On 29 May 2025 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation published Judgement No. 24-П adopted in accordance with Article 47.1 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”. The case on the review of constitutionality of Article 151 (part 1) and Article 1112 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation was considered in connection with a complaint of citizens A.G.Baiguskarova and M.G.Mukhametchin.Factual background
In March 2021, a resident of Bashkiria citizen I. under the influence of alcohol, doused his wife in flammable liquid and started a fire during a quarrel. The woman died from her burns, and the fire caused damage to the apartment. A criminal case was initiated against the man for committing murder with heightened cruelty and by a generally dangerous method. He was later charged with wilful destroying and damaging property. In November 2021, the cases were consolidated.
Alina Baiguskarova and Marat Mukhametchin, the children of the deceased, were recognised as victims. Although the defendant admitted his guilt, he died in custody before the trial and sentencing. The victims then filed a lawsuit against the heirs of the deceased in order to recover compensation for moral damage. The court of first instance ordered one of the heirs, who had accepted the inheritance, to pay 500,000 roubles to each victim. The Supreme Court of Bashkortostan overturned the original decision and issued a new one, dismissing the claim. Citing the disputed provisions of the Civil Code, the court found that the defendant was not responsible for the moral damage and that there was no obligation to provide compensation during the lifetime of the accused. Higher courts upheld this decision.
Position of the Court
The Constitution guarantees everyone state and judicial protection, as well as the legal protection of the rights of victims of crime, ensuring their access to justice and compensation for any damages caused. The state is obliged to ensure that victims receive the maximum possible compensation for the harm they have suffered, thereby protecting their personal dignity.
The primary means of judicial protection of the rights of victims of crime is a civil claim brought in a criminal case for compensation for damage caused by the crime. Also, the victim has the right to claim compensation for the damage caused by the crime from the responsible person in civil proceedings. This tortious obligation arises by the mere fact that harm was caused by the crime, and includes the victim’s subjective right to compensation and the corresponding obligation.
The termination of criminal proceedings due to the death of the suspect or accused does not affect the obligation under civil law to compensate for moral damages caused by the crime. Accordingly, the civil law prerequisites for victims to claim against the heirs of the deceased remain, since it is the heirs who inherit the property by universal succession. Imposing an obligation to compensate the damage caused to the victim on an heir who has accepted an inheritance and is liable for the debts of the deceased, implements constitutional guarantees of the rights of victims and protects their dignity.
The current legislation does not explicitly prohibit inheriting obligations to compensate for moral damage caused by the deceased’s crimes. It follows from the literal wording of the contested provisions that such an obligation passes to the heirs. However, their application in law enforcement practice is controversial. One approach is based on the inseparable link between compensation for moral damage and the personality of the testator, meaning this obligation cannot be imposed on the heirs. In other cases, it is considered reasonable to impose an obligation to pay compensation for moral damage on the heirs, if such compensation was awarded to the victim by a court during lifetime of the deceased. There is also another approach in which the obligation to compensate for moral damage is transferred to heirs within the limits of the actual value of the inherited property.
Fair and adequate compensation is determined based on criteria that are unrelated to the characteristics of the person who caused the harm. Accordingly, there are no obstacles preventing the victim from claiming moral damages compensation from the accused’s heirs within the limits of the value of the inherited property.
According to the Judgement of the Constitutional Court, the interrelated provisions do not contradict the Constitution. In situations similar to the applicants’ case, they do not prevent the inclusion in the composition of the inheritance of a suspect or accused person whose criminal prosecution has been terminated on non-rehabilitating grounds, of the obligation to compensate the moral damage, and its imposition on the heirs. A different approach to this issue would not only reduce the level of constitutional and legal protection for victims of crime, but also create unjustified obstacles to applying guarantees of victims’ rights, failing to meet the requirements of justice.
The applicants’ case is subject to review.
Press Service of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation