Russia's central bank has escalated its legal offensive against European sanctions enforcement, filing a 18.2 trillion ruble ($230 billion) lawsuit in Moscow against Euroclear, the Belgium-based securities depository holding the bulk of Russia's frozen sovereign reserves. The suit, announced on 12 December, directly challenges the European Union's plan to use income from immobilized Russian assets to back a major loan for Ukraine in 2026–2027.
The claim represents the largest salvo yet in the Kremlin's campaign of "lawfare" against the EU sanctions regime. Euroclear holds an estimated €185–€217 billion of the roughly €210 billion in Russian central bank assets frozen across Europe since Moscow's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Brussels has moved to indefinitely immobilize these funds and is finalizing a mechanism to channel the proceeds—variously estimated at several billion euros annually—into a proposed €90 billion loan facility for Kyiv's military and civilian needs.
The legal architecture of escalation
The Bank of Russia lawsuit, filed in the Moscow City Arbitration Court, alleges "unlawful actions" by Euroclear stemming from blocked access to Russian funds and securities. The suit explicitly links Euroclear's role to the European Commission's asset-use proposals, framing the depository as complicit in what Moscow terms the "theft" of sovereign reserves.
Moscow's claim follows established precedent within Russia's court system. Russian courts have previously issued rulings against Euroclear related to blocked securities, invoking Article 248.1 of Russia's Arbitration Procedural Code, which asserts Russian jurisdiction over sanctions-related torts and explicitly declines to apply EU or Belgian sanctions law. The CBR case follows the same template but at sovereign scale—designed to generate a Moscow judgment that Russia can attempt to enforce in friendly jurisdictions and, more importantly, to raise legal and political costs for Belgium and the broader EU.
A favorable Moscow ruling is essentially assured. The strategic question is enforcement. Russian judgments carry limited weight in EU courts, but the Kremlin has alternate pressure points: threatening seizures of European private assets inside Russia, attempting to attach Euroclear-linked holdings in third countries, and forcing Brussels to expend political capital constructing legal shields for Belgium, Euroclear's home jurisdiction.
Members are reading: Why Belgium's liability concerns and Russia's lawsuit could unravel the EU's €90 billion Ukraine loan plan.
The collision of financing and enforcement
The EU proposal navigates a narrow legal corridor. By using only the income stream—coupons, interest, and maturities on frozen securities—Brussels argues it avoids crossing the sovereign immunity threshold that would trigger deeper international law challenges. The loan structure under discussion would see those proceeds back EU borrowing for Ukraine, repayable only if and when Russia pays reparations—a legal mechanism designed to defer confiscation risk indefinitely.
Moscow's counter is to generate domestic legal judgments that create enforcement vectors outside the EU system. Even if unenforceable in European courts, a $230 billion Moscow judgment complicates the political optics of the EU scheme, provides a legal basis for retaliatory seizures, and creates negotiating leverage in any future sanctions-relief talks. The Kremlin has warned of a "legal nightmare" for Europe and threatened seizures of European private property in Russia—a threat that carries weight given the concentration of certain industrial and energy assets.
The Commission has publicly dismissed the CBR suit as "speculative," reiterating that its proposal "respects international law and sovereign immunity." Euroclear has declined to comment.
What happens next
The Moscow court is expected to rule in favor of the CBR. Russia will then attempt to leverage that judgment—either through enforcement in third countries with less robust sanctions alignment, or by using it as legal cover for domestic asset seizures. The EU, meanwhile, faces a tight timeline: the proposed Ukraine loan is meant to bridge financing gaps in 2026–2027, as European military aid delivery rates have fallen to their lowest levels since 2022.
Brussels must finalize indemnity arrangements that satisfy Belgium, codify legal protections for Euroclear, and secure consensus among 27 member states—all while managing the reputational risk that the scheme undermines the reserve-currency credibility the EU claims to protect. Russia, for its part, is betting that the cumulative legal, political, and financial friction will either kill the EU plan or extract concessions that weaken the sanctions architecture more broadly.
The CBR lawsuit is not primarily about winning in court. It is about raising the cost of Europe's most ambitious attempt yet to turn frozen Russian assets into tangible support for Ukraine—and testing whether EU solidarity can withstand a sustained campaign of legal and financial pressure.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
