Constitutional Court Resolution No. 38-П: time limit for bringing claims concerning defects in goods

In brief

• Essence. Paragraph 2 of Article 477 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation was held inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation to the extent that it creates uncertainty as to whether claims concerning defects in goods may be brought after the period it establishes where the defects were discovered within that period.
• Nature of the period. This is a period for discovering latent defects (a reasonable period, but no longer than two years), not a limitation period; however, the courts diverged by treating it as a limitation period.
• Interim procedure. Until the law is amended, claims concerning defects discovered within the period may be brought after its expiry during the limitation period running from the date of discovery; the date of discovery is determined taking into account the date on which the seller was notified, and the burden of proof lies with the buyer. The applicant’s case is to be reconsidered.

Facts of the case

The buyer purchased non-residential premises, subsequently discovered systematic flooding and sought termination of the agreement through the courts. The claim was upheld, but the higher courts refused relief, finding that she had complained of the defects after the expiry of the two-year period under paragraph 2 of Article 477 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation—thus effectively treating that period as a limitation period for bringing claims; the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to refer the complaint for consideration.

Constitutional Court’s position

The Constitutional Court proceeds on the basis that the right to judicial protection (Article 46, Part 1, of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) is exercised in accordance with the procedure and on the conditions established by both procedural and substantive law; substantive law may determine the available remedies and the conditions for granting relief, taking into account the balance of the parties’ interests. In sales contracts, as a general rule, the seller bears for a specified period the risk of latent defects in the goods that arose before their transfer (Article 476 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

For cases where no warranty period or shelf life has been established for the goods, paragraph 2 of Article 477 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes a reasonable period—but no longer than two years—during which the discovery of defects provides grounds for assigning the consequences to the seller. By its purpose, this is a period for discovering defects, not a limitation period: upon discovering a defect, the buyer learns of the infringement of their right, and the general three-year limitation period begins to run (Articles 196 and 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Earlier rulings of the Constitutional Court concerning the application of Article 477 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation also pointed this out.

However, two incompatible approaches have developed in case law. Under one approach (reflected in the ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 306-ЭС25-1348 and paragraph 16 of Review No. 4 (2025)), bringing an action after expiry of the two-year period does not deprive the buyer of judicial protection provided that discovery of the defects within the period is proven. Under the other (reflected in the review of case law on consumer protection), the period is understood as preclusive for bringing the claims themselves, effectively as a limitation period.

The Constitutional Court noted that combining the period for discovering defects with the subsequent three-year limitation period could in the maximum approach five years, during which the seller remains in a state of uncertainty. Since the defects may also be unknown to a diligent seller, such combination may upset the balance of the parties’ interests—which explains the divergence in case law.

Since both readings of the provision have reasonable grounds consistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the uncertainty cannot be eliminated through a constitutional-law interpretation. In light of the requirements of legal certainty (Articles 15 and 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation; previously, Resolutions No. 16-П and No. 18-П), such irremediable uncertainty infringes the right to judicial protection and the right of ownership, and the provision was therefore held unconstitutional. The proceedings concerning paragraph 2 of Article 1 and Article 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation were terminated as inadmissible.

Significance and impact on case law

Expiry of the period under paragraph 2 of Article 477 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not in itself deprive the buyer of the right to bring an action if the defects were discovered within the period: the key considerations are when they were discovered and when the seller was notified. The federal legislator must clarify the regulation.

Until the law is amended, the temporary procedure established by the Constitutional Court applies: claims concerning defects discovered within the period under paragraph 2 of Article 477 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation may also be brought after its expiry, during the limitation period calculated from the time when the defects were or should have been discovered. The date of discovery is determined taking into account the date on which the seller was notified (paragraph 1 of Article 483 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), unless otherwise proven; where notification is absent or late, the burden of proving that the defects were discovered within the period lies with the buyer.

For the courts, this removes the basis for dismissing a claim solely because the two-year period was missed: the key issue becomes when the defect was discovered and whether the seller was notified in a timely manner, rather than the date on which the claim was brought. For market participants, documenting the fact and date of discovery of defects and sending notice to the seller becomes more important.

The applicant’s case is to be reconsidered under the established rules. The federal legislator must clarify the regulation, while being entitled to provide for justified distinctions depending on the characteristics of the goods, the parties involved and other circumstances.

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.