CasusLegalHigher-court case-law corpus
← All reviewsHome
Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 22 July 2026 No. 53-П in the case concerning the review of the constitutionality of paragraph 3 of Part One of Article 24 and Part Three of Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with a complaint by citizen V.G. Petrov. The Resolution held the provisions consistent with the Constitution provided that the victim is ensured an effective investigation before expiry of the limitation period, the ability to challenge the discontinuance of the case, and compensation for harm after its discontinuance.
The titles of the acts mentioned are clickable: the link opens the full text of the act in CasusLegal.
On 8 October 2014, criminal proceedings were instituted against an unidentified person on the fact of the fraudulent misappropriation of funds transferred by V.G. Petrov in 2012 by means of a money transfer; the act was classified under Part Two and subsequently Part Four of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended under paragraph 1 of Part One of Article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation because the person to be charged had not been identified, and were subsequently resumed. On 2 September 2022, the case was discontinued under paragraph 3 of Part One of Article 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation because the limitation period for criminal prosecution had expired.
On 13 August 2024, the Leninsky District Court of Vladivostok, acting under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, held the investigator’s decision unlawful, reasoning that discontinuance of a case on limitation grounds is permissible only with respect to a specific person who does not object to it; the decision was upheld on appeal. However, when the head of the investigative body applied under Article 214.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, revocation of the decision was refused on the grounds that consent is not required where the accused has not been identified and that Part Three of Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation prohibits the resumption of proceedings after expiry of the limitation period; these conclusions were upheld by the higher courts, including a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The applicant asked the Court to hold paragraph 3 of Part One of Article 24 and Part Three of Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation inconsistent with Articles 18, 19 (Part 1), 45 and 46 (Parts 1 and 2) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation insofar as they permit a case to be discontinued on limitation grounds without the consent of an unidentified person and prohibit the resumption of proceedings despite a court having held the decision to discontinue the case unlawful.
In defining the scope of its review, the Constitutional Court separately stated that, by virtue of Part 1.1 of Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, revocation of a decision discontinuing a case after one year is permitted on the basis of a judicial decision adopted under Articles 125, 125.1 and 214.1 of that Code. A final and binding decision issued under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation holding the decision unlawful does not require the additional use of the procedure under Article 214.1; it requires that the judicial act be implemented. Any other approach would result in a failure to enforce a judicial decision whose correctness has not been disproved and would conflict with Articles 15 (Part 2), 19 (Part 1), 46 (Part 1), 52 and 120 (Part 1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The review concerned the challenged provisions insofar as they serve as the basis for deciding whether to discontinue a case in which the person to be charged has not been identified and whether to resume proceedings after expiry of the limitation periods provided for in Article 78 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The Court proceeded on the basis that criminal prosecution is a means of discharging the State’s duty to protect rights and freedoms, whereas the determination of the grounds for prosecution and for abandoning it belongs to the State, not the victim, since the type and degree of liability are determined by public-law interests. At the same time, victims’ interests have public-law significance, requiring the State to ensure their access to justice and compensation for harm caused, with appropriate procedural safeguards (Articles 2, 21 (Part 1), 45, 46 and 52 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation; the 1985 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power). The limitation-period regime is based on the reduced public danger of the act over time, the possibility of restoring social justice without criminal repression, and the principle of humanism: the act does not cease to be a crime, but its punishability is removed.
In analysing Article 78 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the Court noted that the running of the limitation periods is linked exclusively to the time when the crime was committed, not to the discovery of the act or identification of the perpetrator, and is suspended only if the person evades the investigation or court proceedings or fails to pay a court fine. Although it had the power to do so, the legislature did not include the failure to identify the person among the circumstances affecting the running of the limitation period. The requirement in Part Two of Article 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation that prosecution may not be discontinued where the suspect or accused objects is intended to protect a specific person vested with procedural status; with respect to an unidentified person who has not been subjected to restrictions on their rights, the decision does not affect that person’s rights and does not require their position to be ascertained. This conclusion is confirmed by Part 3.3 of Article 6.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which expressly proceeds from the permissibility of discontinuing a case on this ground where the perpetrator has not been identified. The exception consists of the crimes referred to in Parts Four and Five of Article 78 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: in those cases, the investigator may not decide the issue of exemption from liability on limitation grounds, and the case must be suspended rather than discontinued.
In assessing whether the safeguards for the victim’s rights were sufficient, the Court stated that the right to an effective investigation—that is, one conducted with appropriate thoroughness and comprehensiveness—must be exercised in a timely manner, before expiry of the limitation period; applying the limitation period without a timely, complete and comprehensive investigation would amount to the State’s neglect of its duty. This right is protected by complaints under Articles 123 and 124 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, departmental oversight and prosecutorial supervision (Articles 37 and 39), as well as judicial review under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, in which the court is not limited to a formal review, assesses the factual basis of decisions and omissions, and may identify specific violations requiring rectification. A decision discontinuing a case may be revoked if materially significant circumstances are stated incorrectly or given an incorrect legal assessment, including an error concerning the category or time of commission of the crime or the issue of suspension of the running of the limitation period.
The Court separately considered the victim’s protection through civil proceedings: the victim may not be denied access to the criminal-case materials, which are accepted by the court as documentary evidence under Articles 67 and 71 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, and the assessment of the substantive-law grounds for compensation for harm is not limited by the conclusions of the order terminating the case. As a general rule, a claim may be brought within the ten-year limitation period (Articles 196 and 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), including against the person to whose account the stolen funds were transferred. If an involved person is identified after the case has been terminated, that person’s involvement is verified not by reopening the investigation but by using the procedural tools characteristic of the stage of deciding whether to open a criminal case, in a procedure analogous to Article 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, including obtaining explanations, requesting documents, ordering an expert examination and taking other measures. Once the involvement is confirmed, the previous order is revoked and a new individualized order terminating the case is issued simultaneously; the person may either agree to the non-exonerating ground or object, in which case the order is revoked and the investigation is conducted under Part 2.2 of Article 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, with the limitation periods applicable as preclusive periods calculated from the date on which the order is revoked; after the case is referred to the court, Part 8 of Article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation applies. Investigative bodies must ensure that the materials of terminated cases are retained for a reasonable period.
The Court identified a compensatory mechanism as an additional guarantee: if the reasonable time for pretrial proceedings is exceeded and measures are not taken to identify the perpetrator in a timely manner, the victim may, within six months from the date of termination of the case or refusal to open it, file an application for an award of compensation (Part 7.3 of Article 3 of Federal Law No. 68-ФЗ dated 30 April 2010). Ultimately, Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Article 24 and Part 3 of Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation were held not to contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the identified constitutional-law meaning, which is generally binding and precludes any other interpretation of those provisions. Giving the provisions a different meaning would contradict Articles 15 (Part 2), 19 (Part 1), 46 (Parts 1 and 2) and 52 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
The reasoning relies on legal positions previously developed by the Constitutional Court, including Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 45-П dated 26 October 2021, Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 33-П dated 18 July 2022, Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 13-П of 28 March 2024.
Victims are guaranteed a set of rights that remain applicable even after a case is terminated because the limitation period has expired: the right to an effective investigation, which must be completed before the limitation period expires; the right to challenge the order terminating the case by arguing that the legal classification or the time of commission of the offence was incorrect, or that grounds existed for suspending the running of the limitation period; the right to access the materials of the terminated case to substantiate a civil claim; and the right to compensation for a violation of the reasonable time for proceedings. At the same time, the expectation that a case concerning an offence committed by an unidentified person may be investigated indefinitely is eliminated: the limitation period runs from the time the act was committed, so it is advisable for the victim to act within that period.
For investigative bodies, the permissibility of terminating a case under Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Article 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation against an unidentified person without ascertaining anyone’s position has been confirmed, provided that the entire necessary set of investigative measures to identify the perpetrator has first been carried out. For offences whose objective elements coincide with those listed in Parts 4 and 5 of Article 78 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, termination on limitation grounds during pretrial proceedings is excluded, and the case must be suspended. A new duty has also been introduced to ensure that the materials of terminated criminal cases are retained for a reasonable period and, when an involved person is identified, to use verification procedures in a manner analogous to Article 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, issuing an individualized order.
Two practical rules have been formulated for the courts. First, if an order terminating a case has been declared unlawful by a judgment that has become final under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, a renewed application under Article 214.1 of that Code is not required; the judicial act must be enforced. Second, when hearing complaints under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court is not limited to a formal review and assesses the factual grounds for the acts and omissions, including an ineffective investigation, specifying the particular violations to be remedied. In civil proceedings, a court may not disregard criminal-case materials confirming that an offence occurred, even if the involved person has not acquired the status of suspect or accused, and the court is not bound by the conclusions of the order terminating the case.
A person whose involvement is established after termination of the case must be afforded the right to object to termination of the prosecution on a non-exonerating ground; in that event, the investigation is reopened under Part 2.2 of Article 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, and the preclusive periods provided for therein are calculated from the date on which the order terminating the case is revoked. The federal legislature has been advised that it may amend the legislation to clarify the procedure for terminating cases on the expiry of limitation periods and to provide additional guarantees for victims’ rights in cases where the limitation periods have expired and the perpetrators have not been identified.
The identified constitutional-law meaning of the challenged provisions was held to be generally binding, precluding any other interpretation of them in law-enforcement practice. The case of V.G. Petrov, in which the provisions were applied with an interpretation diverging from that meaning, is subject to reconsideration in accordance with the established procedure, provided there are no other obstacles.
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.