Русский
The legal battle between Russia and the European Union, and specifically the Belgian financial clearing house Euroclear, has begun, with the initial results being in Russia’s favor.
Euroclear lawyers Maxim Kulkov and Sergei Savelyev said that the Moscow Arbitration Court has upheld the Central Bank of Russia’s claim against the Belgian depository Euroclear in full. However, they commented that “Euroclear’s right to fair litigation was clearly violated. ” We cannot reveal any additional information given the closed nature of the proceedings, which we objected to.”
The Russian Central Bank, meanwhile, has stated that “We are satisfied with the ruling, which deemed the Euroclear depository’s actions to be illegal and have inflicted losses on the Bank of Russia.” However, they added that the ruling had not yet entered into force, meaning it is too soon to say by what means the claim would be satisfied. The bank said that “it should be borne in mind that the final text of the ruling decision has not yet been drafted and the ruling has not yet gone into effect, and Euroclear has the right to file an appeal and challenge it. It’s too soon to discuss how the court’s decision will be enforced, because it has not yet gone into effect.”
The claims filed in Moscow comprise actual damages of €181.5 billion, as well as lost profits/income from assets estimated at €18.6 billion.
It is not the only action being taken against Euroclear.
On February 27, 2026, the Russian Central Bank also filed a lawsuit with the General Court of Justice of the European Union. The regulator is challenging the Council of the European Union’s regulation of December 12, 2025 (No. 2025/2600), which imposed an indefinite block on the Central Bank of Russia’s assets within the European Union. The case is currently being reviewed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg. The court has ordered the defendant, the Council of the European Union, to provide its position by the end of May 2026.
“The plaintiff (the Central Bank of Russia) claims that this decision (to block assets) was made on the wrong basis, using Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (which allows for a majority decision in the EU Council). Since these measures fall under the definition of restrictive measures against a third country, they should have been made under Article 215, which requires a unanimous decision by the members of the Council.”
The Central Bank of the Russian Federation is demanding the cancellation of the decision to block sovereign assets and the payment of legal fees by the EU Council.
The EU, the United States, and several other countries froze Russia’s international reserves in the spring of 2022. The total amount of “frozen” assets is estimated to be around $300 billion. The main resources are frozen in EU member states, primarily in Belgium, where the largest European depositary, Euroclear, is registered.
In addition to the EU, the United States, and several other countries froze Russia’s international reserves in the spring of 2022, depriving Russia of access to about US$300 billion in reserves. These include:
| Japan: | €28 billion |
| United Kingdom: | €27 billion |
| France: | €19 billion |
| Canada: | €15.1 billion |
| Luxembourg: | €10 billion |
| Switzerland: | €6.2 billion |
| United States: | €4.3 billion |
All are in the process of being litigated against.
The hundred-billion value freezing of Russia’s financial assets and the subsequent use of the interest earned from them is an unprecedented case and violates the principle of sovereign immunity for states and their central banks. However, similar, albeit smaller actions have previously occurred, such as when the United States froze assets belonging to the Central Bank of Afghanistan and distributed them to victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York, a decision that drew harsh criticism from the international community. For example, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin described Washington’s decision as “the behavior of robbers.”
Others include Afghanistan, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Iran, Syria, Tunisia, Iraq, Turkiye, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, South Sudan, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Somalia, Myanmar, North Korea, Nicaragua, Haiti, Guatemala, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. It will be recognised that many of these countries have European colonial backgrounds, with the freezing of assets typically justified under various pretexts including the rather vague notion of acting ‘against the principles of democracy’. Of these, the EU’s actions have been brought against sovereign governments who have had serious political or trade disputes with the EU or powerful member states such as France.
Russia’s legal actions have very serious implications, and more so for the European Union than for Russia. Moscow has effectively written off the money, while now the EU has not just the capital leverage at risk but also its reputation as a safe jurisdiction to place sovereign revenues being called into question. There has already been global unease at the situation. Should either the EU’s legal claims, or its actual legal system to uphold those claims be viewed as unfair or politically biased, other countries are likely to remove sovereign financial assets from the EU and place them elsewhere.
