BELGIUM Trends and Developments Contributed by: Valerijus Ostrovskis, Coline Cauvin, Yapa Thepkanjana and Delphine Buyle, ACQUIS
binding guarantees on the sharing of the associated legal and financial risks before supporting any mecha - nism drawing on the immobilised assets. The immobilisation has generated litigation on more than one front. The Central Bank of Russia has brought an action before the General Court challeng - ing the indefinite measure. In parallel, it has pursued Euroclear before the Moscow Arbitration Court, which is considering a claim of RUB18.2 trillion (approxi - mately USD256 billion); in May 2026, the Central Bank applied for immediate enforcement of that claim, a step that Euroclear has stated it will contest. Euroclear has set aside part of its operating profit as a buffer against the risk of adverse rulings in Russia, which it does not recognise as binding. The litigation surrounding the immobilised assets is closely connected to a recent judgment of the Court of Justice. Although that judgment is an EU-level devel - opment rather than a Belgian one, it bears directly on Belgian practice, because much of the Russian-held value immobilised at Euroclear sits in custody chains involving the National Settlement Depository (NSD), Russia’s central securities depository, which itself holds a substantial volume of assets at Euroclear and is subject to an EU asset freeze. On 11 June 2026, in Case C-801/24 P, the Court of Justice dismissed the NSD’s appeal and upheld its listing. The Court confirmed a broad reading of the criterion permitting the designation of entities that support, materially or financially, the Government of the Russian Federation: support need not take the form of a direct transfer of funds or goods, and a central securities depository that provides the tech - nical means underpinning the financial system can fall within the criterion. The Court also reaffirmed that an asset freeze is, by its nature, a temporary and revers - ible precautionary measure, rejecting the argument that its maintenance over time renders it permanent. For Belgian practice, the most relevant aspect of the judgment concerns the position of non-designated customers whose assets are frozen because they sit in a designated entity’s accounts. The Court con - firmed that the derogation in Article 6 (1) of Regula - tion 269/2014 allows a national competent authority
to authorise the release of frozen funds for a payment due under a pre-listing contract, and that the concept of “payment” is to be read broadly, so as to include the return of a customer’s securities held in a desig - nated entity’s frozen accounts. At the same time, the Court noted that it has no jurisdiction to review how a national authority applies that derogation, so that complaints about the conditions imposed or the time taken fall to be raised before the national courts. Investment Treaty Claims Against Belgium A further consequence of the asset freezes has been the emergence of investment arbitration risk, which featured prominently in the December 2025 debate. Sanctioned Russian investors have invoked older bilateral investment treaties, including the invest - ment treaty between the Belgo-Luxembourg Eco - nomic Union and Russia, to challenge the freezing of their assets and to seek compensation. Accord - ing to reporting in the Belgian press, several notices of dispute have been filed against Belgium, and the broader figure for known investor-State claims con - nected to Russia-related sanctions has been put at around USD62 billion. This risk has shaped Belgium’s insistence on guar - antees in the reparations loan negotiations. It has also prompted wider scrutiny of the treaties on which such claims rest. In its reparations loan proposal of 3 December 2025, the European Commission (the “Commission”) took the position that the bilat - eral investment treaties concluded between certain member states and Russia are inconsistent with EU law and that the member states concerned should withdraw from or terminate them; the President of the Commission has separately pointed to the treaty between Belgium and Russia in this context. In par - allel, a coalition of civil society organisations lodged an infringement complaint in December 2025 against four member states – France, Germany, Sweden and Austria – seeking the termination of older investment treaties considered incompatible with EU law. The interaction between the asset freezes and investment protection is likely to remain a feature of Belgian prac - tice for as long as the assets remain immobilised.
64 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook