14 April 2026
The European Parliament continues its examination of Petition No. 1003/2025 against Raiffeisen Bank. The case remains open.
The matter concerns potential violations by one of Europe’s largest banks of fundamental principles of the European Union — equality before the law, non-discrimination, as well as the actual effectiveness of EU sanctions policy and the permissibility of cooperation with authoritarian regimes.
I have been officially informed of this decision by the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, which has decided to request additional clarifications from the European Commission.
⚖️ What is at stake
There are grounds to believe that the actions of the Austrian bank may contradict core principles of European and international law, including:
— the right to property;
— prohibition of discrimination regardless of nationality or status;
— equality before the law;
— the obligation of uniform application of EU sanctions (and the prohibition of their circumvention);
— international standards of corporate responsibility (UN, OECD);
— the EU’s new corporate due diligence rules (2024), requiring the prevention of human rights violations.
What happened
On March 24, 2026, during the Committee hearing, a representative of the European Commission failed to provide substantive answers to any of the questions raised.
As a result, Members of the European Parliament:
— requested additional clarifications;
— will continue consideration after receiving the Commission’s response.
The petition remains under active consideration.
Facts that cannot be ignored
Against the backdrop of EU sanctions policy:
— Raiffeisen has effectively assumed a dominant position in servicing a significant share of external trade-related financial flows connected to Russia;
— under the cover of “humanitarian engagement,” a redistribution of the market is taking place.
While major banks — Deutsche Bank, Société Générale, HSBC, Citigroup — have exited the market, Raiffeisen remains the only major European financial institution continuing full-scale operations in Russia and deriving direct competitive advantages from it.
Moreover, it is the only European bank whose actions:
— in Russia;
— and in Belarus (including involvement in processes linked to the confiscation of property of political activists by the Lukashenko regime)
have received no response from the European Commission or EU supervisory authorities.
This raises a direct question: are we dealing with double standards and selective application of EU law?
Legal dimension
The situation points to potential violations of:
— EU competition rules (prohibition of cartels and abuse of dominant position);
— the principle of non-discrimination;
— the obligation of Member States to ensure effective, not merely formal, application of EU law.
In practice, a model is emerging where one player is granted conditions unavailable to all others.
A direct question raised during the hearing:
How is it that, while companies and individuals face asset freezes, account blockages, and sanctions, certain financial institutions demonstrate extraordinary profits?
No answer was provided.
My position
I have called on the Committee to continue its examination until a clear, verifiable, and legally substantiated response is provided by the European Commission, and I have submitted an additional legally grounded set of questions.
This is a question of trust:
— whether equality before the law truly operates in the EU;
— or whether it ceases to apply when major financial interests are involved.
