Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 12 March 2025 - Strasbourg

14. Frozen Russian assets (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on frozen Russian assets (20025/2570(RSP)).

  Christophe Hansen, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on Russian frozen and immobilised assets. As you may well know, the restrictive measures on these assets are a key element of the sanctions adopted by the EU in close cooperation with Western partners against Russia.

Let me first clarify upfront that Russian assets are subject to different restrictive measures, depending on whether they are public or private assets and on their ultimate owner. As part of the sanctions imposed by the EU on Russia in response to its war of aggression against Ukraine, the assets of the Central Bank of Russia held by financial institutions in the Member States have been immobilised since February 2022. The immobilised sovereign assets held in the EU are worth EUR 210 billion and represent the largest share of such immobilised assets worldwide. This is the most relevant and sizeable part of the Russian assets under EU sanctions, for the purposes of today's debate.

In May 2024, EU Member States agreed to set aside the extraordinary profits of Russian immobilised assets and to use them for the benefit of Ukraine. The assets and reserves of the Central Bank of Russia should remain immobilised until Russia pays for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. The position has been repeatedly affirmed by the G7 countries and the European Union.

The prohibition of transactions on these assets generates an extraordinary cash accumulation on the balance sheets of central security depositories. EU central securities depositories prudently manage the cash balances and thereby earn an interest income. These extraordinary and unexpected profits could reach about EUR 3 billion per year, after tax of course, subject to the prevailing level of interest rates. These interest revenues and profits do not constitute sovereign assets and do not have to be made available to the Central Bank of Russia under applicable rules, even after immobilisation ends.

The decision to re-allocate the interest, revenues and profits to support Ukraine is made within the windfall contribution framework, which was adopted in 2024 following thorough discussions in the ad hoc Council working party established for that same purpose. This allowed us to take the necessary implementing actions to fulfil the commitments made by the European Council and the G7 leaders to provide Ukraine with approximately EUR 45 billion in loans, to be repaid by future flows of extraordinary revenues from immobilised Russian assets. This money will be used to support Ukraine's urgent budgetary, military and reconstruction needs.

As part of the G7-led extraordinary revenue acceleration (ERA) loans initiative, in January 2025, the European Commission disbursed the first EUR 3 billion tranche of its exceptional macro-financial assistance loan for Ukraine, which will be repaid with the proceeds from immobilised assets of the Central Bank of Russia in the EU. Additional disbursements will follow throughout this year, bringing total support to some EUR 18 billion.

The Commission warmly thanks the European Parliament for its swift action to approve this MFA loan. This underscores the unwavering commitment of the EU and its G7 partners to support Ukraine in its fight for its freedom, recovery and reconstruction.

There have been calls in the past to proceed towards the confiscation of these immobilised assets. This is being discussed with Member States and with our international partners currently. The Commission remains open to discuss any legally and financially sound options to continue pressuring Russia to stop its war of aggression. At this stage, the Commission's priority is to operationalise the G7 ERA loans and to make available funding to Ukraine.

  Michael Gahler, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, thank you very much, colleagues, Commissioner, in our resolution today, we demanded the substance of the frozen assets and not only the windfall profits.

States have an obligation under international law to make reparation for internationally wrongful acts. The Permanent Court of International Justice held that it is a principle of international law, and even a general conception of law, that any breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation.

The articles on state responsibility for international wrongful acts of the United Nations International Law Commission provide that the responsible state is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act. Such reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation, which would in all probability have existed if that act had not been committed, and includes reparation for both material and moral damage. The obligation to provide reparation can be invoked by any state under international law.

The General Assembly of the United Nations has already recognised that Russia must bear the legal consequences of all of its internationally wrongful acts, including making reparation for the injury, including any damage caused by such acts.

I am aware we are not at war with Russia, so we cannot directly do it. But the point is that Russia has caused not only to Ukraine, but also to us so much damage in costs of that aggressive act that we, I would say, are in a position to claim it also from Russia. So, let's get hold of the substance.

  Raphaël Glucksmann, au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, il est louable et nécessaire de répéter que nous soutiendrons la résistance ukrainienne aussi longtemps qu’il le faudra, mais c'est encore mieux de le prouver. Les Européens doivent envoyer un signal puissant à Moscou et à Washington et montrer que nous pouvons pallier le soutien américain, si fragile. Les Européennes et les Européens le savent: ce soutien n’est pas simplement un acte de solidarité vis-à-vis de l’Ukraine; c’est un acte qui permettra d’assurer la sécurité de notre continent.

Alors, comment expliquer que 210 milliards d’avoirs publics russes soient toujours gelés en Europe actuellement? L’argument juridique contre leur saisie ne tient pas, parce que le droit international prévoit des contre-mesures légitimes à condition qu’elles soient proportionnelles et réversibles. La Russie devra payer des réparations: il s’agit donc d’un acompte, qui est parfaitement proportionnel.

La seule raison de notre inaction, c’est notre faiblesse politique, et cela, Moscou et Washington l’ont extrêmement bien compris.

  Hermann Tertsch, en nombre del Grupo PfE. – Señor presidente, la criminal invasión rusa en Ucrania ha causado una colosal devastación en todo el país agredido. Ucrania va a necesitar planes masivos y un titánico esfuerzo inversor. Es lógico que muchos países quieran que se utilicen para ello los depósitos del agresor, de Rusia, para compensar al agredido, que es Ucrania.

A finales de 2023 había inmovilizados en Occidente unos 335 000 millones de dólares en depósitos rusos, aparte de los intereses que se han ido generando y que se han gastado en diferentes cuestiones. Para dedicarlos a estos fines de reconstrucción, todos estos fondos inmovilizados tendrían que ser confiscados. Hay países que se oponen a ello.

Todo el contexto internacional en el que se baraja este dilema ha cambiado radicalmente en dos meses. Con un alto el fuego a la vista y unas complejas negociaciones que incluirán infinidad de factores, cabe sospechar que los depósitos entrarán automáticamente, en gran parte, en materia de negociación.

La prioridad ahora es acabar con la guerra y también en este campo se va a quedar por el camino gran parte de los anhelos de justicia. Pero hay una clara necesidad de que esté en la mesa alguna forma de compensación —también con esos depósitos— por una agresión que sabemos que nunca se castigará como merece.

  Johan Van Overtveldt, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, de brute aanval van Rusland op Oekraïne kan uiteraard niet onbestraft blijven. Het is onze plicht om de frozen assets doordacht en strategisch te gebruiken om de druk op Poetin maximaal op te voeren. Wat we echter niet kunnen en niet mogen doen is regelrechte confiscatie. En dit om minstens twee redenen. Ten eerste, als we dat doen, verliezen we een cruciale onderhandelingshefboom om Poetin tot concessies te dwingen. Ten tweede, en belangrijker, deze middelen zonder meer in beslag nemen is in alle opzichten een complexe operatie met veel onzekerheden. Bijvoorbeeld wat betreft de ware herkomst van de bevroren middelen. Ook zijn er vele neveneffecten. Een dergelijke ingreep, een regelrechte confiscatie, zou bijvoorbeeld Euroclear in een juridisch moeras kunnen trekken, met, geloof me, rampzalige gevolgen voor onze economische en financiële stabiliteit. Laat ons niet in die val trappen. Strategische wijsheid is net zo belangrijk als kracht en volharding.

  Petras Auštrevičius, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the freezing and use of the Russian assets is as inevitable as a paradigm of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment. Russia's illegal, unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine, and the losses and damage caused to Ukraine and its people, are among the necessary reparations of the Russian side. International law supports this obligation. Humanity demands it.

The state assets of Russia located abroad must be used directly for the needs of Ukraine to restore its urban and civil infrastructure, environment and property lost by the people. The use of interest from frozen Russian assets is good, but it's not enough to compensate for the losses suffered by Ukraine. Russian assets must be frozen and used either to directly compensate for the needs of Ukraine and reconstruction, or to become a guarantee when issuing state bonds or taking out the necessary loans.

I call upon the Member States to find and agree on a comprehensive legal approach.

  Ville Niinistö, Verts/ALE-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, Venäjän hyökkäys Ukrainaan oli törkeä kansainvälisen oikeuden rikkomus. Sen lisäksi Venäjä rikkoo Budapestin sopimusta, jossa se sitoutuu vastineeksi siitä, että Ukraina luopuu ydinaseista, turvaamaan sen itsenäisyyden ja vapauden. Venäjä rikkoo kansainvälistä oikeutta toistuvasti tekemällä sotarikoksia siviilejä vastaan. Euroopan unioni ja myös Euroopan neuvosto ovat kirjanneet toistuvat sotarikokset, joita Venäjä on tehnyt, ja on ilmiselvää, että myös YK:n päätösten pohjalta ja lainsäädännön pohjalta Venäjällä on velvollisuus korvata nämä vahingot.

Nyt me olemme tilanteessa, jossa on arvioitava se, miten laittomuuksien ketju pysäytetään. Meillä on eettinen ja moraalinen velvollisuus takavarikoida nyt Venäjän varat, jotka ovat jäädytettyinä, jotta me voimme estää laittomuuksien jatkumisen Ukrainassa. Voimme alistaa tämän päätöksen myöhemmin kansainvälisen erityistuomioistuimen harkintaan, joka arvioi Venäjän sotarikosten mittaluokkaa. Mutta on ilmeistä, että rikosten mittaluokka ja Venäjän korvausvastuu ylittää jopa 210 miljardin euron summan, joka on Euroopan hallussa, Venäjän keskuspankin varoja. Joten nämä on nyt takavarikoitava ja varmistettava, että Ukraina voi puolustaa oikeutta.

  Merja Kyllönen, on behalf of The Left Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, history will remember how we responded in this moment. Will we stand firmly with Ukraine or will we waver? The answer must be clear. The European Union must step up. We have seen what is happening in the United States. Europe is the continent that Ukraine trusts.

Within the EU, we hold over EUR 200 billion in frozen Russian assets, most of which are government bonds. Unlocking these resources for Ukraine would strengthen not only its defence but also its positions in negotiations.

It is true that there are risks and legal obstacles associated with the transfer of these funds. As a Finn, living next to Russia, I cannot afford to hide behind legal technicalities. For this reason, I demand solutions that will allow us to transfer the funds to Ukraine, or who will be the next?

  Alexander Jungbluth, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Eingefrorene russische Vermögenswerte sind nichts anderes, als Öl ins Feuer zu gießen. Dieses Vorgehen ist ein klares Signal, dass die EU sich zunehmend zu einer Kriegsunion entwickelt. Während die USA und andere Länder ernsthaft an Friedensverhandlungen zur Eindämmung des Konflikts arbeiten, sieht die EU Sanktionen, Waffenlieferungen und die Beschlagnahmung von Vermögenswerten vor. Die EU müsste zur Vernunft zurückfinden und als Verhandlungspartner auftreten, nicht als Möchtegernkrieger.

Bedenken Sie bitte eines: Mit der Maßnahme bestrafen Sie alle russischen Bürger im Kollektiv und bringen sie gegen die EU auf; das kann nicht das Ziel sein.

Ein Weiteres: Herr Gahler hat eben eine ganz große rechtliche Analyse vorgenommen, und er hat im Nebensatz genau das Richtige gesagt: Wir bewegen uns hier auf ganz dünnem rechtlichen Eis, wenn wir diese Vermögenswerte einfrieren. Wir werden hier rechtliche Schritte gegen uns haben, und wir werden diese rechtlichen Schritte verlieren. Wir haben wieder nur Risiken und keine Chancen.

Wahre Unterstützung für die Ukraine bedeutet, den Konflikt am Verhandlungstisch zu lösen, nicht durch Waffen und beschlagnahmtes Geld.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE). – Godātie kolēģi! Atgādināšu, ka Krievija šogad karam tērē 9 % procentus no IKP jeb 41 % no sava budžeta. Pašlaik Eiropas valstis tālu atpaliek, tāpēc mums ir jāapņemas aizsardzībai tērēt vismaz 3,5 % no katras valsts IKP. Mums neatliekami ir jāstiprina Ukrainas aizsardzības spējas. Tas ir visu Eiropas valstu interesēs, jo Ukrainā izšķiras, cik droša būs Eiropas nākotne.

Mums ir jāturpina militāri atbalstīt Ukrainu visiem iespējamiem līdzekļiem. Tāpēc neatliekami ir jāpieņem lēmums par Krievijas iesaldēto aktīvu izmantošanu Ukrainas apbruņošanai un atjaunošanai. Puspasākumu un kompromisu laiks ir beidzies. Eiropai ir jārīkojas ātri, vienoti un izlēmīgi. Liksim Putinam maksāt par agresijas noziegumu un izlietajām ukraiņu tautas asinīm.

  Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Mr President, Commission, colleagues, Europe is sitting on hundreds of billions of frozen Russian assets, and I have great difficulty explaining all the objections and the excuses for not getting this sorted, despite the fact that Ukraine needs more money to defend itself from Russia's illegal aggression.

We have to see what happens next with the possible interim ceasefire, but our task of supporting Ukraine remains unchanged. And this must include seizing the frozen assets and providing them to Ukraine.

I do not need to quote the excellent research by Parliament's services on how to do it. We have been asking for a proposal for a long time. We need political will. Some are afraid of their own sovereign assets and the impacts on the eurozone. But imagine the impacts on the eurozone if we fail to support Ukraine to defend itself.

Our answer should be clear and simple: do not commit war crimes or the crime of aggression and your assets are safe. See it as a down payment on the reparations and the compensations. We have the option. Let's do it. Confiscate, and support Ukraine.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

  Lukas Sieper (NI), blue-card question. – I wholeheartedly agree with what you just said. I was just wondering, in the very end, you said that it should be seen as a down payment on the reparations. Wouldn't you agree with me that the reparations should be on top? Because that is what Russia actually deserves for its behaviour.

  Thijs Reuten (S&D), blue-card answer. – Thanks for asking. No, what I mean, of course, is that the possible reparations or compensations will exceed this amount by far. But to reassure people who are afraid of taking this step, we can say: 'Look, the European Union, of course, guarantees that if Russia pays the full amount of reparations and compensations, then we will also look again at these assets.' Because then we will have no problem in making them available again. But I don't see that happening. I think we have to act now in the interest of Ukraine.

  Michał Dworczyk (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Od trzech lat rosyjskie rakiety niszczą ukraińskie miasta, zabijając cywilów, a działania wojenne zamieniają całe regiony w ruiny. Przez cały ten czas sojusznicy Ukrainy szukają środków finansowych, by wesprzeć ją w tej nierównej walce. Jednocześnie w zachodnich bankach leży prawie 300 miliardów dolarów zamrożonych rosyjskich aktywów. Pieniędzy, które mogłyby wesprzeć Ukrainę. Najwięcej tych środków znajduje się w Unii Europejskiej, która w kolejnych rezolucjach i dokumentach z upodobaniem podkreśla swoją rolę we wspieraniu Ukrainy. W rzeczywistości wsparcie Unii doskonale oddaje powiedzenie, że gdy Rosjanie zajmują kolejne terytoria Ukrainy, Unia Europejska zajmuje tylko stanowisko. Dlaczego od ponad 10 lat to zdanie wciąż jest aktualne? Dlaczego za słowami nie idą konkretne działania – prawdziwe, a nie tylko na papierze? Kwestia zamrożenia rosyjskich aktywów to kolejny dobitny przykład takiego papierowego działania. Istnieją mechanizmy prawne pozwalające na przekazanie tych funduszy na pomoc Ukrainie. Rosja nie ma żadnych moralnych ani prawnych podstaw, by żądać zwrotu tych pieniędzy. Dlatego apeluję do rządów państw, w których znajdują się rosyjskie aktywa: nadszedł czas, by działać. Musimy przekazać pierwsze miliardy już teraz. Każdy dzień zwłoki oznacza więcej ofiar na Ukrainie.

  Nathalie Loiseau (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, on entend beaucoup de choses sur les avoirs russes gelés, notamment que leur confiscation serait illicite. Je conseille la lecture de «La responsabilité de l’État pour fait internationalement illicite», document que la commission du droit international des Nations unies a adopté en 2001. Ce document reconnaît à un État agressé le droit de prendre, à l’encontre de l’État agresseur, des contre-mesures en réparation des dommages causés.

La responsabilité de la Fédération de Russie en tant qu’État agresseur vient d’être rappelée par l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies, et il ne fait pas de doute que l’Ukraine est en droit de prendre des contre-mesures en guise de réparation. Ce serait donc à l’Ukraine d’agir; mais, voilà, les avoirs russes se trouvent ailleurs, notamment chez nous. Nous ne pouvons pas les saisir nous-mêmes, mais nous pouvons prêter à l’Ukraine un montant équivalent à ces avoirs, garanti par la revendication ukrainienne de recevoir réparation de la part de la Russie.

Quant à ceux qui craignent de faire fuir les investisseurs, je voudrais leur rappeler que lesdits investisseurs nous ont vus geler les avoirs russes. Ils savent à quoi s’en tenir et ne se sont pas enfuis. Nous leur avons passé un message clair et, je crois, salutaire: on n’envahit pas impunément son voisin.

Vous le voyez, chers collègues, tout est affaire de volonté politique. Quand il y a une volonté, il y a un chemin. Alors, prenons ce chemin sans attendre.

  Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, colleagues, let me be blunt. I have not been an outspoken proponent of confiscating frozen Russian assets in the past due to its legal sensitivity.

But times have changed. In our new world, where the United States is joining the side of Moscow and stepping back, the EU has no other choice but to take responsibility. We cannot afford to be hesitant.

The EU needs to fill the void. The calculation is very simple. What we have is not enough – not for Ukraine, not for our own security – and the responsibility of Moscow will probably never materialise if Washington joins and supports them. The compensation will probably never come. The tribunal will now materialise, but the damages remain.

Under those circumstances, the solution is clear. We must prepare now to confiscate USD 300 billion in frozen assets, so we can act in the moment as needed. This means the EU must find a legally secure solution to make the frozen assets of the Russian central bank available to Ukraine and to us.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

  Maximilian Krah (NI), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Den Wandel – interessant zu sagen, wegen der amerikanischen Haltung müssten wir jetzt konfiszieren. Der amerikanische Außenminister hat heute erklärt, dass die Freigabe der russischen Finanzmittel Teil eines Friedensdeals sein wird. Besteht damit nicht die Gefahr, dass aufgrund einer internationalen Konferenz – und nur die wird dies am Ende entscheiden – die EU, wenn sie diese Mittel konfisziert, sie Russland erstatten muss? Und kann man vor dem Hintergrund allen Ernstes guten Gewissens hier solche Reden schwingen, wenn man weiß, dass man es am Ende aus dem eigenen Haushalt zurückzahlen muss, denn die Ukraine wird dazu nicht in der Lage sein?

  Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Das kann man sehr wohl, Herr Kollege. Das liegt daran, dass wir eine selbstbewusste Seite sind, und weil wir bereit sind, die 300 Milliarden auch einzusetzen, muss auch mit uns gesprochen werden. Und die Amerikaner müssen sich entscheiden: Es kann nicht sein, dass noch vor zwei Monaten Trump verlangt hat, dass wir dieses Geld konfiszieren, und jetzt wollen sie dieses Geld an Russland wieder zurückschenken – das spielen wir nicht mit.

Wenn Amerikaner und Russen mit uns verhandeln wollen, dann müssen Ukrainer und wir mit am Tisch sitzen, und dann werden wir über das Schicksal dieses Geldes entscheiden. Aber entscheidend ist: Wir müssen bereit sein, das Geld auch zu konfiszieren.

  Рада Лайкова (ESN). – Г-н Председател, правото на собственост е основен стълб на западната цивилизация. Дори само обсъждането на конфискация на руски активи подкопава този принцип и изпраща изключително опасен сигнал и той е вашата собственост в Европейския съюз не е защитена, можем да я отнемем по всяко време.

Говорим за подобряване на капиталовите пазари, а в същото време се тестват механизми за заграбване на чужди активи. Как да привлечем инвестиции, ако заплашваме с конфискация? Ако милиарди чужди капитали напуснат Европа, кого ще накажем повече Русия или самите нас? Това не е просто санкция, това е експроприация на експроприаторите в нова форма. Пролетарии от всички страни, обединете се и вземете каквото смятате за свое. Днес е Русия, а утре може да е друга държава или всеки един от нас.

Така Европейският съюз отваря кутията на Пандора и унищожава репутацията на Европа като надеждно място за инвестиции.

  Ľuboš Blaha (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, vážení kolegovia, keď fašisti na Slovensku vyvlastňovali majetok Židov počas druhej svetovej vojny, hovorili tomu arizácia. Dnes terčom nie sú Židia, ale Rusi. Keď im budete na etnickom princípe zmrazovať majetky, nazvete to takisto arizácia? Lebo o tom to je. Je to obyčajný fašizmus proti Rusom. Toto nie je cesta k mieru.

Európa sa mení na vojnovú ríšu, na Reich. Willy Brandt či Altiero Spinelli sa musia v hrobe obracať. Ja neverím vo vojnu ani v zbrojenie. Verím v dialóg a diplomaciu, a preto som bol minulý týždeň ako prvý poslanec Európskeho parlamentu v ruskom parlamente diskutovať s našimi ruskými partnermi tak z vládnej strany Jednotné Rusko, ako aj z opozičných strán vrátane Komunistickej strany a Liberálnodemokratickej strany. A odkazujem: Rusi sú pripravení na dialóg s Európou. Problém nie sú oni. Problém ste vy. Už ste ostali jediní na svete, kto odmieta mierový dialóg s Ruskom a stále rinčí zbraňami. My na Slovensku odmietame nenávisť voči Rusku a budeme ďalej chodiť viesť dialóg do Moskvy.

  Michał Szczerba (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Dziś przyjęliśmy przełomową rezolucję dla przyszłości europejskiej polityki obronnej. To nie tylko uznanie Tarczy Wschód za wiodący projekt dla bezpieczeństwa Europy. W naszej rezolucji jest jasna deklaracja, że zamrożone aktywa rosyjskie, aktywa państwowe muszą być natychmiast wykorzystane dla obrony Ukrainy. To nie czas na półśrodki. Dość gadania, czas działać, bo chodzi również o wiarygodność Europy jako pewnego sojusznika.

