Interaction of EU and EU Member State Laws in Relation to Frozen Russian Assets
During the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, one of the key issues being discussed is the reparation of damages caused by Russia in Ukraine. Given Russia’s refusal to voluntarily pay for reparations, there have been proposals to confiscate frozen Russian assets for the purpose of rebuilding Ukraine. Howe...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
National University Odessa Law Academy
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | Lex Portus |
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849429460292468736 |
|---|---|
| author | Evhen Tsybulenko Liilia Mesila |
| author_facet | Evhen Tsybulenko Liilia Mesila |
| author_sort | Evhen Tsybulenko |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | During the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, one of the key issues being discussed is the reparation of damages caused by Russia in Ukraine. Given Russia’s refusal to voluntarily pay for reparations, there have been proposals to confiscate frozen Russian assets for the purpose of rebuilding Ukraine. However, this approach is likely to raise several legal challenges that need to be addressed or clarified. Therefore, the aim of this article is to identify and analyze the main legal issues related to the confiscation of frozen Russian assets from the perspectives of international and European Union law, human rights, and local laws. Even though sovereign immunity generally protects state assets from foreign jurisdiction, exceptions may apply in cases of violations of international law. There is an ongoing debate from an international law perspective over whether sovereign immunity should be overridden when a state engages in illegal military actions. The use of frozen assets also raises human rights concerns, particularly around the right to property, the presumption of innocence, and proportionality measures. Therefore, legal safeguards need to be in place to protect individual rights during asset confiscation. Additionally, at the local level, many countries lack the legislative frameworks to support confiscating non-criminal assets. In conclusion, while utilizing frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction is a promising solution, the associated legal, ethical, and human rights challenges require careful consideration to ensure fairness and legality. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-e8717afab4bf4d6ebc2f8df11c2fc793 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2524-101X 2617-541X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-07-01 |
| publisher | National University Odessa Law Academy |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Lex Portus |
| spelling | doaj-art-e8717afab4bf4d6ebc2f8df11c2fc7932025-08-20T03:28:21ZengNational University Odessa Law AcademyLex Portus2524-101X2617-541X2025-07-01113365210.62821/lp11303Interaction of EU and EU Member State Laws in Relation to Frozen Russian AssetsEvhen Tsybulenko0https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4977-9441Liilia Mesila1https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1249-6975Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, EstoniaTallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, EstoniaDuring the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, one of the key issues being discussed is the reparation of damages caused by Russia in Ukraine. Given Russia’s refusal to voluntarily pay for reparations, there have been proposals to confiscate frozen Russian assets for the purpose of rebuilding Ukraine. However, this approach is likely to raise several legal challenges that need to be addressed or clarified. Therefore, the aim of this article is to identify and analyze the main legal issues related to the confiscation of frozen Russian assets from the perspectives of international and European Union law, human rights, and local laws. Even though sovereign immunity generally protects state assets from foreign jurisdiction, exceptions may apply in cases of violations of international law. There is an ongoing debate from an international law perspective over whether sovereign immunity should be overridden when a state engages in illegal military actions. The use of frozen assets also raises human rights concerns, particularly around the right to property, the presumption of innocence, and proportionality measures. Therefore, legal safeguards need to be in place to protect individual rights during asset confiscation. Additionally, at the local level, many countries lack the legislative frameworks to support confiscating non-criminal assets. In conclusion, while utilizing frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction is a promising solution, the associated legal, ethical, and human rights challenges require careful consideration to ensure fairness and legality.eu lawfrozen assetsconfiscationreparationsrusso-ukrainian warsanctionssovereign immunity |
| spellingShingle | Evhen Tsybulenko Liilia Mesila Interaction of EU and EU Member State Laws in Relation to Frozen Russian Assets Lex Portus eu law frozen assets confiscation reparations russo-ukrainian war sanctions sovereign immunity |
| title | Interaction of EU and EU Member State Laws in Relation to Frozen Russian Assets |
| title_full | Interaction of EU and EU Member State Laws in Relation to Frozen Russian Assets |
| title_fullStr | Interaction of EU and EU Member State Laws in Relation to Frozen Russian Assets |
| title_full_unstemmed | Interaction of EU and EU Member State Laws in Relation to Frozen Russian Assets |
| title_short | Interaction of EU and EU Member State Laws in Relation to Frozen Russian Assets |
| title_sort | interaction of eu and eu member state laws in relation to frozen russian assets |
| topic | eu law frozen assets confiscation reparations russo-ukrainian war sanctions sovereign immunity |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT evhentsybulenko interactionofeuandeumemberstatelawsinrelationtofrozenrussianassets AT liiliamesila interactionofeuandeumemberstatelawsinrelationtofrozenrussianassets |