On October 12, 2022, the “Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 (2022)” was published, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on October 12, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Review”).

The review summarizes and analyzes judicial practice in civil, criminal, and administrative cases, including legal positions on dispute resolution related to the performance of obligations, certain types of legal relationships, and several procedural issues.

Examples of the application of civil legislation, norms of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, land and environmental legislation, and legislation on state procurement are provided.

Explanations are given on some issues of judicial practice

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation clarified that the burden of proof of the lack of funds under a loan agreement signed by the borrower and containing an indication of the borrower’s receipt of the loan amount before the signing of this agreement rests with the borrower. According to the clarifications set out by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on November 23, 2015 [1],

In case of a dispute arising from loan relations, the creditor has the obligation to prove the fact of transferring the loan item to the debtor and that relations regulated by Chapter 42 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation have arisen between the parties, while the borrower has to prove the fact of proper performance of obligations to repay the loan or the non-monetary nature of the loan.

Regarding the general rules for applying measures of liability, it is noted that the condition of exclusive penalty may be declared invalid only in two cases [2]:

  • if the condition violates a legislative prohibition on limiting the liability of a party to the contract;
  • if the violation was intentional.

Regarding the issue of appealing administrative fines, clarification is given that the appellate court is not entitled to increase the amount of the previously imposed fine on its own initiative, even if it was determined incorrectly [3].

Regarding the application of the statute of limitations, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation once again drew attention to the fact that the statute of limitations missed by the plaintiff – a legal entity, the application of which was requested by the defendant, cannot be restored by the court, regardless of the reasons for its omission [4].

In accordance with Article 205 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in exceptional cases, when the court recognizes a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations due to circumstances related to the personality of the plaintiff, the violated right of the citizen is subject to protection. The reasons for missing the statute of limitations may be recognized as valid if they occurred within the last six months of the limitation period, and if this period is six months or less than six months – within the limitation period. At the same time, it follows from the literal interpretation of the above-mentioned norms of law, as well as from the explanations set out in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of 29.09.2015 [5], that in accordance with Article 205 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in exceptional cases, the court may recognize a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations due to circumstances related to the personality of the plaintiff – a natural person, if such a petition is filed by them and the necessary evidence is presented. In terms of the meaning of the specified norm, as well as paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the statute of limitations missed by a legal entity and an individual entrepreneur in relation to claims related to their entrepreneurial activities cannot be restored, regardless of the reasons for its omission.

Procedural issues

Creditors in enforcement proceedings, whose rights to enforce a court decision cannot be realized as a result of the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings by the debtor in the arbitration court, also have the right to appeal the court decision on the basis of which the debtor’s bankruptcy case was initiated [6].

According to the position outlined in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 22, 2012 No. 35 [7], if the competitive creditors believe that their rights and legitimate interests have been violated by a court act on which the claim in the bankruptcy case is based (in particular, if they consider that it is unfounded due to the unreliability of evidence or the invalidity of the transaction), then on this basis, they, as well as the bankruptcy trustee, have the right to appeal the specified court act in the generally established procedural order, and in the event of their missing the deadline for appealing it, the court has the right to restore it, taking into account when the complaining party learned or should have known about the violation of its rights and legitimate interests.

In the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 10, 2020, it is also explained that from the moment the court accepts the creditor’s claim for consideration, he has the right to object to the claims of other creditors of the debtor (including appealing the court act on which their claim in the bankruptcy case is based) [8].

Compensation for legal costs

The company can recover the expenses for a representative in a case of administrative offense as losses within a separate legal process. The right to compensate such losses does not depend on the fault of the administrative authority. The court can apply provisions on reasonable limits of recovery of legal costs by analogy [9].

Practice of application of civil legislation

Construction. The court will not satisfy the claim for recognition of the absence of rights to an unfinished construction object if, at the time of the dispute, the construction object is actually completed and put into operation (there is a permit for putting the building into operation) [10].

Transportation. The size of lost profit cannot be limited in a transport expedition contract. The client has the right to demand from the carrier full compensation for lost profit due to loss, shortage, or damage (spoilage) of the cargo, caused by the carrier. An agreement to reduce the size of lost profit is void [11].

Practice of application of land and environmental legislation, legislation on government procurement

If a lessee of public land uses part of the area of their real estate object located on this land plot for auxiliary activities (provided that the area limitation established by the relevant regulatory legal act is observed), such activity does not indicate the use of the plot for a non-target purpose and does not entail the need to recalculate the cadastral value of the land plot and the rent for it.

It is unlawful to increase the rent payment for land if the lessee uses a part of the building for auxiliary activities, provided that the size of this part complies with the regulatory requirements in a specific region [12].

Regarding the application of environmental legislation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation clarified that a letter from an authorized body sent to the polluter containing a proposal to voluntarily compensate for the harm to the environment is not an act that has legal consequences, as it does not violate the rights and interests of the polluter and therefore cannot be the subject of independent judicial appeal [13].

Regarding the application of government procurement legislation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation stated that in case of untimely receipt of a request from a procurement participant, the customer is not obliged to explain the provisions of the procurement documentation [14].


[1] Review of the Supreme Court’s case law, No. 3 (2015), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court on November 25, 2015.

[2] Section 17 of the Review, Decision No. 305-ES21-24306.

[3] Section 23 of the Review, Decision No. 309-ES21-16461.

[4] Section 8 of the Review, Decision No. 77-KG21-5-K1.

[5] Section 12 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court’s Resolution of September 29, 2015, No. 43 “On Certain Issues Related to the Application of the Norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the Statute of Limitations for Claims.”

[6] Section 14 of the Review, Decision No. 5-KG21-140-K2.

[7] Section 24 of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation’s Resolution of June 22, 2012, No. 35 “On Certain Procedural Issues Related to the Consideration of Bankruptcy Cases.”

[8] Section 21 of the Review of the Case Law of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 1 (2020), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court on June 10, 2020.

[9] Section 22 of the Review, Decision No. 305-ES21-22671.

[10] Section 15 of the Review, Decision No. 309-ES21-17228.

[11] Section 16 of the Review, Decision No. 304-ES21-25713.

[12] Section 18 of the Review, Decision No. 305-ES21-19336.

[13] Section 19 of the Review.

[14] Section 20 of the Review, Decision No. 309-ES21-23588, Part 2 and 3 of Article 3.2 of Federal Law No. 223-FZ of July 18, 2011, “On Procurement of Goods, Works, and Services by Certain Types of Legal Entities.”