How the Unfreezing of Assets is Conducted through the Belgian Ministry of Finance: Practical Experience of DTK Partners

After the imposition of international sanctions on key Russian financial institutions, including the National Settlement Depository (NSD), the assets of thousands of Russian investors were frozen within the Euroclear infrastructure.
These sanctions, imposed by the European Union and the United States of America, made it impossible for many investors to freely manage their assets, despite not being personally subject to sanctions.

Despite initial expectations, the automatic unblocking of assets or lifting of restrictions did not occur. As of today, the only legal and effective way to regain access to frozen assets is by submitting an application for an individual license from the Belgian Treasury, and in some cases — also from OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control, USA).

In this article, the law firm DTK Partners, which has experience in handling such cases, shares its practice of unblocking assets through the Belgian Treasury.
We will detail the entire process — from preparing the necessary documentation to obtaining a license — and provide recommendations on an effective strategy for protecting clients’ interests.

We will explain which documents are required to unblock assets, what conditions must be met to obtain a license from the Belgian Ministry of Finance, and how to properly challenge a refusal based on applicable EU sanctions law and court practice.

Legal Framework

The legal basis for submitting an application to the Belgian Treasury for an individual license to unblock assets is Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, specifically its Article 6ter(5).
This article provides an exception to the general prohibition on the use of frozen funds imposed under the EU sanctions regime.

The text of the provision reads:

“By way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities of a Member State may authorize the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain frozen funds or economic resources, belonging to an entity listed under No. 101 in Annex I (NSD), provided that such funds or economic resources are necessary for the termination by 7 January 2023 at the latest of operations, contracts or other agreements concluded with that entity before 3 June 2022.”

This provision allows investors whose assets were frozen due to sanctions against the National Settlement Depository (NSD) to request the unblocking of their assets, provided that strictly defined conditions are met.
It is important to understand that obtaining such a license is only possible with proper documentary evidence confirming legal ownership of the assets, their origin, and the date of acquisition.

Thus, Article 6ter(5) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 serves as a key legal mechanism for protecting the interests of bona fide investors and restoring control over assets frozen within the Euroclear system.

Conditions for Obtaining an Individual License

To obtain an individual license for unblocking frozen assets from the Belgian Treasury, the investor must meet a clearly defined set of requirements based on the provisions of European sanctions legislation, including Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, Article 6ter(5).
Failure to comply with even one of these conditions may lead to a refusal.

Key criteria considered by the Belgian Treasury when reviewing applications include:

• Absence of Sanctioned Status: The applicant must not be listed on the EU sanctions list. This also applies to the applicant’s beneficial owners.
• Proof of Ownership: The investor must provide documentary evidence that the assets (e.g., securities frozen in Euroclear) legally belong to them.
• Assets Must Remain in EU Jurisdiction: All unblocked assets must remain within the European legal zone, meaning they must be transferred to an account with a European brokerage company registered and regulated in an EU member state.
• No Fees Charged by NSD: It must be confirmed that the NSD (National Settlement Depository) will not charge fees for asset withdrawal, as any payment to a sanctioned entity could be seen as prohibited use of frozen resources.
• Date of Acquisition: The securities must have been acquired before 3 June 2022, i.e., prior to the EU sanctions against the NSD taking effect.
• Termination of Relations with NSD: All legal and operational relationships with the NSD must be completely terminated by 7 January 2023.
• Collective Broker Application: If the brokerage company submitted a collective application for unblocking assets, it must be confirmed through copies of applications or official letters from the broker.
• Guarantee Letter from a European Operator: A guarantee letter must be provided by a European broker or custodian operator.

Drafting and submitting the application requires a high level of legal precision, knowledge of procedures, and an understanding of the Belgian Treasury’s practical requirements.

Even when all of the above requirements are met and the arguments are properly structured, it should be remembered that the Belgian Treasury may request additional information or clarifications at any stage of the application review.

Challenges in Gathering Documentation and Submitting the First Application

In practice, the main challenge when applying for an individual license from the Belgian Treasury lies in the process of gathering all necessary documents.
Most of the evidence needed to meet the conditions set out in Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 must be obtained through brokerage companies, which, based on our experience, is one of the most labor-intensive stages of the entire procedure.

