On 17 July 2025 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted Judgement No.29-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 24.5 (part 5) of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation was considered in connection with a request of the Court of Kostroma Oblast.Factual background
The Court of Kostroma Oblast has decided to include the citizen Sh. on the list of orphans or abandoned children, who should be provided with housing. This obligation laid on the administration of Kostroma. The Administration didn’t agree with this obligation, but the court ordered to provide such housing to citizen Sh., despite the defendant’s argument that the amount of subventions allocated from the budget of the Kostroma Oblast was insufficient. In connection with the Administration’s failure to comply with this court ruling (contained in the enforcement document issued on its basis, a non-property requirement to provide housing to the plaintiff), the bailiff adopted a decision to hold it liable on the basis of Article 17.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
The Administration challenged this decision. The Court of Kostroma Oblast when considering this case found that Article 24.5 (part 5) of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, which should be applied in the case, doesn’t comply with the Constitution. Therefore, it suspended the proceedings and sent a request to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Position of the Court
Insufficiency of the subvention allocated by the state to the local budget for the implementation by the local authority of the state power transferred to it shall entail the termination, by virtue of the contested provision, of the proceedings on the case of an administrative offence related to the non-fulfillment of the said power. This rule also applies to holding the local authority liable on the basis of Article 17.15 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. But in this case a causal relationship must be established between the insufficiency of the subvention and the failure to comply the claim contained in the enforcement document. At the same time, the amount of the subvention, equal to or exceeding the cost of the claims derived from enforcement document, cannot indicate the sufficiency of the allocated funds without taking into account the need to use such funds for other purposes, including the cost of other similar claims.
The municipality’s ability to use its own funds to exercise transferred powers cannot confirm its guilt.
Termination of proceedings does not require additional determination of whether the local authority has made timely proposals for the allocation of subventions in the required amount. Otherwise, it would mean placing responsibility on local government for actions that do not fall within their competence. At the same time, a decision to terminate proceedings cannot be made if the authorised body or the court determines that the insufficient amount of subvention is connected with the provision by local authorities of false information that could not be objectively verified by state bodies.
Termination of proceedings on an administrative offence does not abolish the obligation of the local authority, within the framework of the legislation on enforcement proceedings, to satisfy such a claim.
The contested provision in the revealed constitutional and legal sense does not contradict the Constitution.
Press Service of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation