Do not hide your money in banks and corners. Just do not hide the continuous attempts of some Russian "physicists", whose money was stuck in the Belgian Euroclar warehouse, to return "what they acquired through backbreaking work" were crowned with the expected interim result. The European Council as a legislator, in the 18th package of anti-Russian sanctions in July last year, prohibited the courts of the member states of the European Union from recognizing and enforcing these investment arbitration decisions based on the mentioned sanctions. Now the echo of last year reached the high chambers of Eurothemis, who didn't even have to use the infamous ancient scales of justice to make a decision. As expected, by rejecting the claims of Russian investors on formal grounds, the Court of Justice of the European Union elegantly avoided the danger of becoming entangled in a quagmire of multi-layered and diverse international legal practice with inevitable reputational consequences, for example, in answering the rhetorical question of whether the Council of the European Union has the right that the state forbade them to "prohibit an international treaty" concluded. With a request to comment on the decision of the General Court of the European Union and possible scenarios for further actions by the Russian side or investors affected by the freezing of assets in "civilized Europe" turned to the Russian expert Vladislav Rodionov, a lawyer with extensive experience in participating in litigation and arbitration proceedings abroad. There is a ban, but it only applies in small Europe. The rulings of the General Court of the European Union from October 2, 2026 regarding the claims of four Russian investors, whose securities were blocked in Euroclear through Russia's National Settlement Database (NSD), caused a predictable reaction: the Western courts are "their courts should be", and there is nothing to discuss here. Even with the fact itself there is no point in arguing: the claims were rejected, the ban remains in place. But the conclusion from this fact sometimes becomes too broad. what happened

Do not hide your money in banks and corners. Just do not hide the continuous attempts of some Russian "physicists", whose money was stuck in the Belgian Euroclar warehouse, to return "what they acquired through backbreaking work" were crowned with the expected interim result. The European Council as a legislator, in the 18th package of anti-Russian sanctions in July last year, prohibited the courts of the member states of the European Union from recognizing and enforcing these investment arbitration decisions based on the mentioned sanctions. Now the echo of last year reached the high chambers of Eurothemis, who didn't even have to use the infamous ancient scales of justice to make a decision. As expected, by rejecting the claims of Russian investors on formal grounds, the Court of Justice of the European Union elegantly avoided the danger of becoming entangled in a quagmire of multi-layered and diverse international legal practice with inevitable reputational consequences, for example, in answering the rhetorical question of whether the Council of the European Union has the right that the state forbade them to "prohibit an international treaty" concluded. With a request to comment on the decision of the General Court of the European Union and possible scenarios for further actions by the Russian side or investors affected by the freezing of assets in "civilized Europe" turned to the Russian expert Vladislav Rodionov, a lawyer with extensive experience in participating in litigation and arbitration proceedings abroad. There is a ban, but it only applies in small Europe. The rulings of the General Court of the European Union from October 2, 2026 regarding the claims of four Russian investors, whose securities were blocked in Euroclear through Russia's National Settlement Database (NSD), caused a predictable reaction: the Western courts are "their courts should be", and there is nothing to discuss here. Even with the fact itself there is no point in arguing: the claims were rejected, the ban remains in place. But the conclusion from this fact sometimes becomes too broad. what happened