Russian racing driver Nikita Mazepin has lost the latest round of a High Court fight with British government ministers after being made subject to sanctions in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Mr Mazepin, 24, used to race in Formula 1 for Haas and is looking for a new team.
He wants sanctions lifted and has taken legal action against Foreign Secretary James Cleverly.
A judge is due to oversee a trial on July 19.
Lawyers representing Mr Mazepin on Thursday asked Mr Justice Linden, at a High Court hearing in London, to suspend sanctions in the interim so he could travel to Britain and begin negotiations with Formula 1 teams based in the UK as soon as possible.
The judge dismissed their application.
Government lawyers had said Mr Mazepin’s application for “interim relief” should be refused.
Judges have heard that Mr Mazepin and his father, Dmitry Mazepin – a Russian businessman – had been made subject to sanctions in mid-March 2022.
They have heard how Haas had “terminated its relationship” with Mr Mazepin in early March 2022, following the outbreak of war in Ukraine, and he had not driven for a Formula 1 team since.
Mr Mazepin and his father are “subject to an asset freeze and travel ban”, judges have heard.
Lawyers representing the Government said sanctions were a “key aspect” of Britain’s attempts to “address the situation” in Ukraine.
They raised concern about what the public perception would be if Mr Mazepin’s application was granted.
“The claimant is a relatively prominent public figure and a racing driver,” said the judge.
“I accept … that the perception may arise, at least in some sections of the public, that there are always ways around the UK sanctions regime.”
He said he was “quite satisfied” that the balance of evidence weighed against granting interim relief.
The judge suggested that, in any event, Mr Mazepin would struggle to negotiate a contract with an F1 team until his claim for relief from sanctions had been finally resolved.
Lawyers representing Mr Mazepin argue that he has been sanctioned “only” because he is “his father’s son”.
They told the judge there was no evidence that he supported the Russian regime or Russia’s “actions” in Ukraine – and argued that the sanctions were “unfair” and “draconian”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article