In the heart of Brussels, in Belgium’s poorest commune, sits €183 billion in frozen money. Across the street in the European Parliament, lawmakers are trying to get their hands on it.
The money is held by Euroclear, Europe’s biggest central securities depository. The company, based in the commune of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, is responsible for the bulk of the €260 billion in Russian funds that were frozen globally in 2022 following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
These assets — including cash, shares and sovereign bonds owned by the Russian Central Bank — remain trapped in its accounts. Since sanctions were imposed, EU law prohibits their release and allows the bank to use the interest they accrue.
“It’s a measure the EU is entitled to take, because the assets are in its jurisdiction,” Nicolas Véron, senior fellow at the Paterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, DC, told The Parliament. “While the assets remain the property of Russia, the EU is preventing Russia from using these assets for its war effort.”
The interest generated by the assets has been playing a significant role in Europe's financial support for Ukraine. Euroclear has established a dedicated Ukraine facility, allocating €1.55 billion in interest earnings in 2024 and approximately €2 billion in March 2025.
But with Russia showing no sign of stopping its aggression against Ukraine, along with its alleged hacking attacks, electoral interference and other meddling in European affairs, some politicians in Europe want to go further and seize the assets entirely.
Some EU countries, including Poland and the Baltic nations, are calling for bolder action. These governments argue that the international community should tap directly into the frozen capital itself for the reconstruction of Ukraine, saying the scale of devastation inflicted by Russia demands more than just using interest income.
A joint study by the European Commission and the World Bank estimates that Ukraine’s reconstruction needs over the next decade will exceed €478 billion, a figure that already surpasses the total value of Russia’s immobilised state assets.
In March 2025, several members of the European Parliament pushed for the confiscation of frozen Russian state assets to support Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction efforts.
“The confiscation is a reasonable measure to force Russia to end its war of aggression and to enforce compensation payments for the damage caused,” MEP Thijs Reuten, from the centre-left S&D group, told The Parliament. “We have been asking politely for a solid plan for a long time. Ukraine needs the money now.”
Opening Pandora’s box
Others are more cautious. Critics argue that by confiscating the Russian assets at Euroclear to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine, the EU is opening a Pandora's box, both legal and financial.
“Politically and morally, a confiscation is more than defensible, but legally it’s not,” Armin Steinbach, a professor of law and economics at the Paris business school HEC, told The Parliament. “The core issue is that Russia's assets enjoy immunity and can only be seized with Russia's consent.”
“As Europeans, we play by the rules of the rule of law and we hold multilateralism in high regard. With a confiscation, you would undermine that,” he added, suggesting that confiscation would set a precedent that could give other countries a free pass to do the same with European assets.
The European Central Bank has also expressed reservations about the seizure of Russian assets, warning that such an action would undermine the legal integrity of the financial system.
“There is no precedent of confiscation,” Véron said. “The global monitoring system is based on the premise that central banks can keep reserves abroad and that these reserves are pretty secure.”
The Kremlin has consistently argued that the seizure of Russian assets would be a violation of international law and could undermine investor confidence. Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin’s spokesperson, cautioned that such actions would provoke “very serious legal consequences.”
Russia could, for instance, seize the assets of the estimated 1,800 Western companies still operating within its borders.
Golden eggs for Belgium
Then there’s the question of Belgium, which benefits from holding the assets and would face particular legal risks if they were confiscated.
At a European Council summit on 6 March, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever described the stash as a “chicken that lays golden eggs” due to the hefty interest it accrues. Last year, G7 nations endorsed a €45 billion loan package to Ukraine to be paid for by these “windfall profits.”
Belgium additionally collects taxes on these revenues, which last year amounted to €1.7 billion; if the Russian assets were to be confiscated, this source of revenue would disappear.
“Even though this is a corporate income tax that Brussels collects like it would from any other company in Belgium, it’s extraordinarily high because of the extraordinary income that Euroclear makes,” Véron said.
On the other hand, releasing Russian assets to Ukraine could expose Euroclear and Belgium to further legal challenges, potentially damaging a reputation as a secure and stable financial hub.
Belgium is bound by a bilateral investment treaty, signed with the Soviet Union in 1989, which prohibits the expropriation or nationalisation of foreign investments. This treaty could provide Russia with grounds for legal action against Belgium, which could result in massive financial penalties.
Luxembourg, which has frozen around €20 billion in Russian assets through Clearstream, is already embroiled in a legal battle with Russian oligarch Mikhail Fridman, who filed a claim for nearly €15 billion.
“I expect Russia to sue, and there has been talk that Russia is already pursuing investment tribunal proceedings against Belgium,” Steinbach said.
Expiry date
For now, Europe can keep collecting interest payments, even while the question of confiscation is unresolved. But that may not always be the case.
EU sanctions on Russia are set to expire in July 2025, and all 27 EU member states must agree on whether to extend them. There are growing concerns that Hungary or Slovakia could oppose an extension, particularly in the context of a renewed alignment between Russia and the US.
Failure to extend EU sanctions would cause the assets to be unfrozen and potentially returned to Russia, directly or indirectly funding its war machine. For many in Brussels, that’s an outcome that must be avoided at all costs by confiscating the assets before it can happen.
“The EU needs to maintain its sanctions for as long as there are Russian soldiers on Ukrainian soil,” Jürgen Warborn, an MEP from the centre-right EPP group, said. “The issue is really no more complicated than that.”
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.