With 25 votes in favor and two against, the countries of the European Union have adopted the formal decision to make the freeze on Russian assets permanent, the “frozen” assets worth over 200 billion euros. But the road to their use in the reconstruction of Ukraine is still long. Coreper – the meeting of the permanent representatives, i.e. the ambassadors, of the Twenty-Seven – had already agreed on a revised version of the European Commission’s proposal to use Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) on Russian assets and had approved the launch of a written procedure. Hungary and Slovakia are against it, but Italy, together with a handful of other countries, has expressed doubts.
Von der Leyen: “Carry on like this”
“I welcome the Council’s decision on our proposal to continue the freeze of Russian sovereign assets. We are sending a strong signal to Russia: as long as this brutal war of aggression continues, the costs for Russia will continue to rise,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wrote in X.
“This is a powerful message for Ukraine: we want to ensure that our courageous neighbor becomes even stronger on the battlefield and at the negotiating table.” Antonio Costa’s comment on the yes to the freezing of assets without expiry was also immediate. “At the European Council in October, EU leaders committed to keeping Russian assets frozen until Russia ends its war of aggression against Ukraine and compensates for the damage caused. Today we have fulfilled that commitment. Next step: securing Ukraine’s financial needs for 2026-2027,” wrote the President of the European Council.
The Italian doubts
But there continues to be skepticism about the European Commission’s plan to approve a loan to Ukraine based on assets frozen at the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. In a joint statement reported by the Belgian newspaper Le Soir, Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy and Malta invite the European Commission and the Council ”to continue to explore and discuss alternative options compliant with EU and international law, with predictable parameters, which present significantly lower risks” than lending based on frozen Russian assets, ”in order to meet Ukraine’s financial needs, on the basis of an EU lending mechanism or transitional solutions, so as to ensure continuity of support before one of the options on the table can actually come into force”.
