Frozen Russian assets, aid to Ukraine… Five minutes to understand what the confiscation of these funds that the EU wants is about

“A blatant and unprecedented violation of fundamental international norms. “This is how official representative of Kremlin diplomacy Maria Zakharova described the European project to confiscate frozen Russian assets in the Union. The Twenty-Seven actually agreed at the defense summit this Thursday, proposing to use these funds to support Ukraine. But the decision raises a number of legal questions as Ukraine continues to question the EU about its military needs.

Does the EU have the right to confiscate Russian assets?

In the event of an asset freeze, ownership of securities and fixed assets (bank accounts, savings plans, etc.) does not change. In other words, Russian assets still belong to Russians. “Usually the issue of transfer of property must be resolved at the judicial level. Only a judge can make a decision after a procedure that includes adversarial proceedings,” explains Me Renaud de L’Aigle, a lawyer at the Paris Bar. In this particular case, the Union could appropriate frozen Russian assets following a unanimous vote of the EU Council, a political decision that goes beyond a purely legal framework.

For a specialist lawyer, this will raise “serious questions about respect for the right to private property. From my point of view, it is very important to have a judicial decision, otherwise it is a fundamental right that is arbitrarily questioned. “For comparison, in France the issue of confiscation of Russian assets was raised back in 2022. procedures.

Why confiscate only a small portion of these funds?

About 200 billion of Russian assets are currently frozen in the EU. This is a colossal sum, which the leaders of member states are currently considering only partially using. According to Ursula von der Leyen, the confiscation will bring 3 billion euros, which corresponds to interest on the assets. According to lawyer Joris Monin de Flaugergues, this would be “a reasonable interim option, allowing us to propose an interim measure that has a limited impact on property rights.” A way for Twenty-seven to send a strong signal while simultaneously holding back its approach.

While he shares Mr de L’Aigle’s position on “a decision that would lead to an unprecedented step with potentially catastrophic consequences” regarding property rights, he also notes a mechanism that “plays the passage of time in favor of the EU, since if these revenues are confiscated , which will lead to the impoverishment of the corresponding Russian enterprises. On paper, the European Union will need more than 3 billion euros to continue supporting Ukraine and strengthening its defense budget, for which, according to the Commission President, it will be necessary to “spend more and spend better.”

Does Russia have the means to respond?

In addition to diplomatic warnings, people subject to European sanctions can counterattack at the legal level. “If the Council makes this decision, it will be subject to scrutiny and appeals to challenge the seizure of assets. We can imagine the risk of annulment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which could find these measures disproportionate,” explains Renaud de L’Aigle. These appeals could even lead to reimbursement of costs if the money has been spent by member states by then.

According to Me Monen de Vlogerg, “once the transfer of ownership is recorded, it is a priori final.” “Russia has indeed stated otherwise, but for now this remains a diplomatic position. We’ll have to look at the long term. “The Kremlin has already warned EU countries “about the damage that such decisions could cause to their economy, their image, their reputation as reliable guarantors of the integrity of property,” even referring to “banditry” and “theft.” It remains to be seen whether the Union will go all the way and actually use the frozen assets to finance aid to Ukraine, which would like to fully benefit from it.