Pledge of land, a building under construction and installed equipment: higher-court case law for propositions

PROPOSITION 1. When a land plot is pledged (mortgaged), the pledge extends to structures erected on it

Provisions: para. 1 of Article 65 of the Mortgage Law; subpara. 5 of para. 1 of Article 1 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation; Article 340 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Supporting case law

• Review of Case Law (bankruptcy of pledgors), para. 9 — Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation — the claim is secured by a pledge of both the plot and the structure lawfully erected on it (unity of legal fate).
• Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 23, para. 23 — where the subject matter of the pledge changes, including through the creation of new property of the pledgor, the pledge is preserved unless otherwise provided by law or agreement.
• Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation No. 90, para. 1 — upon completion of construction, the mortgage of an unfinished construction project remains in force and extends to the completed building.

Contrary / limiting case law

• The same para. 9 of the Review and para. 23 of Plenum Resolution No. 23 frame the rule as a default rule (“as a general rule,” “unless otherwise provided … by agreement of the parties”)—the agreement may exclude the structure under construction from its scope. No independent case law denying the extension of the pledge was found in the database: the reservation limits rather than refutes the proposition.

PROPOSITION 2. The pledge of a constructed and commissioned building, title to which has not been registered, arises upon registration

Provisions: Articles 8.1, 131, 219, 339.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation; Article 11 of the Mortgage Law.

Supporting case law

• Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 23, para. 16 — a mortgage, as an encumbrance, arises upon state registration or, if the secured obligation arose after the mortgage was entered in the Unified State Register of Real Estate, when that obligation arises.
• Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 23, para. 24 — registration of title to a lawfully erected structure as a prerequisite for establishing the pledge and enforcing against it; if the pledgor evades registration, title is registered by court decision on the pledgee’s claim.

Contrary / limiting case law

• There is no direct refutation in the database. The limitation is technical: the same para. 16 of Plenum Resolution No. 23 distinguishes between the time the mortgage agreement is concluded and the time the encumbrance arises—this clarifies rather than refutes the proposition.

PROPOSITION 3. In the pledgor’s bankruptcy, the claim may be entered in the register before title to the building is registered

Provisions: para. 1 of Art. 6 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation; Art. 138 of the Bankruptcy Law; Part 5 of Art. 13 of the Law on Participation in Shared-Equity Construction.

Supporting case law

• Review of Case Law (bankruptcy of pledgors), para. 9 — Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation — the absence of registration of the debtor’s title does not prevent the claim from being recognised as secured by a pledge if the object’s compliance with the characteristics of immovable property has been proved; the creditor is not made to bear the consequences of the debtor’s inaction.
• Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 23, para. 24 — judicial registration of title to the erected object on the pledgee’s claim as a basis for establishing the pledge without registration by the debtor itself.
• Supreme Commercial Court Plenum Resolution No. 58 — the general procedure for establishing the claims of secured creditors in the pledgor’s bankruptcy case (background).

Contrary / limiting case law

• The limitation lies in the very para. 9 of the Review: establishing the claim requires proof that the object has the characteristics of immovable property (apart from registration of title). This is a condition for applying the rule, not a position refuting it.

PROPOSITION 4. Inseparable equipment owned by another person and installed in a building is deemed to be subject to the pledge

Provisions: Arts. 133, 134, 135 and 340 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Caveat: there is no direct act of the higher courts on this situation in the database—the acts below are only indirectly relevant and should be applied with caution.

Supporting case law

• Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 23, para. 23 — where the subject matter of the pledge changes, the pledge is preserved; this concerns the pledgor’s property and applies to third-party equipment only by analogy.
• Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 305-ЭС23-490 — an accessory follows the fate of the principal thing (Art. 135 of the Civil Code), but this presupposes the same owner, so the rule does not directly extend to equipment owned by another person.
• Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 25, paras. 38–39 — characteristics of immovable property and a single immovable complex: a basis for classifying inseparable equipment as a component of immovable property.
• Thematic Review of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 4/2026, para. 2 — criteria for classifying equipment connected to a building as an indivisible/complex thing (the context is property tax).

Contrary / limiting case law

• The same group of acts also operates as a limitation: equipment is covered by the regime applicable to immovable property only where it is inseparable and has lost its independent existence (Art. 133 of the Civil Code). Ownership by a third party is an independent obstacle not expressly resolved by the higher courts’ case law in the database.