Over 250 billion euros from the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Bank Rossii) have been frozen in the G7 countries and the EU due to sanctions in connection with the attack on Ukraine, which violated international law. The vast majority of this, around 210 billion euros, is in the EU. Around 180 to almost 200 billion euros of this is held by the clearing organisation Euroclear in Brussels. For Germany, it is assumed that only 210 million euros from the Russian central bank are frozen there. However, Germany’s voice carries weight within the G7 and the EU when it comes to coordinating a joint approach to these funds. Even if the Russian government is prevented from accessing the assets due to the sanctions ban, they still belong to the Russian central bank for the time being. By contrast, the funds that Ukraine will need for the reconstruction required as a result of the Russian war of aggression were already estimated at 411 billion euros in March 2023.
That a state is liable to another state for acts violating international law that it commits against another state follows from the law of state responsibility. After armed conflicts, such claims are usually settled by peace treaty (reparations). One historical exception was the case of Iraq, for example, which the UN Security Council – based on Chapter VII of the UN Charter – obliged to pay reparations to Kuwait after the Baghdad regime invaded its southern neighbour in 1990. However, due to Russia’s right of veto, the Security Council cannot fulfil its task of overseeing the UN monopoly on the use of force and enforcing a rules-based peace order.
Particularly at a time when Western parliaments are less willing to support Ukraine with budgetary funds, the confiscation of the assets of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation without compensation and their transfer to Ukraine could provide crucial assistance. Some countries, such as Canada, are already creating the legislative prerequisites for this, while the Russian Federation has apparently begun to prepare itself legally for such a scenario. Some of the legal literature raises concerns about such confiscations under international law. Even if Russia is breaking elementary rules of international law in Ukraine, Germany and the European Union are insisting on a rules-based order. They would jeopardise their credibility if they themselves broke the rules of international law in their dealings with Russia. However, the states in question would not have to breach international law in order to seize the assets: the arguments put forward against the confiscation of Russian central bank assets are by no means compelling. As a result, no norm of international law can be found that explicitly prohibits such a measure. In any case, neither Union nor national law precludes expropriation from the German side. The federal legislator could therefore order the confiscation of Russian central bank assets located in Germany in favour of the reconstruction of Ukraine.