Thematic Review of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 13/2026: analysis of legal positions and their primary sources

Paragraph 1 · Non-residential structures built before 1995 fall outside the concept of unauthorized construction

Retroactive protection for non-residential structures built before Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation entered into force: Soviet law (Article 109 of the 1964 Civil Code of the RSFSR) classified only citizens’ residential houses as unauthorized. The court must first establish the exact date on which the object was constructed—if it falls within the Soviet period, an action for demolition of a non-residential building under Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is impossible in principle.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 304-ЭС21-12151 (2021); Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ25-150 (2025).

Paragraph 2 · The “dacha amnesty” bars demolition of a residential house built before 1998

The “dacha amnesty” mechanism (paragraph 2 of Article 38 of Law No. 137-ФЗ) was applied as grounds for dismissing an action for demolition: where a citizen is entitled to privatize free of charge the land beneath an old house, the absence of an initial grant of the land ceases to constitute evidence of unauthorized construction. Demolition of residential houses built before 14.05.1998 on the ground that there are no documents concerning the land is effectively barred until 1 March 2031, provided that the structure is technically sound.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ24-322 (2024).

Paragraph 3 · A non-capital extension does not create a new object

Only capital reconstruction that changes the parameters of an object can give rise to indicia of unauthorized construction under Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The burden of proving that the attached structure is capital in nature and constitutes a new object lies with the claimant; failure to prove this precludes recognition of the entire building as unauthorized construction.

Primary source in the database: no separate primary source is identified in the connector database; a thematic search for non-capital extensions and verandas returned cases concerning capital additions/extensions that changed the parameters of an object—this is a different factual situation.

Paragraph 9 · A townhouse on land designated for gardening

This closes off the practice of circumventing the prohibition on townhouse construction by relying on the simplified procedure for individual housing construction and garden houses: the exceptions in the Town-Planning Code of the Russian Federation to the requirement for a construction permit for townhouses do not apply. Courts must verify that the permitted use of the land corresponds to the actual purpose of the structure.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ24-355 (2025); Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ15-56 (2015).

Paragraph 10 · Non-targeted use does not make an object unauthorized

Two distinct violations are differentiated: constructing an object in breach of the permitted use (which entails classification as unauthorized construction), and subsequent non-targeted use of an object that was lawfully constructed (which entails other liability measures, not demolition under Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ24-155 (2024) — the facts and wording virtually coincide with the text of the Review item.

Paragraph 13 · Absence of a permit, without other violations, does not entail dismantling

Develops the principle of proportionality set out in Resolution No. 44 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation: dismantling is an extreme measure, proportionate to a substantive violation (a safety threat or infringement of third-party rights), rather than to the formal absence of permitting documentation.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ25-228 (2025); Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ25-159 (2025).

Paragraph 4 · Retaining structures as self-help in the face of municipal inaction

The concept of self-help in the exercise of civil rights (Articles 14 and 1067 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) has been introduced into disputes concerning the demolition of retaining structures: the mere fact that an object was constructed on unallocated land does not by itself turn the structure into unauthorized construction—the necessity, reality of the threat, and the developer’s good faith must be assessed.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ25-6 (2025) — a case with virtually identical factual circumstances (a slope, inaction regarding anti-landslide measures, and the city of Sochi).

Paragraph 5 · Expiry of the lease and occupancy permit does not prevent legalization

Formulates the good-faith standard for a developer under paragraph 3 of Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation: formal factors (expiry of the lease, applying for an occupancy permit after its expiry, and minor defects) are insufficient by themselves to justify refusal—“obvious and deliberate” bad-faith conduct causing harm to third parties or public interests is required.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 309-ЭС25-1917 (2025) — the same case, whose details (the lease and permit periods) coincide with the text of the Review item.

Paragraph 6 · Individual housing construction on a leased plot without a construction permit

Restricts freedom of contract (Article 422 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) through land and urban-planning legislation: a lease provision requiring a permit for the construction of an individual housing facility cannot expand statutory requirements if the law itself (Part 17 of Article 51 of the Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation) does not require such a permit.

Primary source in the database: no separate primary source has been identified in the connector database: the cases found concerning recognition that a right to facilities on leased land is absent address a different legal issue—not the legality of a contractual provision requiring a construction permit.

Paragraph 7 · Invalidity of a sublease assignment does not make a structure unauthorized

Distinguishes the corporate-law invalidity of a sublease assignment transaction (an interested-party transaction under Article 45 of Law No. 14-ФЗ) from the property-law classification of the structure under Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation: whether a structure is unauthorized is assessed as of the date the facility was created, not the date when the grounds for possession of the land were subsequently challenged.

Primary source in the database: no separate primary source has been identified in the connector database: the combination of the corporate-law invalidity of the sublease assignment and the classification of the structure is a narrow combination of facts for which no precedent was found in earlier case law.

