On 17 February 2026, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted Judgement No.7-П 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 26.1 (items 3 and 4) of the Law of the Russian Federation «On Protection of Consumer Rights» was considered in connection with complaint of citizen P.N. Tishkin.
Factual background
Petr Tishkin ordered a product (children’s overalls) on an online store’s website, paid for it, and also paid for delivery to an order pickup point. After receiving the overalls, P. Tishkin decided the product did not meet his expectations and contacted the seller to clarify the return procedure. He was told that, according to the terms posted on the website, returns were only possible with an in-person visit to any retail store. The applicant’s arguments about the remoteness of his place of residence (more than 200 km to the nearest seller’s store) and his requests to allow sending the item by post office (at the buyer’s expense) were rejected.
The territorial office of Rospotrebnadzor found no grounds to hold the store liable for including terms in the contract that infringe consumer rights or for failing to provide benefits established by law. The arbitration courts agreed with this.
Position of the Court
By virtue of the constitutional principle of justice, the freedom granted to entrepreneurs and the protection guaranteed to them must be balanced by the requirement of responsible treatment of the rights and freedoms of those affected by their activities. Freedom of contract, considered one of the fundamental principles of civil legislation, presupposes equality and the coordination of the will of the parties and cannot lead to the denial or derogation of recognised rights and freedoms. The legislator, in regulating the relevant relations, is not entitled to limit itself to the formal recognition of the legal equality of parties when they are in fact unequal, and must provide advantages to the weaker party, including the consumer, who in relationships with professional sellers can rarely influence the content of the contract. Distance selling, which uses information and communication technologies for the selection and ordering of goods, makes it even more difficult to agree on specific terms of the contract with the buyer.
One of the features of this type of trade is that the buyer can only make a conclusion about the suitability of the goods after they have been delivered. On this basis, the legislator provided the consumer with the right of unconditional withdrawal from the contract, including for goods of proper quality. As a general rule, upon such rejection of the goods, the buyer must promptly declare their decision, return the goods to the seller, and enable their inspection. However, regulatory provisions and law enforcement practice do not determine how the consumer can fulfill these corresponding obligations, they do not specify the method and place of handing the returned goods over to the seller, nor the procedure for the latter’s inspection of the goods’ condition. In other words, the parties are allowed to independently agree on the terms of interaction in this regard. By taking advantage of this, the seller may establish such a procedure for the consumer’s actions that the consumer’s costs for returning the goods become inadequate relative to the goods’ value. This would force the buyer to keep the unsuitable goods and not to exercise their right. Under such conditions, the right itself becomes merely declarative. Consequently, the contested provisions do not achieve their objective and fail to ensure the necessary overcoming of the inequality of opportunity between the parties to a contract involving a consumer.
By expanding distribution channels, increasing turnover of their goods through distance selling, and thereby generating additional income, a a bona fide seller who takes into account the interests of buyers, especially those residing in localities where the seller’s (or its partners’) trade or logistics infrastructure is absent, is obliged to also provide them with the opportunity for remote return of goods. Furthermore, the buyer’s exercise of their right to unconditional withdrawal from a contract for goods of proper quality predetermines that they bear the costs of delivering the goods back to the seller. As one of the guarantees of the seller’s interests regarding the inspection of returned goods after receiving them from a carrier or postal organisation, it can be considered that the consumer bears the risk of accidental loss or damage to the item throughout the entire period of its return shipment.
The legislation requires that information about the procedure and terms for returning goods be disclosed to the consumer in advance. At the same time, the consumer’s ability, upon receiving information about the contract terms, to refuse to enter into the contract cannot justify the inclusion of terms in the contract that infringe upon consumer rights or any deviation from rules aimed at consumer protection.
The contested provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
The Federal legislator is required to introduce amendments to the legal framework. Until then, the return of goods of proper quality sold remotely shall be performed by any method at the buyer’s discretion, either remotely, or by the method specified by the seller at the time of sale, or by a method requested by the buyer, provided that it enables the seller to inspect the condition of the returned goods upon receipt, including through the services of a carrier or postal organisation. In such cases, the buyer assumes the risk of accidental loss or damage to the goods during their transportation (delivery) and also bears the transport and other costs associated with delivery.
The applicant’s case is subject to review.
Press Service of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation