The Agreements

Treaties between states rest on assumptions – about the relationship between the parties, about shared interests, about a common political reality. If that foundation changes fundamentally, a treaty may be adjusted or terminated even without an explicit clause allowing it.

In international law, this principle is enshrined in Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: a state is not bound forever and under all circumstances – only under the conditions that existed when the treaty was concluded. The doctrine applies when the original circumstances formed an essential basis for the treaty and the change radically transforms the extent of obligations still to be performed.

The 2013 property agreement was concluded in a different era – when Germany and Russia were partners, or at least appeared to be. Since 24 February 2022, that foundation is gone.

Russia is waging a war of aggression against Ukraine. Rossotrudnichestvo, the operator of the Russian House, has been on the EU sanctions list since July 2022. Under these conditions, Germany would never have granted Russia a free and unlimited right of use over a central Berlin property in 2013. Even Russia would not have considered this scenario possible in 1992 – as demonstrated by its signing of the Budapest Memorandum in 1994.

Attorney Jens Baganz considers the conditions of Art. 62 of the Vienna Convention to be fulfilled.

Art. 62 permits both options. Termination would end the agreement entirely – Russia's right to use the property would cease. Suspension would temporarily freeze the agreement for the duration of the conflict – with the advantage that the legal framework would remain available for a future normalisation.

Attorney Baganz considers both approaches legally viable. The German government has neither examined nor refuted this argument. Its repeated reference to the 99-year binding period addresses the treaty text – not the customary international law codified in Art. 62.