Pieniądze państwa terrorystycznego muszą zostać przekazane Ukrainie. 300 miliardów euro może zmienić wynik tej wojny. Agresor musi ponieść odpowiedzialność za swoje niszczycielskie działania. Prawo międzynarodowe dopuszcza środki zaradcze. Unia musi wykorzystać wszystkie możliwości prawne. Wzywamy do natychmiastowego przekazania rosyjskiego kapitału Ukrainie. Ukraina, mając te środki, osłabia zdolność Rosji do prowadzenia wojny i odstrasza od przyszłych agresji. Unia Europejska musi działać zdecydowanie i opóźnienie tylko ośmiela Kreml. Sprawiedliwość wymaga, aby to agresor, a nie europejscy podatnicy, ponieśli koszty obrony Ukrainy.

  Marina Kaljurand (S&D). – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, I deeply regret that so far there has not been a formal decision on the seizure of Russia's immobilised central bank assets. Repeatedly, we hear from the Council and Commission that they have not found a legally sound way to use the seized assets. My advice is very simple: try harder.

Try harder to find a political willingness as well as a solution compatible with the rule of law principles. Russia has to pay for the violation of international law and the UN Charter, for causing immense human sufferings and destruction. Let me reiterate that customary international law, a state responsible for an international wrongful act must provide full reparation.

Commissioner, please come up with legally and financially sound proposals in order to use Russian frozen assets to compensate for the damages inflicted by Russia's actions. The sooner, the better. Ukraine is waiting.

  Karin Karlsbro (Renew). – Herr talman! Kommissionen! Kära kollegor! Rysslands krig mot Ukraina har ett mycket högt pris. Kostnaderna kan mätas i många dimensioner, i skador och förluster för hela samhället och enskilda människor, ytterst människoliv. Det är ingen annan än Ryssland som ska betala för det krig man valt att starta när man invaderar ett fredligt grannland.

I höstas beslutade vi att skicka avkastningen av de frysta ryska tillgångarna till Ukraina. Nu är det dags att ta nästa steg och frigöra själva tillgångarna som bara i Europa uppgår till runt 200 miljarder euro. Europas finansiella institutioner och marknader ska inte vara ett redskap för krigsherrar att säkra sina tillgångar i skydd av våra rättssystem. Ryssland ska betala! Slava Ukraini!

  Alvise Pérez (NI). – Señor presidente, bueno, en fin, expropiar a la gente solo por ser rusa... A mí no me caen bien los pelirrojos, podemos expropiarles a ellos también. ¡Qué circo! De verdad, ¡qué ganas tengo de alistarme e irme a morir a Ucrania! ¡Qué emoción! ¡Qué ganas tengo de darle más poder a estos burócratas de la Comisión Europea que jamás han sido elegidos por nadie directamente, pero que deciden por las vidas de todos!

Porque si algo nos falta en esta Unión Europea —con su inflación desbocada, con su industria en caída libre— es más centralización, más control, más obediencia ciega y más miles de millones de euros para las armamentísticas. Porque aquí no importa absolutamente nada la sangre de los ucranianos; importa hacer millonarias a las empresas armamentísticas.

Y qué ganas tengo, de verdad, de entender cómo es posible que Von der Leyen dijera hace dos años que Rusia solo tenía armamento de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Pero ahora resulta que necesitamos congelar los fondos a todos los rusos para poder defendernos de una Rusia que tiene cuatro veces menos tanques que los europeos. En fin, ¡qué ironía! Con un tirano —¡tirano!— como es Putin, incapaz de conquistar más del 20 % de Ucrania...

Pero, sobre todo, lo digo de verdad, más que morir, ¡qué ganas tengo de acabar con este circo belicoso que se llama Unión Europea! Porque, si hay algo más peligroso que esta guerra, es dejar la Unión Europea en manos de burócratas, tiranos y asesinos, como todos ustedes.

  President. – Please also take into consideration that interpretation is needed for your speeches. So if you speak too fast, it will be complicated for the interpretation.

  Mika Aaltola (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, komission jäsen, tänään meillä on edessämme historiallinen mahdollisuus osoittaa oikeudenmukaisuutta ja päättäväisyyttä. Venäjä on hyökännyt Ukrainaan, rikkonut kansainvälistä oikeutta ja aiheuttanut mittaamatonta kärsimystä. Samaan aikaan Euroopassa lepää satoja miljardeja euroja Venäjän jäädytettyjä varoja – rahaa, joka on pysäytetty vastauksena tähän aggressioon.

Varat on siirrettävä Ukrainalle. Rikoksista seuraa vastuu, ja kerätyt varat voivat auttaa jälleenrakentamaan tuhottuja kaupunkeja ja vahvistamaan Ukrainan puolustusta. Tämä taasen tuottaa Euroopalle turvallisuutta. Jotkut saattavat pelätä eskalaatiota, mutta päättämättömyys on se, mikä rohkaisee sitä.

  Francisco Assis (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, os tempos são de uma enorme exigência para a União Europeia. Esperam-se dela, hoje, todas as respostas e todas as soluções para os graves problemas do mundo.

Espera-se que ela atue com prontidão imediata, que ela substitua, da noite para o dia, aqueles que, como é o caso dos Estados Unidos, recuaram nos seus compromissos com a segurança, com a ajuda humanitária. E muitos dos que, ainda há pouco, eram europeístas apressam-se, à primeira contrariedade, a retratar a UE como fraca ou falhada.

Mas a verdade é claramente outra. Desde a crise pandémica, e ainda com a mesma armadura jurídica do Tratado de Lisboa, a União Europeia tem estado à altura de circunstâncias dificílimas. Tem agido, tem respondido, tem-se reinventado.

Ainda agora, perante as ameaças à segurança que se desenham no horizonte, a União Europeia concebeu um plano de 800 mil milhões de euros para se rearmar. Ainda agora, a União Europeia prepara‑se para responder à hostilidade tarifária do seu velho aliado com um pacote de pesadas tarifas.

A notícia de um cessar‑fogo de 30 dias na Ucrânia é um pequeno alívio, mas nada está garantido quando, do outro lado, há um interlocutor sem palavra: Vladimir Putin.

Por isso, a União Europeia não pode baixar a guarda. A Ucrânia está enfraquecida e nós temos de ter a coragem de usar os 200 mil milhões de bens russos congelados nos nossos territórios para manter à tona a capacidade de os ucranianos garantirem a sua independência e os valores democráticos que partilham connosco.

  Arkadiusz Mularczyk (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Jako autor raportu o stratach wojennych Polski podczas II wojny światowej wiem, jak kluczowe są środki na odbudowę kraju po wojnie. Polska nigdy nie otrzymała planu Marshalla, a Niemcy do dzisiaj uchylają się od zapłacenia Polsce reparacji wojennych. Skutki wojny są odczuwalne przez dekady i tak samo się będzie działo w przypadku Ukrainy, jeśli nie podejmiemy realnych działań. Dziś historia się powtarza. To opieszałość unijnych instytucji oraz rządów niektórych unijnych krajów z przekazaniem zamrożonych rosyjskich aktywów. Tylko sama Belgia ma 250 mld euro, które zamiast leżeć na kontach, powinny trafić na odbudowę Ukrainy. Apelujemy do Komisji Europejskiej, do Rady Europejskiej o podjęcie stosownych działań. Wojna niszczy na pokolenia. Jeśli nie działamy teraz, skazujemy Ukrainę i jej społeczeństwo na dekady strat i stagnacji. Nie pozwólmy, by historia II wojny światowej ponownie stała się lekcją, której nikt nie odrobił.

  Dan Barna (Renew). – Domnule președinte, după rușinosul comportament al președintelui Trump față de președintele Zelenskîi, Uniunea Europeană nu mai are astăzi niciun fel de scuză.

Utilizarea activelor rusești înghețate în Europa pentru finanțarea și sprijinul Ucrainei este o consecință firească și o chestiune de justiție, dreptate și necesitate strategică. Pentru cine mai are încă vreo dilemă, nu vorbim de confiscare pe criterii de rasă, așa cum tocmai ne-a spus extrema dreaptă că au făcut naziștii. Victimele nazismului nu au fost agresorii nimănui. Vorbim de răspundere, așa cum fiecare dintre noi răspundem pentru ceea ce facem, așa și Putin trebuie să răspundă pentru, să nu uităm, invazie și război, pentru că acesta este adevărul.

Folosirea activelor rusești va transmite și un mesaj clar: agresiunea nu poate rămâne nepedepsită în Europa. Acesta este un continent al egalității și statului de drept, iar din punct de vedere strategic, o Ucraină victorioasă în acest război, și apoi o țară suverană, stabilă și reconstruită, sunt esențiale pentru securitatea Europei.

Refuzul sau ezitarea de a folosi aceste active sunt echivalente cu renunțarea la principiile fundamentale ale Uniunii din care facem parte.

(Președintele a retras cuvântul vorbitorului)

  Markus Ferber (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Russland hat mit seinem brutalen Angriffskrieg unermessliches Leid über die Ukraine gebracht. Gleichzeitig lagern in der Europäischen Union eingefrorene russische Vermögenswerte in der Höhe von rund 200 Milliarden Euro nur allein von der Zentralbank. Es ist schlichtweg eine Frage der Gerechtigkeit, dass dieses Geld zur Unterstützung der Ukraine genutzt wird.

Es gilt das Verursacherprinzip: Wer Zerstörung verursacht, muss auch für die Beseitigung der Folgen aufkommen. Die Nutzung dieser Vermögenswerte wäre ein klares Signal: Aggression zahlt sich nicht aus. Natürlich müssen rechtliche Fragen sorgfältig geprüft werden, aber wir dürfen uns nicht hinter bürokratischen Hürden verstecken, während die Menschen in der Ukraine um ihr Leben kämpfen.

Bei der Nutzung eingefrorener russischer Vermögenswerte handelt es sich um eine Ausnahmesituation. Wenn es nämlich die Hürde ist, dass man einen illegalen Angriffskrieg beginnen muss, damit staatliche Vermögenswerte konfisziert werden, hängt die Latte sehr hoch, und die Märkte sind auch in der Lage, das zu verstehen. Mit diesen Eventualitäten muss sich der normale Investor nicht beschäftigen, wir schaden Europa damit nicht.

  Pina Picierno (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il sostegno dell'Europa all'Ucraina non si concretizza soltanto nell'assistenza militare ma ha una sua fondamentale estensione nelle sanzioni e nella confisca degli asset russi.

E occorre fare di più per far applicare le sanzioni negli Stati membri, per aumentare gli strumenti legislativi per permettere l'azione incisiva contro il dumping e contro il riciclaggio.

L'economia russa nel corso di questi anni di guerra ha trovato, lo sappiamo, nuove vie di approvvigionamento e di aggiramento delle sanzioni, anche attraverso strumenti di criptovalute o di società fantasma.

E noi abbiamo la necessità di reperire risorse, sia per le necessità belliche dell'Ucraina, sia per quelle di sostentamento sociale. E gli asset che l'Unione europea ha congelato devono essere messi a disposizione di queste esigenze subito. Occorre farlo subito, prima che tra le possibili concessioni di Donald Trump a Putin vi sia un allentamento drammatico delle sanzioni.

  Anna-Maja Henriksson (Renew). – Arvoisa puhemies, komission jäsen, yli kolmen vuoden ajan Venäjän hyökkäyssota Ukrainaa vastaan on aiheuttanut käsittämätöntä kärsimystä, kuolemaa ja tuhoa. Ukrainalaiset eivät taistele vain oman vapautensa puolesta, vaan myös meidän koko Euroopan puolesta joka päivä.

Pakotteiden seurauksena EU:ssa on tällä hetkellä jäädytettynä yli 200 miljardia euroa venäläisiä varoja. Viime syksynä teimme tärkeän päätöksen alkaa rahoittaa Ukrainan tukemista niiden tuotoilla.

Nyt on korkea aika, että myös pääoma käytetään Ukrainan hyväksi. Komission on nyt löydettävä tie eteenpäin, koska Venäjä jatkaa kansainvälisen oikeuden loukkaamista joka päivä, ja se ei ole oikein. Sen sijaan on oikein, että näitä jäädytettyjä varoja käytetään ja että hyökkääjä joutuu maksamaan.

  Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, if the question is 'What is the legal basis for seizing the frozen assets of the Russian Federation?' let me draw your attention to one of the resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. All our countries are members of the Council of Europe. That was adopted actually here in this very place in June last year. I know it because I was the rapporteur there. And in paragraph 15.3, we explained why the seizure and repurposing of Russian state assets would constitute lawful countermeasures under international law against the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine and explained why is this proportionate and how it all works.

So, the legal basis is there. Obviously, it is then a political decision whether to activate it or not. But at a time when we are discussing what is the role of the European Union in seeking a just peace for Ukraine, I think this is giving us the leverage we need to pursue that path of a just peace for Ukraine.

  Niels Fuglsang (S&D). – Hr. Formand! Kære kommissær, ærede kollegaer. I over 3 år har Ukraine kæmpet med at forsvare sit land fra en ulovlig og uprovokeret invasion. I over 3 år har Ukraine kæmpet mod tyranni og for frihed, og helten Zelenskyj har stået op mod diktatoren og aggressoren, Putin, og i EU har vi stået bag ham, støttet ham, og det bliver vi ved med. Det er en kæmpe uret, som er blevet begået, og som bliver begået - et overgreb af dimensioner. Og fra EU's side har vi støttet Ukraine med over 100 milliarder kroner, og mere er på vej. Men derudover er der også de mange penge, som ligger i Europa i form af indefrosne russiske aktiviteter - over 15 hundrede milliarder kroner. Nogle af pengene kommer fra oligarker, men langt de fleste kommer fra det russiske regime direkte. Putin er i gang med at smadre et land. Det skal han betale for, og derfor mener jeg, det er på tide, at vi forholder os til dette, om ikke vi skal bruge de indefrosne aktiviteter til at genopbygge Ukraine. Det er Putin, der skal betale. Det er ikke Ukraines befolkning. Lad os komme i gang med det.

  Dainius Žalimas (Renew). – Mr President, dear colleagues, lex semper dabit remedium - the law must always provide appropriate remedies against any breach. This maxim fits the best in seeking the legal solution on the frozen Russian assets.

The legal and moral imperatives in this case, indeed, are more than clear. There is no doubt that Russia, as an aggressor, must stop the war and provide the full reparation to Ukraine. There is also no doubt that the war of aggression is the grossest possible breach of international law. Therefore, other states must cooperate in bringing to an end the aggression. This cooperation includes legitimate countermeasures.

This is the answer as to how to justify under international law the use of frozen Russian assets for self-defence and the reconstruction of Ukraine. We must weigh what has to be safeguarded: the sovereign immunity of the aggressors' assets or the survival of a victim, independent and democratic state of Ukraine, as well as the whole rules‑based international order.

Therefore, Europe must be decisive by developing progressively international law with the decision to transfer frozen Russian assets to Ukraine at the account of future reparations. Let us ensure that the aggressor always pays.

  Łukasz Kohut (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! To Rosja jest agresorem i to za jej zamrożone aktywa powinno się odbudowywać niezależną, suwerenną, demokratyczną i proeuropejską Ukrainę. Przekażmy rosyjskie pieniądze, tak jak zrobili to Brytyjczycy. Cieszę się bardzo, że to właśnie dziś, w 26. rocznicę przystąpienia Polski do NATO, my tutaj w Parlamencie Europejskim przegłosowaliśmy ważne wzmocnienie wspólnej polityki obronnej Europy.

I w ramach tego dokumentu przegłosowaliśmy ważny zapis uznający Tarczę Wschód za flagowy projekt dla wspólnego bezpieczeństwa całej Unii Europejskiej. I maski dzisiaj opadły. Posłowie PiS-u i Konfederacji ręka w rękę z putinistami z AfD i od Orbana nie zagłosowali za tym dokumentem. To nie jest Duma, to jest Parlament Europejski. Powtórzę więc jeszcze raz. Zamrożone rosyjskie aktywa powinny być wykorzystane w odbudowie Ukrainy. Odwagi, Europo!

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario Hansen, este debate sobre la confiscación de los activos rusos ha estado presidido por la conciencia viva de este Parlamento Europeo de haber hecho cuanto estaba en su mano para ayudar a Ucrania frente a una guerra de agresión de Rusia —que, por cierto, es un crimen internacional cuya jurisdicción corresponde a la Corte Penal Internacional como ha declarado también este Parlamento—.

