Russia’s central bank has taken the European Union to court over the bloc’s decision to keep its sovereign assets frozen for an open-ended period, in a case that could test the legal basis of one of the EU’s most consequential financial measures since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
On Tuesday, the Bank of Russia said it had filed a claim before the EU’s General Court in Luxembourg against the December 2025 decision that indefinitely immobilised its assets held within the Union.
The dispute matters because the largest share of Russia’s frozen sovereign reserves held outside the country is located in Europe. Of the roughly $300 billion in immobilised Russian state funds worldwide, about €210 billion is held in the EU, with the bulk lodged at Euroclear, the Belgium-based securities depository. The Luxembourg case directly targets the EU framework that prevented those funds from being returned to Russia and removed the need for the freeze to be renewed every six months.
The Council of the EU announced on 12 December 2025 that it had decided to prohibit, “on a temporary basis”, transfers of immobilised Central Bank of Russia assets back to Russia, saying the move was taken urgently to limit damage to the Union’s economy. In practice, however, the measure created an indefinite freeze and was widely presented by officials and media as removing a political and legal obstacle to using those assets as support for new assistance to Ukraine.
The Russian central bank argues that the EU decision was marred by “serious procedural violations”. Its central claim is that the measure was adopted by majority vote rather than by unanimity, which Moscow says was required under EU law. The bank also argues that the EU unlawfully denied it an effective legal remedy and that the freeze breaches basic principles including property rights, access to justice and the sovereign immunity generally accorded to states and central banks.
That argument goes to the heart of a broader debate inside Europe since the first Russian reserves were immobilised in 2022. For much of the war, the EU avoided outright confiscation of Russian sovereign assets and instead focused on the legal and financial risks of moving beyond a freeze. The December 2025 measure marked a tougher step because it made the immobilisation open-ended and linked it more directly to the financing needs of Ukraine. The purpose was to reassure Belgium and support an EU plan to use the frozen funds to back a large loan package for Kyiv in 2026 and 2027.
The political sensitivity is greatest in Belgium because Euroclear holds most of the assets and would be exposed to retaliation or litigation if the dispute broadens. Earlier this year, Moscow’s central bank opened a separate case in a Russian court seeking roughly $235 billion in damages from Euroclear, arguing that the firm had unlawfully blocked access to Russian funds and securities and caused lost profits. A hearing in that Moscow case began in January and was later adjourned.
The Luxembourg action therefore forms part of a wider legal campaign by Russia against the European handling of its sovereign reserves. While the practical chances of Moscow recovering control of the funds in the near term appear limited, the litigation may complicate the EU’s effort to convert immobilised Russian assets into a long-term financing instrument for Ukraine. It also places renewed attention on the legal architecture used by the EU in December, including the choice of legal basis and the extent to which emergency powers can be used to sidestep the risk of a member state veto.
