Moscow Court Orders Euroclear to Pay Russian Central Bank $249.7 Billion
Moscow Court Orders Euroclear to Pay $249.7 Billion to Russia

A Moscow arbitration court has ruled in favor of the Russian Central Bank in its lawsuit against Euroclear, the Brussels-based clearing house that holds the majority of Russian assets frozen by the European Union, Russian media reported on Friday.

Court Ruling and Damages

The lawsuit sought to recover 18.2 trillion rubles ($249.7 billion) in damages incurred when Russia was barred from managing and disposing of its Euroclear funds and securities, according to reports. The Moscow Arbitration Court, which heard the case behind closed doors, upheld the Central Bank's claim in full, as quoted by Russian news outlet RBC from Euroclear's lawyers Maxim Kulkov and Sergei Savelyev.

Euroclear's Response

The lawyers argued that Euroclear's right to a fair trial was violated, with Savelyev stating that the clearing house intends to appeal the decision. Meanwhile, the Central Bank expressed satisfaction with the court's ruling, according to its representative speaking to RBC.

Wide Pickt banner — collaborative shopping lists app for Telegram, phone mockup with grocery list

Background of Frozen Assets

The European Union froze Russian assets worth 210 billion euros ($244 billion) as part of sanctions imposed on Moscow after it sent troops into Ukraine in February 2022. Euroclear holds approximately 193 billion euros of the seized funds. The Central Bank filed the lawsuit in December 2025.

EU's Alternative Plan

The Moscow Arbitration Court took up the case even though the EU had set aside its initial plan to use frozen Russian assets to assist Ukraine, after failing to convince Belgium that it would be protected from Russia's retaliation. Instead, the EU opted to borrow 90 billion euros on capital markets to provide an interest-free loan to Ukraine for its military and economic needs over two years.

Russian Stance

Russia's Central Bank has condemned the use of frozen assets to aid Ukraine as illegal and contrary to international law, arguing that such actions violate the principles of sovereign immunity of assets.

Pickt after-article banner — collaborative shopping lists app with family illustration