BRUSSELS ― Two legal opinions prepared by international lawyers contradict Belgium’s claim it could be on the hook to pay substantial damages if the EU moves ahead with plans to use Russia’s frozen assets to help Ukraine.

Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has said his country could be found liable for using the assets, arguing in a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that the risk of successful legal retaliation by Moscow is “very real.”

Russia has since ramped up those fears, with the central bank filing a lawsuit in Moscow against Brussels-based financial depository Euroclear — where most of Russia’s frozen assets in Europe are held — over the freezing of funds and securities.

But according to two legal opinions — one prepared by law firm Covington & Burling, another by a group of international legal scholars — assert that the risk of a successful legal claim against Belgium over the assets is minimal. 

The main reason cited by the scholars is that Russia would find it nearly impossible to find a jurisdiction that would be willing to hear a case against Belgium or enforce any claim against the Belgian government or Euroclear over the assets.

“Any judgment of a Russian court would not be recognized or enforced in the EU or the U.K. on public policy grounds,” six legal scholars wrote in a paper, adding that the Russian central bank is unlikely to bring claims in either U.K. or EU jurisdictions because doing so would waive its sovereign immunity.

A claim brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union, the International Court of Justice or any comparable international institution would prove similarly problematic largely because Russia does not accept their jurisdiction, argue the authors of a paper by Covington & Burling. 

In his letter to von der Leyen, De Wever raised the fact that Belgium has a bilateral investment treaty with Russia that exposes Brussels to legal risk in the event of a dispute. The letter cites specialized law firms but does not name them.

The authors of both legal opinions assert that Russia would not be able to pursue its claim against Belgium or the EU via such a treaty due to the fact that the treaty does not cover sovereign assets. “A Tribunal constituted pursuant to such a treaty would lack jurisdiction to hear a dispute relating to alleged expropriation of Russia’s sovereign assets,” wrote Covington & Burling.

The legal scholars — who are linked among other institutions to Stanford University, the Kyiv School of Economics and German law firm Bender Harrer Krevet, among others — conclude that Belgium has already weathered the most serious risk when the assets were frozen in the first place and when the EU voted to immobilize them indefinitely.

“No material new risks will be created by adopting the full Reparations Loan plan and any such negligible risks are materially outweighed by the proposal’s benefits for European peace, security, stability, and the long-term viability of Ukraine,” write the scholars.

The Belgian government did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.