Moscow court orders Euroclear to pay compensation to Russia’s central bank

Body

A Moscow court ruled in favor of Russia’s central bank in its lawsuit against Euroclear, the Brussels-based clearing house that holds most of the Russian assets frozen by the European Union, Russian media reported. The dispute centered on the central bank’s demand for compensation tied to funds and securities that Russia says it could not manage or dispose of after the EU restrictions.

According to the reports, the lawsuit sought 18.2 trillion rubles, a figure described by Russian media as equivalent to $249.7 billion, reflecting damages the central bank said it incurred when access to its Euroclear holdings was blocked. The Moscow Arbitration Court, which heard the case behind closed doors, upheld the central bank’s claim in full, the reports said.

Russian media also reported that Euroclear’s lawyers, Maxim Kulkov and Sergei Savelyev, told reporters that the clearing house planned to appeal. They argued that Moscow’s arbitration process violated Euroclear’s right to a fair trial, with Savelyev cited in the reporting.

RBC, a Russian news outlet, also quoted a representative for the central bank as saying it was satisfied with the court’s decision. The case was filed by Russia’s central bank in December 2025, according to the reports.

The broader dispute stems from the EU’s sanctions response to Russia’s military deployment in Ukraine that began in February 2022. The EU froze Russian assets worth 210 billion euros, and the reports said Euroclear holds around 193 billion euros of the seized funds.

The reporting described earlier EU plans to use proceeds from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine after the sanctions were imposed. It said that an effort to use the frozen assets ran into legal and political obstacles, including difficulty persuading Belgium that it would be protected from Russia’s retaliation, prompting the EU to switch to a different approach.

Instead, the EU opted to borrow 90 billion euros on capital markets and provide an interest-free loan to Ukraine for two years to meet military and economic needs, the reports said. Russian state-linked arguments opposing that approach were also cited, including the central bank’s condemnation of using frozen assets to aid Ukraine as “illegal, contrary to international law,” and the assertion that the assets violate “the principles of sovereign immunity of assets.”