument, the Revocation Instrument, the Second Designation Instrument (and the Russia and Ukraine List 2014) were made. (For present purposes, it suffices to say that the Russia and Ukraine List 2014 was made under the Sanctions Regulations, with the amendments to the Sanctions Regulations relevant to this case being made under the Russia Regulations).
The objects of the Sanctions Act are set out in s 3:
(1)The main objects of this Act are to:
(a)    provide for autonomous sanctions; and
(b)    provide for enforcement of autonomous sanctions (whether applied under this Act or another law of the Commonwealth); and
(c)    facilitate the collection, flow and use of information relevant to the administration of autonomous sanctions (whether applied under this Act or another law of the Commonwealth).
Country-specific sanctions
(2)Without limiting subsection (1), the autonomous sanctions may address matters that are of international concern in relation to one or more particular foreign countries.
Thematic sanctions
(3)Without limiting subsection (1), the autonomous sanctions may address one or more of the following:
(a)    the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;
(b)    threats to international peace and security;
(c)    malicious cyber activity;
(d)    serious violations or serious abuses of human rights;
(e)    activities undermining good governance or the rule of law, including serious corruption;
(f)     serious violations of international humanitarian law.
There is a definition of ‘autonomous sanction’ in s 4:
autonomous sanction means a sanction that:
(a)is intended to influence, directly or indirectly, one or more of the following in accordance with Australian Government policy:
(i)a foreign government entity;
(ii)a member of a foreign government entity;
(iii)another person or entity outside Australia; or
(b)involves the prohibition of conduct in or connected with Australia that facilitates, directly or indirectly, the engagement by a person or entity described in subparagraph (a)(i), (ii) or (iii) in action outside Australia that is contrary to Australian Government policy.
Sections 10 to 15 in Pt 2 of the Sanctions Act address specific aspects of the power to provide for sanctions by regulations. Relevantly here, s 10 specifically provides:
10 Regulations may apply sanctions
(1)    The regulations may make provision relating to any or all of the following:
(a)    proscription of persons or entities (for specified purposes or more generally);
(b)    restriction or prevention of uses of, dealings with, and making available of, assets;
(c)    restriction or prevention of the supply, sale or transfer of goods or services;
(d)    restriction or prevention of the procurement of goods or services;
(e)    provision for indemnities for acting in compliance or purported compliance with the regulations;
(f)     provision for compensation for owners of assets that are affected by regulations relating to a restriction or prevention described in paragraph (b).
(2)    Before the Governor-General makes regulations for the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied that the proposed regulations:
(a)    will facilitate the conduct of Australia’s relations with other countries or with entities or persons outside Australia; or
(b)    will otherwise deal with matters, things or relationships outside Australia.
(3) Despite subsection 14(2) of the Legislation Act 2003, regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may make provision in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating any matter contained in an instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time.
…
It is perhaps worth noting that s 28, the sole provision in Pt 5, also confers a general regulation-making power referable to matters required or permitted by the Sanctions Act to be prescribed, or necessary or convenient to be prescribed, for carrying out or giving effect to the Sanctions Act.

Part 3 of the Sanctions Act concerns offences relating to sanctions. Thus, s 16 prohibits individuals and bodies corporate from engaging in conduct that contravenes a sanction law (being a provision specified by the Minister as such: ss 4 and 6(1)), or a condition of an authorisation under a sanction law).
The Sanctions Regulations
Part 2 of the Sanctions Regulations provided for the imposition of sanctions by reference to various criteria. As noted above, the Minister made the First Designation and Second Designation Instruments, which imposed sanctions on Mr Abramov, under reg 6. Regulation 6 (made pursuant to s 10(1)(a) of the Sanctions Act) enabled sanctions to be imposed by reference to a person or entity’s relationship to a specific country.
Regulation 6 of the Sanctions Regulations stated:
6 Country-specific designation of persons or entities or declaration of persons
For paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Act, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, do either or both of the following:
(a) designate a person or entity mentioned in an item of the table as a designated person or entity for the country mentioned in the item;
(b) declare a person mentioned in an item of the table for the purpose of preventing the person from travelling to, entering or remaining in Australia.
That is, reg 6 conferred a discretionary power on the Minister (see: “may”) to make the legislative instruments designating Mr Abramov as a designated person for Russia under reg 6(a) and declaring him under reg 6(b) but only if Mr Abramov met a criterion referable to Russia in the table in reg 6.
At all times relevant to this proceeding, the table in reg 6 included item 6A, as follows:

Countries, persons and entities

Item Country Activity

6A
Russia
A person or entity that the Minister is satisfied is, or has been, engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia.
A current or former Minister or senior official of the Russian Government.
An immediate family member of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).

The effect of reg 6 and item 6A(a) was clear. It was open to the Minister to consider whether to designate Mr Abramov as a designated person for Russia under reg 6(a) and to declare him under reg 6(b) if satisfied that Mr Abramov met the activity description in (a): it was not suggested that Mr Abramov met either activity description in (b) or (c). That is, the Minister had to be satisfied that Mr Abramov “is, or has been, engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia” and that it was appropriate as a matter of discretion to designate him for Russia under reg 6(a) and declare him under reg 6(b).

A designation under reg 6(a) and a declaration under reg 6(b) ceases to have effect after three years pursuant to reg 9(1) and reg 9(2) of the Sanctions Regulations, unless extended by the Minister under reg 9(3). Regulation 9(5) further provided that:
(5) To avoid doubt:
(a)    subregulation (1) does not prevent the revocation, under regulation 10, of a designation; and
(b)    subregulation (1) does not prevent the making, under paragraph 6(a) ... of a new designation that is the same in substance as another designation (whether the new designation is made or takes effect before or after the other designation ceases to have effect because of subregulation (1)); and
(c)    subregulation (2) does not prevent the revocation, under regulation 10, of a declaration; and
(d)    subregulation (2) does not prevent the making, under paragraph 6(b) ... of a new declaration that is the same in substance as another declaration (whether the new declaration is made or takes effect before or after the other declaration ceases to have effect because of subregulation (2)).
Under subregs 10(1), (2) and (3) of the Sanctions Regulations, the Minister had a discretionary power to revoke a designation under reg 6(a) or declaration under reg 6(b) by legislative instrument on the Minister’s own initiative or on application by “the person or entity to which the designation or declaration relates”. Regulation 11 makes specific provision for such an application, which was to be in writing and to “set out the circumstances relied upon to justify the application”.
Part 3 of the Sanctions Regulations contains provisions prohibiting certain conduct designed to ensure that sanctions imposed under the autonomous sanctions regime were effective. For example, being a designated person for Russia, Mr Abramov was subject to the prohibitions in regs 14 and 15 of the Sanctions Regulations. In substance, reg 14 prohibited an asset being made available to, or for the benefit of, a designated person, other than as authorised by a permit under reg 18. Regulation 15 prohibited a person holding a controlled asset (being an asset owned or controlled by a designated person) from using or dealing with such an asset, or allowing or facilitating such use or dealing, other than as authorised by a permit under reg 18. Both provisions constituted a sanctions law for the purposes of the Sanctions Act, and their breach was an offence that could attract serious consequences of the kind set out in s 16 of that Act. See Sanctions Act, s 6 and Autonomous Sanctions (Sanction Law) Declaration 2012 (Cth).
First Designation Instrument
While the First Designation Instrument added numerous names and related details to Pt 1 of Sch 1 or Sch 2 to the Russia and Ukraine List 2014, this proceeding is concerned only with the inclusion of Mr Abramov’s name and details in item 103 of Pt 1 of Sch 2.
It was undisputed that the Minister relied on a Departmental submission (First Departmental Submission) in making the First Designation Instrument. The First Departmental Submission was entitled “Ukraine: Sanctions against Russian Oligarchs and Senior Officials”, and requested that the Minister take certain urgent action because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In particular, the Submission sought the Minister’s “approval to list 67 persons for targeted financial sanctions and travel bans, including 52 Russian oligarchs/elites” (emphasis added). Mr Abramov was included in this latter group. The Submission described the other individuals proposed for listing as senior government officials, senior Russian military officials, and two pro-Russian Ukrainian officials. It advised that the “tranche” of 67 targeted persons “builds on earlier listings of Russian officials and oligarchs … and aligns with sanctions imposed by the US, UK, EU, Canada and Japan”.
The First Designation Submission recommended:

That you: Decision:

a) Consider the Declaration and Decision Record at Attachment A and:

i) if you are satisfied the 67 persons in Part C meet the criteria for listing, designate them for targeted financial sanctions and declare them for travel bans by signing Part A of the Decision Record;

Signed / Not Signed

ii) note that, if you do not agree to a designation or declaration, you should indicate this by initialling the ‘Do Not List’ column corresponding to the relevant person in Part C of the Decision Record.
Noted

b) if you agree to designate 67 persons for targeted financial sanctions, and declare the persons for travel bans:

i) sign and date the first page of the legislative instrument at Attachment B; and Signed / Not Signed

ii) agree to the Explanatory Statement and Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights at Attachment C. Agreed / Not Agreed

The Submission further advised the Minister that the 52 Russian oligarchs/elites had “interests in sectors that form a core part of Russia’s economic base”, and that:
These persons have a range of business interests and are a key source of revenue for Putin’s regime. These interests include oil and gas companies, financial institutions, mining, and state-owned infrastructure companies. Particularly prominent individuals include … Alexander Abramov (Chairman of Evraz, and close associate of Roman Abramovich, who you have already listed) ...
...
Of the persons we propose to list, the United States has listed 15, Canada 21, the European Union 25, the United Kingdom 46, and Japan 3. Listing these 67 individuals will demonstrate Australia’s commitment to imposing sanctions on a broad range of persons, in alignment with likeminded partners.
The First Departmental Submission also informed the Minister that:
Russia’s National Security Strategy, published in 2021, outlines how national defence and economic strategy (financial stability, technological renewal of industry, construction, communications, energy, agriculture and mining, and development of efficient transport infrastructure) are key national priorities.
It further advised that the majority of the 67 targeted persons have:
... business interests in these national priorities, including e-commerce; petrochemicals; transport; investment holding companies; healthcare; food retail; pharmaceuticals; agriculture; infrastructure; chemical products/fertilizers; telecommunications; nuclear technology; oil and gas sector; engineering; power supply; real estate development; food product manufacturing and delivery; steel production; coal and mineral fertilizers.
The First Departmental Submission informed the Minister of the listing criteria for Russia in item 6A of the table in reg 6 of the Sanctions Regulations. The Minister was also given the following further information specifically about Mr Abramov. This information was footnoted as indicated (with the footnotes containing hyperlinks to external websites):
17. Name: Alexander Grigoryevich ABRAMOV
Nationality: Russian
•Alexander Grigoryevich ABRAMOV is co-founder and Chairman of multinational steel company Evraz.¹⁰⁹
•Evraz’s operations are mainly based in Russia, including steel production, coal mining, iron ore mining and vanadium production. Evraz is among the top steel producers in the world,¹¹⁰ and is one of Russia’s largest taxpayers.¹¹¹
•During ABRAMOV’S tenure at Evraz, it is alleged the company was providing steel to the Russian military for use in the production of tanks.¹¹²
•[Public interest immunity claimed]
•Given his position in Evraz, it is open for the Minister to be satisfied that ABRAMOV is, or has been, engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia.
109       Companies House – Gov.UK
110       Evraz – Our assets
111       Publications Office (europa.eu)
112Abramovich-linked steel firm denies providing material for Russian tanks and CONSOLIDATED LIST OF FINANCIAL SANCTIONS TARGETS IN THE UK (publishing.service.gov.au)
Nothing ultimately turns on whether the Minister opened these hyperlinks, although this was in issue at one point in the proceeding: see below at [331]. Also, as indicated, the Minister claimed public interest immunity with respect to the fourth point above: Mr Abramov did not ultimately contest this claim: see below at [116].
The Minister signed Pt A of the Decision Record. In so doing, the Minister recorded that she was satisfied that Mr Abramov (and others) met the criteria for designation and declaration set out in item 6A of the table in reg 6 of the Sanctions Regulations. She also indicated that she had considered the statement of case in the Submission respecting Mr Abramov (and others). In a list in Pt C of the Decision Record headed “Decision on designation”, there was the following entry for Mr Abramov:

Ref No Primary name Title Place of Birth DOB (DD/MM/YY) Listed by likemindeds as at 29 March 2022 DO NOT LIST

17. Alexander Grigoryevich ABRAMOV Co-founder and Chairman of Evraz Moscow, Russia 20/02/1959

On 7 April 2022, the Minister signed the First Designation Instrument, designating and declaring Mr Abramov under reg 6 of the Sanctions Regulations. The First Designation Instrument came into effect on 8 April 2022.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Commencement of Proceedings – 16 June 2022
On 16 June 2022, Mr Abramov instituted proceedings in this Court under the ADJR Act and the Judiciary Act, seeking an order “quashing item 103 of Sch 2 to the [Russia and Ukraine] List, or alternatively an order setting aside the decision to add item 103 of Sch 2 to the List”. The Court later ordered that, to the extent necessary, the applicant have an extension of time to lodge his application for an order of review under the ADJR Act.
Revocation Application – 18 July 2022
On 18 July 2022, Mr Abramov’s solicitors also made an application to the Minister under reg 11 of the Sanctions Regulations, for revocation of his listing on the Russia and Ukraine List (revocation application). In substance, Mr Abramov contended that he did not meet the criterion in item 6A(a) in the table in reg 6, and was therefore ineligible for designation or declaration. It was submitted that “Mr Abramov could not realistically play any role that could influence Russia to end its aggression towards Ukraine nor does he or his functions have any relevant connection to that aggression”. Mr Abramov subsequently provided the Minister with a statutory declaration dated 21 July 2022 (first statutory declaration).
In a letter of 29 July 2022, the Minister’s legal representatives advised that the Minister would consider the revocation application by reference to “the facts and statutory criteria as at the date of the decision in relation to that application”. The letter warned that, if satisfied the criteria for listing were met and it was appropriate, “the Minister may choose to revoke the original decisions and make a new determination ... based on the material then before her”. The letter assured Mr Abramov that the Minister would provide him with an opportunity to comment on the material before the Minister made her decision.
By letter dated 12 August 2022 (12 August 2022 letter) the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (the Minister’s Department) invited Mr Abramov to comment on: (1) key issues; (2) material, facts and discretionary considerations (including as identified by the Minister) that might fall for the Minister’s consideration; and (3) appropriate procedure. The letter identified potentially relevant documents (including 29 attachments) and referenced factual propositions about the Evraz group, Mr Abramov’s role in Evraz plc and predecessor companies, Skoltech, and the RGS.
Mr Abramov responded to the 12 August 2022 letter by email dated 29 August 2022. The 29 August 2022 response included submissions about: (1) Evraz plc, the Evraz Group and predecessor companies; and (2) Mr Abramov’s relationship with Skoltech and the RGS. It also included Mr Abramov’s second statutory declaration of 27 August 2022.
On 31 August 2022, the Minister’s Department sent another letter inviting further comment from Mr Abramov, who responded by an email dated 4 September 2022 (4 September 2022 response). Mr Abramov also provided the Minister with a statutory declaration by a former director of Evraz plc dated 5 September 2022 (former Evraz director’s statutory declaration).
Revocation Instrument – 16 September 2022
Mr Abramov does not challenge the Revocation Instrument subsequently made on 16 September 2022 revoking his designation and declaration under the First Designation Instrument. In his written submissions, the Minister contended, however, that Mr Abramov’s grounds of challenge to the Second Designation Instrument “involve[d] arguments that the procedure adopted by the Minister in making [the Revocation Instrument] was affected by error”. The Minister submitted that, “if those arguments were to succeed, then the appropriate relief would be to quash the Revocation Instrument, with the consequence that the Designation Instrument would not, in law, have been revoked”.
Second Designation Instrument – 16 September 2022
The Second Designation Instrument, which was made immediately after the Revocation Instrument, amended Pt 1 of Sch 2 of the Russia and Ukraine List 2014 by re-introducing item 103, with the applicant’s name and following details:

103 Name of individual Alexander Grigoryevich ABRAMOV

Date of birth 20 February 1959

Place of birth Krasnodar, Russia

Instrument of first designation and declaration Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons—Ukraine) Amendment (No. 11) Instrument 2022

Instrument of revocation of first designation and declaration Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons—Russia and Ukraine) Amendment (No. 19) Instrument 2022

Instrument of second

designation and declaration
Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons—Russia and Ukraine) Amendment (No. 20) Instrument 2022

Additional information Co-founder of Evrazmetall, former CEO and Chairman of Evraz Group SA and former non-executive Chairman of Evraz plc.

The Revocation and Second Designation Instruments were registered on 20 September 2022 pursuant to the Legislation Act.

It was undisputed that the Minister relied on a Departmental submission (Second Departmental Submission) in making the Second Designation Instrument. The Second Departmental Submission, which bore the title “Alexander Abramov: revocation application”, advised that, in response to Mr Abramov’s revocation application, the Department had prepared “a new Statement of Case based on contemporary evidence and it remains our view that Mr Abramov meets the listing criteria”. The Department recommended that the Minister revoke Mr Abramov’s current listing and relist him. The Submission, which was addressed to the Minister, requested:

Recommendation:
That you:
Decision:

a)   Note that you have considered the Statement of Case and its attachments (Attachment A), Mr Abramov’s revocation application (Attachment B) and Mr Abramov’s response to the Department’s procedural fairness letter (Attachment C and Attachment D); Noted

b)   Note the Department’s recommended option to revoke Mr Abramov’s listing and relist him; Noted

c) Note that if you are satisfied that Mr Abramov meets the relevant criteria under regulation 6 of the Regulations, the decision to revoke his current listing and/or relist him is at your discretion; Noted

If you consider that Mr Abramov’s current listing should be revoked, revoke it by:

d)   signing and dating the first page of the legislative instrument (Attachment E); and Signed / Not Signed

e)   agreeing to the explanatory statement and statement of compatibility with human rights (Attachment F) and; Signed / Not Signed

If you revoke Mr Abramov’s current listing, are satisfied that Mr Abramov meets the relevant criteria under regulation 6 of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011, and consider that he should be listed, re-designate him for targeted financial sanctions and redeclare him for a travel ban by:

f)   signing Part A of the Decision Record (Attachment G); and Signed / Not Signed

g)   signing and dating page 1 of the legislative instrument (Attachment H); and Signed / Not Signed

h)   agreeing to the explanatory statement and statement of compatibility with human rights (Attachment I). Signed / Not Signed

Under the heading “Background”, the Minister was informed of various matters, including the First Designation Instrument, these proceedings, the revocation application, relevant correspondence, and the documentary material provided by Mr Abramov in support of his position. Most of this material accompanied the Submission as attachments. The Second Departmental Submission also incorporated a section referred to in the Department’s recommendations to the Minister as a ‘statement of case’. The parties proceeded on the basis that the statement of case was the section of the Second Departmental Submission commencing immediately after the ‘Background’ section. Having referred, amongst other things, to reg 6 (including item 6A in the table in reg 6), the Second Departmental Submission (in what has been referred to as the statement of case) advised the Minister that:
8.   If, having considered Abramov’s application and supporting material, and other material provided to you by Abramov and the Department:
8.1     you are not satisfied that Abramov is or has been engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia; or
8.2     you are satisfied that Abramov is or has been engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia but, in your discretion, you consider that Abramov should not be designated and declared under regulation 6;
then you should by legislative instrument revoke his designation and declaration.
9.   If, however, having considered that material:
9.1     you are satisfied that Abramov is or has been engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia; and
9.2     in your discretion, you consider that Abramov should remain designated and/or declared under regulation 6;
then the Department’s recommendation is that you revoke his designation and declaration ... and make a new decision to designate and declare him under regulation 6(a) and 6(b) to ensure Abramov’s designation and declaration is based on contemporary evidence that has been tested with Abramov. You can also decide to retain his designation and declaration under the [First Designation Instrument].

The Second Departmental Submission also advised the Minister that, “[w]e have addressed the issues raised by Mr Abramov in the new Statement of Case”. Indeed, the information in this Submission about Mr Abramov and the entities with which he was reportedly involved was significantly more than the equivalent kind of information in the First Departmental Submission. Under the heading “Activities and functions of economic significance to Russia”, the Second Departmental Submission detailed the Evraz Group (pars 10-17) and Mr Abramov’s roles in Evraz and its predecessors (pars 18-25). It also addressed Skoltech (pars 26-30) and the RGS (pars 33-38) and his roles in those two bodies (pars 31-32; pars 39-41). The following few paragraphs are an abbreviated account of the facts as the Department stated them in the Second Departmental Submission. The sources of the information disclosed in the Submission were apparent in its extensive footnotes. Most sources were available to the Minister in the documents accompanying the Submission.
Amongst other things, the Second Departmental Submission recorded that the Evraz Group:
... is one of Russia’s largest employers. It is also one of the largest steel and vanadium producers in the world. Evraz’s 2021 annual report states that over 94% of its employees are located in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States region and that Evraz is one of Russia’s largest taxpayers.
After noting Mr Abramov’s response to these matters in his second statutory declaration, the Submission noted Evraz’s importance “for the Russian state by providing construction and railway products for the development of infrastructure”; and that:
It is the leader in the long products and rail segments market in Russia, and estimates that market shares in Russia for its key products were, in the 2021 reporting period, 97% for rails, 69% for beams, 55% for grinding balls and 28% for railway wheels. Evraz’s coal business supplies Evraz steel mills, provides coking coal to major Russian coke and steel producers, and exports coking coal (30.3 million tonnes in 2021) outside Russia. Evraz’s vanadium business is based on processing vanadium slag from its steelmaking operations. It is the world’s largest producer of vanadium, with a global market share of 14%.
The Submission referred to statements in Russia’s National Security Strategy about the strategic significance of the construction, rail and mining sectors to the Russian Government. It also referred to “amendments to the Federal Law on Defence to empower the Russian Government to require companies to enter contracts for the supply of goods, implementation of projects and the provision of services necessary to support operations ... outside Russia”.
The Submission also advised the Minister that Evraz (as the ultimate holding company of the Evraz Group) was established under UK law and subject to the regulatory standards applicable to companies listed on the London Stock Exchange. It stated that Mr Abramov was a founder of Evraz’s predecessor company, EvrazMetall, and traced the history of his involvement in that company and the companies historically related to it. The Submission also recorded that Mr Abramov was Chairman of the Evraz Board from 14 October 2011 until 11 March 2022, being the day after the UK announced sanctions on Evraz’s largest shareholder. It went on to advise the Minister that Mr Abramov remained effectively Evraz’s second largest shareholder; that he also had the power to appoint a number of its non-executive directors; and that even if he were unable to ‘control’ shareholder resolutions, or determine Evraz’s activities, his indirect shareholding was “large enough to influence such resolutions and activities”.
Regarding Skoltech, the Second Departmental Submission noted that Mr Abramov was a board member from 2012 until December 2021. It noted that Skoltech began in partnership with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), “with the vision of being a world-leading academic institute of science and technology”. The Submission noted that the partnership ended in February 2022, in response to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine; and that the US had later sanctioned it, citing its close relationship with Russia’s defence sector. The Submission also recorded that Mr Abramov maintained that he had “played a very minor role” in its affairs and was not involved in any relationship between Skoltech and Russia’s defence sector.
Regarding the RGS, the Second Departmental Submission recorded that Mr Abramov had been a member of its Board of Trustees since about March 2010, and that President Putin was its Board Chairman and Russia’s Defence Minister, its President. It noted that, at a Board meeting in 2017, President Putin had presented Mr Abramov with the RGS’s Grand Silver Medal. The Submission observed that the RGS’s objectives included the promotion of the “geographical, historical and cultural heritage of Russia as an object of national pride”; and that its Charter acknowledged that its activities were “based on pursuing its interests in accordance with the national interests of Russia”. It observed that branch activities in the Ukrainian territories of Crimea and Sevastopol “could be characterised as ‘soft power’ activities that support Russia’s attempts to consolidate and maintain power in the annexed Ukrainian territory”. The Submission also noted Mr Abramov’s response, including that: (1) he was unaware of some of these matters and had not attended more than three annual general meetings, at which there were 50 to 100 others; and (2) the Board’s only responsibility was “to sign off on the annual accounts and annual report of activities”.
Under the heading “Conclusion as to Statutory [sic] Criteria”, the Second Departmental Submission concluded that it was open to the Minister “to find that Abramov is, or has been, engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia” (referencing item 6A(a) in reg 6 of the Sanctions Regulations) because:
42.1Evraz has grown to become one of Russia’s largest corporate groups, employers and taxpayers, which operates in key strategic sectors of the Russian economy, including in particular construction, rail and mining. Further, Evraz (through its Russian subsidiaries) is reported to have supplied the Russian military for more than a decade. However, even if these reports are incorrect (as Evraz and Abramov claim), recent amendments to Russian Federal Law empower the Russian Government to require companies such as Evraz plc’s Russia-based subsidiaries to supply it with goods and services to support Russian military operations outside Russia (such as in Ukraine).
42.2Abramov has personally made a significant contribution to the growth and success of Evraz through his performance of numerous high-level roles within the group over an extended period, including in particular his roles as co-founder and General Director of EvrazMetall from its inception in 1992, CEO and Chairman of Evraz Group SA from December 2004 until January 2006, and Chairman of Evraz Group SA and then Evraz plc from December 2008 to April 2022. ...
42.3 Abramov remains ... the second largest shareholder in Evraz, with the power to appoint directors, notwithstanding his resignation from the role of Chairman (which occurred the day after UK sanctions were announced targeting the largest shareholder) and the fact that he is currently not entitled to appoint directors due to the current size of the board. Given this, and his longstanding contribution to the strategic development of Evraz since its inception, it is open to you to find that he plays and will continue to play an influential role within the group, notwithstanding he is no longer a director and no longer the Chairman.
The Second Departmental Submission advised the Minister that nothing said by Mr Abramov denied:
... Abramov’s significant past contribution to the success of the Evraz group’s businesses as a whole from their inception, nor his ability as a substantial indirect minority shareholder to continue to influence those businesses. Nor do they deny the ongoing economic and strategic significance to Russia of both his past contribution and ongoing influence ... irrespective of Abramov’s awareness of or formal responsibility for all of the activities carried out by Evraz plc’s subsidiaries.
Regarding Evraz Group’s taxation liabilities, the Submission stated:
[I]t’s the Department’s view that the economic significance to Russia of those tax payments does not depend on them being paid to the Russian central government (as opposed to other government entities within Russia) nor on whose behalf they are made, particularly when Evraz’s activities are what generates the relevant tax liability. Furthermore, Abramov himself estimates that 40% of those (very substantial) tax payments go to the Russian central government, which ‘funds things such as defence’.
As to Mr Abramov’s submission that UK-imposed sanctions had “substantially reduced Evraz’s economic significance to Russia”, the Second Departmental Submission responded:
[T]here is no evidence that the UK government sanctions have substantially interfered with Evraz’s operations in Russia, which represents its biggest domestic market. Nor is there any evidence that the sanctions have reduced Evraz’s Russia-based employer or revenue base, or Russian taxes, to a point where Abramov (through his roles and continuing functions at Evraz) can no longer be regarded to have any economic or strategic significance to that country.
The Submission added that, even if UK sanctions were to have reduced Evraz’s economic significance to Russia, it would be open to the Minister to take into account Evraz’s economic or strategic significance to Russia prior to the imposition of those sanctions, because of the terms of item 6A(a) of the table in reg 6.
Regarding Skoltech, the Second Departmental Submission affirmed:
Abramov’s roles on the boards of Skoltech and the RGS provide additional evidence on which it is open to you to find that he is or has been engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia. Skoltech, which has been sanctioned by the US, pursues research and education in areas of recognised strategic significance to Russia, and has reportedly partnered with numerous Russian defence enterprises. The RGS, whose board is chaired by President Putin, promotes Russian geographical, historical and cultural heritage as an object of national pride, consistently with the national interests of Russia. Its activities in Crimea and Sevastopol can be characterised as soft power efforts to support Russia’s consolidation and maintenance of power in annexed Ukraine. Through his senior roles in these organisations, Abramov can be seen to have contributed to their promotion of Russia’s strategic interests domestically and abroad.
The Submission further stated:
Although Abramov’s role ended recently, he held it for around a decade. His role, however minor, can be seen to have contributed to the strategic direction of Skoltech. In this way he has supported and enabled that institution to engage in a range of activities of strategic significance to Russia, even if the high level nature of his role meant that he was not specifically aware of all of those activities.
As to the RGS, the Second Departmental Submission advised:
Abramov similarly submits that his role on the RGS board does not provide a basis to sanction him. Again, he says that he had no knowledge of RGS’s promotion of Russian heritage as an object of national pride, its activities in Crimea and Sevastopol, and other objectives and activities of RGS ... But this does not mean that, through his role as a board member, he cannot be seen to have enabled and supported these activities. Similarly, although he submits that his role was ‘extremely limited’ ... evidently his contribution was considered significant enough to warrant his being presented with an award by President Putin as Chair of the RGS board. Abramov’s role as an RGS board member is therefore relevant to your decision, particularly when considered in combination with Abramov’s other roles and functions.
Under the heading, “Other Discretionary Considerations”, the Second Departmental Submission referred to the factors advanced by Mr Abramov that the Minister might consider, including that no other country had sanctioned him and his claim to have no personal or political connections to the Russian Government or President Putin. The Minister was advised that:
The Department assesses it is unlikely that a businessman of Abramov’s standing – with a net worth of US$6.4B (according to Forbes) – and with over 30 years in the steel and coal industry in Russia has no personal or political connection to the Russia Government.
Additionally, Abramov claims that he has no material connection to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Whether or not he has, or has had, a material connection to the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not relevant to his listing under the Russia listing criteria specified in item 6A of Regulation 6.
Furthermore, even if his assertions are correct, it does not mean his activities and functions are not of economic or strategic significance to Russia, and thereby a lawful object of Australian sanctions. However, these claims may be relevant to the exercise of your discretion.
The Second Departmental Submission also recorded Departmental scepticism about the enforceability of the undertakings that Mr Abramov had proffered. As to the adverse effect of sanctions on Mr Abramov and his associates, “particularly certain business ventures in New Zealand”, the Submission observed that:
If, in your discretion, you decide that Abramov should continue to be sanctioned, the effect and intention of designation and declaration under Regulation 6 of the [Sanctions] Regulations is that adverse consequences of this kind will continue to affect Abramov and his associates. This is a matter that you may consider in deciding whether to maintain sanctions against Abramov.
The Minister signed Pt A of the Decision Record on 16 September 2022. In so doing, the Minister recorded that she was satisfied that Mr Abramov met the criteria for designation and declaration in item 6A(a) of the table in reg 6 of the Sanctions Regulations; and that, in exercise of her discretion, she would so designate and declare Mr Abramov. She also confirmed that she had considered the Second Departmental Submission and its accompanying material, including Mr Abramov’s revocation application, his 29 August 2022 response, his second statutory declaration, his 4 September 2022 response, and the former Evraz director’s statutory declaration. The Decision Record recorded that:
PART A: DESIGNATION AND DECLARATION
I am satisfied that Alexander Abramov meets the criteria for designation and declaration outlined in Part B below.
I exercise my discretion to:
a. designate Alexander Abramov as a designated person for Russia.
b.declare Alexander Abramov for the purpose of preventing him from travelling to, entering or remaining in Australia.
I confirm that, in reaching my decision, I have considered the Ministerial Submission dated 9 September 2022, its attachments, and the attachments to those attachments. In particular, I have reviewed the statement of case prepared by my Department (Attachment A), Mr Abramov’s revocation application (Attachment B) and Mr Abramov’s responses to the Department’s procedural fairness letter (Attachment C and Attachment D).
Part B of the Decision Record set out the criteria in item 6A of the table in reg 6 of the Sanctions Regulations.
On the same day, the Minister also signed the Second Designation Instrument, designating and declaring Mr Abramov under reg 6 of the Sanctions Regulations. This instrument came into effect on 17 September 2022.
GROUNDS OF REVIEW IN AMENDED APPLICATION (4 OCTOBER 2022)
Mr Abramov filed his amended application on 4 October 2022. This challenged both his first and second listing in the Russia and Ukraine List 2014, pursuant to the First Designation Instrument and the Second Designation Instrument.
Mr Abramov’s amended application challenged his first listing in the Russia and Ukraine List 2014 on the basis that the Minister’s stated satisfaction that he “is, or has been, engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia” was “legally unreasonable, and/or irrational or illogical, and/or erroneous”. It also said that his listing involved a denial of procedural fairness that was otherwise contrary to law. Mr Abramov’s written submissions dated 12 September 2022 identified the three grounds of alleged invalidity as follows:
The Minister’s decision to designate and declare Mr Abramov is invalid because:
1. the Minister failed lawfully to form the requisite state of satisfaction on the basis of the evidence and other material placed before her in relation to Mr Abramov [in that “it was legally unreasonable, and/or irrational or illogical, and/or erroneous” for the Minister to be satisfied that Mr Abramov “is, or has been , engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia”];
2.the Minister’s failure to consider whether to exercise her discretion to designate or declare Mr Abramov was an error of law and constituted a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction; and
3. the Minister failed to accord Mr Abramov procedural fairness
At the time the hearing began, Mr Abramov challenged the Second Designation Instrument on the following grounds:
·Ground 4 – constructive failure to discharge the duty to consider his revocation application personally by failing personally to consider his first statutory declaration, and relying instead on a Departmental summary of it.
·Ground 5 – failure to accord procedural fairness in determining the revocation application and in making the Second Designation Instrument, by departing from a previous representation about the procedure the Minister would follow without prior notice to the applicant.
·Ground 6 – that it was not open to the Minister, on the material before her, lawfully to form the requisite state of satisfaction to designate him for Russia under reg 6, in conjunction with item 6A(a) of the table.
·Ground 7 – that the Sanctions Regulations did not empower the Minister to resolve the applicant’s revocation application by revoking his designation and declaration and simultaneously re-designating and re-declaring him.
None of the other grounds enumerated in the amended application were mentioned or developed in written submissions or at the hearing.
CONSIDERATION
Some issues arose in the proceeding that affected more than one aspect of the case. One such issue concerned the construction of the criterion in item 6A(a) of the table in reg 6 of the Sanctions Regulations. Another issue concerned the nature of the challenged decisions.
Construction issues: general remarks
Plainly enough, the Sanctions Act is, broadly speaking, directed to enabling the Minister to impose autonomous sanctions (i.e., sanctions that do not depend on a prior decision of the United Nations Security Council) in pursuit of Australia’s foreign policy. This is reflected in the objects of the Act (s 3), in the definition of autonomous sanctions (s 4) and elsewhere in the Act. In this context, it is worth noting that the legislative conception of an “autonomous sanction” is very broad, and that the lawfulness of any such sanction is necessarily related to Australia’s foreign policy. Thus, under the Sanctions Act, an autonomous sanction includes a measure that “is intended to influence”, whether directly or indirectly, a person outside Australia “in accordance with Australian Government policy”: see para (a) of the definition. Also under that Act, an autonomous sanction includes the prohibition on conduct connected with Australia that directly or indirectly facilitates the engagement by a person outside Australia in action outside Australia that is contrary to Australian Government policy: see para (b) of the definition. In effect, the Sanctions Act gave what senior counsel for the Minister, Mr Herzfeld SC, described as “very considerable latitude… to the judgment[] of the executive”. This is relevant to a number of issues in this proceeding, as discussed below.

