The immediate threat is not enforcement in Belgium, where Euroclear is protected by EU sanctions law, but attempts by Moscow to pursue assets or counterparties in jurisdictions more willing to recognise Russian judgments.
A Moscow court has rejected Euroclear’s appeal against an order requiring the Belgian securities depository to pay 18.2 trillion roubles, or about $233 billion, to the Russian central bank, escalating the legal conflict over sovereign assets frozen since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
The ruling, reported by Reuters on 16 July, upholds a May judgment in favour of the Bank of Russia. The award concerns assets immobilised in Europe under sanctions, most of which are held through Brussels-based Euroclear.
On its face, the decision is partly symbolic. Russian courts do not have jurisdiction over Euroclear in the European Union, and Euroclear has maintained that it acted in compliance with EU sanctions law. In a May update, Euroclear said it strongly contested the Russian claim, did not recognise the Moscow court’s jurisdiction and considered its operations and financial position unaffected.
The more practical question is whether Russia can use the judgment outside the EU. Reuters noted that the Russian central bank could seek enforcement against Euroclear-linked assets in jurisdictions Moscow regards as more friendly, including China, the United Arab Emirates or Kazakhstan. That is where the case moves beyond a domestic Russian judgment and becomes a cross-border enforcement problem.
Euroclear has already moved to limit that risk. Belgium’s Belga news agency reported last month that the depository had sued the Russian central bank in a Brussels court, seeking to prevent enforcement of the Moscow ruling. That counter-litigation reflects the central legal conflict: Euroclear argues that the assets are immobilised under EU law, while Russia argues that blocking access to its sovereign reserves is unlawful and compensable.
The case matters because Euroclear is the largest single node in the frozen-assets dispute. Of roughly €300 billion in Russian sovereign assets frozen abroad after the 2022 invasion, around two-thirds are in Europe and the bulk are held at Euroclear. That concentration has placed Belgium at the centre of every EU debate over whether the assets should remain frozen, generate income for Ukraine, or be leveraged more directly to finance Kyiv’s budget and defence needs.
EU Today has previously examined how Belgium’s exposure shaped the debate over a reparations loan backed by frozen Russian assets. Belgian officials warned that Brussels should not be left carrying disproportionate legal and financial risks simply because Euroclear is located there. The Moscow judgment strengthens that argument, even if the award itself is unlikely to be enforceable in Belgium.
For Moscow, litigation is part of a broader strategy to raise the cost of using frozen assets. Even if enforcement in Europe is blocked, Russian judgments can create uncertainty for financial institutions, counterparties and subsidiaries operating in third-country markets. The objective is not necessarily to recover the full amount immediately. It may be enough to increase legal risk, complicate transactions and strengthen Russia’s argument that the EU’s asset policy will trigger retaliation.
For Brussels, the ruling highlights the limits of a sanctions policy that relies on immobilisation rather than confiscation. Keeping assets frozen is legally easier than transferring ownership, but it does not eliminate the risk of lawsuits, counterclaims or enforcement attempts abroad. The longer the assets remain immobilised, the more likely the dispute is to fragment across courts and jurisdictions.
The judgment also intersects with the EU’s continuing sanctions negotiations. A separate EU Today analysis of the 21st Russia sanctions package noted how unanimity gives member states leverage when measures create national exposure. Euroclear is an extreme example of that problem: one Belgian-based institution holds assets central to a Europe-wide policy, while legal risk is not distributed evenly across the Union.
The immediate effect of the Moscow court decision is therefore limited inside the EU. Euroclear remains bound by European sanctions, and the Russian central bank cannot simply use a Russian ruling to unlock assets in Belgium. The broader effect may be more consequential. The dispute is now moving from the political question of how to finance Ukraine to the legal question of where Russia can make enforcement pressure felt.
That makes the next phase harder for Brussels. The frozen-assets policy can no longer be treated only as an internal EU financing tool. It is becoming a transnational litigation battlefield, with Belgium, Euroclear and Ukraine’s long-term funding all exposed to the outcome.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Click here for more News & Current Affairs at EU Today
Click here to check out EU TODAY’S SPORTS PAGE!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
