Key facts
- Several EU countries are pushing to collectively terminate 16 bilateral investment treaties with Russia.
- These treaties are viewed as outdated and potentially used by Moscow to pursue claims against European companies.
- The treaties are also seen as an obstacle to utilizing frozen Russian assets for Ukraine's reconstruction.
- Belgium has made the termination of these treaties a condition for supporting plans to use frozen Russian assets.
- Russia has recently seized significant assets from European companies, including Raiffeisen Bank.
- The European Commission considers the treaties inconsistent with the EU's investment protection policy.
Several European Union countries are pushing for the bloc to collectively terminate 16 bilateral investment treaties with Russia, many of which were signed around the end of the Cold War. These agreements, intended to promote and protect investments, are now seen as outdated and potentially exploited by Moscow to pursue claims against European companies. Furthermore, they are considered an obstacle to utilizing approximately 200 billion euros in frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine.
Belgium has made the abolition of these treaties a prerequisite for backing an EU plan to use the frozen funds for Kyiv. While the EU has taken a leading role in trade relations since the Lisbon Treaty, individual bilateral treaties with Russia have largely remained in force until Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. These treaties typically include arbitration mechanisms that allow companies to challenge discriminatory treatment or asset expropriation.
Some European governments desire a coordinated termination of these treaties to limit Russia's ability to retaliate against any single country. Lithuania is the only EU member to have terminated its treaty with Russia so far, citing Russia's disregard for international legal norms. Ukraine also terminated its treaty in January 2025.
Despite these treaties, Russia has continued to seize European assets. In 2023 alone, assets belonging to Danone, Carlsberg, OMV, Fortum, and Uniper were expropriated. More recently, Moscow seized 2.1 billion euros from Austria's Raiffeisen Bank, awarding them to a Russian investment company linked to sanctioned oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Raiffeisen's strategy to compensate for these losses involves swapping the seized assets for Deripaska's assets frozen in Austria, a move criticized for potentially legitimizing the Kremlin's actions and allowing Deripaska to evade sanctions.
Raiffeisen has opted not to challenge the seizure through Austria's investment treaty, citing legal risks and enforcement difficulties. However, the bank's spokesperson cautioned that terminating treaties could remove a last resort for fairness in Russia. The European Commission has stated that the ongoing existence of the 16 treaties is inconsistent with the EU's investment protection policy, particularly given Russia's systematic misconduct against EU investors since the invasion of Ukraine.
Discussions about terminating the treaties gained momentum in December 2025 alongside plans for frozen assets, with Belgium's Prime Minister demanding their abolition. Sanctioned Russian entities have reportedly used the arbitration process to initiate numerous legal proceedings against European courts. Although no agreement was reached in December, the issues are resurfacing. Sweden, Poland, Spain, and the Netherlands have called for reopening the debate on frozen assets, with Belgium likely to maintain its cautious stance and demands for treaty termination. Spain is reportedly willing to terminate its treaty if done in coordination, while the Netherlands views the treaties as less problematic, possibly due to EU sanctions rules that include a 'no-claims clause' suspending compensation for sanctioned Russian entities.