Up
 |
Official site of the |
2025 |
Under the leadership of Igor Krasnov, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation clarified the practice of assigning criminal punishment.
Addressing the meeting participants, Igor Krasnov noted that this year, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has demonstrated its effectiveness as an important instrument for protecting the interests of the state and society, as well as the rights and social guarantees of citizens.
According to Igor Krasnov, the adopted clarifications were aimed at eliminating divergent approaches in judicial practice, reducing the number of decisions being reviewed, and establishing clear and understandable algorithms for applying substantive and procedural law.
Separately, the Head of the Supreme Court noted that certain adjustments had been made to the Plenum's work to strengthen its role as a guarantor of the unity of the judicial system.
"I see the Plenum's task as laying the foundation for the sustainable development of the Russian justice system over the long term. Its activities should be strategic, not reactive. Therefore, we will continue to improve the quality and accessibility of the legal positions of the highest judicial authority, ensuring a balance between the stability of the law and its adaptation to new realities. The Plenum will focus on issues that truly concern our citizens and the legal community of our country", Igor Krasnov emphasized.
***
In response to legislative amendments and questions before the courts, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation made several amendments to its resolution concerning the practice of sentencing. This included updating its position on circumstances mitigating and aggravating liability.
For example, the Plenum recalled that the court has the right to recognize the presence of minor children as a mitigating circumstance. This also applies to cases where the children were born after the crime was committed. However, the document clarifies that the presence of minor children cannot, in itself, be considered an absolute basis for mitigating the sentence. After all, the law links the possibility of making such a decision to the fulfillment of the parent's obligations to properly raise and financially support their children, provided, of course, that the crime was not committed against them. At the same time, if the court established the presence of minor children in the convicted person's family but did not recognize this as a mitigating circumstance and did not take this into account when sentencing, the reasons for this decision must be stated in the verdict.
Furthermore, in its ruling, the Plenum emphasized to the courts that a person's denial of guilt, lack of remorse, and the victim's opinion regarding the imposition of a severe sentence on the defendant are not considered by law to be aggravating circumstances, as defined in Article 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, the court should not refer to them in the verdict when sentencing.
***
The Plenum also clarified that correctional labor may only be imposed on foreigners and stateless persons who are entitled to work in Russia without a work permit or patent, in accordance with Federal Law No. 115 ("On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation"). For example, correctional labor may be imposed on foreigners permanently or temporarily residing in the Russian Federation, since they are not subject to the labor regulations requiring a work permit or patent.
The Plenum drew the courts' attention to the fact that when imposing a sentence of forced labor, it is necessary to determine the offender's ability to work and other circumstances indicating their suitability for serving such a sentence. Furthermore, the resolution notes that criminal law does not prohibit the imposition of forced labor on foreign citizens and stateless persons.
***
As noted at the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, a legal entity's conduct of economic activity involving entrepreneurial risk does not constitute grounds for holding persons controlling the debtor liable for the debtor's obligations. Persons controlling the debtor may be held liable only if the debtor's inability to satisfy existing claims is due to their conduct that did not meet the criteria of good faith and reasonableness, including if it is not related to market or other objective factors.
***
The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation also approved a number of other resolutions, taking into account previously received comments and suggestions. For example, a resolution clarifying certain aspects of the consideration of administrative offense cases related to fine evasion; a resolution establishing the uniform application of legislative provisions on the payment of state fees in civil, arbitration, and administrative court proceedings; and a resolution on the priority of satisfying the claims of controlling or affiliated persons of a debtor in bankruptcy cases.
The Presidium adopted a fourth review of judicial practice on 53 civil, administrative, and criminal cases, as well as economic disputes. The document, in particular, contains recommendations for resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights, rights to a favorable environment, and the protection of labor and social rights.
The review also covers the application of legal entities, land and urban planning legislation, banking and banking legislation, and state defense procurement, as well as examples of intellectual property rights protection. Explanations are also provided on a number of procedural issues.
December 9
The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, chaired by Igor Krasnov, exercising its right of legislative initiative, considered draft amendments to Articles 6 and 13 of the Federal Law "On the Bodies of the Judicial Community in the Russian Federation". According to the document, the highest body of the judicial community—the All-Russian Congress of Judges—will be convened once every six years, rather than once every four years, as stipulated in the current version of the law.
Furthermore, the draft proposes extending the term of office of the Council of Judges of the Russian Federation, the councils of judges of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the High Qualification Collegium of Judges of the Russian Federation, the qualification collegiums of judges of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the High Examination Commission, and the examination commissions of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation from four to six years.
The bill, approved by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation chaired by Igor Krasnov, will be submitted to the State Duma for consideration.
***
Participants at the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation also discussed a draft resolution on the priority of satisfying the claims of controlling or affiliated persons of a debtor in bankruptcy cases.
As noted at the meeting, the resolution was prepared to clarify questions raised by the courts in determining a fair order of satisfaction for independent (bankruptcy) creditors and the authorized body of the claims of controlling persons of a debtor based on the provision of various types of loans and credits to a debtor in a financial crisis.
In particular, it was noted that in insolvency (bankruptcy) cases, priority is given to claims of social significance, such as compensation for harm to life and health.
In turn, the satisfaction of the claims of a controlling or affiliated person in legal relations with the debtor, in accordance with Federal Law No. 127 "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)", is determined based on the nature of their obligations, the grounds for them, and the circumstances of their occurrence.
For example, the draft resolution explains that the actions of controlling and affiliated persons under their influence may be related to the restoration of lost control over the debtor and its assets. Therefore, when establishing such facts, courts, taking into account objections from parties to the bankruptcy case, should verify whether the stated relationships actually exist and also assess the need to downgrade their priority in relation to the claims of other creditors.
The draft resolution notes that one of the objectives addressed during bankruptcy proceedings is to reduce the influence of controlling and other affiliated persons on the business activities and management of the insolvent debtor's assets. Therefore, the document clarifies that the claims of such creditors, as a general rule, do not grant voting rights at a creditors' meeting unless the claims of higher-priority creditors are satisfied or are absent.
At the same time, the draft resolution emphasizes that, since majority creditors in bankruptcy proceedings are required to act in good faith and reasonably, their decisions to continue the debtor's business activities during bankruptcy proceedings must not cause harm to other creditors.
***
The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation also considered a resolution to submit to the State Duma a draft Federal Law "On the Establishment of the Belgorod Garrison Military Court and Amendments to Article 1 of the Federal Law "On the Territorial Jurisdiction of Garrison Military Courts".
***
Furthermore, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, taking into account comments received at the previous session, approved amendments to more than two dozen existing resolutions and repealed Resolution No. 21 of June 27, 2013, "On the Application by Courts of General Jurisdiction of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of November 4, 1950, and the Protocols Thereto".
This document is intended to bring judicial practice into line with new legal realities and eliminate outdated references to international treaties that have ceased to be in effect for the Russian Federation.
Addressing the judicial community, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Russia noted that this year, the country's judicial system continued to develop amidst a changing spectrum of social relations and the prompt resolution of critical state issues.
Over the past 11 months, courts at all levels heard over 25 million cases. The quality of justice, as in previous years, remained consistently high overall.
"At the initiative of the Supreme Court, a number of regulatory decisions have been adopted aimed at streamlining judicial proceedings and increasing their efficiency. These include the establishment of extrajudicial collection of tax and fee arrears from individuals, a new appellate mechanism in civil proceedings, and several other innovations", Igor Krasnov explained. Most of these are aimed at effectively reducing the judicial workload, which remains extremely high in some regions of the country. The Chairman of the Supreme Court of Russia noted that the highest workload figures are recorded in Moscow and the Moscow Region, St. Petersburg, Krasnodar Krai, Tyumen Region, the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, and several other regions.
"I have issued instructions to redistribute vacant positions in the country's courts within the limits of the staffing levels established by law. The necessary organizational decisions will be made based on a detailed analysis of the collected data", the Head of the Russian Judiciary said.
He added that the workload figures are also affected by the presence of excessively cumbersome bureaucratic procedures in the judicial system, as well as the volume of work unrelated to the administration of justice. For example, the collection of a significant array of indicators, many of which have lost their practical significance but continue to require the time of judges and staff.
