Finance ministers will take up the debate when they meet in Luxembourg Oct. 10.
A big sticking point, especially for Belgium, is whether the Commission’s legal reasoning behind the cash grab will hold up in court after Russia’s former president threatened to sue any “euro-degenerates” who dare touch Moscow’s “property.”
The other big question is whether Brussels can use a statement by EU leaders from December to change the sanctions approval rules from unanimity to a qualified majority, thereby cutting Bratislava and Budapest out of the decision-making process.
Lawyers from the Council of the EU told the deputy finance ministers on Tuesday that all legal concerns could be addressed, two people on Tuesday’s call said — a sentiment that is generally shared by Armin von Bogdandy, director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.
“The text does not say which conditions are applicable for qualified majority voting. So, we’re still in high waters,” said von Bogdandy, who wrote over the summer about overcoming the Hungarian veto when it comes to EU sanctions.
“But I see that such an argument is possible,” he said, noting that the EU treaties allow qualified majority voting in extreme situations, such as when “a member state goes squarely against basic EU solidarity.”
For the Commission to gather enough support, it will need to make a legal argument that doesn’t set a precedent with far-reaching consequences. “They’ll negotiate the legal reasoning … so that member states can say we see that this is very important, in this very narrowly subscribed situation,” von Bogdandy said. “It makes perfect and legitimate sense.”