CasusLegalHigher-court case-law corpus
← All reviewsHome
Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 48-П of 14 July 2026 in the case concerning the review of the constitutionality of Article 22.1 of the Federal Law “On State Cadastral Valuation” and Article 245, Part 3, of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure of the Russian Federation in connection with complaints by citizens I.F. Bukhmiller and A.V. Yepifanov. The Ruling held Article 22.1 of the State Cadastral Valuation Law inconsistent with the Constitution insofar as it deprives a taxpayer of the opportunity to establish the archived cadastral value at its market value; pending amendments, a temporary procedure with a one-year time limit for applying shall apply.
The titles of the acts mentioned are clickable: the link opens the full text of the act in CasusLegal.
The case was brought before the Court following complaints by citizens I.F. Bukhmiller and A.V. Epifanov. A.V. Epifanov owned two land plots whose cadastral value was determined as of 3 February 2015, 1 January 2020 and 1 January 2022. Referring to valuation reports according to which the market value of the plots was substantially lower than their cadastral value, he applied to the court seeking to have the cadastral value that had become archival established at its market value, stating that its results were used by the tax authority to calculate his tax arrears. The court refused to accept his administrative statement of claim on the grounds that, from 1 January 2023, Article 22.1 of the Law on State Cadastral Valuation applied in the Smolensk Region and required a mandatory prior application to a budgetary institution, as well as with reference to Part 3 of Article 245 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure of the Russian Federation and on the ground that challenging an archival cadastral value entailed no legal consequences. The budgetary institution had previously returned his application with reference to Part 7 of Article 22.1 of that Law, which permits an application to be filed only within six months from the date as of which the market valuation was carried out. At the same time, he was assessed arrears of land tax for 2021 and 2022, together with penalties.
In 2024, I.F. Bukhmiller received a tax notice in which her personal property tax for 2022 was calculated on the basis of the cadastral value of an asset that had not appeared in the notices previously sent to her. The budgetary institution returned her application seeking to have the cadastral value established at its market value, with reference to Article 22.1 of the Law on State Cadastral Valuation. The courts refused to accept her administrative statement of claim challenging the return and seeking to have the archival cadastral value established at its market value, holding that the explanations in paragraph 14 of Resolution No. 28 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 30 June 2015 were inapplicable in the circumstances of the Orenburg Region's transition to the application of Article 22.1 from 1 January 2023. The applicants considered the challenged provisions inconsistent with Articles 19, 35, 46, 53, 55 (Part 3) and 57 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation because those provisions did not allow the cadastral value used to determine the tax base in prior tax periods to be revised.
In defining the subject matter of its review, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation stated that it was Article 22.1 of the Law on State Cadastral Valuation insofar as, on its basis, the issue is decided of the right of an individual taxpayer who is not an individual entrepreneur to have the cadastral value of real property established at its market value for the purposes of determining the tax base for land tax and personal property tax for past tax periods, where the applicable cadastral value is archival. The proceedings were terminated insofar as they concerned review of the constitutionality of Part 3 of Article 245 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure of the Russian Federation: in light of the interpretation of that provision in paragraphs 6, 8 and 14 of Resolution No. 28 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 30 June 2015 and the position expressed in Ruling No. 1195-О dated 27 June 2017, it does not preclude a determination on the merits of claims seeking revision of cadastral value where the right to apply the results of the revision is preserved. The Court refused to accept A.V. Epifanov's application mainly because the extrajudicial procedure had not been complied with; that procedure is not regulated by this provision.
The starting point of the reasoning was a comparison between the guarantees of the right to private property (Articles 8 and 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) and the obligation under Article 57 to pay taxes lawfully established, as well as the requirement that citizens' rights and obligations be balanced on the basis of the principles of equality and proportionality, arising from Articles 2, 19 (Parts 1 and 2), 45, 46 (Parts 1 and 2), 55 (Part 3) and 75.1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Relying on its previously developed positions concerning the right to judicial protection as a guarantee of all other rights and the comprehensive nature of such guarantees, the Court recognised the legislature's power to introduce, alongside judicial protection, another procedure for protection implemented by a competent public institution, including a procedure that must be exhausted before applying to a court, based on considerations of conserving judicial-system resources and ensuring the qualified resolution of disputes involving substantial special features. At the same time, where a mandatory extrajudicial procedure is introduced, access to the relevant procedures must be ensured for all persons who are not entitled to apply to a court until they have complied with that procedure; otherwise, they are deprived of subsequent judicial protection as well.
Analysing the nature of cadastral and market value, the Court noted that both figures are conditional and are deemed reliable by operation of law because they were calculated under prescribed procedures and have not been rebutted. At the same time, the legislation recognises the primacy of market value obtained through an individual valuation of a specific asset, including where it is used as the tax base. The right of an interested person to challenge the decision establishing cadastral value on the basis of an individual valuation was identified as an element of the procedure contributing to the perception of that decision as fair. Taking into account its positions on a reasonable relationship between fiscal and economic interests, proportionality as an expression of fairness in the tax sphere, and the fact that the right to have cadastral value established at market value serves to determine a tax obligation in an amount no greater than that prescribed by law, the Court concluded that taxpayers must have a statutorily guaranteed possibility of seeking such an determination, if not throughout the entire period during which the cadastral value applies, then at least within a reasonable period allowing them, with due care and prudence, to initiate an effective revision.
The Court held that the general rules in Article 18 of the Law on State Cadastral Valuation concerning the application of information on amended cadastral value from 1 January of the year in which the application is filed do not exclude the operation of special rules of tax and duties legislation and cannot be interpreted as excluding the possibility of establishing at market value the cadastral value that was applicable for determining the tax base in prior tax periods. Any other interpretation would deprive of effect the provisions of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation on tax recalculation and the corresponding rights of taxpayers. At the same time, the six-month period established by Part 7 of Article 22.1, calculated from the date as of which the market valuation was carried out, was not recognised as reasonable and adequate where an individual has no obligation to monitor the results of state cadastral valuation. A tax notice, as the first document personally addressed to a taxpayer concerning the tax-law consequences of cadastral valuation, may be sent more than one year after publication of the act approving the results; consequently, by the time it is received, remedies may no longer be available and the application may be returned under paragraph 2 of Part 8 of the same article.
Since the identified gaps cannot be remedied through the direct application of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and require systemic legislative changes, the Court held Article 22.1 of the Law on State Cadastral Valuation inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, specifically Articles 19 (Parts 1 and 2), 35 (Part 1), 45, 46 (Parts 1 and 2), 55 (Part 3), 57 and 75.1, insofar as, while providing for a mechanism for the extrajudicial determination of cadastral value at market value, it does not prevent a situation in which an individual taxpayer who is not an individual entrepreneur and is acting in good faith is deprived of the possibility of challenging an archival cadastral value that continues to be used to determine the tax base for land tax and personal property tax, either by applying to a budgetary institution or through judicial proceedings. The unconstitutionality was established not with respect to the extrajudicial revision mechanism itself, but with respect to the absence of access to that mechanism and to the courts in the situation described.
The reasoning relies on legal positions previously developed by the Constitutional Court, including Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 5 July 2016 No. 15-П, Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 15 June 2021 No. 28-П, Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 11 July 2024 No. 37-П.
For the courts, the Resolution removes the basis for refusing to accept claims connected with archival cadastral value on the ground that such a challenge entails no legal consequences: if the archival cadastral value continues to be used to determine the tax base for past tax periods, an interest in its revision remains. An interpretation under which the rules of Article 18 of the Law on State Cadastral Valuation concerning the application of information from 1 January of the year in which an application is filed preclude the establishment at market value of the cadastral value applied in prior tax periods was held impermissible; the special rules of tax and duties legislation on tax recalculation remain in force.
Until legislative amendments are adopted, the following interim procedure applies: an application seeking to have the cadastral value of real property established at its market value must be filed with a budgetary institution created by a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and vested with the relevant powers, within one year from the day on which an individual taxpayer who is not an individual entrepreneur and is acting in good faith became, or should have become, aware of the tax-law consequences of establishing the cadastral value, including from the day on which the tax notice sent to that taxpayer is deemed received. The budgetary institution establishes the cadastral value at market value, which is applied to determine the tax base for land tax or personal property tax as of 1 January of the corresponding preceding year, for the three years preceding the year in which the application is filed.
For taxpayers, this means that the period for applying begins not on the date of the market valuation but when they become aware of the tax consequences of the cadastral valuation, enabling them to respond to a received tax notice, including where the asset was first recorded by the tax authority for a past period. For budgetary institutions, applications can no longer be returned without consideration on the ground that the six-month period was missed in situations covered by the interim procedure. Public-law entities retain the possibility of challenging unfounded taxpayer claims in order to protect interests connected with the receipt of tax revenues.
The federal legislature was instructed to amend the legislation and regulate the procedure for a taxpayer to challenge the archival cadastral value of real property that continues to be used for tax purposes on the ground that it does not correspond to the market value of that property. The Court's indication that a reasonable period may be tied to the frequency of state cadastral valuation, provided that this does not obstruct the exercise of the right, serves as guidance for the legislature.
With respect to the applicants, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, acting pursuant to paragraphs 10.1 and 12 of Part One of Article 75 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation,” held that their individual cases were not subject to revision because the issue assessed by the courts in those cases was compliance with the extrajudicial procedure, and revision would not have directly restored their rights. The applicants may apply to a budgetary institution under the procedure provided for by the Resolution; for them, the one-year period is calculated from the date the Resolution was pronounced, while the scope of the revision is determined taking into account the periods to which their cases related.
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.