Pull to refresh
Logo
Daily Brief
Following Why
Russia’s central bank goes to court against Euroclear, opening a new front in the frozen-reserves war

Russia’s central bank goes to court against Euroclear, opening a new front in the frozen-reserves war

Rule Changes
By Newzino Staff | |

The EU's reparations-loan plan collapsed under Belgian resistance. Brussels fell back to budget-backed lending—but reserved the right to tap frozen reserves later. Moscow's lawsuit escalated into a multi-jurisdiction legal offensive.

December 19th, 2025: EU approves €90B budget-backed Ukraine loan with contingent asset-use clause

Overview

Russia's central bank sued Euroclear in Moscow on December 12, seeking €193.7 billion in damages. Six days later the plan that triggered the lawsuit—using frozen reserves to back Ukraine loans—collapsed at the European Council. Belgium refused the legal risk; the EU pivoted to a €90 billion conventional loan backed by its own budget instead.

But Europe didn't surrender the frozen reserves. The Council embedded a fallback: assets stay immobilised indefinitely, and the EU reserves the right to use them to repay the loan—if and when Russia pays reparations. Moscow answered by announcing it will pursue enforcement across multiple jurisdictions, turning this into a global asset war with no clear endgame.

Key Indicators

€210B
Estimated Russian central bank assets frozen in Europe
Still immobilised, now held as contingent collateral against future reparations rather than immediate loan backing.
€185B
Russian central bank assets held at Euroclear
Euroclear remains the main custody choke point—and Moscow's primary legal target.
€193.7B
Damages claimed by Bank of Russia against Euroclear
The formal lawsuit amount, roughly matching the total frozen at Euroclear including accrued value.
€90B
EU loan to Ukraine for 2026–2027
Budget-backed conventional loan, not the frozen-asset-backed reparations loan originally proposed.
Up to €45B
G7 'ERA' loans supported by proceeds from immobilised assets
The precedent: using profits/proceeds, not principal, to finance Ukraine-linked lending.

Interactive

Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Sign Up

Debate Arena

Two rounds, two personas, one winner. You set the crossfire.

People Involved

Elvira Nabiullina
Elvira Nabiullina
Governor, Bank of Russia (Leading the institution escalating legal pressure over immobilised reserves)
Valdis Dombrovskis
Valdis Dombrovskis
European Commissioner for Economy (Defending the EU’s legal architecture for immobilised assets and Ukraine funding)
Ursula von der Leyen
Ursula von der Leyen
President, European Commission (Backing a ‘reparations loan’ structure tied to immobilised Russian reserves)
Bart De Wever
Bart De Wever
Prime Minister of Belgium (Successfully vetoed reparations-loan structure; forced EU to pivot to budget-backed lending while protecting Euroclear from immediate legal exposure)
Viktor Orbán
Viktor Orbán
Prime Minister of Hungary (Opposing indefinite immobilisation and warning of legal damage to the EU)

Organizations Involved

Bank of Russia
Bank of Russia
Central Bank
Status: Escalated from single Moscow lawsuit to announced multi-jurisdiction enforcement strategy; pursuing damages in Russian courts, foreign jurisdictions, and international tribunals

Russia’s central bank is using courts as a deterrent against EU plans to monetise immobilised reserves.

Euroclear
Euroclear
Financial market infrastructure (clearinghouse / CSD)
Status: Custodian of the largest share of immobilised Russian central bank reserves; facing Moscow litigation and retaliation risk

Euroclear is the chokepoint where geopolitics meets settlement infrastructure—and now Moscow’s lawsuits.

European Commission
European Commission
EU Executive Body
Status: Designing the legal/financial structure to support Ukraine using immobilised assets without outright confiscation

The Commission is trying to turn frozen reserves into Ukraine funding while keeping the ‘confiscation’ line un-crossed.

Council of the European Union
Council of the European Union
EU Legislative Body
Status: Approved €90B budget-backed loan for Ukraine 2026–2027; maintained indefinite asset immobilisation with contingent-use clause reserving right to tap frozen reserves if reparations received

The Council supplies the legal machinery that turns political intent into enforceable sanctions rules.

National Settlement Depository (NSD)
National Settlement Depository (NSD)
Central Securities Depository
Status: Russian-side infrastructure whose assets in the EU are discussed as potential offset/retaliation buffer

NSD is the mirror-image node in Russia’s settlement system—and a potential lever in offset schemes.

Timeline

  1. EU approves €90B budget-backed Ukraine loan with contingent asset-use clause

    Money Moves

    European Council agrees to €90B loan for 2026–2027 backed by EU budget headroom. Assets remain immobilised; EU reserves right to use them to repay loan only if Ukraine receives reparations from Russia.

  2. EU leaders face make-or-break decision on Ukraine loan

    Decision

    European Council discussions are expected to determine whether the reparations-loan structure proceeds and on what guarantees.

  3. Russia warns of multi-jurisdiction enforcement campaign

    Legal

    Bank of Russia announces it will challenge any EU use of frozen assets in Russian courts, foreign jurisdictions, and international tribunals.

  4. European Council abandons reparations-loan structure

    Rule Changes

    EU leaders shelve the plan to back loans with frozen Russian reserves after Belgium demands unlimited guarantees. Summit pivots to conventional €90B loan backed by EU budget.

  5. Russia specifies €193.7B damages claim against Euroclear

    Legal

    Bank of Russia formalizes lawsuit amount at 18.2 trillion rubles (€193.7B), roughly matching frozen assets plus accrued value.

  6. Bank of Russia sues Euroclear in Moscow

    Legal

    Russia’s central bank files a damages claim, citing harm from blocked access to funds, securities, and lost profits.

  7. EU moves to immobilise reserves on a long-term footing

    Rule Changes

    EU governments agree to keep Russian central bank assets immobilised for the foreseeable future via an emergency clause.

  8. Commission tees up two 2026–2027 financing options

    Rule Changes

    The Commission outlines EU borrowing versus a reparations-loan model using cash balances tied to immobilised assets.

  9. Brussels pitches a ‘reparations loan’

    Money Moves

    The Commission advances a structure to lend to Ukraine against immobilised reserves without outright confiscation.

  10. EU disburses ERA-backed tranche to Ukraine

    Money Moves

    The Commission delivers another €1 billion under its G7-loan contribution, repaid via immobilised-asset proceeds.

  11. EU locks in ERA-linked loan mechanism

    Money Moves

    The Council approves macro-financial assistance and a mechanism aligned with the G7 ERA initiative.

  12. EU greenlights using net profits for Ukraine

    Rule Changes

    The Council adopts acts to channel net windfall profits from immobilised assets toward Ukraine support.

  13. EU orders windfall revenues segregated

    Rule Changes

    The Council requires CSDs to ringfence extraordinary revenues tied to immobilised Russian assets.

  14. Europe freezes Russia’s central bank reserves

    Rule Changes

    After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, EU sanctions immobilise Russian central bank assets held in Europe.

Scenarios

1

EU Approves the Reparations Loan; Russia Retaliates With Targeted Seizures

Discussed by: Reuters; Euronews; European officials briefing on guarantees and offset mechanisms

EU leaders finalise the 2026–2027 loan structure and mutualised guarantees, betting markets won’t treat it as de facto confiscation. Moscow answers asymmetrically: more suits, enforcement attempts in Russia and friendly jurisdictions, and selective seizures aimed at Euroclear-facing exposures. The core risk is not Euroclear paying Russia tomorrow—it’s Euroclear and member states being forced into constant legal defence while investors reassess the safety of euro-area custody.

2

Belgium Forces a Redesign; EU Falls Back to Profits-Only and G7-Style Structures

Discussed by: Reuters reporting on Belgian guarantees; EU institutional statements on financing options

Belgium’s demand for stronger, clearer guarantees can’t be met politically, so the EU narrows ambition: keep immobilisation, keep channelling windfall profits, and expand only what can be defended as ‘proceeds’ rather than principal. Russia still sues, but the political coalition in Europe holds because the plan looks less like a precedent-setting grab and more like an extension of the existing profits-based approach.

3

Courts and Custody Fragment: A Cross-Border Asset War Hits Market Confidence

Discussed by: Euroclear warnings (as reported); ECB-style concerns cited in wire reports; analysts flagging precedent risk

The fight spills beyond Brussels and Moscow into a multi-jurisdiction enforcement contest: Russia seeks recognitions, claimants pile on, and ‘offset’ ideas spark new litigation over whose property rights are being impaired. Even without a single decisive judgment, the chilling effect is real—some sovereign and institutional money diversifies away from euro custody due to perceived political risk, raising funding costs and pressuring European policymakers to draw firmer legal lines.

4

Russia Wins Enforcement in Friendly Jurisdiction; Cross-Border Asset Seizures Begin

Discussed by: Legal analysts cited in Washington Post and CNN coverage; implied by Bank of Russia's multi-jurisdiction threat

Moscow pursues parallel enforcement attempts in non-Western courts and obtains recognition of its Moscow judgment in a jurisdiction hosting EU or Euroclear-linked assets. Even partial enforcement—seizure of correspondent accounts, clearing relationships, or collateral—would force European institutions into defensive asset restructuring and raise systemic custody-safety concerns. The risk isn't one big payout; it's death by a thousand legal cuts across fragmented jurisdictions.

5

EU Activates Contingent-Use Clause After Ukraine Victory or Settlement

Discussed by: Embedded in December 19 European Council conclusions; CNN and Al Jazeera analysis of 'reserved right' language

If the war ends with a settlement recognizing Russian reparations obligations—or Ukraine achieves a military outcome enabling tribunal-backed claims—the EU activates its reserved right to use frozen assets to repay the €90B loan. This scenario converts today's political standoff into tomorrow's legal execution, with Moscow's lawsuits becoming the enforcement battlefield. The frozen reserves finally move, but only after reparations legitimacy is established, limiting (but not eliminating) legal blowback.

Historical Context

Iran–U.S. Assets Dispute and the Iran–U.S. Claims Tribunal

1979–1981 (and long-running claims thereafter)

What Happened

After the Iranian Revolution, Iranian assets were frozen abroad and became bargaining chips in a broader geopolitical confrontation. The dispute ultimately fed into a structured claims process rather than simple asset release.

Outcome

Short Term

Assets and claims became part of negotiated mechanisms rather than unilateral, clean resolutions.

Long Term

A durable legal framework emerged, but disputes and payouts stretched for years.

Why It's Relevant Today

It shows how frozen sovereign assets tend to produce long-lived legal architectures—and long-lived resentment.

Bank Markazi Litigation Over Iran’s Central Bank Assets

2012–2016 (key U.S. legal milestones)

What Happened

Creditors pursued Iranian central bank-linked assets through domestic courts, testing sovereign immunity boundaries and the interaction between sanctions and private claims.

Outcome

Short Term

Domestic legal pathways enabled asset reach-through under specific legislative and judicial decisions.

Long Term

The precedent heightened global sensitivity to reserve safety and jurisdiction risk.

Why It's Relevant Today

It’s a reminder that ‘symbolic’ lawsuits can still reshape norms around central bank asset protection.

Yukos Enforcement Campaign Against Russian State-Linked Assets

2014–2020s (enforcement waves)

What Happened

Investors pursued enforcement across borders, attempting to seize state-linked assets after massive arbitration awards. The effort became a globe-spanning test of where sovereign and quasi-sovereign assets can be touched.

Outcome

Short Term

Seizure attempts created diplomatic friction and costly legal defence even when collection was limited.

Long Term

States and institutions hardened asset-protection strategies and legal firewalls.

Why It's Relevant Today

This story is heading toward the same terrain: enforcement threats matter even without quick payout.

24 Sources:
+18
Reuters Associated Press Interfax Meduza Euronews European Commission Council of the European Union European External Action Service The Moscow Times The Washington Post NPR Al Jazeera CNN Euromaidan Press (Reuters) Reuters Reuters Reuters Interfax Euronews Euronews Council of the European Union Council of the European Union The Moscow Times Council of the European Union