The Russian Supreme Court issues practice reviews several times a year, setting the positions that lower courts are expected to follow. The third review for 2025 covers thirteen cases across different areas. Here are the rulings that matter most for individuals and businesses.
Land and real estate
1. Vindication of land with undelimited state ownership
Courts had long disagreed: can a municipality reclaim a land plot from a good-faith buyer if the state had not yet formally registered its ownership?
The Supreme Court said yes. The absence of a state-ownership entry in the Unified Real Estate Register (EGRN) does not protect a buyer from vindication claims under Art. 301 of the Civil Code. State ownership of undelimited land arises by operation of law — no registration is required.
Practical takeaway: when buying land without clearly delimited ownership, check the parcel’s status before the transaction, not after.
2. Temporary structure on a garden plot is not an unauthorised construction
A garden-plot owner erected a light temporary structure — a frame, no foundation. The local authority sought to demolish it as an unauthorised structure under Art. 222 of the Civil Code.
The Supreme Court sided with the owner: temporary structures on garden plots that do not qualify as permanent capital objects cannot be deemed unauthorised constructions. Demolition requires different grounds.
Practical takeaway: a non-capital structure on a dacha is not an unauthorised building. Authorities cannot order demolition solely on the basis of Art. 222 of the Civil Code.
3. Pre-1998 land rights are inheritable without EGRN registration
Rights to land plots that arose before 1998 (before the land registration law came into force) are valid and pass by inheritance — even if they were never entered in the EGRN.
The Supreme Court confirmed: heirs may formalise such plots through the courts when no other avenue is available.
Practical takeaway: if a grandparent’s plot exists “on paper” but is not in the register — do not disclaim the inheritance. This can be resolved in court.
Auto insurance
4. Three positions on compulsory and comprehensive auto insurance
The Supreme Court clarified rules that courts had been interpreting inconsistently.
Penalty for imposing repairs instead of cash. If an insurer directs a claimant to a repair shop in a situation where the claimant had the right to demand a cash payout, the insurer must pay a penalty under Art. 24(6) of the Compulsory Motor Insurance Act.
Choice of insurer when there are multiple policies. When the at-fault driver and the victim hold policies with different insurers, the victim has the right to choose which insurer to approach. Courts had previously restricted that choice; the Supreme Court restored it.
Undisclosed circumstances when purchasing comprehensive insurance. If the client did not disclose material information when taking out the policy, but the insurer did not ask direct questions about those circumstances — refusing a claim is unlawful.
Employment disputes
5. GPC contract → employment contract: limitation period
A worker was engaged under a civil-law services agreement (GPC), but in practice worked as a full-time employee. When the arrangement ended, they went to court seeking recognition of an employment relationship.
At issue: from what date does the limitation period run — from the start of the relationship or from its termination?
The Supreme Court ruled: from the date of termination. While the contract is in force, the worker has no grounds to bring a claim.
Practical takeaway: if you were engaged under a GPC contract instead of an employment contract, the window to protect your rights opens after the arrangement ends.
6. Unlawful refusal to hire → court can order employment
An employer unlawfully refused to offer a contract to a candidate. Lower courts awarded compensation, but did not require the employer to actually hire the person.
The Supreme Court disagreed: a court may compel an employer to conclude an employment contract. Monetary compensation is not the only available remedy.
Corporate disputes
7. Undisclosed company income in share valuation
A member leaving an LLC claimed the fair value of their share. The company understated the payout by excluding part of its income.
The Supreme Court: in assessing the share value, the court must account for all assets and income — including those not reflected in official financial statements, if their existence is proven.
8. Court cannot set a price where no contract exists
The parties had agreed to cooperate but never settled on a contract price. When a dispute arose, the claimant asked the court to determine a “reasonable” price.
The Supreme Court refused: a court cannot set a contract price in place of the parties. A contract that was not concluded creates no payment obligations.
9. Past court settlement without notarisation remains valid
The parties had previously agreed on a division of assets through a mediation settlement approved by a court. One party contested its validity on the grounds that it was never notarised.
The Supreme Court: a settlement approved by a court and actually performed retains legal force. Notarisation is not required when the court has already confirmed the agreement.
Cadastral disputes
10. Fifteen years of use → right to establish cadastral boundaries
A land user had occupied a plot for fifteen years. Cadastral boundaries had been set without their participation and did not match the factual position on the ground.
The Supreme Court supported the user: prolonged factual use creates grounds for establishing (or correcting) cadastral boundaries to match the actual situation.
11. Cadastral value must be reviewed when characteristics change
If an object’s characteristics change — its designated use, area, or category — the cadastral value must be revised as of the date of that change, not only from the next general revaluation cycle.
Practical takeaway: if you reclassified land or changed a building’s designated purpose, request a cadastral value recalculation immediately.
Traffic violations
12. Speed camera fine: seller’s liability for an unregistered car
A car was sold but the seller never deregistered it. The new owner violated traffic rules — the fine arrived in the seller’s name.
The Supreme Court: the seller bears responsibility for violations until the vehicle is deregistered. However, if the seller can show they transferred the vehicle in good faith and took all steps available to them, there are grounds to contest the fine.
Practical takeaway: when selling a car, deregister it immediately. Or require the buyer to register it in their name within ten days — and verify that they have.
13. Illegally posted sign → no fine
A driver violated a speed restriction shown on a road sign. It turned out the sign had been installed without an authorisation decision from the competent authority — making it unlawful.
The Supreme Court: a fine for failing to comply with an unlawfully posted road sign must be cancelled. No one can be fined for breaching requirements that were imposed unlawfully.
Practical takeaway: if you received a speed camera fine in a location where the restriction seems out of place, check whether there was a proper authorisation for that sign. You may have grounds to appeal.
Read Also
- Permanent Residents: 7 People Who Can Never Be Evicted
- Hiding Marital Assets in a Relative’s Name No Longer Works
Facing one of the situations described here? Get in touch for a consultation.