The Bank of Russia has decided to challenge the permanent freeze on its assets in the European Union, approved by the EU Council in December 2025. In justifying its claims, the plaintiff cites violations of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and fundamental legal principles, including the inviolability of property and the sovereign immunity of states. Furthermore, the Central Bank sees a violation in the fact that these measures were not approved unanimously, but only by a majority vote of EU member states. Experts are unsure of the outcome of the case, but note that the legal process creates legal obstacles to the recovery of the frozen assets.
On March 3, the General Court of the EU in Luxembourg registered a claim filed by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation challenging EU Council Regulation (EC) 2025/2600 of 12 December 2025, which imposed a permanent freeze on Russian assets located in the European Union. The plaintiff cites Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), which allows for legal challenges to the legality of legislative acts adopted by EU bodies, including on grounds of lack of competence, violation of the adoption procedure, and abuse of authority. The Bank of Russia stated that the claim is "a continuation of its work to challenge the EU's unlawful actions in relation to the Central Bank's sovereign assets." Previously, in December 2025, the Central Bank initiated proceedings in the Moscow Arbitration Court against the Belgian depository Euroclear for 18.2 trillion rubles.
The Central Bank of Russia's press release notes that, in addition to the permanent blocking, the contested EU regulation also "precluded the possibility of judicial protection of violated rights to assets, including by enforcing any court (arbitral) decisions in connection with the measures adopted by this regulation."
The Bank of Russia believes that the adoption of the regulation violated "the basic and inalienable rights of access to justice, the inviolability of property, and the principle of sovereign immunity of states and their central banks, guaranteed by international treaties and EU law." This "contradicts fundamental principles of law" and is incompatible with the rule of law, the Central Bank believes. Furthermore, the adoption of the regulation "contained significant procedural violations," as it was adopted not by unanimous vote of EU members, but by a majority vote, which the plaintiff considers "a circumvention of the requirements of Article 215 TFEU."
European Commission spokesman Balázs Ujváry stated at a briefing in Brussels that the agency was not surprised by the Central Bank of Russia's application to the Court of Justice of the European Union. "We are fully confident in the legality of our ruling and its compatibility with EU and international law," Mr. Ujváry added.
The Central Bank of Russia told Kommersant that it is not making any predictions regarding the outcome of the legal proceedings, but "is convinced that there are grounds for annulling the regulation." Given the formal requirements for the stages of the proceedings in Western courts, the Central Bank believes the process will likely take one and a half to two years.
Temporary and Emergency Measures
Regulation No. 2025/2600 introduced "exceptional and temporary emergency measures" to prevent a deterioration in the economic situation in the EU and its member states. The primary objective is to prevent Russia from allocating "significant resources" to continue military action in Ukraine, the document states. The act prohibits any direct or indirect transfer of assets or reserves of the Central Bank, or of any persons acting on its behalf or at its direction. Financial institutions, depositories, and central counterparties are required to report to the European Commission the Central Bank's assets under their control.
The total frozen assets of the Bank of Russia abroad at the beginning of 2022 were estimated at €260 billion, the majority of which are blocked within the EU. According to financial statements, Euroclear held €195 billion in sanctioned Russian assets on its balance sheet as of December 31, 2025. Income from investing blocked assets last year amounted to €5 billion, a decrease of 26%.
According to the European Commission, profits from investing Central Bank of Russia assets received by depositories holding these assets must be transferred to the European Fund for Ukraine starting in May 2024. By the end of 2025, Euroclear had contributed approximately €5 billion to this fund, according to the depository's financial statements. Another payment of €1.4 billion was expected in early 2026.
Also, according to the regulation, claims for refunds, guarantee payments, administrative, judicial, and arbitral awards filed by Russia, the Central Bank of Russia, or entities associated with or acting on their behalf are not recognized and enforced in the EU. Moreover, the legality of this restriction cannot be reviewed in court, and the party seeking enforcement must prove that their request is not covered by this prohibition.
The measures introduced are described as temporary and will remain in effect as long as Russia's actions in Ukraine create or threaten to create "serious economic difficulties" for the EU, which supports Ukraine, including financially. The regulation sets out a number of conditions for the termination of the restrictions: Russia ceases military operations in Ukraine, provides reparations for its reconstruction without adverse consequences for the EU, and ceases to create "the risk of severe economic difficulties" for the EU and its member states.
A Unique Situation
According to Anton Imennov, Senior Partner at Pen & Paper, the Central Bank of Russia's claim "appears unique enough to draw possible parallels, as it concerns the EU Council's potentially incorrect choice of legal basis under the TFEU for adopting the regulation." The Bank of Russia is not simply challenging the imposition of sanctions; it is "questioning the legitimacy of the entire EU sanctions regulation system," according to Igor Kuznets, Partner at FTL Advisers. Roman Prudentov, a partner in Stonebridge Legal's corporate practice, adds that there are no previous precedents for blocking sovereign assets on such grounds.
