The Bank of Russia filed a claim on Tuesday at the EU General Court, challenging the December 2025 regulation to freeze its assets until the requests of the European Union are met and generated interests are redirected to Ukraine.

The bank argued that the EU regulation is incompatible with rule of law and the principle of the supremacy of law. According to the claim, the measures are legally incorrect for three reasons: indefinite transfer prohibition, exclusion of judicial protection, and the violation of fundamental rights. The bank challenged the legality of these procedures under Article 263 (alongside Article 264) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, asserting that they lack a valid legal basis in international law.

One issue centers on the legal definition of the freeze’s duration. While the EU regulation employs the term “temporary,” the Bank of Russia highlighted that conditioning the release of funds “until Russia ceases its war of aggression against Ukraine and compensates it for the damage caused by this war” transforms the measure into an indefinite blockade. From a Russian legal perspective, the lack of precision among deadlines violates the principles of property rights and sovereign immunity.

The bank is further pursuing legal action against Euroclear, the Belgian depository where most of the reserves are held. By targeting Euroclear, the Bank of Russia aims to recover its funds by creating a legal opening to seize the depository’s own assets—such as bank accounts or properties—located in countries like China or the UAE. This strategy, according to Reuters, could provide a pathway to compensate Russian investors for their frozen investments.

The European Commission firmly dismissed these challenges. Commission officials have expressed “full confidence” in the legality of the regulation, maintaining its complete compatibility with both EU and international law.