A growing number of MEPs are calling for the confiscation of the €210 billion in Russian Central Bank assets that have been frozen in the European Union since the outbreak of Russian military aggression in February 2022.
The S&D, PfE, Greens/EFA and The Left groups made it clear that the EU should adopt such a measure in order to force Russia to pay for the material and moral damage caused to Ukraine, and even to the EU27, during a debate at the European Parliament plenary session on Wednesday 12 March.
“How do you explain the fact that 210 billion Russian public assets are still frozen in Europe today? The legal argument against their seizure does not hold water, because international law provides for legitimate counter-measures provided that they are proportionate and reversible”, said Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D, French), criticising the “political weakness” of the EU27. Further left, Ville Niinistö (Greens/EFA, Finnish) pointed to the “ethical and moral obligation” to confiscate frozen Russian assets to prevent the Kremlin from continuing its “illegal activities in Ukraine”. He mentioned the possibility of such an initiative being subject to “the scrutiny of a special international court that will assess the scale of the war crimes committed by Russia”. His compatriot Merja Kyllönen (The Left), while not ignoring the “risks and legal obstacles” associated with the confiscation of Russian public assets, advocated moving forward to strengthen the position in future negotiations with Russia.
On the right of the political spectrum, Petras Auštrevičius (Renew Europe, Lithuanian) said that Russian public assets should be “frozen and used either to compensate Ukraine directly for its reconstruction efforts, or as a guarantee when Kyiv issues sovereign bonds or takes out loans”. The far right is not to be outdone. Hermann Tertsch (PfE, Spain) spoke in favour of confiscating Russian assets, saying that the geopolitical context had “changed radically in two months”, no doubt with the change in the US position on Russia.
Speaking on behalf of the EPP group, Germany’s Michael Gahler was more cautious. He did note that the UN General Assembly had recognised the need for Russia to compensate Ukraine and the EU for its violations of international law. However, he did not explicitly support the confiscation of frozen Russian assets.
Representing the ECR group, Belgium’s Johan Van Overtveldt, whose country is home to the bulk of Russia’s frozen public assets, advocated using Russian assets “in a considered and strategic way”, but without confiscating them. “The outright confiscation of these funds is a complex operation involving many uncertainties, for example concerning the actual origin of the frozen funds. (It) could lead Euroclear into a legal quagmire, with disastrous consequences for our economic and financial stability”, he warned.
Alexander Jungbluth (ENS, German) opposed the confiscation of Russian assets.
In 2025, the EU will provide €18 billion in macroeconomic aid to Ukraine in the form of loans from the G7 countries against the profits generated by the immobilisation of frozen Russian public assets (see EUROPE 13509/10). An initial tranche of €3 billion has already been paid to Kyiv. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)