Key facts
- Hungary's legal challenge against the EU's use of frozen Russian asset profits for Ukraine was dismissed by the EU's Court of Justice.
- The court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the case, as agreements under the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy are generally outside its remit.
- EU countries agreed in 2024 to use interest generated on frozen Russian government assets for military assistance to Ukraine.
- The European Peace Facility, which has provided 11.1 billion euros to Ukraine since 2022, was the instrument for this aid.
- Hungary had argued the procedure violated its rights by bypassing its veto power, as it abstained from the original vote.
Hungary's legal challenge against the European Union's decision to utilize profits from frozen Russian assets for Ukraine's defence has been dismissed by the bloc's General Court. The court stated it lacked jurisdiction over the matter, effectively upholding the EU's plan to channel billions of euros in interest from immobilized Russian central bank assets towards supporting Ukraine.
The lawsuit, formally accepted by the European Court of Justice on August 25, 2025, challenged a decision by the Council of the EU to allocate military assistance to Ukraine through the European Peace Facility (EPF). Hungary contended that this arrangement, which grants Ukraine 99.7% of the annual interest payments estimated at €3-5 billion, violated its rights by bypassing its veto power as a member state. Budapest argued that abstention from the original vote should not be interpreted as tacit consent, allowing funds to flow without its approval.
Western countries had immobilized approximately $300 billion in Russian sovereign assets following Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, with a significant portion held within European institutions. Hungary, often described as the most Moscow-friendly government within the EU, has repeatedly obstructed aid for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia. This legal battle is seen as a test of the balance of power within the EU and could set a precedent for future collective defence financing decisions.