Interacting with brokers presents numerous difficulties. Brokers often fail to provide documents in full or simply ignore client requests. Communication typically occurs only through built-in support functions within mobile applications, significantly complicating operational interaction.

According to established regulations, processing a single request for document provision can take up to 30 calendar days. Each additional correction or clarification restarts the countdown, resulting in significant delays overall.

In one of our cases, the preparation of the complete document package took approximately two months, despite the fact that the client already had an active account with a Cypriot brokerage company.
Moreover, the broker agreed to act as the required European operator-guarantor.

Submission of the Application to the Belgian Treasury

The full set of documents, including:

• the application for an individual license with all annexes;
• the guarantee letter from the Cypriot investment company;

was submitted to the Belgian Ministry of Finance in March 2024.
However, over a prolonged period, there was no response from the Belgian Treasury, creating a situation of legal uncertainty and forcing us to resort to administrative escalation mechanisms.

To protect the client’s interests, we filed a complaint with the Federal Ombudsman of Belgium, describing the situation and highlighting the violation of reasonable timeframes for administrative review.
The Ombudsman responded quickly, confirming the high efficiency of administrative oversight in Belgium.

A few weeks later, the Ombudsman forwarded to us the official response from the Ministry of Finance. In its letter, the Ministry apologized for the prolonged lack of communication and explained the delay by citing the extraordinary volume of requests received under the sanctions regime.
The Ministry assured us that the client’s application would be reviewed as soon as possible under a priority administrative procedure.

Thus, even when all formal requirements are met and the full package of documents is submitted, applicants face long waiting periods and the necessity of employing administrative protection mechanisms.
The experience of DTK Partners shows that a competent legal strategy, including engagement with oversight bodies, can significantly speed up the review of applications and safeguard clients’ interests.

Beginning of Official Dialogue with the Belgian Treasury

In February 2025, the Belgian Ministry of Finance sent an official notification confirming that the client’s application for an individual license to unblock frozen assets had been accepted for review.
This marked an important step forward in the procedure, especially considering the long period of waiting after the initial submission of the documents.

During the preliminary analysis of the file, which was submitted through DTK Partners, the Ministry did not issue a single request for additional information, demonstrating the high quality of the documentation package.
The only exception was one clarifying question concerning assets blocked outside of Euroclear — namely, securities held in the client’s account via the infrastructure of the SPB Exchange (St. Petersburg Stock Exchange).

The Belgian Ministry of Finance inquired whether the applicant intended to transfer these assets to a European brokerage account under the current application.
In our response, we explained that these assets did not fall under Euroclear’s regulatory framework. Therefore, their unblocking was outside the jurisdiction of the Belgian Treasury and did not require a separate license.

Additionally, we informed the authorities that a separate application concerning the securities blocked through the SPB Exchange had already been submitted to OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control, USA), the body responsible for overseeing the implementation of American sanctions regimes.
We argued that the issue of transferring these particular assets was beyond the scope of the current procedure and should not impact the issuance of a license for the securities held in Euroclear.

This response from the Belgian Ministry of Finance demonstrated its attention to detail and the critical importance of providing accurate and comprehensive information regarding the origin, jurisdiction, and legal nature of the assets subject to unblocking.
DTK Partners ensures not only the preparation of documentation but also professional legal support in interactions with government bodies, significantly improving communication efficiency and reducing the risk of refusal.

Refusal by the Belgian Treasury: Formal Grounds and Controversial Wording in the Guarantee Letter

Despite the applicant’s full compliance with all established requirements of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 and the General Conditions of the Belgian Treasury, in March 2025, the Ministry of Finance issued an official refusal to grant an individual license for the unblocking of assets.
This refusal became a critical point in the process and required active legal response.

Formal Grounds for Refusal

According to the official text of the refusal, the reason cited was the absence in the guarantee letter provided by the European investment guarantor of a “firm and unequivocal obligation” to assume legal responsibility for fulfilling the terms of the transaction, including the oversight of asset transfers and compliance with EU sanctions regulations.

In the view of the Belgian Ministry of Finance, the wording used in the letter lacked sufficient legal certainty, allegedly calling into question the seriousness of the guarantor’s intentions and commitments.

It is important to note that until recently, the Belgian Ministry of Finance had not imposed such strict requirements on the wording of guarantee letters.
Moreover, in similar cases, documents with identical or similar wording had previously been accepted without any objections.
This indicates a recent change in the internal practice of the Treasury, which was not formally documented in any public regulations or official guidelines.
Such a change in practice, without prior notification to applicants, undermines the principle of legal certainty and complicates the good-faith fulfillment of requirements by investors and their representatives.

The Ministry does not publish approved templates or mandatory formulations for guarantee letters, creating additional legal uncertainty and increasing administrative discretion in decision-making.
In the absence of transparent and stable standards, it becomes extremely difficult for applicants to prepare documents that would reliably meet the regulator’s expectations.

Thus, the refusal, based on an unofficially modified approach to the evaluation of guarantee letters, became the result of excessive formalism and subjective administrative interpretation, rather than an objective legal assessment of the submitted materials.

At the same time, an analysis of the situation and the arguments provided in the refusal strongly suggests that the Belgian Treasury deliberately sought a formal pretext for refusal, ignoring both the essence and content of the submitted document package.
Despite clear compliance with all material requirements of the Regulation and the General Conditions, the decision was made solely on the basis of a subjective interpretation of a phrase, without considering the applicant’s good faith or the European guarantor’s readiness to fulfill their obligations.

We also cannot rule out that such actions reflect a politicized approach to the issue of unblocking Russian assets, where legal procedures are used not as neutral tools for protecting rights but as mechanisms for additional pressure and restriction.
A refusal based on a controversial wording — when all other conditions are met — exemplifies excessive formalism and discriminatory administration, raising serious concerns about the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty within the framework of the EU sanctions regime.

What the Guarantee Letter Must Contain: Belgian Treasury Requirements

According to the General Conditions of the Belgian Treasury, guarantee letters must include three key sections:

• A commitment by the European operator (guarantor) to assume legal responsibility for supervising the transaction and ensuring that the assets comply with EU sanctions regulations.
• A preliminary report, which must include:
  • A list of the assets (securities) subject to unblocking;
  • A verification of the good standing (KYC, AML) of the applicants and beneficial owners;
  • Instructions for the transfer of funds and due diligence procedures for the recipients.
• A post-transaction report, containing:
  • A list of the assets actually transferred;
  • Information on the final beneficiaries of the funds;
  • Confirmation that no funds were transferred to persons subject to EU or US sanctions.

The guarantee letter submitted by our client, prepared by a Cypriot investment company, included all of these elements, such as:

• A description of the assets;
• A declaration confirming the client’s absence from sanctions lists;
• Planned mechanisms for transferring the assets to an EU-based account;
• A statement regarding compliance with EU regulations.

Nevertheless, the Belgian Ministry of Finance deemed the commitment wording in the guarantee letter insufficiently categorical, suggesting it could be interpreted as conditional or limited.
This decision serves as an example of excessive formalism and highlights the lack of a unified approach in assessing such guarantee letters.

Thus, the refusal was based not on a lack of substantive commitment, but on a subjective interpretation of the wording used.
This demonstrates the necessity not only to comply with the formal conditions of the Regulation but also to ensure precise legal wording tailored to the specific expectations of the Belgian Treasury.

Working with the European Guarantor and Initiating a Review of the Refusal

After receiving the formal refusal from the Belgian Ministry of Finance — based on the allegedly insufficient certainty in the guarantee letter — the DTK Partners team initiated a thorough analysis of the European investment guarantor’s position, namely the Cypriot brokerage firm that issued the letter.

In response to our inquiry, the Cypriot investment company explained that similar letters, with identical wording, had previously been issued for Russian investors and that the Belgian Ministry of Finance had granted licenses based on such letters.
Furthermore, until that moment, no complaints regarding the content or wording had been raised, confirming the inconsistency in the regulator’s approach.