Hemos apoyado la congelación de 250 000 millones de euros y estamos dispuestos a apoyar el objetivo político, a dar una base jurídica sólida, modificando el Reglamento, que permita transformar la congelación en confiscación. Pero esto afecta no solamente a la política exterior y de seguridad y defensa, sino también al mercado interior en su variante de mercado financiero. Por tanto, hay que hacerlo con toda la seguridad jurídica, que es lo que marca la diferencia con cualquier arbitrariedad y crea un régimen jurídico permanente.

Así, este precedente —que permite efectivamente financiar la reconstrucción necesaria de Ucrania y cumplir, por tanto, el pronóstico de que apoyaremos a Ucrania as much as it takes, no solamente as long as it takes— tiene continuidad y lanza un mensaje al mundo de que estamos dispuestos a confiscar los activos ante...

(el presidente retira la palabra al orador)

  Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Mr President, over EUR 200 billion in frozen Russian assets. Assets that could make a real difference on the battlefield. Assets that hold the power of life and death have been gathering dust in European bank vaults for a third year in a row.

I ask: what are we waiting for? Last May, more than two years after the war began, Member States agreed to use the profits from these frozen assets for Ukraine's benefit. Even this decision took ages. The decision to use the frozen assets was postponed, waiting for potentially darker days.

Now, if ever, is the moment. Europe's slowness is a real threat to our own security. If we truly want to show our support for Ukraine and defend our continent, Russia's frozen assets must be released for Ukraine's use.

Tough times call for tough measures.

  Eugen Tomac (Renew). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, Rusia niciodată nu a respectat regulile, cum nu le respectă în prezent, așa cum nu le-a respectat nici acum un secol, când a confiscat întregul tezaur al României.

Mă adresez, domnule comisar, către Comisie, pentru că în urmă cu un an de zile am votat aici, în Parlamentul European, o rezoluție privind confiscarea în mod ilegal a întregului tezaur al Băncii Naționale a României de către Rusia.

Comisia are obligația să utilizeze inclusiv acest instrument prin care sunt blocate activele Federației Ruse în Europa, pentru a putea recupera ceea ce ne aparține. Tezaurul Băncii Naționale a României a fost în mod ilegal reținut în Rusia, și cred că este extrem de important să ne putem recupera bunurile.

Sper că Comisia va înțelege mesajul politic pe care l-am transmis anul trecut aici, cu o largă majoritate în Parlamentul European, când am cerut să fie restituit tezaurul Băncii Naționale a României.

  Barry Andrews (Renew). – Mr President, Commissioner Hansen, I want to add my voice of support to the argument for the use of immobilised Russian assets for Ukraine. At the very least, we should assert the legal right to seize those assets and apply them to the reconstruction of Ukraine.

I have to say, I find it very hard to take seriously the sovereign right argument made by Russia and its sympathisers, in circumstances where Russia has demonstrated a complete and consistent disregard for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbours. It would be a proportional response by the EU to apply these assets to Ukraine, given the estimated EUR 500 billion in damage done to Ukraine's economy.

I have to say that I am informed that the Irish Government will bring forward legislation in the next two weeks called the Criminal Justice Violation of EU Restrictive Measures Bill.

The legal basis for the use of these assets is sound and made out by other speakers. All that remains is for us to send a strong political signal reinforcing the international norm against aggression.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Christophe Hansen, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I believe that the discussion today has clearly shown that we need to continue to show our unwavering support to Ukraine. With the support by Europe and our partners, Ukraine will be in a position to achieve a just and lasting peace.

For this reason, the assets of the Central Bank of Russia shall remain immobilised until Russia pays for the damage it has caused in Ukraine. The Commission fully supports exploring all possible avenues to aid Ukraine in obtaining compensation from Russia, consistent with our respective legal systems and international law.

We need to continue to signal to Russia that our support to Ukraine will be sustained, broad-based and steadfast. Looking ahead, our priority is to work closely with international partners to ensure the successful completion of the IMF programme to guarantee that Ukraine has sufficient resources to counter Russia's aggression. This includes ensuring the full implementation of the G7 ERA loan initiative by all G7 partners in the coming months.

To conclude, let me also add that we need to be mindful of the challenges that lie ahead of us, especially in a context where the EU will need to step up its efforts to support Ukraine's defence and financial needs.

Thank you for letting have the opportunity to participate in this very important debate.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written Statements (Rule 178)

  Rihards Kols (ECR), in writing. – Russia’s frozen assets must be seized and used to support Ukraine. Asset seizure is not just a moral obligation but a strategic necessity. If we were able to adjust legal frameworks to freeze these assets, we can – and must – take the next step toward confiscation. Anything less undermines accountability and sets a dangerous precedent that aggression and genocide can go unpunished.

Ukraine’s reconstruction costs are now estimated at EUR 383 billion, and they continue to rise as Russia’s brutal war of destruction persists. Meanwhile, Russia’s Central Bank assets frozen in the EU and G7 amount to approximately EUR 300 billion. These funds rightfully belong to the victims of this war – not to the regime that launched it. Seizing even a portion of these assets would provide significant relief for Ukraine’s rebuilding efforts, without shifting the financial burden onto Western taxpayers.

Directing tax revenues from frozen Russian assets to Ukraine sets an example of how these funds can be mobilised for justice. But this is not enough: we need a coordinated effort to seize the principal assets themselves.

Europe must act. Justice demands action. Russia must pay for the devastation it has caused. Seize Russia’s frozen assets and ensure they serve Ukraine’s recovery.