Further, the definition of “autonomous sanction” in s 4 of the Sanctions Act makes it clear that, under the Act, the imposition of sanctions on individuals is not limited to individuals who are able to exert personal influence on a foreign government or a member of a foreign government. In this case, neither the First Departmental Submission nor the Second Departmental Submission suggested that Mr Abramov had any such capacity. The Second Departmental Submission merely noted that the Minister might consider Mr Abramov’s representations about his lack of capacity to influence either the Russian Government or its President in the context of exercising her discretion: see [52] above. There was no error in this approach.
Submissions about the construction of the criterion in item 6A(a) of reg 6
“Is, or has been” – the applicant’s submissions
In order to exercise the power referable to paragraph (a) of item 6A of the table in reg 6 of the Sanctions Regulations, the Minister had to be satisfied that a person or entity “is, or has been, engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia”. The applicant submitted that the use of the words “is, or has been” required the Minister to identify either ongoing conduct having the relevant significance, or an activity or function having that significance that began in the past and continued, or the immediate effect of which continued, to the present. The applicant also submitted that this kind of temporal limitation implied that the activity or function must have the requisite “economic or strategic significance to Russia” at the time the Minister exercised the power to designate or declare a person under reg 6 of the Sanctions Regulations.
Clear and substantial nexus – the applicant’s submissions
The applicant submitted, and I accept, that the Sanctions Act and legislative instruments made under it were to be construed having regard to the purposes of that Act. The applicant relied on the definition of “autonomous sanction” in s 4 of the Sanctions Act in submitting that sanctions served an instrumental purpose: that is, “to influence certain persons or entities to act in accordance with Australian Government policy”. Regarding item 6A of the table in reg 6, the applicant submitted that the need for a person’s activity or function to be of “economic or strategic significance to Russia” required a “material nexus (i.e. one which is clear and substantial) between the person and the relevant “situation of international concern” (here: Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine). Mr Merkel KC, senior counsel for the applicant, further submitted that text and context required “a clear and material nexus between the function or activity that is engaged [in] ... and the economic and strategic significance that is necessary to flow from that function”. The applicant supported these submissions by reference to the Replacement Explanatory Memorandum (REM) for the Autonomous Sanctions Bill 2010 (Cth) (2010 Bill), which described autonomous sanctions as “highly targeted measures, applied only to the specific governments, individuals or entities ... that are responsible for, or have a nexus to, the situation of international concern”. He also referred to the consequences of autonomous sanctions, including their penal effect.
Further, the applicant submitted that the reference in item 6A(a) to an activity or function of economic or strategic “significance” to Russia referred to an activity or function that was important to or, according to the applicant’s 12 September 2022 submissions, “possibly even momentous” for Russia. The applicant supported this submission by reference to the purpose of reg 6 read with item 6A(a), which, he said, was “to enable the Minister to influence Russia to end its aggression towards Ukraine”. In this context, the applicant also referred to the reference in the legislative history to the desirability of “highly targeted” sanctions. Indeed, Mr Merkel KC submitted at the hearing that:
[T]he purpose of sanctions is to impose them on persons who have a capacity to influence the Russian Government in its activities, and a connection with that government is a vehicle for that influence to occur. ...
And what lies behind that approach ... is that the individuals sanctioned can influence the country the subject of international concern in a manner that accords with Australian Government policy, which, in the present context, is to bring an end [to] the aggression against Ukraine and the invasion that has occurred of its territory. It’s in that context, really, that an individual’s connection with, or capacity to influence the country becomes a critical factor ... to be considered when a sanction decision is made.
In this context, the applicant also referred to paragraphs (b) and (c) of item 6A and the remainder of the table in reg 6, which focussed on persons with direct responsibility for situations of international concern or those directly related to such persons. Further, the applicant submitted that, to meet the item 6A(a) criterion, the Minister had to be satisfied that the activity or function of the person to be designated or declared was of the requisite economic or strategic significance to Russia, not just some activity or function of an entity with which the person was associated.
“Is, or has been” – the Minister’s submissions
In the Minister’s submission, the words “is, or has been, engaging” in item 6A(a) in the table in reg 6 applied to both present and past conduct, including past conduct that had ceased. The Minister contended that if “has been engaging” referred only to past conduct that is presently continuing, these words would be “entirely superfluous”. Citing Wilkie v The Commonwealth [2017] HCA 40; 263 CLR 487 at [146], the Minister submitted that all the words in the expression “is, or has been, engaging” should be given an operation. The Minister accepted that “the thing that has to be of continuing significance is the activity or function”, although “[t]here may be contestable questions which are for the Minister’s evaluation of the way in which past activities remain of economic or strategic significance”. In summary, Mr Herzfeld SC, for the Minister, contended that the words “is, or has been, engaging” are “covering both past and present conduct, and the limitation to be injected is simply one of reasonable satisfaction”.
Clear and substantial nexus – the Minister’s submissions
The Minister contended that there was no basis in the legislative history or scheme to support the applicant’s argument for “a clear and material nexus” between an identified activity or function and its economic or strategic significance to Russia. The Minister submitted that the reference in the REM to the 2010 Bill to “highly targeted measures” did not support the applicant’s narrow approach. Mr Herzfeld SC submitted that the REM described the proposed measures as “highly targeted”, in the sense that “they’re applied to minimise the impact on general populations”. He submitted that this was “in contradistinction, for example, to other kinds of economic measures which might affect a whole country’s population, or other kinds of international measures, such as the use of armed force, which might well have a broader effect on a population”. The Minister submitted that this aligned with the stated legislative purpose of the proposed Act, which was to strengthen Australia’s autonomous sanctions regime “by allowing greater flexibility in the range of measures Australia can implement, thus ensuring Australia’s autonomous sanctions match the scope and extent of measures implemented by like-minded countries”: see REM to the 2010 Bill, p 1.
Further, regarding the requirement in item 6A(a) of the table in reg 6 that the Minister be satisfied that the relevant activity or function “is of economic or strategic significance to Russia”, the Minister submitted that the Court should reject the applicant’s attempt to give further content to the word “significance”. The Minister drew attention to the fact that the relevant state of satisfaction concerned “government policy in the sphere of foreign relations” involving economic and strategic matters. Mr Herzfeld SC submitted that the Minister was required to make “a judgment of high policy concern relating to the Australian government’s view of what is significant to Russia in an economic or strategic sense”; and that this was “a judgment of very considerable breadth”. In this context, Mr Herzfeld SC submitted that the Court should not “read in any a priori narrowing words which would involve it in second guessing” the Minister’s judgment “against a vague standard of momentousness or importance”.
Consideration: construction of the criterion in item 6A(a) of reg 6
“Is, or has been”
Regulation 6 of the Sanctions Regulations relevantly permits the Minister to make a legislative instrument to designate a person “mentioned” in item 6A of the table in reg 6 as a designated person for Russia; and to declare a person mentioned in an item in the table for the purpose of preventing entry to Australia. The applicant is a person mentioned in item 6A if he meets the description in paragraph (a) of that item. This is so if the applicant is:
[a] person ... that the Minister is satisfied is, or has been, engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia.
(Emphasis added)
There was ultimately little dispute between the parties about the effect of the words “is, or has been”. This said, I am inclined to prefer the Minister’s submissions on this issue to the applicant’s (although little turns on the differences between them).
By virtue of reg 6 and item 6A(a) of the table, the Minister may declare a person, and designate a person for Russia, if the Minister is satisfied that that person is engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia at the time the Minister makes the declaration or designation. The Minister may also declare and designate that person even though the person has ceased the activity or function, providing the Minister is satisfied that that activity or function is (still) of economic or strategic significance to Russia. The use of the verb form “has been ... engaging ... or performing” indicates that the activity or function to which these words relate began in the past and has continued for some time thereafter without a clear endpoint: cf Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K Pullum, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Cambridge University Press, 2002) p 165. It follows that whether the relevant person has in fact ceased the activity or function at the time the Minister considers making the declaration or designation does not bring the Minister’s power to declare or designate to an end providing the Minister forms the relevant satisfaction. I also accept that, as the Minister submitted, the use of this verb form would be superfluous if the words referred only to past and presently continuing conduct, and that this was not the intended result of the use of this verb form.
No clear and substantial nexus requirement
Plainly enough, before the Minister can designate a person in reliance on item 6A(a) in the table in reg 6 of the Sanctions Regulations, the Minister must be satisfied that the designated person is, or has been, engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of requisite significance to Russia. The Minister’s concern here is with that person’s activity or function, rather than with an activity or function engaged in or performed by an entity or entities with which the person is, or has been, associated. I would, however, reject the applicant’s submission that, to rely on item 6A(a) of the table in reg 6, the Minister must be satisfied that there is a clear and substantial nexus between an activity or function of a designated person and the economic or strategic significance of that activity or function to Russia (or, if it matters, the situation of international concern).
The applicant’s submission requires words to be read in to item 6A(a) that are not there, even by implication. Item 6A(a) in the table in reg 6 requires only than the Minister be satisfied that the activity or function in which the person is or has been engaging or performing is “of economic or strategic significance to Russia”. I accept that, as the Minister submitted, the reference in the REM to the 2010 Bill to “highly targeted measures” does not support the applicant’s argument. This is because the reference to “targeted” measures here clearly refers to the fact that autonomous sanctions would be applied “only to the specific” individuals, entities or governments, “so as to minimise, to the extent possible, the impact on the general populations of the affected countries”. The use of the word “targeted” did not define the nature of the nexus between the designated person’s activity or function and the economic or strategic significance of that activity or function to Russia.
Furthermore, the REM clearly contemplated that autonomous sanctions would be applicable, relevantly, to individuals having “a nexus to” the situation of international concern. To limit the relevant nexus to one that is, as a matter of objective fact, “clear and substantial” as the applicant proposes would defeat the purpose of the 2010 Bill as identified in the REM. This was “to strengthen Australia’s autonomous sanctions regime by allowing greater flexibility in the range of measures Australia can implement, thus ensuring Australia’s autonomous sanctions match the scope and extent of measures implemented by like-minded countries”.
I accept the Minister’s submission that there is nothing in reg 6 to limit the activities and functions mentioned in item 6A(a) of the table to activities and functions of “importance” let alone “momentous” economic or strategic significance to Russia. Item 6A(a) requires the Minister to make an assessment about whether a person has relevantly undertaken an activity or function that “is of economic or strategic significance to Russia”. Plainly enough, such an assessment involves a sensitive judgment on foreign policy and other matters. It is, plainly enough, a judgment involving a wide range of considerations. It may call for reference to “a range of materials, including relevant strategic documents published by the Russian Government and information from Australian Government agencies” (Explanatory Statement for the Russia Regulations). I accept the Minister’s submission that there is no justification for the Court in this context to seek to qualify the word “significance” in item 6A(a) in the table in reg 6 by reference to such imprecise measures as importance or momentousness. It is a matter for the Minister whether to form the requisite satisfaction, subject to the requirement to do so in conformity with the standard of legal reasonableness.
Submissions about character of the First Designation Instrument and the Second Designation Instrument (collectively, the Instruments)
In written submissions, the Minister contended that neither of the Instruments was a “decision of an administrative character” within the meaning of s 3 of the ADJR Act. The Minister submitted that, for this reason, they were not reviewable under s 5 of that Act. Rather, so the Minister submitted, the decisions expressed in these two Instruments were decisions of a legislative character, having regard to the factors identified in RG Capital Radio Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority [2001] FCA 855; 113 FCR 185.
Before addressing the parties’ submissions on the issue in more detail, I observe that both parties submitted that nothing much turned on its outcome. Mr Herzfeld SC, for the Minister, submitted that the applicant’s grounds and the Minister’s responses were the same, whether the challenged decisions were reviewable under the ADJR Act or s 39B of the Judiciary Act. He submitted that the standard for review for unreasonableness remained a stringent one under the Judiciary Act. He also submitted that the foreign policy context in this case meant that judicial review was necessarily limited. Mr Merkel KC, for the applicant, submitted that the issue was of limited importance because the applicant maintained that there had been jurisdictional error, including on the ground of unreasonableness and that relief was therefore available to him under s 39B of the Judiciary Act.
The Minister submitted that the effect of an instrument made under reg 6(a) of the Sanctions Regulations “is to give content to the general laws in regs 14 and 15”, and that these regulations “regulate the conduct of all persons who might interact with a designated person”. The Minister submitted, “a designation has binding legal effect in the sense of directly affecting the operation of other statutory provisions”. The Minister argued that the effect of an instrument made under reg 6(b) was relevantly similar in that it also affected the content of another law. In this context, the Minister cited reg 2.43(1)(aa)(i) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), pursuant to which the existence of a declaration is a ground for visa cancellation; and PIC 4003, pursuant to which the existence of such a declaration is a ground for visa refusal.
The Minister contended that the Instruments amended the Russia and the Ukraine List 2014 in a manner typical of legislation. The First Designation Instrument added numerous names to the Russia and Ukraine List 2014, which already had many “hundreds of names in it”. The Minister added:
If one had in the [Sanctions] Regulations, or indeed in the Act itself, listed these hundreds of names in [a] Schedule, one could pretty readily see that that is a legislative act because of the sheer number of people that are affected.
The Minister relied on the fact that an instrument under reg 6 must be made as a legislative instrument, which Parliament might disallow under s 42 of the Legislation Act. The Minister also relied on the public nature of such an instrument, being both a legislative instrument and an instrument subject to reg 22 of the Sanctions Regulations. The Minister submitted that reg 22 specifically required the publication of a document that set out all currently designated persons and entities “to facilitate the legislative character of a designation in its application to all persons who might deal with a designated person”.
The Minister submitted that the criterion applicable to the making of the Instruments was indicative of their legislative character, because item 6A(a) of reg 6 involved making an essentially political judgment. The Minister also relied on the absence of any provision for merits review. Noting that reg 10 enabled the revocation of a designation or declaration made by legislative instrument under reg 6, the Minister nonetheless contended that there was limited opportunity for the executive to vary or control a designation or declaration, once made. The Minister submitted that, while reg 18 conferred a power to issue permits and reg 19 a power to waive the operation of a declaration, these powers were only exercisable in the national interest and, in the case of waiver, also on humanitarian grounds.
In written submissions, the Minister submitted that, since the Instruments had a legislative character, the applicant could challenge them only for jurisdictional error under s 39B of the Judiciary Act, and on the more limited grounds available for a decision of a legislative kind. The Minister accepted that her satisfaction had to be formed reasonably in the legal sense, but contended that the Instruments’ legislative character informed the applicable standard of review for the “no evidence”, “erroneous findings” and unreasonableness grounds. In this regard, the Minister relied on Athavle v New South Wales [2021] FCA 1075; 290 FCR 406 at [94]-[97] and Bienke v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy[1994] FCA 626; 125 ALR 151 at 166.

Furthermore, in his 29 August 2022 response to the letter from the Minister’s Department of 12 August 2022, the applicant stated in relation to this issue that:
108.That [foreign policy] objective would not be advanced at all by declining to revoke the Decisions, given that:
[]
(3) Mr Abramov has no material connection to the Russian government or to President Putin;¹²⁵
(4) Mr Abramov’s success as a businessman has been as a result of his own skill, expertise and business acumen (and those of his employees and board members of Evraz and its predecessors), rather than as a result of any connection with President Putin or the Russian government;¹²⁶
^{125 Revocation Application at [79]-[83].}
^{126 Revocation Application at [84].}
Regarding this issue, the statement of case also informed the Minister as follows:
42.2.Abramov has personally made a significant contribution to the growth and success of Evraz through his performance of numerous high-level roles within the group over an extended period, including in particular his roles as co-founder and General Director of EvrazMetall from its inception in 1992, CEO and Chairman of Evraz Group SA from December 2004 until January 2006, and Chairman of Evraz Group SA and then Evraz plc from December 2008 to April 2022. To these roles Abramov brought “extensive experience and expertise on the [Evraz] Group’s key markets”,⁷⁹and Abramov himself attributes the success of those companies to “the skill, expertise and business acumen of [their] Board members and employees”.⁸⁰
[]
52.Abramov claims that he has no personal or political connections to the Russian government or President Putin. The Department assesses it is unlikely that a businessman of Abramov’s standing – with a net worth of US$6.4B (according to Forbes) – and with over 30 years in the steel and coal industry in Russia has no personal or political connection to the Russia Government.
^{79Evraz Annual Report 2021 (Attachment 1), page 114; Abramov’s First Statutory Declaration, [61.a]. These matters led Evraz plc to decide that Abramov could serve as Chairman notwithstanding his lack of independence, and beyond the 9 year maximum term specified in the UK Corporate Governence [sic] Code.}
^{126 Abramov’s First Statutory Declaration, [75].}
I accept that, as the Minister submitted, the substance of the applicant’s case on this issue, as set out in his first statutory declaration, was contained in his revocation application, and would have been evident to the reader. The revocation application expressly stated that “[the Applicant] does not have any other personal or political connection with President Putin or the Russian government”. It also stated, “EvrazMetall, SA and Evraz have succeeded as a result of the skill, expertise and business acumen of their Board members and employees, rather than because of political connections held by Mr Abramov or any other person associated with them”. The revocation application affirmed, “[n]one of EvrazMetall, SA or Evraz has purchased assets that were privatised by the Russian government”. The statement of case similarly advised the Minister that the applicant attributed the success of Evraz and its predecessors to the skill, expertise and business acumen of their Board members and employees and drew the Minister’s attention to the applicant’s claim “that he has no personal or political connections to the Russian Government or President Putin”. It cannot be said that the Minister did not have before her all the applicant wished to say on this issue.
In the Omissions Table, the applicant attempted to highlight a number of points of difference between the way he addressed this issue in his first statutory declaration and the way the issue was put in the statement of case and other material before the Minister. First, the applicant observed that the statement at [42.2] of the statement of case that “[the applicant] himself attributes the success of those companies to ‘the skill, expertise and business acumen of [their] Board members and employees’” omits the word “entirely”, which was included in the almost identical statement at [21] of the first statutory declaration. Mr Merkel KC, for the applicant, submitted that this omission was important because “the word ‘entirely’ puts a very significantly different complexion on what’s said there” because it “negatives influence or connection” and is “part of a total picture sought to be presented” in that it establishes that “there was no connection … no influence, both in respect of continuing influence and connection with Evraz or the Russian Government”.
It seems to me that the applicant overstates the significance of the absence of the word “entirely” from the statement of case. In any event, though it does not use the word “entirely”, the revocation application clearly stated that the applicant had no personal or political connections to Russia’s President or its government. It affirmed unequivocally that the success of Evraz and its predecessors was attributable to the “skill, expertise and business acumen of their Board members and employees” and not “political connections”. The applicant’s 29 August 2022 response to the Department’s letter of 12 August 2022 repeated the very same point. Thus, the point that the applicant sought to make – that his success and Evraz’s success were in no way attributable to any connections with, or preferential treatment from, the Russian government – was plainly made in the material before the Minister.
The applicant also took issue with the fact that the statement of case referred to his statement that he has no personal or political connections to the Russian Government or President Putin as a “claim”, and instructed the Minister that the claim was “unlikely”, thereby casting doubt on his credit. The difficulty with this submission is that it fails to take account of the relationship between the Minister and her Department. As I have already explained, the Minister can properly look for, and expect to receive, advice from her Departmental officers relating to a decision of this kind. In this context, Departmental officers were obliged to advise the Minister that the applicant’s account was not consistent with their knowledge and experience, as they did here. It was, of course, for the Minister to reach her own decision. The use of the word “claim” in the context of this Departmental advice does not detract from the fact that the applicant’s position on the issue was clearly before the Minister. The applicant put the same submission a little differently on other occasions (referring to descriptions of his factual contentions in the statement of case as “submissions” or “assertions”) but none of these versions overcame this difficulty.
As already noted, in this context, the applicant also submitted that the material before the Minister failed to disclose that, in making the first statutory declaration, the applicant had “sworn” to the truth of the relevant fact that he had no political connections with, and had not received preferential treatment from, the Russian Government or the Russian President. This submission was an aspect of the applicant’s broader submission that the Departmental summary omitted to disclose the solemnity or seriousness with which he put forward the facts and circumstances set out in his first statutory declaration. By analogy with Gardiner, the consequence was, so the applicant submitted, that the Minister could not have appreciated the seriousness of the matters sworn by him in his first statutory declaration.
I do not accept the premise of the applicant’s argument that the material before the Minister did not disclose that the applicant’s statutory declaration supported the facts and circumstances on which he relied. First, the applicant’s revocation application would not only have alerted the Minister to the existence of a forthcoming statutory declaration, but would also have put the Minister on notice that all the factual propositions on which the applicant relied would be supported by a statutory declaration. This was because the application, which was before the Minister, expressly stated that the application “will be supported by a statutory declaration that will be filed within the next 7 days” that “will depose to the facts that are relevant to this Application”. The application made it clear that one of the facts that the applicant regarded as relevant to this application was that he had no relevant connections with, and had received no preferential treatment from, the Russian Government. It would have been clear from the many references to the first statutory declaration in the footnotes in the statement of case that the applicant had in fact made such a statutory declaration. It is immaterial that the statement of case might have added more footnotes to the first statutory declaration with reference to other statements. This is because the material that was in fact before the Minister clearly conveyed that the applicant intended to make a statutory declaration in support of all the relevant facts (as he saw them) and he had done so.
Since I do not accept the premise to the applicant’s argument on this issue, this argument fails. It is unnecessary to consider the Minister’s further submission that, because a statutory declaration is made under the Statutory Declarations Act 1959 (Cth) and not “sworn” in the sense of an oath (or affirmed as for an affirmation), the reasoning in Gardiner is inapplicable
The applicant’s submissions also identified a second significant element of the first statutory declaration that the other material before her did not reveal. This was the matter of Evraz’s compliance with the Listing Rules of the UK Financial Conduct Authority. The parts of the first statutory declaration relevant to this issue (as set out in the applicant’s Omissions Table) were as follows:
39.Evraz was admitted to trading on the London Stock Exchange Main Market on 7 November 2011: 2011 Annual Report at p 32. Its listing on the London Stock Exchange is in accordance with the Listing Rules of the UK Financial Conduct Authority (the Listing Rules). The current version of the Listing Rules dated May 2022 is publicly available, and may be found at < An extract of the Listing Rules dated May 2022 is exhibited at AA-1 at pages 28 to 36.
[]
41.Section 6.5 of the Listing Rules contains additional requirements for “premium listing” on the London Stock Exchange. Evraz was a premium listed company. Section 6.5.1 provides that an applicant for listing with a controlling shareholder must demonstrate that, despite having a controlling shareholder, the applicant is able to carry on an independent business as its main activity. Section 6.5.4 provides that an applicant for listing with a controlling shareholder upon admission must have in place a written and legally binding agreement with its controlling shareholder which is intended to ensure that the controlling shareholder complies with undertakings that:
a.transactions and arrangements with the controlling shareholder (and/ or any of its associates) will be conducted at arm’s length and on normal commercial terms;
b.neither the controlling shareholder nor any of its associates will take any action that would have the effect of preventing the applicant from complying with its obligations under the Listing Rules; and
c.neither the controlling shareholder nor any of its associates will propose or procure the proposal of a shareholder resolution which is intended or appears to be intended to circumvent the proper application of the Listing Rules.
Of the materials before the Minister, only the revocation application referred to the Listing Rules. Under the heading “A. Summary”, the revocation application stated (at [4(4)(d)and (e)]):
(4) That criterion is not met. Mr Abramov is not, and has not been, engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia. That is because, in summary:
[]
(d)Mr Abramov’s indirect minority shareholding did not, and does not currently, give him control over Evraz or the capacity to influence any aspect of the business carried on by Evraz;
(e)relatedly, Evraz and its other major shareholders are and were at all material times subject to the highest standards of governance, transparency and information disclosure, set out in the Listing Rules of the UK Financial Conduct Authority (the Listing Rules) and the UK Corporate Governance Code (the Code), which ensure that Evraz has been and remains independent of Mr Abramov or any other person;
The revocation application went on to state:
64.Evraz was admitted to trading on the London Stock Exchange Main Market on 7 November 2011. As a result, Evraz committed itself to complying with the highest standards of governance, transparency and information disclosure, set out in the Listing Rules and the Code. As discussed further below, those standards ensure that Evraz has been and remains independent of Mr Abramov or any other person.
[]
72.Since its incorporation, Evraz has had “relationship agreements” with its major shareholders. The relationship agreements are necessary for Evraz to comply with section 6.5 of the Listing Rules, which contains additional requirements for premium-listed companies, such as Evraz:
(1)Section 6.5.1 provides that an applicant for listing with a controlling shareholder must demonstrate that, despite having a controlling shareholder, the applicant is able to carry on an independent business as its main activity.
(2)Section 6.5.4 provides that an applicant for listing with a controlling shareholder upon admission must have in place a written and legally binding agreement with its controlling shareholder which is intended to ensure that the controlling shareholder complies with undertakings that:
(a)transactions and arrangements with the controlling shareholder (and/ or any of its associates) will be conducted at arm’s length and on normal commercial terms;
(b)neither the controlling shareholder nor any of its associates will take any action that would have the effect of preventing the applicant from complying with its obligations under the listing rules; and
(c)neither the controlling shareholder nor any of its associates will propose or procure the proposal of a shareholder resolution which is intended or appears to be intended to circumvent the proper application of the listing rules.
Plainly enough, the applicant’s statements about this issue in his first statutory declaration and revocation application are to much the same effect. The only elements of the discussion of this issue in first statutory declaration that are absent from the revocation application are the references to Evraz’s Annual Report and the statement that “[i]ts listing on the London Stock Exchange is in accordance with the Listing Rules of the UK Financial Conduct Authority”. The substance of this matter is addressed in [72] of the revocation application. The applicant did not make any submission to the effect that the omission of any elements of the discussion in the first statutory declaration resulted in the Minister failing to consider any part of the applicant’s case on this issue.
In the Omissions Table, the applicant did submit, however, that parts of the first statutory declaration relevant to this issue were not adequately captured by the relevant parts of revocation application because those parts of the revocation application did not “refer to the First Statutory Declaration or otherwise indicate that [they were] based on [the Applicant’s] sworn testimony”. As explained at [314], the absence of any specific reference to the first statutory declaration in these parts of the revocation application was immaterial because the material actually before the Minister clearly conveyed that the applicant intended to make a statutory declaration in support of all the relevant facts (as he saw them) and that he had done so.
It will be clear from the Omissions Table that the applicant submitted that there were numerous other pertinent omissions resulting from the failure to provide the Minister with a copy of the first statutory declaration. I have examined each of them and, for reasons akin to those set out at [312], [314] and [320] above, there was no salient omission. Nor did the applicant identify why any difference in expression would result individually or cumulatively in a failure to consider the applicant’s revocation application and the circumstances relied on to justify that application: cf. Sanctions Regulations, reg 11(2).
As already stated (at [241]), the revocation decision made under reg 10 was separate and distinct from the Minister’s second decision to designate and declare the applicant under reg 6. If, however, these decisions are properly seen as part of the same decision-making process and in consequence a relevant error infects both decisions, for the reasons stated, the applicant would nonetheless fail to make out this ground.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the applicant’s ground 4 cannot succeed.
Applicant’s ground 6 – Unreasonable formation of state of satisfaction
In written submissions, the applicant contended that it was not open to the Minister, on the material before her, lawfully to form the requisite state of satisfaction to designate him for Russia under reg 6, in conjunction with item 6A(a) of the table. At the hearing, Mr Merkel KC, for the applicant, informed the Court that the applicant was not pursuing this ground.
EVIDENCE
The parties proceeded on the basis that the Designation Book (exhibit A1) contained the material before the Minister when she made the First Designation Instrument and the Re-Designation Book (exhibit A2) contained the material before the Minister when she made the Second Designation Instrument. The parties agreed that the two Books should be admitted into evidence on this basis. Similarly, the parties agreed that the transcript of the hearing on 26 August 2022 (exhibit A9) should form part of the evidence in the proceeding.
The applicant also tendered a number of affidavits. These affidavits included the affidavit of:
·Chrystalla Georgiou sworn on 1 August 2022 (with exhibit CG-3) (Third Georgiou Affidavit);
·Chrystalla Georgiou sworn on 9 September 2022 (with exhibit CG-4) (Fourth Georgiou Affidavit);
·Chrystalla Georgiou sworn on 12 September 2022 (with exhibit CG-5) (Fifth Georgiou Affidavit);
·Chrystalla Georgiou sworn on 7 October 2022 (with exhibit CG-6) (Sixth Georgiou Affidavit); and
·Geoffrey Hosking affirmed on 22 June 2022 (Hosking Affidavit).
The applicant also tendered an affidavit sworn by him on 12 September 2022 and an exhibit to it (Applicant’s Affidavit). He relied on this affidavit to support a number of grounds in his review application.
The Minister objected to the admissibility of almost all these affidavits and their accompanying exhibits upon the basis that, with two exceptions, they were irrelevant to any properly formulated grounds of judicial review. Save for these exceptions and the applicant’s own affidavit, the applicant did not advance any substantive argument to the contrary. The parties accepted that whether the Minister’s relevance objections were upheld would follow from the resolution of the substantive issues in the proceeding. It was on this basis that each of the affidavits was provisionally admitted into evidence at the hearing.
Having determined these issues, I now turn to the Minister’s ‘global’ objection, which covered almost all of the affidavits that the applicant tendered, without distinguishing between any parts of any affidavit.

The Third Georgiou Affidavit (provisionally exhibit A3) was primarily tendered by the applicant on the basis that certain public statements made by the Minister on 7 April 2022 constituted the Minister’s statement of reasons for making the First Designation Instrument. Since I have held that the statements did not bear this character, the evidence concerning them is irrelevant. There is nothing else in this affidavit that would appear to be relevant to any issue in dispute, and certainly none was suggested. This affidavit is therefore inadmissible.
The Fourth Georgiou Affidavit (provisionally exhibit A4) concerned the same public statements made the Minister, as well as public statements made by the Prime Minister. Essentially, for the reasons just stated, this part of the affidavit was therefore inadmissible. The remainder of the affidavit principally concerned the issue of whether the Minister had opened hyperlinked footnotes in the First Departmental Submission. This was not a live issue at the hearing, however, because both parties presented their submissions on the assumption that the Minister had not opened the hyperlinks. Hence, by the time of the hearing, the Fourth Georgiou Affidavit was not relevant to an issue in the proceeding, and was therefore inadmissible.
The Fifth Georgiou Affidavit (provisionally exhibit A5) was mentioned once in the applicant’s submissions dated 12 September 2022, at footnote 17, where the applicant referred to a statement made by the Prime Minister at a press conference in Sydney. In these submissions, the applicant stated that the statement was made the day before item 6A was introduced into the table in reg 6 and was supportive of his construction of this provision. At the hearing, the Minister directly challenged the admissibility of this affidavit, and the applicant did not make any submissions in opposition on this point or otherwise refer to this affidavit. While the transcript of the press conference indicates that the Prime Minister referred to foreshadowed changes to “sanctions” that would “expand the scope of persons and ... entities, that Australia can list for targeted financial sanctions and travel bans” and would ensure that “we can target those who are particularly involved ...”, the press statement suffers from deficiencies similar to those identified in [105]. It cannot support the applicant’s submissions on construction. I would therefore regard this affidavit and its exhibit as inadmissible. If I am wrong, however, I would, for reasons similar to those identified in [105], attribute little or no weight to the statements about the foreshadowed amendments made by the Prime Minister at the press conference.
The Sixth Georgiou Affidavit (provisionally exhibit A8) relates and exhibits correspondence between the applicant’s solicitors and the Minister’s solicitors in relation to the applicant’s revocation application. In her written submissions, the Minister accepted that this affidavit “may be relevant to the Applicant’s procedural challenges” to the Second Designation Instrument. No party sought to distinguish one item of correspondence from any other with respect to its relevance on this account. I accept that correspondence anterior to the Revocation Instrument and the Second Designation Instrument is relevant as it contains the “procedural representation” made by the Minister (relevant to ground 5) as well as the applicant’s first statutory declaration (relevant to ground 4). This affidavit and Exhibit CG-6 is therefore admissible in relation to these grounds.
The Minister challenged the admissibility of the applicant’s affidavit of 12 September 2022 (provisionally exhibit A6) on the same grounds as the affidavits to which I have already referred. For the reasons already stated at [151], I accept that the applicant’s affidavit was not relevant to the unreasonableness ground advanced in support of his challenge to the First Designation Instrument. Both parties also relied on parts of this affidavit in support of, or in opposition to, the applicant’s “erroneous findings of fact ground”, a ground that, properly stated, was that the Minister failed to perform the function required by reg 6. Similarly, the affidavit was also relied on in support of the applicant’s contention that the First Designation Instrument was vitiated by the Minister’s constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction arising from the Minister’s failure to appreciate that, once relevantly satisfied, she had still to consider whether it was appropriate in the exercise of her discretion to designate or declare him. To the extent that the parties relied on the affidavit in support of, or in opposition to, these grounds, it was relevant and therefore admissible. Further, the affidavit is also relevant and admissible to the extent that it was relied on by the applicant to support his submissions on procedural fairness.
The Hosking affidavit (provisionally exhibit A7) sets out the applicant’s commercial affairs in New Zealand and describes how those interests have been adversely affected by his designation and declaration. The applicant relied on this affidavit to make the point that “autonomous sanctions are… punitive”, in aid of his arguments that, properly construed, item 6A requires that there be a “material nexus” and is conditioned by the requirements of procedural fairness. I reject the Minister’s submission that this affidavit was entirely irrelevant. I accept that the affidavit is at least relevant to the applicant’s procedural fairness ground in so far as it provides evidence about the nature of the injury that he was liable to suffer by his designation and declaration.
DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, I would uphold the applicant’s challenge to the First Designation Instrument on the ground that the Minister’s failure to consider whether to exercise her discretion to designate or declare the applicant constituted a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction. Regarding the First Designation Instrument, the applicant has not made out any other ground in support of his judicial review application. The applicant has not succeeded in establishing any of his grounds with respect to the Second Designation Instrument.
The orders that I would make are as follows:
(1)Unless a party notifies the Court in writing within 7 days of today that orders to give effect to these reasons have been agreed between them, then the parties are to file and serve submissions (limited to 2 pages) in support of such orders as they propose to give effect to these reasons, together with a minute of order, by 4 pm on 29 September 2023.
(2)Unless a party notifies the Court in writing within 7 days of today that an order as to costs has been agreed between them, then the parties are to file and serve submissions as to costs (limited to 3 pages) by 4.00 pm by 4 pm on 29 September 2023.
(3)The parties have liberty to apply on reasonable notice.

I certify that the preceding three hundred and thirty-seven (337) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Kenny.
Associate:
Dated: 15 September 2023

File number(s):	VID 335 of 2022
Judgment of:	KENNY J
Date of judgment:	15 September 2023
Catchwords:	JUDICIAL REVIEW – judicial review of Instruments made by the Minister designating and declaring the applicant pursuant to item 6A(a) of reg 6 of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (Cth) (*Regulations) – where item 6A(a) of the Regulations* required the Minister to be satisfied that the applicant “is, or has been, engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia” – proper construction of the Regulations – whether item 6A(a) of reg 6 requires a “clear and substantial nexus” – whether Instruments challenged are legislative or administrative in character – whether Minister’s public statements constituted her reasons or findings – whether the Minister constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction in failing to understand the discretionary nature of the power – whether the Minister’s state of satisfaction was reasonably formed on the material before her – whether the Minister acted on an error of fact resulting in the failure to perform the task required under item 6A(a) of reg 6 – whether the Minister denied the applicant procedural fairness in designating and declaring him without notice – whether the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2010 (Cth) and the Regulations exclude procedural fairness JUDICIAL REVIEW – where the applicant made an application for revocation under reg 10 of the Regulations – where the Minister revoked the first Instrument of designation and declaration and immediately made a further Instrument re-designating and re-declaring the applicant – whether the Regulations permitted the Minister to re-designate and re-declare the applicant – whether the Minister departed from procedural representation to provide the applicant with an opportunity to comment on material by not disclosing a Departmental submission – whether Minister erred in not having applicant’s statutory declaration physically before her
Legislation:	Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Autonomous Sanctions (Sanction Law) Declaration 2012 (Cth) Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 (Cth) Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Russia) Regulations 2022 (Cth) Autonomous Sanctions Bill 2010 (Cth) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) Legislation Act 2003 (Cth) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) Statutory Declaration Act 1959 (Cth)
Cases cited:	ABT17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] HCA 34; 269 CLR 439 Amway of Australia Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia [1999] FCA 283; 41 ATR 443 Anderson v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts [2010] FCA 57; 182 FCR 462 Applied Medical Australia Pty Ltd v Minister for Health [2016] FCA 35; 246 FCR 555 Athavle v New South Wales [2021] FCA 1075; 290 FCR 406 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; 170 CLR 321 Australian Retailers Association v Reserve Bank of Australia [2005] FCA 1707; 148 FCR 446 Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 353 Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No. 2) [2014] AC 700 Bienke v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy [1994] FCA 626; 125 ALR 151 Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation [2019] FCAFC 116; 267 FCR 169 Burgess v Assistant Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 152; 271 FCR 181 Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 107; 252 FCR 352 Carroll v Sydney City Council (1989) 15 NSWLR 541 Chamoun v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 66; 276 FCR 75 Chief Commissioner of Police v Nikolic [2016] VSCA 248; 338 ALR 683 Commissioner of Taxation v Rio Tinto Limited [2006] FCAFC 86; 151 FCR 341 Commonwealth v Grunseit (1943) 67 CLR 58 CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 1; 255 CLR 515 Day v Harness Racing New South Wales [2014]; NSWCA 423; 88 NSWLR 594 Disorganized Developments Pty Ltd v South Australia [2023] HCA 22; 97 ALJR 575 Evans v Bread Manufacturers of New South Wales [1981] HCA 69; 180 CLR 404 Ex parte Hebburn Ltd: Re Kearsley Shire Council (1947) 47 SR (NSW) 416 Gardiner v Taungurung Land and Waters Council [2021] FCA 80 Greyhound Racing NSW v Cessnock & District Agricultural Association Inc [2006] NSWCA 333 Haoucher v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1990] HCA 22; 169 CLR 648 Harvey v Minister Administering Water Management Act 2000 [2008] NSWLEC 165; 160 LGERA 50 Hill v Green [1999] NSWCA 477; 48 NSWLR 161 Holmes v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) (No 2) (1988) 19 ATR 1173 Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; 159 CLR 550 Mackenzie v Head, Transport for Victoria [2021] VSCA 100 Marine Hull and Liability Insurance Co Ltd v Hurford [1985] FCA 548; 10 FCR 234 McQueen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 3) [2022] FCA 258 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30; 264 CLR 541 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH [2015] HCA 40; 256 CLR 326 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; 240 CLR 611 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18; 249 CLR 332 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB (2004) [2004] HCA 32; 207 ALR 12 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah [2001] HCA 22; 206 CLR 57 Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen [2022] FCAFC 199; 292 FCR 595 Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane [2021] HCA 41; 274 CLR 398 Minister for Industry and Commerce v Tooheys Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 260 at 265; 60 FLR 325 Minister for Local Government v South Sydney City Council [2002] NSWCA 288; 55 NSWLR 381 Minister for Primary Industries and Energy v Austral Fisheries Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 46; 40 FCR 381 MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 17; 273 CLR 506 Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26; 403 ALR 398 Nguyen v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 128; 270 FCR 555 O’Connor v Adamas [2013] FCAFC 14; 210 FCR 364 Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] HCA 31; 246 CLR 636 Port Phillip Scallops Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture(Vic) [2018] VSC 589; 238 LGERA 344 Queensland Medical Laboratory v Blewett [1988] FCA 708; 84 ALR 615 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; 214 CLR 1 RG Capital Radio Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority [2001] FCA 855; 113 FCR 185 Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] HCA 23; 241 CLR 252 SAT FM Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1997] FCA 647; 75 FCR 604 Sinnappan v State of Victoria [1995] 1 VR 421 Tickner v Chapman [1995] FCA 987; 55 FCR 316 Twist v Randwick Municipal Council (1976) 136 CLR 106 Visa International Service Association v Reserve Bank of Australia [2003] FCA 977; 131 FCR 300 Wilkie v The Commonwealth [2017] HCA 40; 263 CLR 487 Zhao v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 998
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Victoria
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs:	337
Date of hearing:	25 October 2022, 26 October 2022
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr R Merkel KC, with Mr S Rajanayagam and Mr J Maxwell
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Levitt Robinson
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr P D Herzfeld SC with Mr B Lim
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

ORDER MADE BY:	KENNY J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 SEPTEMBER 2023

103	Name of individual	Alexander Grigoryevich ABRAMOV
	Date of birth	20 February 1959
	Place of birth	Moscow, Russia
	Instrument of first designation and declaration	Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons—Ukraine) Amendment (No. 11) Instrument 2022
	Additional information	Co-founder and Chairman of Evraz

Countries, persons and entities
Item	Country	Activity
6A	Russia	A person or entity that the Minister is satisfied is, or has been, engaging in an activity or performing a function that is of economic or strategic significance to Russia. A current or former Minister or senior official of the Russian Government. An immediate family member of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).

That you:	Decision:
a) Consider the Declaration and Decision Record at Attachment A and: i) if you are satisfied the 67 persons in Part C meet the criteria for listing, designate them for targeted financial sanctions and declare them for travel bans by signing Part A of the Decision Record;	Signed / Not Signed
ii) note that, if you do not agree to a designation or declaration, you should indicate this by initialling the ‘Do Not List’ column corresponding to the relevant person in Part C of the Decision Record.	Noted
b) if you agree to designate 67 persons for targeted financial sanctions, and declare the persons for travel bans:
i) sign and date the first page of the legislative instrument at Attachment B; and	Signed / Not Signed
ii) agree to the Explanatory Statement and Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights at Attachment C.	Agreed / Not Agreed

Ref No	Primary name	Title	Place of Birth	DOB (DD/MM/YY)	Listed by likemindeds as at 29 March 2022	DO NOT LIST
17.	Alexander Grigoryevich ABRAMOV	Co-founder and Chairman of Evraz	Moscow, Russia	20/02/1959

Recommendation: That you:	Decision:
a) Note that you have considered the Statement of Case and its attachments (Attachment A), Mr Abramov’s revocation application (Attachment B) and Mr Abramov’s response to the Department’s procedural fairness letter (Attachment C and Attachment D);	Noted
b) Note the Department’s recommended option to revoke Mr Abramov’s listing and relist him;	Noted
c) Note that if you are satisfied that Mr Abramov meets the relevant criteria under regulation 6 of the Regulations, the decision to revoke his current listing and/or relist him is at your discretion;	Noted
If you consider that Mr Abramov’s current listing should be revoked, revoke it by:
d) signing and dating the first page of the legislative instrument (Attachment E); and	Signed / Not Signed
e) agreeing to the explanatory statement and statement of compatibility with human rights (Attachment F) and;	Signed / Not Signed
If you revoke Mr Abramov’s current listing, are satisfied that Mr Abramov meets the relevant criteria under regulation 6 of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011, and consider that he should be listed, re-designate him for targeted financial sanctions and redeclare him for a travel ban by:
f) signing Part A of the Decision Record (Attachment G); and	Signed / Not Signed
g) signing and dating page 1 of the legislative instrument (Attachment H); and	Signed / Not Signed
h) agreeing to the explanatory statement and statement of compatibility with human rights (Attachment I).	Signed / Not Signed