"In this regard, an audit of the statistics compiled and an analysis of the document flow have been instructed to eliminate repetitive operations, ineffective templates, and reporting forms". "Courts must be relieved of excessive, especially inappropriate, burdens", concluded the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
Igor Krasnov also stated that one of the pressing challenges, the solution of which is directly linked to the level of social and economic stability and public trust in the judiciary and the state as a whole, is improving the quality of judicial decisions and their focus on serving society.
"They should not contain innuendos or unsubstantiated value judgments, nor should they create ambiguity of interpretation, much less serve as a catalyst for fraudulent and other illegal schemes. Unfortunately, such instances do exist. Making decisions to please regional and local authorities or to serve the interests of corporations and commercial entities is unacceptable. The response to any corrupt actions—regardless of the level—will be uncompromising", he said.
According to Igor Krasnov, judicial practice should be formed solely on the basis of the law and the legal positions of the Supreme Court, expressed in reviews and official judicial interpretations. To this end, the work of the Presidium of the Supreme Court has been intensified; its role in making practice-forming decisions will be key.
Regarding analysis, Igor Krasnov explained that next year, a summary of judicial practice in anti-corruption cases related to unauthorized construction, bankruptcy, corporate property taxation, the application of customs legislation, and a number of other relevant issues is planned.
"I see the Supreme Court's task as enforcing a clear, logically consistent line in the acts and decisions it issues. These decisions must be understandable not only to judges, but also to the entire legal community, citizens, and businesses. They must be promptly adjusted where necessary due to changes in laws". "The country's highest judicial authority must and will speak clearly, and the courts will hear this position in its precise and official form", the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation emphasized.
At the same time, Igor Krasnov noted that in the current environment, courts are required not only to deliver quality justice, but also to be efficient and technologically advanced. This is because the judicial system is both the guardian of legal traditions and the driver of modernization of law enforcement based on modern scientific approaches, digital technologies, and best international practices.
"We will certainly do this work together", he said.
In conclusion, the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation thanked the judges for their daily contribution to strengthening justice in our country and wished productive work to all members of the Council of Judges of the Russian Federation.
***
At the event, which brought together approximately 150 representatives of courts of all types and levels – from the Supreme Court to the Magistrates' Courts – the candidate for the new head of the Council of Judges was considered. Mikhail Ptitsyn, Chairman of the Moscow City Court, was appointed. Furthermore, Igor Krasnov appointed Gennady Lopatin to the position of Director General of the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
***
During the plenary session of the Council of Judges of the Russian Federation, issues of judicial ethics as a factor in fostering anti-corruption legal awareness in the judicial community, as well as current issues in the Magistrates' Court, were discussed. Natalia Burashnikova, Chairman of the Tambov Regional Court, delivered a report on this topic. Elena Suvorova, Chairperson of the Oryol Regional Court, briefed the audience on current issues in the justice system.
***
The Council of Judges of the Russian Federation also considered the election of nine new members. These included representatives from the Supreme and Constitutional Courts of the Russian Federation, the courts of the Tomsk and Kirov Oblasts, and the Republics of Buryatia and North Ossetia-Alania.
***
The Council of Judges of the Russian Federation has been operating in Russia since 2002 and is an elected body of the judicial community. It is formed by the All-Russian Congress of Judges from among judges of federal courts, as well as courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
Plenary sessions of the Council of Judges of the Russian Federation are convened as needed, but no less than twice a year. The working body of the Council of Judges of the Russian Federation is the Presidium, which is created to promptly resolve issues collectively and is convened no less than four times a year.
The Council of Judges of the Russian Federation also elects from among its members the Chairman of the Council of Judges of the Russian Federation and his deputies, who are accountable to it and who also serve as heads of sections (courts of general jurisdiction, arbitration courts and military courts).
November 25
Under the chairmanship of Igor Krasnov, the Plenum of the Supreme Court on November 25, 2025 examined important aspects of Russian justice.
