CasusLegalHigher-court case-law corpus
← All reviewsHome
Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 4 June 2026 No. 37-П in the case concerning the review of the constitutionality of paragraph 9 of Article 22 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of the municipal formation “Kemerovo Urban District.” The judgment held that the lessee of a subsidized land plot (for example, a labour veteran) may transfer the rights and obligations under the agreement without the lessor’s consent—as may any long-term lessee of publicly owned land.
A municipally owned land plot was granted without an auction to a labour veteran for individual housing construction; the beneficiary transferred the rights and obligations under the agreement to another person, notifying the property management committee. The courts refused the committee’s application to invalidate the transfer, holding that the law did not prohibit a beneficiary from transferring the rights and that the contractual requirement for the lessor’s consent was contrary to law; the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to refer the complaint for consideration.
The Constitutional Court noted the broad discretion of the federal legislator both in the sphere of land relations (Article 36, Part 3; Article 72 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) and in the sphere of social-support measures (Article 7; Article 72, Paragraph “g” of Part 1). The preferential grant of a land plot without an auction and at a rate not exceeding the land tax is a social-support measure, in regulating which a constituent entity of the Russian Federation has considerable latitude (Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 16 May 2024 No. 1122-О).
The key question was whether the rights of the lessee of a subsidized land plot are inherently connected with the person of the creditor (Article 383 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and therefore non-transferable. The Constitutional Court answered in the negative: although concluding the agreement without an auction and at a subsidized rate is linked to the identity of the beneficiary, the subsequent exercise of the lessee’s rights is, as a general rule, not inherently connected with that person. By analogy, the owner of a preferentially granted land plot may dispose of it, and the law does not prohibit subleasing such a plot.
Oversight of how a beneficiary exercises the benefit granted to them constitutes serious interference in private affairs, which under Article 55 (Part 3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation must be provided for by law and reasonably justified. Paragraph 9 of Article 22 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation permits restrictions on the transfer of rights only by federal law; restrictions concerning the categories of eligible persons and the retention of preferential rent must likewise be established by federal law or pursuant to it.
For cases involving the grant of land plots without an auction to citizens entitled to priority acquisition (including labour veterans), no such restrictions have been established by federal law, although the legislator had the discretion to do so. Accordingly, the general procedure applies: the lessor’s consent to the transfer of rights is not required, and a contractual provision requiring such consent is contrary to law. A transfer of rights by a person who has exercised the benefit creates no additional obligations or expenses for the municipal formation and does not infringe its constitutional powers.
At the same time, the Constitutional Court emphasised that strict compliance with the procedure for granting the benefit is of fundamental importance: compiling lists of beneficiaries, the justification for placing a person on the register, priority and the one-time nature of exercising the benefit. The federal legislator is not precluded from providing exceptions to the general rule in paragraph 9 of Article 22 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the specific features of particular grounds for preferential grants.
Municipalities may not block the re-letting of a subsidized land plot by invoking the preferential status of the original lessee. The Constitutional Court emphasised the importance of strict compliance with the procedure for granting the benefit and noted that the federal legislator may provide exceptions to the general rule.
For municipalities and regional authorities, the judgment closes the door on challenging the re-letting of subsidized land plots and including provisions requiring the lessor’s consent in agreements: such provisions, being contrary to law, will not be applied. Claims seeking to invalidate a transfer of rights on the grounds of the lessee’s preferential status have no reasonable prospects.
For beneficiary citizens and transferees of rights, the judgment confirms that long-term leases of subsidized land plots are transferable: the beneficiary may transfer the rights, and the transferee may continue construction and subsequently acquire the land plot in ownership on general terms.
The judgment also sends a signal to the federal legislator: if the circulation of subsidized land plots is considered undesirable (as circumventing the targeted nature of the benefit), restrictions must be introduced specifically by federal law. Until then, regional restrictions on this issue are inapplicable.
This analysis was prepared on the basis of the CasusLegal database (case law of the highest courts of the Russian Federation). The titles of the cited decisions link to their full texts in CasusLegal.