CasusLegalHigher-court case-law corpus
← All reviewsHome
Resolution No. 50-П of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 17 July 2026 in the case concerning review of the constitutionality of Articles 318 and 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with a complaint lodged by citizen V.A. Barsukova. The provisions were held to be consistent with the Constitution in an interpretation that precludes returning an application or refusing to accept it for processing on grounds related to information that the victim does not possess and is not required to possess.
The titles of the acts mentioned are clickable: the link opens the full text of the act in CasusLegal.
V.A. Barsukova applied to the justice of the peace of Court Circuit No. 77 of Saint Petersburg for the initiation of a private-prosecution criminal case against citizen L., stating that L. had defamed her at a hearing in a civil case by submitting documents containing information that did not correspond to reality, thereby committing an offence under Part One of Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. By a ruling dated 12 July 2023, the justice of the peace instructed her to bring the application into compliance with the requirements of Parts Five and Six of Article 318 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. After the application was resubmitted, the justice of the peace, by a ruling dated 24 July 2023, refused to accept it for processing, citing an incomplete description of the event constituting the crime, the absence of data from documents identifying the victim, incomplete information about the person being prosecuted and the absence of a list of witnesses. This decision was set aside by an appellate ruling dated 18 September 2023; however, by a ruling dated 6 November 2023, the claimant was again instructed to remedy the deficiencies, and by a ruling dated 30 November 2023 acceptance of the application was refused, including on the grounds that it did not specify the intent, motive or purpose of the crime, the victim’s date and place of birth, the series and number of her passport, or the surnames, first names, patronymics and contact telephone numbers of the witnesses. The lawfulness of the decision was upheld by the appellate and cassation courts and by a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The claimant asked the Court to declare Articles 318 and 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation inconsistent with Articles 19 (Part 1), 45 (Part 1) and 52 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation insofar as they fail to ensure state protection of victims’ rights in private-prosecution cases: by not establishing the scope and required level of detail of the information to be reported to the justice of the peace, they allow arbitrary refusals to accept an application for processing. While the case was being considered by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the decisions rendered in the claimant’s case were set aside and the application was referred for a fresh examination by the justice of the peace, who, by a ruling dated 18 May 2026, referred it to the inquiry body because Federal Law No. 146-ФЗ dated 7 June 2025 had transferred cases involving the crime under Part One of Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to the category of private-public prosecution cases.
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation proceeded from the premise that the Constitution of the Russian Federation ensures victims of crime access to justice and compensation for the harm caused on the basis of equality of all before the law and the courts (Article 19, Part 1; Article 46, Part 1; Article 52), but does not determine the specific procedure for such access, leaving its choice to the legislator. Previously formulated positions concerning the legislator’s right to differentiate the procedure for proceedings in different categories of criminal cases and to include elements of party disposition in that procedure, taking into account the victim’s wishes (Resolutions No. 1-П dated 14 January 2000, No. 7-П dated 27 June 2005, No. 36-П dated 15 October 2018, No. 36-П dated 28 June 2023 and No. 13-П dated 28 March 2024), were applied to private-prosecution proceedings, whose distinctive features are determined by the interpersonal nature of the conflicts, the need to take into account the victim’s subjective perception of the act and the low degree of public danger posed by the relevant crimes. A simplified procedure for initiating proceedings must at the same time provide the victim with genuine access to justice, effective judicial protection, a balance between the interests of the victim and the person drawn into criminal proceedings, and reasonable requirements for the application that exclude both excessive burdens and the acceptance for processing of manifestly unfounded accusations.
The victim’s application is deemed not only a ground for instituting a private-prosecution criminal case but, in substance, also an indictment served on the defendant to prepare a defence (Resolutions No. 1-П of 14 January 2000 and No. 36-П of 15 October 2018). At the same time, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not impose, and cannot impose, impossible requirements on the content of an application drawn up by freely setting out the information listed in Part Five of Article 318: the victim is not required to provide a detailed legal analysis of the objective and subjective elements of the offence, such as that contained in an indictment prepared by an investigator conducting an inquiry or an indictment prepared by an investigator during a preliminary investigation; a description of the factual aspects of the alleged offence and reference to the relevant criminal-law provision are necessary and sufficient (Decision No. 268-О of 23 June 2005). The information reported concerns the occurrence of an alleged, rather than established, offence, and the law does not require the application to be supported by evidence, the submission and examination of which are assigned to the judicial investigation stage.
Any other interpretation would mean imposing on the victim public-law criminal-prosecution functions to an extent inherent in inquiry and preliminary-investigation bodies, which has no constitutional basis (Decisions No. 1336-О of 17 September 2013 and No. 3272-О of 5 December 2019), whereas the dispositive nature of private-prosecution cases serves as an additional guarantee of victims’ rights (Resolutions No. 7-П of 27 June 2005 and No. 36-П of 28 June 2023). Such application of the law would make the protection of rights dependent on a person’s property or official status, education, legal knowledge, or access to the personal data of other persons, and would depart from the requirements of Articles 19 (Parts One and Two), 46 (Part One) and 52 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. A victim’s lack of specialised knowledge and inability to obtain the necessary information independently cannot impede access to justice, since the law provides public-law mechanisms for remedying these limitations.
The right to judicial protection presupposes institutional and procedural mechanisms for its full implementation and requires the court to use all available procedural tools and to act with due procedural diligence (Resolutions No. 11-П of 13 April 2017 and No. 53-П of 19 November 2024). The adversarial nature of proceedings and equality of the parties (Article 123, Part Three, of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) do not exclude the court’s organising role, which does not replace the functions of the parties. In private-prosecution cases, that role is established by Part Two of Article 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation: at the parties’ request, the court assists in collecting evidence that the participants in the proceedings cannot obtain independently, including by requesting data concerning the person subject to criminal prosecution and witnesses, since Part Five of Article 318 does not require the applicant to provide information that he or she objectively does not have and is not required to have (Resolution No. 13-П of 28 March 2024; Decisions No. 2161-О of 25 September 2014, No. 3338-О of 19 December 2019 and No. 182-О of 27 January 2022). This power may also be exercised before the application is accepted for consideration.
The substantive-law prerequisite for procedural activity is provided by the rules of criminal law: the accusation must be based on provisions defining all the elements of the offence (Resolutions No. 24-П of 19 November 2013 and No. 5-П of 7 March 2017). The content of the application defines the subject matter and limits of the forthcoming proceedings and gives rise to the court’s authority to examine it; therefore, a formal reference to the apparent elements of an unlawful act is insufficient: the factual circumstances described must clearly indicate the elements of a specific offence falling within the category of private-prosecution cases. Where such elements are manifestly absent, or where the matter falls within a different jurisdiction or venue, including where the act is classified as an offence subject to private-public or public prosecution, an administrative offence, or a civil-law tort, the court must refer the application to the competent authority or return it to the applicant, explaining the actual reasons for the decision and the possibility of applying to the appropriate authorities. Completely excluding that possibility would upset the balance of interests between the victim and the person against whom the application was filed, placing the latter in the position of a defendant without sufficient grounds, contrary to Articles 17 (Part Three) and 49 (Part One) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
The choice of decision following a preliminary examination of the application must take into account the nature of the defects identified, their obviousness and curability, and the victim’s ability to protect his or her rights independently; refusal to accept the application is permissible only as a subsequent measure if the court’s direction is not complied with within the prescribed period. An interested person is entitled to receive an adequate response to an application (Decisions No. 42-О of 25 January 2005, No. 525-О-О of 21 October 2008 and No. 3243-О of 30 November 2023), and the court may not refuse to examine and assess the arguments or give reasons for its decisions (Decisions No. 237-О of 8 July 2004, No. 40-О of 28 January 2021 and No. 307-О of 26 February 2026). A decision returning the application must be lawful, well-founded and reasoned under Part Four of Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; reference to excessive or impossible requirements, as well as the repeated return of an application on the basis of new defects not previously identified, demonstrates the unlawfulness of the decision and violates Articles 18, 21 (Part One), 45 and 46 (Part One) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. If the defects are remedied within the prescribed period, the court may not refuse to accept the application for consideration. In view of the foregoing, Articles 318 and 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation have been held not to contravene the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the identified constitutional-law meaning, which is universally binding and precludes any other interpretation of those articles 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. 36-П of 15 October 2018, Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 36-П of 28 June 2023, Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 13-П of 28 March 2024.
The Ruling establishes the limits of a justice of the peace’s preliminary examination of an application concerning an offence in a private-prosecution case. An application may not be returned, or subsequently rejected for acceptance for consideration, on the grounds that the legal description of the act is incomplete, the occurrence of the alleged offence has not been proved, the factual information is unreliable, the full personal data of the person subject to criminal prosecution and the witnesses have not been specified, or other information has not been provided that the victim cannot or is not required to have. Requirements to set out the offence’s intent, motive and purpose, or to provide the participants’ passport details and the witnesses’ contact telephone numbers where the applicant has no access to them, are inconsistent with the identified constitutional-law meaning of the challenged provisions.
The courts are directed to exercise the power to assist in collecting evidence established by Part Two of Article 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, including before accepting the application for consideration and at the request of the applicant, in order to obtain data concerning the person involved and the witnesses. At the same time, the possibility remains of returning the application where the elements of a private-prosecution offence are manifestly absent, with an explanation of another procedure for protecting rights, or of referring the application to the head of an investigative body or the head of an inquiry body if the act is subject to private-public or public prosecution.
The requirements for a decision returning an application have been formalised: it must specifically identify all defects, enabling them to be remedied within the prescribed period or the decision to be challenged with reasons. A repeated return of the application identifying defects of which the court had not previously informed the applicant is precluded; and if the defects identified by the court are remedied within the prescribed period, refusal to accept the application for consideration is impermissible. The identified constitutional-law meaning is universally binding and precludes any other interpretation of Articles 318 and 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation found no grounds for reviewing the judicial decisions in the case of V.A. Barsukova, since the decisions rendered in her case were annulled in the course of constitutional proceedings, and the application was referred to an inquiry body following the reclassification, by Federal Law No. 146-ФЗ of 7 June 2025, of offences under Part One of Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as offences subject to private-public prosecution. Under Part Four of Article 100 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation,” the applicant is entitled to the application of compensatory mechanisms, the form and amount of which are to be determined by the justice of the peace of Court District No. 77 of Saint Petersburg who heard her case at first instance.
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.