IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ARTICLE 234(1) OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMPLAINT OF CITIZEN OLGA…

ПО ДЕЛУ О ПРОВЕРКЕ КОНСТИТУЦИОННОСТИ ПУНКТА 1 СТАТЬИ 234 ГРАЖДАНСКОГО КОДЕКСА РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ В СВЯЗИ С ЖАЛОБОЙ ГРАЖДАНКИ ИВАНЬКОВОЙ ОЛЬГИ…

Facts of the case

1. Citizen O.K. Ivankova challenges the constitutionality of Article 234(1) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which provides that a person—a citizen or legal entity—who is not the owner of property but who has possessed real estate as their own in good faith, openly and continuously for fifteen years, or other property for five years, acquires ownership of that property by acquisitive prescription, unless a different period or other conditions for acquisition are provided for in that Article; title to real estate and other property subject to state registration is acquired by the person who obtains it through acquisitive prescription from the moment of such registration.

1.1. As follows from the materials submitted, O.K. Ivankova owns an apartment in an apartment building that belonged to her stepfather, citizen B., who died in 1991. By judgment of the People’s Court of the Voroshilovsky District of the City of Rostov-on-Don dated 20 July 1993, the apartment was declared escheated property due to the absence of heirs (under the legislation then in force, stepdaughters were not called to inherit). On the basis of that judgment and a letter from the tax authority, by resolution of the Head of the Administration of the same district dated 22 July 1994, the residential premises were entered on the balance sheet of the district housing and utilities enterprise, and a registration certificate was issued in respect thereof on 14 December 1994. Despite title to the apartment passing by operation of law, the public entity took no steps to have it vacated or to evict O.K. Ivankova, who continued to use it. In support of the circumstances of her lawful occupation of the residential premises and her care for its upkeep, the applicant submits in her complaint that she has been registered at the apartment since 1971, has paid utility charges since 1998 and contributions for capital repairs, and participates in the management bodies of the apartment building.

In 2022, O.K. Ivankova (more than 30 years after B.’s death) brought an action against the Administration of the City of Rostov-on-Don, the Administration of the Voroshilovsky District of that city, and the housing and utilities enterprise of that district, seeking recognition of her title to the apartment by acquisitive prescription. She argued that, after B.’s death, she had taken sole possession of the residential premises, having previously moved into them as a family member (B.’s stepdaughter); that she possessed the property as her own, openly, in good faith and continuously; and that she performed the obligations of an owner and bore the costs of its maintenance in the absence of any claims or objections from the owner or other persons.

By judgment of the Voroshilovsky District Court of the City of Rostov-on-Don dated 7 December 2022 (as corrected by a ruling of the same court), the claim was dismissed. Referring, inter alia, to Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the explanations set out in the third paragraph of paragraph 15 of Resolution No. 10/22 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation dated 29 April 2010, “On Certain Issues Arising in Judicial Practice in Resolving Disputes Related to the Protection of Ownership Rights and Other Rights in Rem,” the court concluded that O.K. Ivankova’s possession was not in good faith, since she knew that she had no grounds for continuing to use the apartment or acquiring title to it. The court noted that a bona fide adverse possessor considers themselves to be the owner of the property in their actual possession, which presupposes that the property has no other owner, whereas the applicant knew that the disputed residential premises had been declared escheated property by a court judgment and were owned by a public entity.

By appellate ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Rostov Regional Court dated 30 August 2023, the judgment of the court of first instance was upheld. The appellate court, noting that B. had not relinquished his right in favour of the applicant or her mother, concluded that the criterion of possession “as one’s own” was not met. It also rejected, for lack of what it considered proper evidence, the applicant’s argument that the owner had shown no interest in the disputed property. The court further found that the continuity of O.K. Ivankova’s possession of the property had not been proven, since payment of utility charges did not establish that she had used the disputed property on a permanent basis, and noted that the applicant was registered as residing in another constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

The Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Fourth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction agreed with the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instance (ruling dated 28 November 2023). The court of cassation noted that O.K. Ivankova possessed the apartment openly, but without the owner’s express consent to transfer title to it to her. It also held that the owner’s and the apartment’s balance-sheet holder’s lack of interest in it, and their long-term—more than fifteen years—withdrawal from possession of it and from performing the obligations associated with its maintenance, did not establish that the claimant had acquired title to the apartment by acquisitive prescription.

By ruling of a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 11 June 2024, O.K. Ivankova was refused leave for her cassation appeal to be considered at a hearing of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of that court. The Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation agreed with that decision (letter dated 14 March 2025).

1.2. In O.K. Ivankova’s view, paragraph 1 of Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is contrary to Articles 1, 2, 15, 17 (Part 3), 19, 35, 36, 45 and 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation insofar as it permits the fact that an apartment has a public owner who has shown no intention of exercising control over it to be treated as grounds for refusing to recognise another person’s adverse possession as being in good faith and as an obstacle to acquiring title by acquisitive prescription.

Thus, taking into account the provisions of Articles 36, 74, 96 and 97 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation,” Article 234(1) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is the subject matter of review by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the present case insofar as, on its basis, courts assess the good faith of a citizen who was a member of the family of the deceased owner of an apartment which, as escheated property, passed into the ownership of a public-law entity, when resolving the question of whether that citizen acquired title to the apartment by acquisitive prescription.

2. Under the Constitution of the Russian Federation, including Article 1; Article 8, part 2; Article 18; Article 19, parts 1 and 2; Article 34, part 1; Article 35, parts 1 and 2; Article 40, part 1; and Article 55, part 3, in the Russian Federation, as a state governed by the rule of law, everyone is entitled to own property, including residential premises, and to possess, use and dispose of it at their discretion and in their own interests, on the basis of the principles of legal equality and justice, freedom of economic activity, and equal protection of private, state, municipal and other forms of ownership. At the same time, the right to property, alongside other directly effective rights and freedoms, determines the meaning, content and application of laws, the activities of the legislative and executive authorities and local self-government, and is secured by the administration of justice.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has repeatedly noted that property, being the material foundation and economic expression of personal freedom, is not only a necessary condition for the free conduct of entrepreneurial and other economic activity not prohibited by law, but also guarantees the exercise of other rights and freedoms and the performance of duties; the right to property is a necessary and important element of an individual’s constitutional status (Rulings No. 11-P of 14 May 2012, No. 5-P of 24 March 2015, No. 12-P of 26 March 2024, and others). Accordingly, the creation and implementation of mechanisms for legitimising a person as the holder of the relevant right is a task of constitutional significance. This conclusion follows both from the principles of protection and inviolability of property proclaimed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 8, part 2; Article 35, parts 1, 2 and 3) and from the requirements of legal certainty and stability of civil commerce, which are determined by the legally significant interests of third parties.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has also emphasised the importance of ensuring legal certainty, stability and predictability in civil commerce, maintaining the highest possible level of mutual trust among participants in economic activity, and creating the necessary conditions for the effective protection of the right to property and other property rights guaranteed by Article 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Rulings No. 21-P of 26 April 2023, No. 49-P of 31 October 2024, No. 3-P of 28 January 2025, and others). Legal certainty presupposes that participants in legal relations must be able, within reasonable limits, to foresee the consequences of their conduct and to be confident that their officially recognised status, as well as their acquired rights and obligations, will remain unchanged (Rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 1-P of 21 January 2010, No. 24-P of 17 October 2017, and others). On that basis, an expectation also arises that the applicable regulatory framework reflects the objectively developing factual situation and takes account of the constitutionally significant need to establish, in legislation and in the process of its application, rights and obligations that create conditions for achieving a balance of interests among the participants in the relevant relationships in each particular case, while the specific structure of the system of civil-law regulation requires the meaning of any given provision to be ascertained in conjunction with other legal provisions, with the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation retaining precedence.

In accordance with the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation expressed in Ruling No. 48-P of 26 November 2020, the foregoing also applies to the safeguards protecting the property interests of persons in possession by virtue of acquisitive prescription. The requirement of certainty in the legal regulation of relationships connected with the right to property, which arise on the basis of acquisitive prescription in addition to other grounds, is particularly important in relation to rights to residential premises, including apartments. By guaranteeing the right to housing and prohibiting arbitrary deprivation of housing, the Constitution of the Russian Federation obliges public authorities and local self-government bodies to create conditions for the exercise of that right, as the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has repeatedly emphasised (Rulings No. 20-P of 25 April 2023, No. 21-P of 23 May 2025, and others).

3. Various civil-law institutions serve the purpose of determining the person entitled to derive the useful properties of an object of civil commerce and dispose of the right to it, as well as to seek protection of their interest in that object against claims by other persons, including persons who also have a legally protected interest in possessing the same object. These include, for example, vindication (Article 301 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), the possibility of transferring an indivisible thing into the ownership of one of the participants in common shared ownership who has a substantial interest in its use (paragraph 36 of Resolution No. 6/8 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation of 1 July 1996 “On Certain Issues Related to the Application of Part One of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”), and others.

In establishing the requisite balance for the fair allocation of rights and obligations, significant importance also attaches to the passage of time during which the legal order recognises that an authorised person retains an interest and ensures its protection. A state of uncertainty persisting for an unlimited period is incompatible with the nature of civil legal relations. This explains, for example, why the legislature establishes limitation periods, the expiry of which does not entail the loss of the right in respect of which a claim has been brought, but does restrict the possibilities for its protection by the State, including through the courts. Such legal regulation is intended to create certainty and stability in the legal relations between participants in legal relationships; to encourage them to act responsibly with regard to property within their control, as well as the rights and legally protected interests of others; and to ensure the timely protection of the rights and interests of participants in legal relationships. This is because the absence of reasonable time limits for the compulsory protection of infringed rights would result in the infringement of defendants’ legally protected rights and interests and would undermine the stability of civil commerce. When a party to the dispute so requests, the court’s application of the statute of limitations protects participants in legal relationships from unjustifiably protracted claims and, at the same time, encourages them to take timely steps to exercise and protect their rights. This position has also been reflected in a number of rulings of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (dated 1 December 2020 No. 18-КГ20-83-К4, 1 October 2024 No. 117-КГ24-8-К4, and others). The passage of time thus creates the preconditions for the legislature to recognise that a factual state of affairs may permissibly be transformed into a legal one.

Where the owner of a thing has failed to bring, within the limitation period, a claim for the return of that thing from unlawful possession, and the defendant (the actual possessor) has raised this defence, the owner is left without any lawful means of compulsorily recovering possession. Such a divergence between the factual and legal states of affairs could persist for an indefinite period, creating difficulties in using the property, identifying the person responsible for ensuring its proper condition, paying taxes and other mandatory payments, bearing the costs and expenses of its maintenance and preservation, and authorised to participate in meetings of various civil-law communities, among other things.

3.1. The institution of acquisitive prescription also serves to resolve conflicts that arise when determining whose interests and rights in respect of property are to be protected, where several participants in civil commerce have asserted claims to it concurrently for a period of time. As the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation stated in Resolution No. 48-П of 26 November 2020, its constitutionally significant purpose is to return property to civil commerce, including by ensuring its proper maintenance and safe condition, and the payment of taxes, among other things. This aspect is also reflected in the practice of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which noted in its rulings dated 18 July 2017 No. 5-КГ17-76 and 31 July 2018 No. 81-КГ18-15 that the acquisition of title in accordance with Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is intended to eliminate uncertainty as to the legal status of a thing which, for a long period, has been possessed as one’s own not by its owner, but by another good-faith possessor, without any grounds for doing so provided for by law or contract. The same is true of the question of ownership of residential premises, particularly since, in this area, the need for certainty is especially acute for both private-law and public purposes.

Furthermore, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has repeatedly emphasised the particular constitutional significance of the principle of respect for human dignity, which applies and is upheld by the State in all spheres of relations (resolutions dated 16 December 2014 No. 33-П, 8 June 2015 No. 14-П, 19 November 2024 No. 53-П, and others). It follows from the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation set out in Resolution No. 18-П of 25 March 2026 that the relevant guarantees also extend to the sphere of property rights, including those arising from long-term possession of residential premises.

3.2. Paragraph 1 of Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides for the possibility of acquiring title to a thing not by every person who possesses it for the extended period prescribed by law, but only by a person whose possession satisfies criteria (conditions) such as good faith, openness and continuity, and possession of the property as one’s own. At the same time, the law does not define the content of these criteria; their meaning is determined by reference to the facts of each case and in light of how they have been interpreted in law-enforcement practice.

Thus, in order to fill the gap left by the legislature, paragraph 15 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation “On Certain Issues Arising in Judicial Practice in Resolving Disputes Related to the Protection of Ownership Rights and Other Rights in Rem” provides clarifications according to which, in particular, possession under acquisitive prescription is in good faith if, upon taking possession, the person did not know and could not have known that there was no basis for that person to acquire title. At the same time, the approach to the criterion of good faith on the part of a possessor under acquisitive prescription has developed further in the practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Thus, a number of decisions in specific cases have noted that possession under acquisitive prescription is in good faith if, upon acquiring the thing, the person did not know and could not have known that taking possession of it was unlawful, i.e. where the thing is acquired by actions that appear lawful, but title cannot arise due to certain circumstances (rulings of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 28 July 2015 No. 41-КГ15-16, 22 October 2019 No. 4-КГ19-55, 10 March 2020 No. 84-КГ20-1, 2 June 2020 No. 4-КГ20-16, and others). Consequently, under this approach, for a possessor to be recognised as acting in good faith, it is not necessary that the possessor must have had grounds to believe that they were the owner of the property; good faith may also be recognised by the courts where the possessor was aware that they had no grounds to acquire title to the property and that the property had an owner.

In its Resolution No. 48-П of 26 November 2020, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation had already noted the existence and spread of this trend and, having assessed it in conjunction with other relevant circumstances, formulated the legal position that an understanding of good faith possession under acquisitive prescription which presupposes that, upon taking possession, the person must believe themselves to be the owner of the property deprives a person who has possessed the property as their own for a long time, cared for it, borne the costs of its maintenance and not infringed the rights and legitimate interests of others, of the opportunity to regularise such possession, and is inconsistent with the aims underlying Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. A different approach prevents the institution of acquisitive prescription from achieving its constitutionally significant purpose. This position has also been reflected in subsequent practice of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (rulings dated 26 September 2023 No. 127-КГ23-13-К4, 28 November 2023 No. 127-КГ23-16-К4, 14 May 2024 No. 127-КГ24-1-К4, 13 May 2025 No. 49-КГ25-4-К6, and others).

At the same time, the materials available to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (including judicial decisions in the case involving O.K. Ivankova) demonstrate that judicial practice widely applies both the approach to understanding the criterion of good faith possession under acquisitive prescription based on the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation set out in Resolution No. 48-П of 26 November 2020 and on the conclusions of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, consistent with those positions and reflected in decisions in specific cases, and the approach derived from the literal wording of paragraph 15 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation “On Certain Issues Arising in Judicial Practice in Resolving Disputes Related to the Protection of Ownership Rights and Other Rights in Rem”. The coexistence of different approaches—while the cited legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation remain binding throughout the Russian Federation on all representative, executive and judicial bodies of state authority, local self-government bodies, enterprises, institutions, organisations, officials, citizens and their associations (Article 6 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”)—results in courts issuing diametrically opposed decisions in similar factual circumstances. This indicates legal uncertainty that creates conditions for arbitrariness and excessively broad judicial discretion, and points to signs of a violation of the principles of equality and the rule of law, and of the guarantees of state protection, including judicial protection, of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens and their legitimate expectations.

At the same time, as the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has noted, proceeding from the fundamental principles of legal equality and justice, and from the supremacy and highest legal force of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the Russian legal system (Articles 15 and 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), together with the resulting criterion of legal certainty, statutory provisions governing property relations and, in particular, property relations concerning the acquisition of title by acquisitive prescription must meet the requirements of clarity, precision and consistency, and the manner in which they operate must be predictable and comprehensible to parties to legal relations, since constitutional legality, equality of all before the law and the courts, and equal treatment can be ensured only if all law enforcers understand and apply legal rules uniformly (Judgments of 22 June 2017 No. 16-P, 26 November 2020 No. 48-P, and others). This position is of particular importance with regard to the criterion of good faith specifically designated by the legislature for the institution of acquisitive prescription, since the legislature’s reiteration in certain provisions of the constitutional and cross-sectoral requirement of good-faith conduct further underscores the importance of complying, in the relevant circumstances, with the good-faith standard and draws attention to the requirements imposed on the person under an obligation, including taking account of the rights and legitimate interests of others, exercising greater care and reasonableness, and treating property prudently, and so forth (Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 7 February 2023 No. 6-P). The importance of clarifying the meaning of this concept for uniform application of the law is confirmed not only by the provision under challenge but also, for example, by paragraph three of Clause 6 of Article 81 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Under that provision, reliance on the data in the state register when acquiring real estate gives rise to a presumption of good faith, but that presumption is rebutted if it is proved in court that the purchaser knew or ought to have known that the person from whom the rights passed to the purchaser had no right to alienate the property. At the same time, while providing in those circumstances for the presumption to be rebutted in court and prescribing special conditions that must be met for the legal order to recognise the transfer of title as valid, this provision does not preclude a finding of the purchaser’s good faith on the basis of other evidence, either when possession was obtained or subsequently, or recognition (including under Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) of title to property even where the person from whom it was acquired had no right to alienate it.

Where, in the course of hearing a particular case, a court of general jurisdiction or an arbitrazh court identifies indications that the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, previously formulated in relation to the same provisions of a legal act in connection with their application to similar or other relations, or in relation to comparable provisions, applies to the provisions to be applied in that case, and, accordingly, that those provisions must be interpreted and applied in light of the requirements developed by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, it may not disregard that circumstance (Judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 26 April 2016 No. 13-P and 13 December 2022 No. 54-P). It follows that, when resolving particular cases and interpreting provisions in doing so, courts must assess the legal regulation of the relations within the scope of those provisions over time, taking account of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, including decisions in which a statutory provision under review, although not found inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, is given a constitutional-law interpretation. This applies also to Judgment No. 48-P of 26 November 2020, concerning review, in the course of concrete review of normative acts, of the constitutionality of Clause 1 of Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which contains a number of legal positions of universal significance for the institution of acquisitive prescription as a whole.

Accordingly, courts must take these positions into account when hearing particular cases and, if disagreements arise, they take priority by virtue of Article 6 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.” Otherwise, given that the constitutional interpretation of a normative act or an individual provision thereof reviewed in constitutional proceedings identifies the constitutional meaning of the law in force so as to preclude its application in a meaning that conflicts with constitutional provisions, this would result in a reduction in the level of guarantees for judicial protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual and citizen.

Thus, an approach that links bad faith in acquisitive prescription possession to the possessor’s awareness that they lack grounds for acquiring title to the thing through the ordinary procedure, and that does not allow for the possessor to be found to have acted in good faith despite that circumstance, fails to meet the stated requirements of uniform interpretation of legal rules and adherence to the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

3.3. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that other factors may also affect the conclusion as to good faith in the context of acquisitive prescription, such as the characteristics of the property in question, the response to the conduct of the owner or other person entitled to the property, the conduct of the adverse possessor in relation to the property during the period of possession, and so forth. Thus, in Resolution No. 18-P of 25 March 2026, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation noted that, in certain cases, the circumstances in which possession was acquired may be relevant to assessing the good faith of the possessor, in particular, failure to comply with the rules for acquiring possession prescribed by law. Actual possession, with the prospect of its subsequent transformation into ownership by acquisitive prescription, which arose from malicious conduct that is manifestly unlawful to any person (for example, corruption, theft, violence, forgery of documents, etc.), is hardly deserving of protection, since deriving advantages from conduct disapproved of by the legal order is impermissible. In other cases, the fact that the competent public authorities knew that property belonging to them had been taken (or knew of indications that it had been taken), yet remained inactive for a long period of time (especially one exceeding the statutory limitation periods for holding the offender publicly liable), without seeking to recover the property and/or to hold the offender liable, may lead a person to question whether the particular conduct should be classified as an offence, its seriousness and its significance for the public interest. Accordingly, in such a situation, the mere fact that a violation occurred when possession of the property was obtained does not automatically preclude, for the purposes of acquisitive prescription, compliance with the good-faith requirement.

