More than €200 billion of Russian central-bank assets are immobilised in the EU, most of them held through the Brussels-based securities depository Euroclear. Belgium has resisted proposals that could expose the company and the Belgian state to litigation, retaliation or a claim for repayment if sanctions are lifted.
Finance Minister Sergii Marchenko said those responsibilities could be shared by moving the assets into accounts under EU jurisdiction. “We want this money to be transferred into some accounts which operate under European jurisdiction,” he told Euronews in an original interview. He argued that the 27 states, rather than Belgium alone, should face any resulting dispute with Moscow.
The proposal is not confiscation by another name. A change of custodian would move the place and institution at which the assets are held. Separate legal authority would still be needed to use the principal, pledge it against a loan or retain it until Russia pays reparations.
That distinction explains both the attraction and the limit of the idea. Belgium’s concentration risk is real: a European policy is being implemented through financial infrastructure in one member state. Transferring custody could place decision-making and liability more visibly at EU level. It cannot extinguish Russia’s ownership claim or guarantee that courts will regard the transaction as compatible with sovereign immunity.
The EU already uses extraordinary profits generated by immobilised assets to support Ukraine. The principal remains frozen. A proposed “reparations loan” would seek to mobilise a much larger amount while linking final repayment to Russian compensation. Governments divided over that plan last year and instead agreed a jointly financed €90 billion facility.
Marchenko says the war and Ukraine’s budget have since worsened. Kyiv is preparing for fighting to continue into 2027 and estimates a funding shortfall of $32.6 billion. Sweden, Poland, the Netherlands and Spain have called for the asset debate to be reopened, while France and Italy have previously shared some of Belgium’s legal and financial concerns.
EU Today reported on the renewed pressure among member states to use frozen Russian assets. The custodianship proposal is the new element: it tries to address who carries the downside rather than repeating the moral argument that Russia should pay for the destruction it caused.
Important questions remain unanswered. An EU institution would need authority and operational capacity to hold or direct the assets. Euroclear’s counterparties and settlement obligations would have to be transferred without creating market disruption. Any structure would need to specify who pays if a court orders restitution after funds have been lent to Ukraine.
There is also a monetary-policy concern. Foreign reserve managers hold euros partly because they expect central-bank assets to receive strong legal protection. Supporters say Russia’s invasion is exceptional and that immobilisation already reflects that fact. Critics fear that deploying the principal could encourage other states to reduce euro exposure.
The Commission has not adopted Marchenko’s proposal. That is why it should be treated as a negotiating device, not a settlement. It may make Belgium’s burden more equitable and improve the politics of a reparations loan. It does not make the legal risk disappear; it asks the Union as a whole to accept it.
Post Views: 915