Mr. Didier Reynders:

I will turn first to the sanctions. I have said we have put in place a freeze and seize task force and so far we have had more than 15 meetings. We are trying to organise a very good process with the member states. Of course, we are working with European institutions, but also the different member states on this, which is very significant. We are trying to implement sanctions on freezing the assets of oligarchs and entities. That is how we are working. The way to freeze assets is through a treasury process, without any transfer of asset ownership. The word is very clear and it is just a freezing. However, ownership remains in the hands of the oligarchs or the different entities. In this regard, we first try to make progress through an exchange of best practice between the member states. Sometimes there are different departments involved and we have seen that through direct contact with member states and a better understanding of the internal process at the national level it was possible to increase the figures. I can tell the committee that after we made some remarks about the very low level of figures in Italy, within one or two weeks it was more than €1 billion, similar to other member states. This is because it was a question of reporting both internally and to the EU, so we have solved that. It was the same in Spain. It was around €40 million and we saw the possibility for that figure to move within weeks. I had the same description of Poland where it also seemed to be possible to move from a figure of €3 million at one moment, which is not so much. However, they could have first told me that they were so organised they had already frozen €2.7 billion in national sanctions. We need to continue working to be sure the information for the Commission is correct around what is at stake in the member states.

I want to give just one example. We saw that in Hungary, it was possible to freeze only €3,000. There is a problem. We have engaged in a discussion to see if there is any possible explanation, but also to make progress. The committee members are right that we need to be sure it is possible to enforce sanctions in all member states.

The second remark is about a step forward and the possible confiscation of assets. As I said, I am in charge of the rule of law in the European Union.

Private property is a fundamental right in the Charter of Human Rights. In Europe, it is very difficult to organise confiscation without a conviction. There are discussions in Canada and in the US about that but they have not gotten far because there are different contestations and it is before the supreme court. We will try to see if it is possible to go a step further, as I have explained, with the extension of the list of EU crimes if there are attempts to circumvent or to bypass the sanctions. If that is the case, it will be possible to go to justice - no longer to the treasury - to get a condemnation of the attempt to circumvent the sanctions. If there is a condemnation, it will be possible to organise confiscation or a transfer of ownership and the assets of the individuals and entities on the list will, of course, be given to the Ukrainian people because that is what we have asked of member states.

As for the reserves of the central bank, it is true that we do not have a precise figure but we estimate it to be approximately €300 billion or $300 billion because unfortunately the rate is the same at the moment. We have tried to immobilise and freeze those assets but due to the fact there are some immunities and privileges for central banks, I have put forward the idea of maintaining the immobilisation for a long period of time until the voluntary participation of Russia in the reconstruction of Ukraine. Discussions on reconstruction will be held during negotiations that will be held at the end of the war. We do not have the opportunity to discuss this matter during the war, and certainly not with Russia. There is a possible guarantee of funding coming from Russia and we will continue to work on that.

On reconstruction in general, it is important to start, as we have done some weeks ago in Berlin, a discussion to develop a possible framework for reconstruction because we will ask Russia to pay part of the bill. The international community will also help Ukraine. We are prepared to take part in funding the rebuilding of Ukraine.

On what was said about third countries, we have tried to take some initiative in the package of sanctions. It is a novelty in terms of whether it would be possible to put people trying to circumvent the sanctions on the sanctions list. We have to be concrete. For example, it will be possible to put a company in a third country trying to violate sanctions and organise the export of banned products through Russia on the list. This will have a real effect. That is a possible evolution we have put in the last package.

Of course, we will try to engage in political discussion and intervention. For example, I was in Tirana some weeks ago for a meeting with the ministers of justice of the western Balkans countries. We asked them to commit to and enforce the sanctions. At the end of the meeting, there was a small asterisk which said except Serbia. Of course, it is a concern when one partner country is trying to not take part in the enforcement of sanctions. There is a large amount of work and we are doing that with the G7 partners, to try to have an influence on third countries to take part in the process. We will continue to do that in the near future but we still have a lot to do as regards enforcement of sanctions. We need to explain the effect of sanctions better because they have a real effect in Russia. They take time but now the economic situation in Russia is one of high inflation, higher than in Europe, there devolution of GDP and there are difficulties for industry due to a lack of spare parts coming from the European Union and other countries which have put sanctions in place.

The defamation law, which was mentioned, has a chilling effect on all those possible procedures. We have tried to protect journalists on the one hand, so we have sent recommendations to the member states with a list of possible measures to protect journalists. We have also put forward a legislative initiative, the so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPPs, because it is logical to protect journalists from those kinds of procedures. While there is a defamation law, it is also possible to act against defamation. We have tried to follow discussions members have had in the Parliament because it seems to be very expensive to proceed, so the chilling effect is there before an action is taken due to the risk of a very expensive procedure. It is useful to think about a more balanced situation where each citizen is protected by defamation law but also journalists have the right to have protection in their daily work.

On access to justice and how to have a good justice function, I mentioned the low level of judges in Ireland in comparison to the EU average. There is concern about the situation in Ireland. We need to look at the legal aid system to see how it is possible to help vulnerable people to access to justice, which is of concern in Ireland but in other places also. We need to see if it is possible to make progress on this in budgetary discussions that Ireland has concerning the Judiciary not only for human resources but also for the legal aid system. I confirm that we will continue to closely follow the discussions about the defamation law very closely and try to receive more information about what Ireland is doing about it.