At the same time, where the owner is known, or a person has sufficient grounds to have ownership recognized, the principle of good faith requires that the adverse possessor be expected to take the initiative in ascertaining that person’s claims to the property in question. In relation to state or municipal property, the principle of unity of public authority presumes that this requirement has been met if the adverse possessor has clearly and unambiguously expressed to any public authority whose competence includes various aspects of the management of public property their intention to possess and use the particular property.

The regulation of situations involving the discovery of property that has no owner, or whose owner or other rights holder is unknown (Articles 227, 230 and 233 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), serves to encourage good-faith conduct—conduct expected of both any private person and public authorities at every stage of the development of public relations, that is, conduct that takes account of the rights and legitimate interests of others (Part 3 of Article 17; Article 75.1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, etc.). In such a case, the person who discovers the property must take certain steps to identify the person entitled to it. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation drew attention to this in Resolution No. 2-P of 12 January 2023, noting, with regard to cases involving the discovery of lost property, that it is necessary to assess not only whether the found property lawfully came into the person’s actual possession, but also whether that person took (or failed to take) steps aimed at unlawfully appropriating it for their own benefit or for the benefit of other, unauthorized persons. This is because such conduct becomes socially dangerous and, in essence, constitutes a single complex act aimed at unjust enrichment through bad-faith dealings with another person’s discovered property; misappropriation may indicate an extreme form of abuse by the finder of their rights.

As regards ownerless property, the legislature has provided for the possibility of acquiring ownership of it under the rules on acquisitive prescription, that is, only after a specified period has elapsed, while special rules apply to the acquisition of rights to immovable property, including by the state or a municipality (Article 225 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

3.4. In Resolution No. 48-P of 26 November 2020, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation noted that, under the institution of acquisitive prescription, the balance of interests protected by law is determined, inter alia, by taking account of the possibility that the owner may have lost interest in retaining their ownership right. In light of enforcement practice, that Resolution concluded that acquisition of ownership by acquisitive prescription does not require the owner to have taken active steps evidencing abandonment of ownership or to have declared such abandonment (unlike the requirements applicable to an owner under Article 236 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). It is sufficient that, for a long period of time, the owner has refrained from possessing the property, shown no interest in it and failed to discharge the duties associated with its maintenance, as a result of which the property is, in fact, abandoned by the owner.

As a general rule, the mere failure to exercise rights does not result in the termination of those rights (paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). However, as regards public authorities, it follows from the legal positions expressed by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in its rulings of 22 June 2017 No. 16-P, 26 May 2025 No. 22-P and others that a public-law entity, acting through its competent authorities, must not be permitted to disregard the requirements of reasonableness and prudence in a manner that affects the property and non-property rights of citizens. In resolving disputes concerning title to property, significant weight should also be given to an assessment of the actions (or omissions) of the public owner, acting through the authorised authorities responsible for formalising its entitlement to the property and disposing of it.

Thus, where public authorities remain inactive for an extended period (including by failing to take measures to identify ownerless and escheated property, ignoring requests from the person in possession to take measures to identify the holder of title, making no attempt to evict the de facto occupant of a residential premises and move persons in need of housing into it, failing to meet the obligation to bear the costs of maintaining the premises, taking no part in the management of the apartment building, and so forth), a citizen who has bona fide entered into possession and possesses the property may conclude that the public owner has lost interest in that property and has abandoned its rights to it. Such an understanding by the citizen of the consequences of the public owner’s conduct is all the more justified in respect of residential premises.

This approach is based, in particular, on the constitutional requirement of good faith, which, as the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has repeatedly noted, is universal in nature, that is, applicable in assessing the conduct of any subject in any legal relationship (rulings of 2 July 2024 No. 34-P, 23 May 2025 No. 21-P and others); on the prohibition against exercising human and civil rights and freedoms in violation of the rights and freedoms of others (Article 17, part 3, of the Constitution of the Russian Federation); and on the objectives of the activities of public authorities established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and by laws enacted to give effect to it (in particular, Articles 18 and 75¹ of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has emphasised that decisions of public authorities must help strengthen confidence that their activities are conducted in the interests both of society as a whole and of its individual members, a principle that applies fully to the guarantees for the exercise of the right of ownership (Ruling of 26 March 2024 No. 12-P), including in relation to adverse possession (Ruling of 25 March 2026 No. 18-P).

This position is of particular importance where a public-law entity acquires rights to residential premises as escheated property. This presupposes that the relevant authorities make use of the organisational and legal means available to them, including inter-agency cooperation mechanisms, to identify such property, register the public-law entity’s title to it in a timely manner, and put it to its intended use in exercising the powers of public authorities at the relevant level. This is especially so where there are persons in need—often for many years—of improved housing conditions who, in that connection, expect the public authorities to take active steps to meet their housing needs.

Where a public-law entity fails to take appropriate measures to protect its property right to residential premises, including measures to remove persons from the premises whom the owner, during their lifetime, enabled to use it in fact, but who had no basis for receiving it as inherited property before it was recognised as escheated property (as occurred in the applicant’s case), those persons, while continuing to use the premises in the absence of both legal grounds and objections from the public owner, may regard themselves as the only persons interested in and in need of the premises; that is, they may consider their connection with it not to have been severed and to be recognised, to a certain extent, by the public authorities. In such a situation, when assessing the prospects of recognition of title to the residential premises by way of adverse possession, a citizen is entitled to take account of the conduct of the public owner, which, together with the existence of the circumstances (criteria) set out in paragraph 1 of Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, may give rise to certain legitimate expectations on the citizen’s part.

Where the public owner of a residential premises remains inactive for an extended period (including where the period of possession substantially exceeds the fifteen-year period specified in paragraph 1 of Article 234 of the said Code), such expectations cannot be regarded as arbitrary or unjustified. Among other things, the legislature has imposed on public authorities an obligation to take measures to identify holders of rights to real estate, including escheated property, for the purpose of deciding on its further use (Parts 1 and 21 of Article 69.1 of Federal Law No. 218-FZ of 13 July 2015 “On State Registration of Real Estate”). In Resolution No. 16-P of 22 June 2017, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, noting that escheated property passes into the ownership of a public-law entity irrespective of state registration of title and of any action by the public-law entity to accept the inheritance, observed that an owner’s bearing the burden of maintaining immovable property presupposes registration of its title and the exercise of reasonable care and diligence in monitoring that property, and that the inaction of a public-law entity as a participant in civil commerce that has failed to formalize title to immovable property within a reasonable time creates, to a certain extent, the conditions for its loss. As follows from Ruling No. 1530-O of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 10 June 2025, the current legal framework does not prevent public-law entities from monitoring the condition of the housing stock in cooperation with authorised bodies and officials, including pursuant to regulations governing the identification, recording, formalization and use of escheated property at both the constituent entity and municipal levels, or from protecting their rights where these have been infringed by unlawful acts or omissions of individuals and legal entities aimed at concealing escheated property.

The need for a public owner to take timely measures to protect its rights in respect of escheated property that has passed to it (including residential premises) is also reflected in judicial practice (see, for example, paragraph 5 of Review of the Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3 (2025), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 8 October 2025). At the same time, the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has repeatedly drawn attention to the possibility of acquiring title to publicly owned property by acquisitive prescription (rulings of 31 July 2018 No. 81-КГ18-15, of 10 March 2020 No. 84-КГ20-1, and others), and has also noted that, when assessing the claims and objections of a public-law entity concerning escheated or ownerless property, account should be taken not only of its rights, but also of its corresponding duties and powers in respect of such property (ruling of 20 March 2018 No. 5-КГ18-3).

Accordingly, the conduct of a public-law entity in relation to residential premises that have passed into its ownership as escheated property must be taken into account in determining whether it has relinquished title to those premises, including through conduct that may reasonably be assessed as a loss of interest in the property. If a dispute arises as to ownership of the residential premises, this circumstance may have legal significance when assessing the conduct of the individual in relation to the premises, including whether that conduct was in good faith.

3.5. As the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation noted in Resolution No. 25-P of 27 May 2024, residential premises combine the function of satisfying housing needs with that of a sufficiently valuable resource, usually of a proprietary nature, for meeting other needs of an individual. In addition, an individual’s residence in premises (particularly over an extended period), and that of their family members or close persons, may give rise to an emotional attachment to those premises, which may be relevant in the context of respect for the dignity of those persons. The need to take this into account in the application of the law is heightened, for example, where an individual lived in the premises while growing up, during significant life events, and so forth. Forcibly severing such ties, in circumstances that have developed over a prolonged period for an individual who has taken account of other persons’ attitudes towards the premises, including the owner’s, and has not obstructed the owner’s timely exercise of its rights, may lead to consequences incompatible with constitutional values, including a failure to respect and an impairment of personal dignity (Article 21, Part 1, of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and others). This circumstance may constitute an additional basis for leaving the disputed housing in the possession of the individual who actually possesses it. This is particularly relevant where good faith is at issue in the case of an acquisitive prescription possessor who had family and/or kinship ties with the owner or another person entitled to possess the residential premises, if that person’s will was the basis for the individual’s moving into the premises, being granted unobstructed access to them, and so forth.

3.6. There is an approach in judicial practice according to which title by acquisitive prescription may be recognised only in respect of real estate held in private ownership, whereas property held in public ownership is acquired or allocated in accordance with the procedure established by law (Ruling of the Third Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction of 1 October 2024 in case No. 88-19702/2024, Appeal Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Saint Petersburg City Court of 1 February 2024 in case No. 33-1725/2024, and others). However, in Resolution No. 48-P of 26 November 2020, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation expressly stated that restricting the acquisition by acquisitive prescription of real estate held in state (municipal) ownership places private persons at an inherently disadvantageous position in relation to public-law entities, thereby violating the principle of equality of subjects of civil law (paragraph 1 of Article 2 and paragraph 4 of Article 212 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and contradicting Articles 8 (part 2) and 19 (part 1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

A different approach to applying paragraph 1 of Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to residential premises makes it more difficult to achieve the constitutionally significant aims of the institution of acquisitive prescription, places interested persons who rely on the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which are binding, in a position of uncertainty, and undermines confidence in the law and the actions of the State. This is contrary to constitutional provisions, including guarantees of effective protection by the State, primarily through the courts, of rights and freedoms.

