Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has escalated his opposition to the European Commission’s proposal to utilise frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s support, labelling it “theft”.
He indicated he is prepared to challenge the move in court if it proceeds.
In remarks to Belgian media yesterday, De Wever described the EC’s latest plan as a “very unwise and ill-considered” step that could expose Belgium to significant legal and financial risks.
The assets in question, totalling approximately €185 billion and primarily held by the Brussels-based clearing house Euroclear, would underpin a proposed “reparations loan” of up to €210 billion aimed at providing Ukraine with at least €90 billion over the next two years.
De Wever emphasised that the scheme contravenes international law and could invite retaliatory litigation from Russia, which has repeatedly condemned any such seizure as expropriation.
“Nothing can be ruled out,” he told reporters, adding that Belgium – bearing the brunt of potential claims due to Euroclear’s location – would not hesitate to seek judicial intervention at the European General Court.
He also noted that Euroclear itself would go to court against the plan.
De Wever said the biggest proponents of the plan were based in the east, close to Russia and “who have lived under Russian tyranny and mentally are almost in a state of war”.
“We are not at war with Russia and we don’t want to have a war with Russia,” he added.
“We have to act, not in some sort of state of mind, but in the actual conditions, and the reality is that you don’t just confiscate the money of a central bank. You just don’t do that, it’s like storming an embassy, you don’t do that.”
The Belgian PM said there were numerous alternative solutions not requiring unanimity but said it was “dumb” to discuss it in front of the cameras. He added the plan to confiscate the Russian assets would also require unanimity, unlike what the EC claims.
“Article 122 effectively describes a state of emergency. But where is this emergency in Europe? We’re not at war, there’s no pandemic — so what grounds justify invoking it?,” he said.
De Wever said that instead, this is “foreign policy and falls in line with the policy of sanctions, which just as well require unanimity”.
He added that he was quite convinced that the European General Court would also see it this way.
He said confiscation remained “a drastic step, deeming it “very unwise and ill-considered”, but Belgium would follow the European consensus, as always, adding: “But Europe does other things that I consider unwise.”
De Wever did reiterate he is open for a compromise if all EU member states share the burden and offer a guarantee if Russia asks for the money back, including damages, and Euroclear would be able to get the money immediately.
Earlier, the EC said it wants to use Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in combination with a qualified majority in order to avoid enabling a single member state to veto their plans.
Article 122 is a vague article enabling qualified majority voting in case this is necessary to decide “measures appropriate to the economic situation”.
It has already been used as a legal basis to pass the very first eurozone bailout scheme, the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM), in 2010, effectively getting non-eurozone member states to become financially liable for eurozone bailouts.
Also the EU’s Covid Recovery Fund and EU unemployment fund SURE are grounded in Article 122, as well as the bloc’s new €150 billion SAFE defence fund.
The European Parliament has filed an EU court challenge against the SAFE regulation over the fact it is not involved when Article 122 is the legal basis, indicating the shaky nature of this approach.
Furthermore, the German Constitutional Court has warned about the legality of using Article 122 as a basis for the Covid Recovery Fund, which was later sharply criticised by the EU Court of Auditors.
The National Bank of Belgium, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund all have warned the EU not to make illegal moves regarding the Russian assets.
Wim Schoutens, professor of risk management at the University of Leuven, told Belgian tabloid Het Laatste Nieuws that using article 122 shows the EU is unsure about the risks.
Veerle Colaert, professor of financial law at the same university, said she also does not believe the argument of “urgency”.
Colaert noted: “Euroclear has always maintained a politically neutral stance, which means that all countries can safely deposit their securities there.
“Now that reputation is being damaged, because the message is essentially that another country’s money is only safe with Euroclear as long as it plays along with Europe’s political agenda.”
“The danger is that foreign powers, such as China, will decide to stop investing in Europe. Japan and the US have already indicated that they do not intend to give Ukraine the Russian money they hold. In other words, the money that certain foreign powers are currently investing in Europe could go there,” she said.
There is a broad sentiment in Belgium that the country, a loyal and founding member of the EU, is being thrown under the bus by EU powers that just need money fast. That adds to broader fears expressed by experts that Europe would destroy the trust of the financial markets with the move.
Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, reiterated yesterday that Moscow views any asset confiscation as grounds for retaliation, with preparations already underway to defend its interests through international arbitration.
Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has issued a scathing letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, urging her to abandon plans to tap into €140 billion in frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war efforts. https://t.co/ZCX6B9NZCO
— Brussels Signal (@brusselssignal) November 28, 2025