The EU Court has previously faced claims from central banks, but on different grounds.
For example, the Bank of Iran challenged the imposition of EU blocking sanctions against it in 2012, including an asset freeze. The court dismissed the claim, finding that the plaintiff had failed to refute the grounds for the sanctions, as they were based on a binding UN Security Council resolution, explains Sergey Glandin, a partner in the compliance and sanctions practice at BGP Litigation.
The Central Bank of Russia's arguments are built around substantive and procedural elements, explains Andrey Gusev, a senior partner at Nordic Star Law Firm: the former concerns access to justice, property protection, and sovereign immunity, while the latter concerns the choice of legal basis for the measures. The EU deliberately avoids the word "confiscation" in the regulation, seeking to demonstrate that the imposed restrictions are merely temporary, exceptional measures that do not violate property rights, notes Mr. Imennov. Furthermore, the wording regarding "indefinite blocking" is the Central Bank's interpretation, not a direct citation from the regulation, notes Andrey Gusev.
Lawyers consider the strongest argument to be the incorrect grounds for imposing the measures and the violation of procedure.
The regulation was adopted based on Article 122 TFEU, which allows the EU Council to take measures based on the economic situation, for example, in the event of difficulties with the supply of certain products, particularly in the energy sector, Mr. Imennov clarifies. The Central Bank could appeal to the fact that the adopted restrictions relate to measures under the common foreign and security policy, the lawyer admits. "The regulation was not adopted unanimously, which casts doubt on both the procedural compliance and the appropriateness of the legal basis," says Alexander Grebelsky, Managing Partner of Grebelsky & Partners. Igor Kuznets agrees that the measures introduced require a unanimous decision by all EU member states, and the chances of the regulation being overturned on procedural grounds are higher than on substantive grounds.
Mr. Grebelsky adds that the prospects of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation's procedural argument depend on the political context (the volume of frozen funds and their role) (Ukrainian loan security) and lengthy review periods (from two to five years, including appeals). The political situation inevitably influences the approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union, agrees Roman Prudentov. The outcome of the case will send a signal to the international community: either the court confirms that sovereign assets are protected by EU law or legitimizes the indefinite extrajudicial seizure of assets, including sovereign ones, concludes Mr. Kuznets.
However, a complete repeal of Regulation No. 2025/2600 is unlikely in the short term, and even if the legal basis is found to be incorrect, the court will likely maintain the restrictions, believes Mr. Grebelsky. Meanwhile, Mr. Kuznets emphasizes, until a final verdict is rendered, Russian assets will have the status of "disputed property," which will legally complicate any attempts at their final confiscation.
On March 3, the General Court of the EU in Luxembourg registered a claim filed by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation challenging EU Council Regulation (EC) 2025/2600 of 12 December 2025, which imposed a permanent freeze on Russian assets located in the European Union. The plaintiff cites Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), which allows for legal challenges to the legality of legislative acts adopted by EU bodies, including on grounds of lack of competence, violation of the adoption procedure, and abuse of authority. The Bank of Russia stated that the claim is "a continuation of its work to challenge the EU's unlawful actions in relation to the Central Bank's sovereign assets." Previously, in December 2025, the Central Bank initiated proceedings in the Moscow Arbitration Court against the Belgian depository Euroclear for 18.2 trillion rubles.
The Central Bank of Russia's press release notes that, in addition to the permanent blocking, the contested EU regulation also "precluded the possibility of judicial protection of violated rights to assets, including by enforcing any court (arbitral) decisions in connection with the measures adopted by this regulation."
The Bank of Russia believes that the adoption of the regulation violated "the basic and inalienable rights of access to justice, the inviolability of property, and the principle of sovereign immunity of states and their central banks, guaranteed by international treaties and EU law." This "contradicts fundamental principles of law" and is incompatible with the rule of law, the Central Bank believes. Furthermore, the adoption of the regulation "contained significant procedural violations," as it was adopted not by unanimous vote of EU members, but by a majority vote, which the plaintiff considers "a circumvention of the requirements of Article 215 TFEU."
European Commission spokesman Balázs Ujváry stated at a briefing in Brussels that the agency was not surprised by the Central Bank of Russia's application to the Court of Justice of the European Union. "We are fully confident in the legality of our ruling and its compatibility with EU and international law," Mr. Ujváry added.
The Central Bank of Russia told Kommersant that it is not making any predictions regarding the outcome of the legal proceedings, but "is convinced that there are grounds for annulling the regulation." Given the formal requirements for the stages of the proceedings in Western courts, the Central Bank believes the process will likely take one and a half to two years.
Temporary and Emergency Measures
Regulation No. 2025/2600 introduced "exceptional and temporary emergency measures" to prevent a deterioration in the economic situation in the EU and its member states. The primary objective is to prevent Russia from allocating "significant resources" to continue military action in Ukraine, the document states. The act prohibits any direct or indirect transfer of assets or reserves of the Central Bank, or of any persons acting on its behalf or at its direction. Financial institutions, depositories, and central counterparties are required to report to the European Commission the Central Bank's assets under their control.
The total frozen assets of the Bank of Russia abroad at the beginning of 2022 were estimated at €260 billion, the majority of which are blocked within the EU. According to financial statements, Euroclear held €195 billion in sanctioned Russian assets on its balance sheet as of December 31, 2025. Income from investing blocked assets last year amounted to €5 billion, a decrease of 26%.
According to the European Commission, profits from investing Central Bank of Russia assets received by depositories holding these assets must be transferred to the European Fund for Ukraine starting in May 2024. By the end of 2025, Euroclear had contributed approximately €5 billion to this fund, according to the depository's financial statements. Another payment of €1.4 billion was expected in early 2026.
Also, according to the regulation, claims for refunds, guarantee payments, administrative, judicial, and arbitral awards filed by Russia, the Central Bank of Russia, or entities associated with or acting on their behalf are not recognized and enforced in the EU. Moreover, the legality of this restriction cannot be reviewed in court, and the party seeking enforcement must prove that their request is not covered by this prohibition.
The measures introduced are described as temporary and will remain in effect as long as Russia's actions in Ukraine create or threaten to create "serious economic difficulties" for the EU, which supports Ukraine, including financially. The regulation sets out a number of conditions for the termination of the restrictions: Russia ceases military operations in Ukraine, provides reparations for its reconstruction without adverse consequences for the EU, and ceases to create "the risk of severe economic difficulties" for the EU and its member states.
A Unique Situation
According to Anton Imennov, Senior Partner at Pen & Paper, the Central Bank of Russia's claim "appears unique enough to draw possible parallels, as it concerns the EU Council's potentially incorrect choice of legal basis under the TFEU for adopting the regulation." The Bank of Russia is not simply challenging the imposition of sanctions; it is "questioning the legitimacy of the entire EU sanctions regulation system," according to Igor Kuznets, Partner at FTL Advisers. Roman Prudentov, a partner in Stonebridge Legal's corporate practice, adds that there are no previous precedents for blocking sovereign assets on such grounds.
The EU Court has previously faced claims from central banks, but on different grounds.
For example, the Bank of Iran challenged the imposition of EU blocking sanctions against it in 2012, including an asset freeze. The court dismissed the claim, finding that the plaintiff had failed to refute the grounds for the sanctions, as they were based on a binding UN Security Council resolution, explains Sergey Glandin, a partner in the compliance and sanctions practice at BGP Litigation.
The Central Bank of Russia's arguments are built around substantive and procedural elements, explains Andrey Gusev, a senior partner at Nordic Star Law Firm: the former concerns access to justice, property protection, and sovereign immunity, while the latter concerns the choice of legal basis for the measures. The EU deliberately avoids the word "confiscation" in the regulation, seeking to demonstrate that the imposed restrictions are merely temporary, exceptional measures that do not violate property rights, notes Mr. Imennov. Furthermore, the wording regarding "indefinite blocking" is the Central Bank's interpretation, not a direct citation from the regulation, notes Andrey Gusev.
Lawyers consider the strongest argument to be the incorrect grounds for imposing the measures and the violation of procedure.
The regulation was adopted based on Article 122 TFEU, which allows the EU Council to take measures based on the economic situation, for example, in the event of difficulties with the supply of certain products, particularly in the energy sector, Mr. Imennov clarifies. The Central Bank could appeal to the fact that the adopted restrictions relate to measures under the common foreign and security policy, the lawyer admits. "The regulation was not adopted unanimously, which casts doubt on both the procedural compliance and the appropriateness of the legal basis," says Alexander Grebelsky, Managing Partner of Grebelsky & Partners. Igor Kuznets agrees that the measures introduced require a unanimous decision by all EU member states, and the chances of the regulation being overturned on procedural grounds are higher than on substantive grounds.
Mr. Grebelsky adds that the prospects of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation's procedural argument depend on the political context (the volume of frozen funds and their role) (Ukrainian loan security) and lengthy review periods (from two to five years, including appeals). The political situation inevitably influences the approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union, agrees Roman Prudentov. The outcome of the case will send a signal to the international community: either the court confirms that sovereign assets are protected by EU law or legitimizes the indefinite extrajudicial seizure of assets, including sovereign ones, concludes Mr. Kuznets.
However, a complete repeal of Regulation No. 2025/2600 is unlikely in the short term, and even if the legal basis is found to be incorrect, the court will likely maintain the restrictions, believes Mr. Grebelsky. Meanwhile, Mr. Kuznets emphasizes, until a final verdict is rendered, Russian assets will have the status of "disputed property," which will legally complicate any attempts at their final confiscation.