4. As already noted, the statutory criteria (conditions) for acquiring title by virtue of possession over time, while not substituting for one another, are closely interrelated. Accordingly, the factual circumstances established and assessed in connection with those criteria may affect the conclusion as to whether the condition of good faith has been met. Such interrelation and influence may be more pronounced in the case of residential premises, the proper possession and use of which are important to society, given the high demand for this resource as one of the conditions for sustainable economic growth and improved public welfare, a guarantee of the protection of personal dignity, and the achievement of other aims specified in the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Preamble, Article 75¹, and others), while housing nevertheless remains not readily accessible to everyone.

4.1. Paragraph 15 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation “On Certain Issues Arising in Judicial Practice When Resolving Disputes Related to the Protection of Title and Other Rights in Rem” states that possession of property as one’s own is not based on a contract; accordingly, Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not apply where property is possessed pursuant to contractual obligations (lease, storage, gratuitous use, etc.). In Resolution No. 48-P of 26 November 2020, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation noted that, according to established judicial practice, this clarification concerns cases in which a person acknowledges another person’s (the owner’s) authority over the thing and merely exercises temporary possession of it, that is, possession not “as one’s own.” It was also stated that a person who has obtained possession of a thing under a contract lacks the criterion of possession “as one’s own” only where that person exercises temporary derivative possession in accordance with the contract.

At the same time, judicial practice, including that illustrated by the specific case of O.K. Ivankova, also reflects a different approach to understanding this criterion. Thus, the courts concluded that the applicant’s possession did not satisfy this condition on the ground that the owner of the apartment had not renounced her right. However, the criterion of possession “as one’s own” does not replace the other criteria for possession over time and has independent content.

It follows from the legal positions set out above of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation, as well as from the position stated in judgments in specific cases by the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, according to which possession of a thing as one’s own means possession in place of the owner (Rulings No. 41-KG15-16 of 28 July 2015, No. 4-KG20-16 of 2 June 2020, No. 127-KG23-13-K4 of 26 September 2023, and others), that the criterion in question requires an assessment of the acquisitive possessor’s factual attitude towards the thing. The questions to be determined include whether the possessor acknowledges anyone’s authority over it, whether the possessor deals with it solely at their own discretion, and whether the possessor performs with respect to it acts ordinarily performed by an owner.

Possession of property as one’s own is not synonymous with good faith in possession, since possession may be in good faith but not “as one’s own” (for example, by a lessee under a contract), or in bad faith but “as one’s own” (for example, by a person who has stolen a thing). Nor does the acquisitive possessor’s lack of title to the thing, or awareness of that fact during the limitation period, vitiate possession “as one’s own,” particularly since, as the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation noted in Resolution No. 48-P of 26 November 2020, an interested person is not required to believe themselves to be the owner even when obtaining possession.

The legal order expects such conduct from a person who has grounds to be aware of their power (control) over property, combined with a responsible attitude towards the property in their possession, care for it and protection of their interests (safeguarding it against possible adverse effects, identifying themselves and notifying others that they are entitled to derive useful properties from the property (to use it, etc.)), which may also indicate their good faith. At the same time, not every form of conduct involving the use of property, care for it, etc., may be regarded as good faith; rather, it is conduct ordinarily expected in comparable circumstances within the relevant community from a person whose title to possession is not called into question by others.

4.2. The continuity of prescriptive possession, within the meaning given to it in paragraph 15 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation “On Certain Issues Arising in Judicial Practice in Resolving Disputes Related to the Protection of Ownership Rights and Other Rights in Rem”, means that such possession has not ceased throughout the entire period of acquisitive prescription. At the same time, the transfer by the prescriptive possessor of the property into the temporary possession of another person, while continuing to treat the property “as one’s own”, does not interrupt prescriptive possession.

It follows that possession is deemed continuous throughout the entire period during which the prescriptive possessor retains control over the property (thing), so long as they remain the person who in fact determines the property’s future and are recognised as such by other participants in civil commerce. Accordingly, the concept of “continuity of possession” is not, in substance, equivalent to continuous use of the property for its intended purpose, as the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation noted in its Ruling of 10 March 2020 No. 84-КГ20-1. The same Ruling noted that the periodic non-use of property for its intended purpose (exploitation of its useful properties) does not in itself mean that the thing has in fact ceased to be in the user’s possession, since the right to possess property and the right to use it are not identical legal concepts.

Continuity of possession, as well as its openness over the lengthy period prescribed by law, being predominantly objective and capable of proof, help to strengthen the perception among other persons potentially interested in using the same property that it belongs to a particular person, and to form the view that the person who possesses the property “as one’s own” continuously and openly is a bona fide member of society whose ownership right should fairly be recognised by acquisitive prescription. The openness of possession, for example, takes account of the interests of others and may affect the conclusion as to whether the possession is in good faith, since, among other things, it enables others claiming the right to use the property, including its owner, to identify the proper defendant and assert their claims against that person. In the relationships under consideration, this cannot but affect the balance of such constitutionally significant values as civil peace and harmony, stability of civil commerce, social partnership, and others. The combination of the above criteria, which affect the assessment of the prescriptive possessor’s good faith and the fairness of recognising as lawful—and, consequently, worthy of protection—their interest in transforming prescriptive possession into ownership, is more readily apparent to others where, while meeting those criteria, a citizen who is a family member of the deceased owner possesses a residential property (apartment), particularly if that citizen moved into the apartment lawfully with the deceased owner’s consent and had previously lived there together with them.

