CasusLegalHigher-court case-law corpus
← All reviewsHome
Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 16 July 2026 No. 49-П in the case concerning review of the constitutionality of paragraph 1 of Article 54, paragraph 2 of Article 61 and Article 69 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation in connection with a complaint by a citizen of the Republic of Uzbekistan, A. The Resolution held the provisions consistent with the Constitution as interpreted to permit the consideration and granting of an action for termination of parental rights brought by an adult who was the victim of a parent's crime.
The titles of the acts mentioned are clickable: the link opens the full text of the act in CasusLegal.
A citizen of the Republic of Uzbekistan, A., challenged the constitutionality of the interrelated provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 54, paragraph 2 of Article 61 and Article 69 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation. Her father, D.R., was found guilty by a court judgment of committing, during the period from September 2015 to September 2021, crimes against the applicant and her minor sister under subparagraph “a” of Part 3 and subparagraph “b” of Part 4 of Article 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and was sentenced to 14 years and 6 months' imprisonment. Previously, a district court judgment had restricted D.R.'s parental rights in respect of the applicant and three other minor children of his, and, following an action by the applicant's mother, he had been deprived of parental rights in respect of the applicant's younger brothers and sister.
In refusing to accept A.’s statement of claim against D.R. seeking termination of parental rights, the district court judge referred to Articles 54, 69 and 70 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation on the ground that, by the time the claim was filed, the applicant had reached the age of majority; the specific crime as a ground for termination of parental rights was not assessed. The appellate court upheld the ruling, referring to paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 44 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 14 November 2017; the application for the cassation complaint to be referred to the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation was denied. The cassation judge stated that the purpose and motives of the applicant’s application were of no legal significance, since the relevant right is limited by law and conditioned on age. In the applicant’s view, the challenged provisions, as interpreted in judicial practice, deprive persons who have suffered a crime committed by a parent of the possibility of severing their legal relationship with that parent if, by the time they apply to the court or during the consideration of the case, they have reached the age of majority.
The Constitutional Court identified as the subject matter of its review the interconnected provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 54, paragraph 2 of Article 61 and Article 69 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, insofar as, on their basis, the issue is resolved of whether a person who has reached the age of majority may terminate the legal relationship with a parent who previously committed against that person a crime constituting grounds for deprivation of parental rights. The Court proceeded from Articles 2, 17 (Part 1), 18, 21 (Part 1), 23 (Part 1), 41 (Part 1), 52 and 75.1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and from its previously expressed positions that no one may be restricted in judicial protection of their dignity and the rights connected with it, and that, with respect to a victim of a crime, the State is obliged to ensure the possibility of asserting their rights and protecting their dignity by any means not prohibited by law; otherwise, the honour and dignity of the individual would be diminished not only by the perpetrator but also by the State itself. The principle of proportionality was also taken into account, requiring that regulation neither encroach on the essence of a right nor result in the loss of its real substance.
The Court analysed the system of family-law regulation: parental rights provided for in Chapter 12 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation terminate when children reach the age of majority or acquire full legal capacity; deprivation of parental rights is applied as an extreme measure of liability for the parent’s culpable unlawful conduct and only where it is impossible to protect the child’s rights by other means; current legislation does not provide for deprivation of parental rights in respect of an adult, as is also reflected in the clarification in paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 44 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 14 November 2017, which links the attainment of majority to refusal to accept a statement of claim and termination of proceedings.
At the same time, termination of parental rights under Chapter 12 of the Code does not exhaust the legal relationship between a parent and an adult child: kinship remains relevant in housing and inheritance relations, gives rise to a duty to support parents who are unable to work and in need of support, confers the right to apply for a citizen to be declared legally incapable and a preferential right to be appointed as guardian, and entails consequences in the sphere of medical confidentiality and expressing wishes regarding post-mortem organ removal. The Court did not regard individual mechanisms enabling a parent’s bad-faith conduct to be taken into account—release from maintenance obligations, exclusion from inheritance, execution of a will, and a change of surname and patronymic—as sufficient and adequate safeguards for protecting victims’ rights, since they are applicable not in all cases and do not ensure comprehensive protection of personal dignity.
A comparison with the institution of adoption was central to the reasoning. According to Ruling No. 1055-О-П dated 17 December 2008, Article 144 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation does not contemplate refusing a claim for annulment of adoption brought by an adopted person who has reached the age of majority and against whom the adopter committed a crime against sexual inviolability, including without the adopter’s consent. While acknowledging the differences between adoption and children’s descent certified in accordance with the established procedure, the Court stated that an adult child whose parent committed such a crime against them may not be placed in an unequal position vis-à-vis an adopted person who was the victim of an analogous crime, and that the consequences of the parent not having been deprived of parental rights in a timely manner may not be imposed on a minor victim who had no opportunity to protect their rights independently.
The Court concluded that maintaining, against the will of an adult, a legal relationship with a parent who committed such a crime against that person affects personal dignity and casts doubt on the effectiveness of safeguards for protecting victims, contrary to Articles 18, 19, 21 (Part 1), 23 and 52 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the established approaches to interpreting the challenged provisions do not, in principle, diverge from constitutional aims and values; however, the absence of any other means of terminating such a relationship determines that they must be interpreted as not preventing the examination and granting of the corresponding claims brought by adults. Granting such a claim places the person in the position they would have occupied had the parent been deprived of parental rights in a timely manner.
The interconnected provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 54, paragraph 2 of Article 61 and Article 69 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation were held not to be inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, since, by their constitutional-law meaning, they do not prevent courts from examining and granting claims for deprivation of parental rights brought by adults against whom, before they reached the age of majority, a parent committed a crime constituting grounds for deprivation of parental rights. Giving the provisions any other meaning would contradict Articles 2, 17, 18, 19 (Parts 1 and 2), 21 (Part 1), 23 (Part 1), 38, 45, 46 (Part 1), 52 and 75.1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
The reasoning relies on legal positions previously developed by the Constitutional Court, including Resolution No. 10-П of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 14 November 2005, Resolution No. 18-П of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 9 July 2013, Resolution No. 25-П of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 20 June 2018.
The constitutional-law meaning identified was declared universally binding, thereby excluding any other interpretation of the challenged provisions in law enforcement practice. Accordingly, the approach based on paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 44 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 14 November 2017 was adjusted: the claimant’s attainment of the age of majority may no longer, in itself, serve as grounds for refusing to accept a statement of claim for deprivation of parental rights under paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Article 134 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation or for terminating proceedings under the second paragraph of Article 220 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, where the claim is brought by a person against whom the parent committed, before that person reached the age of majority, a crime entailing deprivation of parental rights.
The scope of application of this legal position is limited: it applies to cases in which a parent committed against a child a crime that, under the legislation, constitutes grounds for deprivation of parental rights, in particular a crime against sexual inviolability or an intentional crime against life or health. Outside these situations, the general rule remains applicable: parental rights provided for in Chapter 12 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation terminate when the child reaches the age of majority, and deprivation of parental rights does not apply to adults.
Application of the rules on deprivation of parental rights as interpreted above is subsidiary: it is possible only insofar as the legislation does not provide another legal mechanism for terminating the legal relationship between a parent and a child who has reached the age of majority. Sector-specific measures in the sphere of maintenance and inheritance relations, as well as the possibility of changing a surname and patronymic, were not recognised as an independently sufficient safeguard.
The federal legislator was informed of the possibility, without limiting itself to the existing measures, of amending the legal regulation in light of the legal positions set out in this Resolution to ensure comprehensive protection of citizens’ rights in the situation under consideration by terminating the legal relationship between such parents and children.
The judicial decisions rendered in the case of citizen A. of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the basis of the challenged provisions as interpreted in a manner diverging from the identified constitutional-law meaning are subject to review in accordance with the established procedure. The Resolution is final, enters into force on the date of its official publication and 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.