CasusLegalHigher-court case-law corpus
← All reviewsHome
Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 30 June 2026 No. 44-П in the case concerning a review of the constitutionality of paragraph 2 of part one and part five of Article 108 and part four of Article 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with a complaint by citizen N. N. Karimov. The Resolution held paragraph 2 of part one of Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation not inconsistent with the Constitution: placing in detention a person who has absconded from the bodies conducting the preliminary investigation or from the court and is accused of a minor offence for which imprisonment may not be imposed is permissible as an exceptional and compelled measure resulting from that person’s own unlawful conduct.
Citizen N. N. Karimov is accused under paragraph “c” of part two of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (intentional infliction of minor bodily harm using a weapon), that is, of a minor offence. While subject to an interstate wanted notice, he was placed in detention in absentia, without participating in the court hearing, by a district court order for a period of two months from the date of his arrest; the higher courts upheld that decision. The defence argument that a person with no prior convictions cannot be sentenced to imprisonment for a minor offence, in the absence of aggravating circumstances (part one of Article 56 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and that detention was therefore likewise impermissible, was rejected.
The applicant asked the Court to find the challenged provisions inconsistent with Articles 22 and 49(1) of the Constitution insofar as they permitted the detention in absentia of a person who had absconded and was accused of a minor offence, despite the impossibility of sentencing that person to imprisonment. The subject of review was paragraph 2 of part one of Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation as applied to a suspect or accused person who had absconded in connection with such an offence. The proceedings were discontinued in the remaining part (part five of Article 108 and part four of Article 210): the uncertainty concerning those provisions had already been removed earlier Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 25 February 2026 No. 9-П, while part four of Article 210 merely refers to Article 108.
A restriction of the right to liberty and personal security is permissible only pursuant to a judicial decision and only where it satisfies the requirements of justice, is proportionate, and is necessary to protect constitutionally significant values, including victims’ right of access to justice (Articles 22, 46 and 52; Article 55(3) of the Constitution). The proportionality of the measure is assessed on the basis not only of the gravity and nature of the act and information about the person, but also of the sentence that may actually be imposed and served, taking into account the institutions of the General Part of the Criminal Code (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 22 March 2005 No. 4-П). As a general rule, detention is impermissible if the person cannot be sentenced to imprisonment; however, an exception to this rule may be justified as a special and compelled measure resulting from the unlawful conduct of the person who is absconding from justice.
The Court identified constitutionally significant uncertainty. The literal meaning of paragraph 2 of part one of Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not limit the possibility of detaining an absconded person by reference to the type and severity of the punishment for the alleged act, whereas the still-effective explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court (in the 2025 version) proceed on the basis that this measure is possible only where imprisonment may be imposed as a matter of law, taking into account the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code. The conflicting approaches, which were also evident in the applicant’s case, required resolution through constitutional proceedings.
A key element of the reasoning was the legal nature of absconding from the investigation or the court. The Court characterised such conduct as evasion of justice and an abuse of rights, incompatible with the duty to comply with the Constitution and laws and to exercise one’s rights without violating the rights of others. Evasion suspends the running of limitation periods (part three of Article 78 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), while certain forms of it (escape and evasion of serving a sentence) constitute separate offences. Absconding obstructs the proceedings, leaves the charge unresolved, and limits victims’ right of access to justice within a reasonable time and to compensation for the harm caused.
Relying on previously developed legal positions (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 22 March 2018 No. 12-П on the exception to the rule for persons who have absconded in cases involving minor offences; Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 25 February 2026 No. 9-П on detention in absentia of a person placed on a wanted list), the Court stated: a person who has absconded must not be given advantages over those who comply with their procedural obligations; refusing to select a measure solely because the accused is absent would make the very possibility of applying it dependent on that person’s own unlawful conduct (Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 17 July 2025 No. 1840-О). The wanted notice and procedural coercive measures thus serve as safeguards of victims’ access to justice and the inevitability of liability (Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 12 May 2016 No. 1002-О). Concealment is an actual, objective and exceptional circumstance and, by virtue of Part One of Article 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, constitutes an independent ground for a preventive measure, making it unnecessary to substantiate its other grounds.
At the same time, the imposition of a preventive measure is not automatic. The prosecution’s mere assertion that the person has gone into hiding, and the placing of that person on a wanted list, do not exempt the court from verifying whether those assertions are substantiated: the decision is made on the basis of an examination of the evidence, rather than solely on the prosecution’s arguments, and may be challenged by the defence, which is entitled to prove other reasons for the person’s unavailability (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 22 March 2005 No. 4-П; Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 25 February 2026 No. 9-П). The imposition of the measure may be precluded by the expiry of the limitation period, a serious illness, the person’s special status (a minor, a pregnant woman, a person with a young child, etc.), or the failure to substantiate the suspicion.
The safeguards are not limited to judicial review. The period of pre-trial detention is credited towards the sentence (Part Five of Article 72 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and where the measure is unlawful or unfounded, compensation for harm may be available, including without a right to rehabilitation and in the event of a conviction, if the unlawfulness of the coercive measure itself has been established (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 24 April 2026 No. 27-П). The combination of preventive and compensatory mechanisms forms a system for protecting the right to liberty in criminal proceedings. The Court concluded that Paragraph 2 of Part One of Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is not inconsistent with the Constitution, whereas giving it a different meaning would conflict with the requirements of fair justice and the protection of victims’ rights.
The judgment resolves a practical conflict: the detention in absentia of a person who has gone into hiding and is accused of a minor offence for which imprisonment is not prescribed is permissible as an exception, but only provided that it was caused by the person’s own evasion of justice. This thereby confirms the approach initiated Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 25 February 2026 No. 9-П: concealment from the investigation or the court is an independent ground for a preventive measure, rather than a reason to grant an indulgence to a person who has breached procedural obligations.
The practical effect for the courts is a prohibition on automatic application. The prosecution’s reference to a wanted notice is insufficient in itself: judicial verification is required both of the grounds for the suspicion and of the fact of concealment, as well as consideration of circumstances precluding detention. The explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court concerning the inadmissibility of this measure where imprisonment cannot be imposed remain applicable to persons who do not evade justice.
Compensatory safeguards remain available to the accused. The period of detention in absentia is credited towards the final sentence under Part Five of Article 72 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and where the measure is found to be unlawful or unfounded, compensation for harm is available, including under the procedure recently clarified Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 24 April 2026 No. 27-П (compensation is possible even without rehabilitation, in the event of a conviction, if the measure itself was unlawful).
The applicant’s case is not subject to review in connection with the judgment, and the compensatory mechanisms do not apply to it. Proceedings concerning the review of Part Five of Article 108 and Part Four of Article 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation were discontinued: the uncertainty concerning those provisions has already been eliminated Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 25 February 2026 No. 9-П, while part four of Article 210 merely refers to Article 108.
The Constitutional Court did not impose an obligation on the legislature to amend the regulation, but recognised its power to clarify the mechanisms for countering concealment from the inquiry body, the investigation and the court, and safeguards ensuring that detention is proportionate to the possible sentence, including the procedure for crediting the period of detention when a sentence not involving imprisonment is imposed. The judgment has direct effect.
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.