On 26 May 2025 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation published Judgement № 22-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 302 (item 1 and item 2) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation was considered in connection with a complaint of citizen T.V.Pankratova.Factual background
In 2017, a one-room flat located in the city of Sudak in the Republic of Crimea was provided as the official housing to a municipal officer and her son. In 2018, the city administration, by resolution, excluded this premise fr om the specialized housing stock, enabling the woman to purchase the flat for free through the privatization. Two years later, she sold the flat to Tatyana Pankratova. The prosecutor’s office, having seen the violations committed during the privatization of the flat, in particular related to the illegal actions of the head of the city administration when providing the housing to a municipal officer, filed a lawsuit to return the residential premises from the applicant’s possession. The courts satisfied the prosecutor’s claims, ruling that the flat was disposed from the possession of the public owner without its will, and therefore it can be returned regardless of the good faith of the purchaser.
Position of the Court
The Constitution guarantees the right to ownership. Current legislation is based on the principle of protecting bona fide participants in the civil turnover who demonstrate good will, reasonable diligence and caution when concluding an agreement.
The concept of vindication, i. e. the process of recovering property from someone else’s illegal possession, has historically developed through the specification of the conditions under which it can be applied. One of these conditions is that the property was disposed from the owner’s possession without his will. The Civil Code, indicating loss and theft, does not establish a closed list of such conditions. Therefore, the courts shall establish the intent of the owner’s will in each specific case.
In order to apply the contested provisions, it is necessary to distinguish between the expression of will of the subject, aimed at the creating the relevant property rights and obligations, and the voluntary transfer of possession, because the latter aspect is more important for resolving vindication claims. The will of the public entities to dispose of property is expressed through the actions of authorized bodies (their officials) which lead to the disposal of the property to another subject.
The transfer of the publicly owned housing to the private ownership occurs through a series of actions: the provision of the residential premises under the social rent agreement, the conclusion of an agreement to dispose the housing to the ownership of a citizen, etc. Although each of these actions individually may not be considered as a disposal of ownership of the premises, but taken together they indicate a clear and consistent expression by the public-law entity of the will to dispose the property from its possession. Such an expression of will should be considered evident if the provision of the flat was accompanied by an act issued by the head of the local administration. The presence of such an act creates the reasonable confidence for subsequent purchasers in the validity and legality of the provision of the housing to the original private owner. State registration of the rights to real estate also presupposes the presence of the will of the public owner to dispose of the relevant property from his possession.
Unlawful alienation of residential premises or commission of other violations during this process do not necessarily entail the conclusion about the absence of the will of a public-law entity to transfer the possession of the property for the purpose of resolving the issue of its vindication from a bona fide purchaser. Otherwise, it would violate the general legal principles of equality and justice due to the different treatment to the negligence shown by the owner of the property, given that the required standard of such diligence in the activities of the public authorities should not be lower, and in fact higher than in the activities of the private subjects. At the same time, this position does not apply to situation when the illegal alienation is associated with a conspiracy between a citizen and an official, wh ere there are no legal grounds for providing the property to the citizen, but this in any case should not affect the rights of a bona fide purchaser of the relevant residential premises.
According to the Judgement of the Constitutional Court, Article 302 (item 1) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not contradict the Constitution taking into account the identified constitutional meaning. The proceedings on the item 2 of the same article have been terminated.
The applicant’s case is a subject to review.
Press Service of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation