On 24 February 2026, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted Judgement No. 8-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 54 (part 1) and Article 162 (part 3) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, and Articles 15, 1064 (item 1) and 1068 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and Article 16 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation was considered in connection with complaint of citizen R.A. Klimenko.
Factual background
In the summer of 2023, Roman Klimenko left his car at a car wash in Taganrog. A young man working at the car wash without formal employment, while intoxicated at night, took the claimant’s car keys from the dispatch office and drove away. While driving, he lost control, hit a barrier, and detained by police.
When qualifying the actions of the auto thief, the court was guided by an expert’s conclusion, according to which the cost of repairing the car, including wear and tear, amounted to 762,600 roubles, and 1,971,600 roubles excluding it. Taking the smaller amount as a basis, the court imposed a sentence under Article 166 (part 1) of the Criminal Code for the unlawful possession of a car without the intent to theft. R. Klimenko believed that such a decision was unjustifiably lenient and limited his right to full compensation. He unsuccessfully appealed it to the higher courts, pointing out that the act should be classified under the Article 166 (part 3), which provides for causing particularly large damages (from 1 million roubles), based on determining the repair cost without accounting for the wear and tear of parts.
Position of the Court
The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees the protection of the rights of victims of crimes, ensuring their access to justice and compensation for damages caused. Protecting the right of ownership, the legislator must ensure the mutual consistency of the provisions of criminal and civil legislation. This is also important in cases where the question arises about the cost of restorative repairs for a car damaged during a theft and the repairs have not yet been performed.
In such cases, the owner’s expected repair costs vary within a range, from a minimum amount calculated considering the wear and tear of parts to be replaced, to a maximum amount calculated without accounting for such wear and tear. The evidentiary capabilities of forensic examinations allow for establishing both amounts.
Due to the differences between criminal and civil law, different approaches to determining the amount of damage are permissible.
For criminal law relations, considering their inherent principles, including the presumption of innocence, only the indisputably established value (with a sufficient degree of accuracy and through a proper procedure) of the lost or damaged property, including the costs of restorative repairs, is significant.
This explains the use of the minimum proven value of the stolen vehicle or the extent of the damage it sustained, measured by assessing the cost of repairs, taking into account the degree of wear and tear of the car and its components on the date of the criminal act. Moreover, the value of the lost or damaged property correlates with its market value, by taking into account the decrease in the original value due to wear and tear, or considering its increase due to inflationary and other factors (for example, due to the rarity or uniqueness of the property). This approach must be applied regardless of whether the restorative repairs are actually performed. Any other interpretation would mean qualifying the perpetrator’s act based not on their behavior, but on the subsequent actions of the victim and other circumstances, such as the choice of repair location and cost, the availability, quality, and manufacturer of the spare parts used, etc., which would introduce a degree of uncertainty into the issue of qualification that is unacceptable in the sphere of criminal liability.
This restrictive approach to assessing the damage caused by a crime as a qualifying factor does not preclude the victim from receiving full compensation for losses within the framework of civil law, including through a civil lawsuit filed in a criminal case. The victim has the right to claim compensation for expenses related to purchasing new spare parts and components, associated costs, as well as lost profits, determined as of the date the court resolves the dispute. The owner also has the right to choose the most convenient method of restoring the car, whether it is recovering monetary funds for subsequent repairs, or performing the repairs independently or by third parties chosen by the victim, with subsequent recovery of the full amount of damages.
In the identified constitutional and legal sense, Articles 15 and 1064 (item 1) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation do not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The applicant’s right to full compensation for the losses caused to him may be exercised in the civil proceedings based on the legal positions expressed in this Judgement. Proceedings on the provisions norms are terminated.
Press Service of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation