The Supreme Court has released its first review of case law for 2026

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has published “Review of the Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 1 (2026),” which was approved by Resolution No. 5A/2026 of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 25, 2026.

The document contains 46 legal positions, most of which were presented by the judicial panels on civil cases and economic disputes.

Here are some of the positions presented in the review.

1. The termination of ownership of a real estate property as a result of its loss or destruction, where a right to use the land on which it was located has arisen, cannot serve as an unconditional basis for declaring the contract for the sale of the real estate property invalid

The essence of the dispute:

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking to have the previous transactions for the sale of non-residential buildings declared invalid and to apply the consequences of their invalidity (to remove the entries from the Unified State Register of Real Estate). As one of the main arguments, the plaintiff asserted that the disputed properties had effectively lost the characteristics of real estate, and that the purchasers had no right to the land.

Position of the Supreme Court:

The mere termination of ownership rights to a real estate property as a result of its destruction or loss, where a right to use the land plot on which it was located has arisen, cannot serve as an unconditional basis for declaring the contract of sale of the real estate property invalid (Ruling No. 18-KG24-338-K4). The court is obligated to conduct an independent examination of the circumstances of the case, in particular: to establish the grounds for the creation of rights to the land plot, to determine whether the right to the land was terminated in accordance with the procedure established by law, and to ascertain whether there are other means of protecting the violated right, apart from declaring the transaction invalid.

2. Consequences of failing to comply with the requirement that a vehicle sales contract be in simple written form

The essence of the dispute:

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking to have the contract for the sale of a vehicle declared invalid, asserting that the transaction was concluded without his consent or express will, that he did not enter into the contract, and that the vehicle must be returned. The lower courts granted the plaintiff’s claims.

Position of the Supreme Court:

Failure to comply with the simple written form deprives a party of the right to rely on witness testimony, but does not in itself render the contract invalid unless the law expressly provides otherwise. Furthermore, such property cannot be recovered from the defendant either through restitution or through vindication if, at the time the dispute is resolved, the vehicle is not actually in the defendant’s possession (Ruling No. 41-KG25-20-K4). The court must establish the actual location of the property and its current owner in order to determine the appropriate means of protecting the right.

3. The Inadmissibility of Damages Claims by a Buyer Aware of Third-Party Rights

The essence of the dispute:

The buyer purchased a car knowing that it was pledged to a bank and expected the seller to repay the loan. When this did not happen, the buyer demanded that the contract be terminated and the money returned.

The Supreme Court’s Position:

A person who acquires property subject to an encumbrance (in this case, a lien), acting with due diligence and being aware of the existence of third-party rights, assumes all associated risks. Such a person is not entitled to subsequently cite the seizure of the property from them as grounds for claiming damages from the seller, since it was precisely the acquisition of the property in a “risky status” that constituted the subject matter of the transaction (Ruling No. 19-KG25-5-K5).

4. The existence of multiple insurance contracts in force at the same time that cover the same risks cannot serve as grounds for refusing to pay insurance benefits

The essence of the dispute:

The policyholder sustained an injury and filed a claim under one of his insurance policies. The claim was denied, in part on the grounds that he had already received payments under other policies for a similar insured event.

Position of the Supreme Court:

This is not an obstacle for personal insurance. The law does not limit the number of life and health insurance policies a single person may hold. Each such policy is independent, and a payment under one policy does not “preclude” the right to a payment under others, provided the insured event falls within their terms and conditions (Ruling No. 5-KG25-17-K2).

5. The presumption of fault on the part of the party causing harm in civil law does not relieve the plaintiff seeking compensation for damages from the burden of proving the facts on which they rely to support their claims

The essence of the dispute:

Following a fire, the plaintiffs sought compensation for the burned-down buildings and property. The courts denied the claim, noting that fault had not been established and that no title to the properties had been registered.

Position of the Supreme Court:

In civil law, there is a presumption of fault on the part of the party causing the harm: the burden of proving the absence of fault rests with the defendant. Nevertheless, the plaintiff must prove the very fact of the harm caused, as well as the existence of a causal link between the defendant’s actions (or inaction) and the resulting negative consequences. The absence of state registration of ownership rights to movable property or objects that do not require such registration does not preclude the recovery of damages for their destruction. If the exact amount of losses cannot be determined with absolute precision, this does not constitute grounds for dismissing the claim; the court is obligated to determine the amount of compensation with a reasonable degree of certainty (Ruling No. 18-KG24-430-K4).

6. If a patent is invalidated, the licensor is entitled to demand payment of license fees for the period during which the parties acted on the assumption that the patent was valid and performed the license agreement

The essence of the dispute:

The licensor sought payment of license fees for the period prior to the patent’s invalidation. The lower courts concluded that the invalidation of the patent resulted in the termination of all obligations under the license agreement, including retroactively.

Position of the Supreme Court:

This approach was found to be erroneous. The invalidation of a patent does not nullify obligations that arose and were performed by the parties during the period when the patent was considered valid. If, during the disputed period, the parties acted in good faith based on the presumption of the patent’s validity, the licensor is entitled to demand payment for the right of use actually granted. The invalidity of a patent terminates the agreement prospectively, but does not entail the automatic nullification of obligations performed during the past period (Ruling No. 310-ES25-9110).

7. A taxpayer (tax agent) bears the risk of adverse consequences resulting from a desk tax audit—including additional tax assessments and the imposition of tax liability—in the event of failure to comply with a lawful request from the tax authority to provide additional explanations and documents

The essence of the dispute:

The taxpayer challenged the tax authority’s decision, arguing that during the desk audit, the inspectorate lacked the authority to request additional documents and explanations. Because the taxpayer failed to submit the requested materials, the taxpayer was held liable, resulting in additional tax assessments and the imposition of penalties.

Position of the Supreme Court:

Upon identifying errors, inconsistencies, or signs of a tax violation in a tax return, the tax authority has the right and obligation to request explanations and supporting documents from the taxpayer. The taxpayer bears the risk of adverse legal consequences if they fail to resolve the tax authority’s doubts by providing relevant evidence. It is impermissible to cite the formal absence of an obligation to submit documents if this hinders the exercise of tax control, and then to challenge the additional assessment by asserting that the inspection should have accepted the information in the return without further verification (Ruling No. 309-ES25-6656).

Reference: vsrf.ru›documents/reviews/35663/