CasusLegalHigher-court case-law corpus
← All reviewsHome
Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 9 July 2026 No. 47-П in the case concerning the review of the constitutionality of subparagraph 9 of paragraph 2 of Article 39.3 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation and the first paragraph of paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the Federal Law “On the Turnover of Agricultural Land” in connection with a request from the Government of Omsk Region. The provisions were held constitutional as interpreted to mean that the absence of information about identified and unremedied violations creates a rebuttable presumption that the lessee acted in good faith, rather than constituting an unconditional ground for selling the land plot.
The titles of the acts mentioned are clickable: the link opens the full text of the act in CasusLegal.
The Government of the Omsk Region applied to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. It challenged subparagraph 9 of paragraph 2 of Article 39.3 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for the sale without an auction of land plots intended for agricultural production and leased to their tenant after three years from the date of conclusion of the lease agreement or transfer of the rights and obligations under it, provided that the authorized body has no information about violations of the law identified in the course of state land supervision and not remedied in the use of such plot, as well as the first paragraph of Article 10(4) of Federal Law No. 101-ФЗ of 24 July 2002 “On the Turnover of Agricultural Land,” which establishes the right of such tenant to acquire the plot as ownership or enter into a new lease agreement.
In the applicant’s view, the challenged provisions create conditions for the simplified privatization of agricultural land plots by tenants acting in bad faith and do not comply with Articles 9 (Part 1) and 58 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The Government of the Omsk Region argued that the mere fact that a violation had been remedied, including immediately before an application to conclude a sale and purchase agreement was filed, might not indicate that the tenant acted in good faith, and that decisive importance should be attached to the absence of violations over a lengthy period. The application also stated that the provisions do not allow a public authority to refuse to sell a plot without an auction where there is information about violations committed by the same person and not remedied in the use of other land plots of a similar designated purpose.
The Constitutional Court proceeded on the basis that land and other natural resources are used and protected as the foundation of the life and activities of the peoples residing in the relevant territory (Article 8, Part 2; Article 9 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), while possession, use and disposal of land are exercised freely provided that this does not harm the environment or violate the rights of others (Article 36). The constitutional characterization of land determines the requirement that it be used and protected rationally and effectively, which gives the federal legislator the authority to establish special rules, procedures and conditions for the use of land; this had previously been stated in Resolutions No. 8-П of 23 April 2004 and No. 37-П of 4 June 2026. The state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation have comprehensive powers in this sphere, not limited to the performance of technical functions, and are responsible for the state of relations concerning the use of agricultural land.
The Court assessed the challenged regulation itself as having been adopted within the legislator’s broad discretion. The sale of a land plot to its tenant without an auction after three years of tenancy is regarded as a benefit for persons who have demonstrated over an extended period their willingness and ability to develop the plot; the wording of the provisions introduced by Federal Law No. 336-ФЗ of 3 July 2016 replaced the evaluative criterion of proper use with the formal condition that there be no information about identified and unremedied violations, eliminating the risks of excessive discretion by public authorities and placing the burden of proving the existence of violations on the authorized bodies. At the same time, clarifying the criteria for assessing an applicant’s good faith does not mean a fundamental lowering of the requirements applicable to the applicant.
Relying on Article 74, Part 2, of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation,” the Court stated that the model chosen by the legislator cannot be assessed in isolation from the set of public-law and private-law mechanisms ensuring the proper use of an agricultural land plot. These mechanisms include administrative liability under Article 8.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation; the expropriation of a plot that is unused or used in violation of the law (Articles 284 and 285 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Article 6 of the Federal Law “On the Turnover of Agricultural Land”); termination of the lease (Article 45(2) and Article 46(2) of the Land Code of the Russian Federation); and compensation for environmental damage (Article 77 of the Federal Law “On Environmental Protection”). The Court also referred to Resolution No. 19-П of 21 April 2020, in which preventive and protective measures against persons acting in bad faith in their use of natural resources were held compatible with the limits on restrictions of rights established by Article 55 (Part 3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and recalled that courts must examine the factual circumstances on their merits rather than limit themselves to establishing the formal conditions for applying the provision.
The Court noted the universal nature of the requirement of good-faith conduct. Allowing a person to remedy a violation without losing the right to preferential privatization is based on a presumption of good faith, but presupposes that the violations are remedied in full and within the time limit established by law and/or by an order of the state land supervision authority. Untimely remediation of the consequences of a violation, repeated violations during the three-year period, and serious violations that resulted in the tenant or persons acting on the tenant’s behalf being held administratively or criminally liable may rebut this presumption. The inability to take such facts into account would upset the balance between private and public interests and conflict with the purpose of the regulation.
The issue of violations in the use of other land plots was considered separately. On the literal meaning of the provisions, such information is not subject to consideration; however, the Court held that good faith in the sphere of land use cannot be assessed fragmentarily and in isolation with respect to each individual plot. A person’s attitude toward other agricultural land plots in the person’s possession was recognized as an objective and reliable indicator of that person’s good faith, since the tenant has special incentives to comply with the law with respect to the plot in question. Requiring the authorized body to sell the plot without taking such violations into account would conflict with Articles 8 (Part 2), 9, 36, 55 (Part 3) and 75.1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Following its consideration, subparagraph 9 of paragraph 2 of Article 39.3 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation and the first paragraph of Article 10(4) of the Federal Law “On the Turnover of Agricultural Land” were held not to conflict with the Constitution of the Russian Federation insofar as they do not preclude the authority of the authorized body to refuse to sell a plot without an auction, taking into account the number, nature and consequences of violations identified during the preceding three years in the use of that plot or another plot of a similar designated purpose in the possession of that person, regardless of the grounds for possession, where such violations resulted in consequences that cannot be remedied, served, owing to their serious nature, as grounds for bringing the person to administrative or criminal liability, or were systematic, thereby indicating, despite their full or partial remediation, significant risks of using the plot in question for an unintended purpose, significantly reducing its fertility, or causing it other substantial harm. The constitutional-law meaning identified by the Court was declared universally binding, precluding any other interpretation in law enforcement practice.
The reasoning relies on legal positions previously developed by the Constitutional Court, including Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 19-П of 21 April 2020, Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 45-П of 20 October 2022, Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 4 June 2026 No. 37-П.
For authorized bodies disposing of publicly owned agricultural land, it has been established that the formal absence of information about unremedied violations relating to a particular plot does not automatically entail an obligation to sell it to the tenant without an auction. The body may refuse preferential privatization where circumstances rebut the presumption of good faith; however, such refusal must be based not on general discretion but on the number, nature and consequences of specific violations identified during the preceding three years.
The range of legally relevant circumstances has been expanded: violations committed by the same person in using other plots intended for agricultural production and in that person’s possession, regardless of the grounds for possession, must be taken into account. This changes the established literal reading of the provisions, under which the tenant’s conduct was assessed only with respect to the plot in question.
A standard has been formulated for courts examining disputes concerning the lawfulness of a refusal of privatization without an auction. The burden of producing evidence rebutting the presumption of the tenant’s good faith lies with the public authority; the court assesses the number and nature of the violations identified, their consequences, and the time taken and completeness of their remediation, without limiting itself to verifying the formal conditions for applying the provision. This approach is consistent with the case law of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the commercial cassation courts cited in the Ruling.
For tenants, it is significant that remedying a violation immediately before filing an application to purchase the plot does not guarantee that the right to the preferential procedure will be preserved if the violation was remedied after the applicable deadline, was systematic, or resulted in the person being held administratively or criminally liable. At the same time, a refusal of privatization without an auction does not deprive the tenant of the opportunity to seek to acquire the plot on general grounds in accordance with the procedure established by law.
The Ruling did not establish a temporary procedure for applying the provisions or require the review of specific judicial decisions, since the provisions were held consistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation as interpreted by the Court. The federal legislator was informed of the possibility, as part of improving the regulation, of clarifying the procedure for privatizing such plots by tenants, in particular by providing for violations in the use of any plots of a similar designated purpose to be taken into account and differentiating violations according to their number, nature and consequences.
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.