Paragraph 8 · Unlawful conversion of agricultural land for residential development—demolition

Changing the permitted use of a plot by an administrative order or an addendum to the lease (without formally converting the land through the procedure under Law No. 172-ФЗ) is legally void and does not legalize subsequent construction. Structures on such plots remain unauthorized regardless of the number of subsequent assignments and the good faith of the ultimate purchasers.

Primary source in the database: related case law (the same series of cases)— Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ25-155 (2025).

Paragraph 11 · A dangerous structural condition precludes legalization of reconstruction

Confirms the unconditional nature of the requirement that there be no threat to citizens’ life or health (Paragraph 3 of Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation): the facility’s dangerous technical condition in itself precludes recognition of ownership, regardless of the other circumstances of the case.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 47-КГ16-4 (2016); Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ18-54 (2018).

Paragraph 12 · Structures serving the same function are not auxiliary structures

The criterion for being auxiliary is neither a standard design nor the absence of a permit, but whether the structure serves a function different from that of the principal facility. A matching function (for example, retail) precludes auxiliary-structure status regardless of formal characteristics.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 305-ЭС23-21208 (2024); Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 308-ЭС20-22222 (2021) — Paragraph 12 of the review reproduces almost verbatim the wording of the case concerning the Kashirsky Dvor shopping complex.

Paragraph 17 · Reconstruction of a house in shared ownership and redistribution of shares

Recognition of a right to an unauthorized reconstructed facility in shared ownership cannot proceed without revising the co-owners’ shares if the area of the house has changed: together with legalizing the reconstruction, the court must resolve the issue of the new proportion of the shares.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ23-169 (2023); Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 53-КГ22-2 (2022).

Paragraph 18 · Purchasing an unauthorized building does not permit legalization of an additional storey

Forecloses an attempt to legalize an unauthorized structure by changing its owner: purchasing a facility that has already been declared an unauthorized structure by a court and has not been demolished through the seller’s fault does not give the purchaser the right to seek recognition of ownership—this applies the doctrine of abuse of rights (Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) to circumvent a final court order for demolition.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 305-ЭС25-3877 (2025); Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 302-ЭС24-9662 (2024).

Paragraph 27 · Construction and technical expertise—only by state organizations

Relies on Resolution No. 3041-р of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 31.10.2023, which added construction and technical expertise in unauthorized-construction cases to the list of expert examinations conducted exclusively by state organizations. An opinion issued by a non-state expert institution cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence of the structure’s safety if the other party insists on a court-appointed expert examination.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ26-14 (2026); Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ25-239 (2025).

Paragraph 29 · Refusal to order demolition creates a right to recognition of ownership

Establishes the preclusive significance of an earlier refusal to order demolition of the same facility for a subsequent claim seeking recognition of ownership: refusing to legalize the facility after a final decision refusing its demolition creates legal uncertainty and an imbalance between public and private interests, particularly in relation to apartment buildings.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 302-ЭС24-9662 (2024).

Paragraph 14 · Demolition of a residential house requires a simultaneous decision on eviction

A procedural guarantee of housing rights: a court may not order the demolition of a residential house without simultaneously resolving the issue of evicting the persons actually residing there (including minors) and without the mandatory participation of a prosecutor, who must give an opinion on the eviction claim.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ25-168 (2025); Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ25-271 (2025).

Paragraph 19 · Joint and several recovery of demolition losses caused by an unlawful permit

Combines the administration’s tort liability (for an unlawfully issued permit) and the utility network organization’s contractual liability (for failure to provide the required approval) into joint and several liability toward the developer, because both breaches protected the same proprietary interest.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 41-КГ23-70 (2024).

Paragraph 20 · Demolition of a house within the minimum-distance zone from a gas pipeline—with compensation

The house is not formally an unauthorized structure (the restrictions were not publicly available when it was built), but it is subject to demolition because of the mandatory prohibition on retaining facilities within the minimum-distance zone from a gas distribution station. Demolition may not take place without simultaneous market-value compensation, which the court must address in the same proceedings.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 38-КГ19-6 (2019).

Paragraph 26 · The burden of proving that the structure is safe lies with the developer

The absence of a construction permit gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the structure is dangerous, rather than an obligation on the claimant (a public authority) to prove a threat to life and health. The defendant must submit evidence that the facility is safe; otherwise, the risk of failure to prove safety falls on the defendant.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ23-205 (2024); Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 308-ЭС19-14740 (2019).

Paragraph 28 · The court decision must provide for both methods of enforcement

Direct application of Paragraph 31 of Resolution No. 44 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 12.12.2023: if the violation can be remedied, the court must specify both alternative methods of enforcement in the operative part, rather than limiting itself to demolition alone or refusal alone on the grounds of disproportionality.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ26-3 (2026); Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ25-90 (2025).

Paragraph 15 · A claim under Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation cannot replace the conversion of residential premises into non-residential premises

Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation cannot be used as a workaround to change the functional designation of an already lawfully registered residential facility to non-residential; a separate administrative procedure exists for converting premises.

Primary source in the database: direct primary source — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-КГ25-180 (2025) — Paragraph 15 of the review reproduces verbatim the wording of this case concerning a guest house in Gelendzhik.

Paragraph 16 · A boundary dispute is a prerequisite for a claim seeking demolition of a garage

A claim seeking demolition of a structure allegedly located on another person’s plot cannot be granted without first resolving the boundary dispute between the adjoining plots—including examining objections concerning a cadastral error in the land survey and the garage cooperative’s previously acquired rights to the land.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 4-КГ23-73 (2024); Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 11-КГ21-36 (2022).

Paragraph 21 · Local self-government bodies’ duty to identify unauthorized structures on public land

The right of a local self-government body to demolish unauthorized structures out of court becomes a duty to act where the structure occupies public land and obstructs public access (including access to a water body): the administration’s failure to act after a prosecutor’s submission is declared unlawful.

Primary source in the database: no separate primary source has been identified in the connector database: the wording of the item is specific to the new review, while the thematically related case concerning a shoreline belongs to another review in the same package dated 01.07.2026, rather than constituting separate earlier case law.

Paragraph 22 · Prohibition on out-of-court demolition of a garage forming part of an apartment building

The status of a facility as part of an apartment building—even if formally it is a “garage” attached to the building’s wall and located on a plot held in common by the owners—entirely precludes the use of the administrative (out-of-court) demolition procedure, regardless of who actually uses the structure.

Primary source in the database: direct predecessor (an earlier version of the review concerning unauthorized construction)— Review of case law in unauthorized-construction cases, Paragraph 23 (earlier version); Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 24-КГ22-10 (2023).

Paragraph 23 · Prohibition on out-of-court demolition of structures erected before the Land Code of the Russian Federation

Applies the special transitional rule (Article 22 of Law No. 52-ФЗ) as an exception to the general grounds for extrajudicial demolition under Clause 4 of Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation: for structures erected before 30.10.2001, the mere absence of title documents for the land does not give the municipality the right to demolish the structure administratively—the matter may be resolved only by a court.

Primary source in the database: direct predecessor (an earlier version of the review concerning unauthorized construction)— Review of case law in cases concerning unauthorised construction, Clause 24 (earlier version).

Paragraph 24 · Judicial review of the classification of garage-cooperative garages as unauthorised construction

Unlike Clause 23, where the absence of title documents in itself does not allow the municipality to demolish the structure extrajudicially, here the decisive factor was the applicants’ failure to provide evidence of the date on which the garages were erected and of the legal capacity of the garage cooperative itself: the burden of proving a lawful construction date lies with the owners challenging the administrative demolition decision.

Primary source in the database: no separate primary source is identified in the connector database: a thematically related 1996 case of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation concerning the allocation of land for a garage addresses a different issue—the lawfulness of revoking a decision to allocate a plot—and not the assessment of the burden of proving the date on which a garage was erected in a water-protection zone.

Paragraph 25 · Mandatory joinder of the local government body as a co-defendant

Establishes that the public owner of the land (or a body authorised by it) must be joined as a defendant in claims seeking to legalise an unauthorised structure erected on undivided state or municipal land. Failure to join such a body is a material procedural violation entailing the unconditional reversal of the decision.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 16-КГ16-6 (2016).

Paragraph 30 · Changing the method of enforcement does not reopen the demolition decision

Limits the application of the institution of changing the method and procedure for enforcing a judgment (Articles 13 and 203 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation): it is intended to overcome factual obstacles to enforcement, not to review the substance of the decision adopted by circumventing the appellate and cassation procedures for challenging it.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 49-КГ23-8 (2023).

Paragraph 31 · Demolition at the expense of the identified violator, not the landowner

Clarifies the relationship between the obligations of the landowner and those of the person who actually carried out the unauthorised construction: as a general rule, demolition is imposed on the culpable person, while transferring this obligation to the landowner is permissible only where the violator has not been identified—this protects the local government body from the burden of demolishing structures erected by third parties on public-use areas (red lines).

Primary source in the database: related case law — Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 66-КГ16-13 (2017); Review of case law in cases concerning unauthorised construction (2022), Clause 29.

Paragraph 32 · The claimant’s demolition expenses constitute losses under Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

Where the debtor fails to comply with a demolition decision within the prescribed period and the claimant (for example, a local government body) carries out the demolition at its own expense and subsequently recovers those expenses, the expenses are classified as losses under Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, rather than as a separate sui generis type of claim—thus allowing the ordinary procedure for proving losses to be used.

Primary source in the database: related case law — Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation No. 6051/00 (2002); Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 306-ЭС15-14024 (2017).