The issue of confiscation of Russian assets stored in the West is becoming an important discussion of European politicians and lawyers.

Moreover, the first legislative mechanisms are already being created for this.

Last week, the European Parliament held several events related to the confiscation of Russian assets.

The positive thing is that, despite considerable skepticism, the idea of confiscation is getting louder in the European agenda. There are objective reasons for this: the assets of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation are frozen for at least $300 billion in the West, in addition to the $30 billion in frozen assets of oligarchs close to Putin.

In case of confiscation, these funds would make it much easier for Western taxpayers to support Ukraine.

That is why even the most conservative European institutions remain open to the discussion of various legal mechanisms of confiscation.

First of all, it is worth understanding that different types of Russian property will be applied differently because of legal standards and mechanisms. It is appropriate to distinguish three types: private property; state property enterprises; state property protected by immunity.

Talking about the private property of Russian oligarchs, the legislation of European countries and the USA is in force and does not provide mechanisms for their confiscation for supporting international crimes, from aggression to genocide committed by Russia in Ukraine. Confiscation is possible if they are found guilty of corruption, money laundering, etc.

However, it is possible to apply a mechanism, such as in Italy, where the grounds for confiscation can be, involvement in mafia criminal circles.

In our case, it would be possible to confiscate through the connection with the Kremlin, which wages the aggressive war against Ukraine, as well as substantial support for this war.

Especially since a precedent has already been set: such a mechanism of confiscations, among other things, of Russian private property, has been already established by Canada.

But in the issue of confiscation of state property, we face another problem - jurisdictional immunities. Property usually belonging to a foreign state is not subject to the judgment of national judges of other states. There are exceptions to this rule - for example, the use of property for commercial purposes. This, by the way, will avoid the problem of immunities during the confiscation of Russian state property enterprises, such as "Gazprom."

This creates a problem, because the assets of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the value of which is estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars, do not fall under any of the exceptions that exist today, and are protected by Russian immunity.

However, other exceptions also appeared gradually - this is a normal process of international evolution rights. It is our situation that can lead to the appearance of a new exception - the removal of immunity in the case of implementation of aggression by the state.

As the UN Commission on International Law notes, one such circumstance, a countermeasure, allows withdrawal from a certain obligation (immunity) to bring the violator's actions into compliance with international law.

Experience of discussions with MEPs and legal advisors of European institutions demonstrates that the EU remains open and ready to find an optimal solution to listen to the arguments of Ukraine.

However, for the successful promotion of this initiative, it is extremely important to make proper legal arguments for the possibility of confiscation of every type of Russian assets.