We promptly contacted the Belgian Ministry of Finance, expressing official concern over the refusal and the absence of legal grounds for the negative decision.
During direct dialogue, we clarified whether the refusal could be reconsidered if an updated guarantee letter were submitted with wording aligned to the Treasury’s preferences.

The Ministry replied that, by way of exception, it could reconsider the decision provided the identified deficiencies were corrected.
This opened the way for further actions to resolve the issue without the need to file a complaint with the Belgian Council of State.

We then approached the Cypriot broker again, requesting an amended guarantee letter that would meet the Belgian Treasury’s new requirements.
Initially, the broker refused, demanding that the client submit a new application and pay an additional fee for the revised letter.

However, by referring to the terms of the existing service contract with the client and the broker’s failure to deliver an adequate service, we highlighted that the deficiencies in the original letter had rendered it ineffective.
Following a series of legal arguments and references to potential legal claims for damages, the broker eventually agreed to revise the letter.

Negotiations and finalizing the new wording took over a month, as the broker resisted including a strict and unconditional commitment.
Only after we clarified that the Ministry’s refusal was directly linked to the shortcomings of the original letter — and that failure to correct it would lead to potential legal action — did the broker agree to the required changes.

Once the updated guarantee letter was finalized, we submitted it for preliminary review to the Belgian Ministry of Finance.
The Ministry confirmed that the new wording satisfied their requirements and addressed all previously identified deficiencies.

Following this, we officially submitted a request for reconsideration of the initial refusal, attaching the revised European guarantee letter and supporting legal arguments.

Appeal to the Belgian Council of State: Legal Protection and Strategic Action

Under current Belgian law, a decision by the Ministry of Finance may be appealed within 60 calendar days of official notification.
Since negotiations with the Cypriot broker and preparation of the revised guarantee letter took more than a month, we decided not to risk missing the deadline and initiated an appeal before the Belgian Council of State (Conseil d’État) in parallel.

According to Belgian law, an appeal before the Council of State may be filed directly by the applicant without mandatory representation by a Belgian lawyer, enabling applicants to independently defend their rights.
The legal team at DTK Partners decided to prepare the appeal independently, ensuring a high level of argumentation and full compliance with procedural requirements.

In preparing the appeal, we conducted an in-depth analysis of Belgian legislation, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and earlier rulings by the Belgian Council of State.
Based on this analysis, we prepared a well-reasoned and structured appeal containing eight key legal arguments:

• The refusal, based solely on the formal absence of a single phrase despite all other substantive elements being present, violates the principle prohibiting excessive formalism, as recognized in both EU administrative practice and Belgian law.
• The Ministry’s actions breach the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 10 of the Belgian Constitution.
  Relevant precedents (e.g., C-810/19 Offshore and C-279/93 Schumacker) confirm that unjustified differential treatment is prohibited.
• The refusal was arbitrary and lacked legal justification, relying on subjective interpretation rather than objective legal norms.
• The principle of legal certainty was violated, which requires that legal rules and administrative procedures be clear, predictable, and consistently applied.
  This is confirmed by CJEU case law, notably case C-63/93 Duff.
• The refusal contradicts Article 6ter(5) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, which explicitly allows unblocking assets if the specified conditions — all of which were fulfilled — are met.
• The principle of proportionality, enshrined in Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), was violated, requiring that administrative measures be proportionate to the legitimate objectives pursued.
• The Ministry’s actions failed to comply with the principle of good administration and the duty of public authorities to ensure fair consideration of applications, as set out in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
• The existence of similar cases where licenses were granted under comparable circumstances demonstrates a violation of the principle of consistency in law enforcement, undermining public trust and creating risks to equality among applicants.

Thus, filing an appeal with the Belgian Council of State was a necessary and strategically justified step to protect the client’s rights. It allowed us not only to preserve the right to challenge the refusal but also to exert additional pressure on the Ministry of Finance, encouraging a reconsideration of the administrative act even before a ruling by the Council of State.