5. Failure of possession to meet the criteria specified by law means that there is no lawful basis for the possessor to acquire ownership. At the same time, as the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation noted in Resolution No. 48-П of 26 November 2020, it must be borne in mind that, in cases of prescriptive possession, the property owner’s failure to bring an action within the limitation period to recover the thing from the prescriptive possessor is practically inevitable. The fact that a person who actually possesses property without title does not meet the criteria for prescriptive possession does not deprive that person of the right to rely on the owner’s failure to bring a vindication claim within the limitation period.

In such a situation, where the actual possessor of the thing cannot become its owner and its true owner cannot lawfully restore possession, the proper return of the property to civil commerce is deferred for an indefinite period, which may substantially exceed the period of acquisitive prescription provided for in Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

In some foreign legal systems, this problem has been addressed by establishing an extended period of unlawful possession, the expiry of which is sufficient grounds for acquiring ownership of the disputed thing, including irrespective of whether the good-faith criterion is present or satisfied. For example, the Model Rules of European Private Law provide that a person who possesses movable things as their own acquires ownership through continuous possession for 10 years, provided that the possessor acts in good faith throughout that period, or through possession for 30 years (VIII.–4:101); the Civil and Commercial Code of the Argentine Republic establishes a short ten-year period of acquisitive prescription applicable to possession in good faith, and a twenty-year period for acquisition of ownership by prescription by a possessor not acting in good faith (Articles 1898, 1899), and so on.

The current Russian legal framework has not adopted this approach. Accordingly, the issue identified has no direct solution, which in certain cases prevents the institution of acquisitive prescription—particularly relevant under present-day conditions to determining rights to apartments and other residential premises—from fulfilling its constitutional purpose.

Materials from law enforcement practice, taking into account the specific case of O.K. Ivankova, show that in most cases, which often involve a wide variety of factual circumstances, the obstacle to recognising title to an apartment (or other residential premises) by virtue of adverse possession lies in the difficulties encountered in assessing the good faith of possession both when possession of the property was obtained and throughout the subsequent period of possession.

The legal positions set out in this Resolution, which are based on the constitutional-law meaning of the contested provision, apply to apartments as well as other residential premises. Moreover, they do not preclude the federal legislature from—having regard to this Resolution, the requirements of constitutionally justified expediency, and the state of social relations in specific historical conditions that determine the need for enhanced protection of certain rights and legitimate interests of citizens, while ensuring that the consequences (both positive and negative) are proportionate to the values protected by law and observing the constitutional principles of equality and justice—specifying the meaning of good faith for the purposes of adverse possession of property, including an apartment or other residential premises.

On the basis of the foregoing and pursuant to Articles 6, 471, 71, 72, 74, 75, 78, 79 and 100 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation,” the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

Constitutional Court's reasoning

1. Finds that paragraph 1 of Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is not inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, since, by virtue of its constitutional-law meaning, it cannot be interpreted as precluding recognition as a bona fide possessor of a citizen who was a family member of the deceased owner of an apartment and, with the latter’s knowledge, obtained the right to use the apartment, which passed into the ownership of a public-law entity as escheated property, when deciding whether that citizen has acquired title to the apartment by adverse possession, solely on the ground that the citizen knew that they had no grounds for possessing the apartment and that it had passed into the ownership of a public-law entity as escheated property; and since this statutory provision presupposes that the citizen’s subsequent possession of the apartment in question, consistent with the conduct ordinarily expected of a residential property owner, takes account of the rights and legitimate interests of others.

Giving paragraph 1 of Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation a different meaning, as occurred in the applicant’s case, would result in a violation of citizens’ constitutional rights and would be inconsistent with Articles 8 (Part 2), 17 (Part 3), 19 (Parts 1 and 2), 21 (Part 1), 35 (Parts 1 and 2), 40 (Part 1), 46 (Part 1), 55 (Part 3) and 75 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

2. The constitutional-law meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation identified in this Resolution is binding on all and precludes any other interpretation of that provision in law enforcement practice.

3. The judicial decisions rendered in the case involving citizen Olga Konstantinovna Ivankova on the basis of paragraph 1 of Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as interpreted in a manner inconsistent with its constitutional-law meaning identified in this Resolution, shall be reviewed in accordance with the established procedure.

4. This Resolution is final, is not subject to appeal, enters into force on the date of its official publication, has direct effect and requires no confirmation by other bodies or officials.

5. This Resolution shall be published without delay in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation and the Official Internet Portal of Legal Information (www.pravo.gov.ru).

Constitutional Court

of the Russian Federation

No. 35-P

Other parts of the decision

Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 28.05.2026 No. 35-P