The draft was developed because the institution of state fees plays a crucial role in realizing the right to judicial protection, ensuring the independence of the judiciary, and serving as one of the means to achieve the goals of justice.
Furthermore, Federal Law No. 259-FZ of August 8, 2024, "On Amendments to Parts One and Two of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on Taxes and Fees," introduced significant changes to the legislatively established model for regulating relations arising from the payment of state fees in court proceedings.
A distinctive feature of the legal regulation of state fees is the systematic application of the provisions of procedural, tax, and budgetary legislation. The correct application of these provisions should ensure a balance between the obligation of everyone to pay statutory fees and the right to judicial protection guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
The document places particular emphasis on provisions that highlight the most important social aspects of Russian justice and ensure the applicant's right to judicial protection.
For example, paragraph 3 clarifies that when an individual entrepreneur files a lawsuit, the state fee is paid at the rate established for individuals, i.e., a smaller amount than the state fee paid when an organization files a lawsuit.
Furthermore, based on the fundamental principles of tax and fee legislation, and taking into account the principle that all unresolved doubts, contradictions, and ambiguities in tax and fee legislation are interpreted in favor of the taxpayer, the document clarifies that no state fee is paid when filing a petition to correct clerical errors, typos, and arithmetic errors, a petition for the award of a penalty, or a petition for indexation of awarded monetary amounts.
It is important to note that the draft only addresses the most general, relevant legal aspects of paying state fees when considering cases in civil, arbitration, and administrative proceedings. At this stage, the clarifications do not address issues of deferrals, installment plans, exemptions from paying state fees, or reductions in their amount, nor payment of fees for certain types of applications. Work on these issues, as instructed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, will continue.
Following the discussion, an editorial committee was established to consider the comments and suggestions received.
In addition, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered a draft resolution "On Amending Resolution No. 58 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 22, 2015, 'On the Practice of Imposition of Criminal Sentences by the Courts of the Russian Federation.'"
The document proposes to introduce significant clarifications to the resolution, which was adopted in 2015, taking into account the latest amendments made in 2018. Thus, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation emphasizes the need to update previously provided clarifications to the courts and bring them into line with current legislation.
The proposed amendments apply not only to the imposition of actual imprisonment but also to such types of criminal punishment as fines, deprivation of the right to engage in certain activities, deprivation of special, military, or honorary titles, class ranks, and state awards, restrictions of liberty, and correctional and forced labor, the application of which does not involve the isolation of the convicted person from society.
Currently, forced labor, as an alternative to imprisonment, is assigned only by replacing a convicted person's sentence with imprisonment, while correctional labor is assigned to convicted persons, whether they have a primary job or not.
In connection with amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, starting January 20, 2026, forced labor will be a separate primary type of punishment, and correctional labor will only be possible if the convicted person has a primary job. These amendments expand the courts' ability to impose forced labor and resolve issues arising during the execution of correctional labor.
The draft also provides clarifications regarding the possibility of assigning the above-mentioned types of punishment to foreign citizens and stateless persons. Amendments are proposed regarding the procedure for imposing restrictions on freedom.
The draft provides clarifications regarding the courts' consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the establishment of which affects the sentencing of a person who has committed a crime. Certain amendments concern the consideration of mitigating circumstances such as the presence of minor children when determining a sentence, and the application of a new aggravating circumstance—committing a crime by a person illegally residing in the Russian Federation.
Following discussion, the draft resolution was sent to the editorial committee for revision.
The Review (russian) describes the specifics of allocating public land plots for construction, concluding lease agreements for such plots, and managing them.
The document addresses key issues related to citizens' rights to land and construction. It summarizes the most relevant legal positions on disputes regarding protection against the illegal seizure of properties, as well as citizens' rights to continue construction if their actions have been impeded by the authorities. A significant portion of the Review is devoted to judicial protection of the rights of large families when allocating land plots free of charge. Specifically, the clarifications emphasize that not all members of a large family must be registered as residents in the region where they are applying for a land plot, and therefore, denial of such a plot may be deemed unlawful.
The meeting participants also adopted a Review of Arbitration Court Practice in Corporate Disputes Regarding Subsidiary Liability of Controlling Persons for the Obligations of Inactive Legal Entities (russian).
Much of the document is devoted to examining judicial practice regarding so-called "abandoned" businesses. The Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation outlined important legal positions regarding holding controlling persons liable for the obligations of inactive legal entities. It is stated that controlling persons (founders, managers) may be held liable for the company's debts if the company is excluded from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (USRLE) as inactive and its debts have not been repaid. This applies to cases where their actions or inactions have resulted in the inability to pay creditors. Therefore, individuals who are creditors should understand that their rights are protected and they can file a lawsuit against the company's controlling persons if they have committed bad faith actions by failing to ensure the repayment of debts.
The provisions outlined in the review are aimed at protecting creditors' rights and preventing abuses by company participants and managers who use their legal entity status to evade liability to third parties.
At a meeting of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, a draft resolution was discussed addressing issues arising in judicial practice when considering administrative offense cases involving the failure to pay an administrative fine within the timeframe stipulated by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
The draft's provisions, which address determining the entry into force of a ruling imposing an administrative fine issued by a judge of a court of general jurisdiction, a body, or an official, are of practical value. The document emphasizes that the correct determination of the entry into force of a ruling in an administrative offense case or an arbitration court decision imposing administrative liability influences the determination of the presence or absence of an administrative offense under Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
To ensure consistency in judicial practice, the draft resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation contains clarifications regarding individual elements of this administrative offense.
Specifically, the document directs judges to the fact that, when considering administrative offenses under Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, circumstances beyond the control of the individual that prevent the payment of the administrative fine within the prescribed timeframe must be examined, as they may indicate the individual's lack of guilt in committing the offense. Such circumstances may include, for example, a prolonged hospital stay in a condition that prevents the individual from fulfilling the relevant obligation, or the illegibility of the payment details for the administrative fine specified in the order, provided that the individual has been denied an explanation of the order's execution procedure and clarification of the relevant details, or their duly submitted application for clarification of the order's execution procedure has been denied.
The draft notes that, given the mandatory nature of the order in administrative offense cases, the individual assessed the administrative fine must take all measures within their power to ensure its timely payment. Such measures may include the sale of property owned by the individual.
The draft focuses on situations where an individual subject to administrative liability does not have a place of residence or stay in the Russian Federation, as well as when an administrative offense is committed by a foreign legal entity. In such cases, the case is subject to review at the place where it was committed.
Special attention is given to the imposition of administrative penalties. In particular, it is clarified that partial payment of an administrative fine does not constitute compliance with the decision to impose an administrative penalty and, accordingly, the amount of the fine for committing an administrative offense under Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is calculated based on the entire amount of the administrative fine imposed.
Following the discussion, an editorial committee was established to review the comments and suggestions received.
In addition, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered a draft resolution amending more than two dozen existing resolutions and repealing Resolution No. 21 of June 27, 2013, "On the Application by Courts of General Jurisdiction of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 and its Protocols".
The need for updating is due to the termination of several multilateral and bilateral international treaties with respect to the Russian Federation, in particular the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 and its Protocols, the termination of Russia's membership in the Council of Europe, and, consequently, its withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
The draft resolution aims to align judicial practice with new legal realities, eliminate outdated references to international treaties that have ceased to be in force for the Russian Federation, clarify wording, and increase the uniformity of judicial practice.
The first item on the agenda was the election of a new Secretary of the Plenary Session. By decision of the judges, this position was assumed by judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Oleg Zatelepin. The corresponding resolution was adopted on the basis of the Federal Constitutional Law «On the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation». He will also be responsible for the organizational support of the Plenary Session's work, preparation of materials for meetings, and formalization of adopted resolutions.
The second agenda item involved amendments concerning the application of legislation on military duty, military service, and the status of military personnel. The Supreme Court confirmed a number of clarifications aimed at protecting the rights of servicemen who are raising children.
According to the recommendations of the Supreme Court, when considering cases of early dismissal, courts must prioritize the interests of minors, especially if the serviceman is a sole parent. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for an individual approach to each case, including an assessment of the child's health, school attendance possibilities, and the involvement of the other parent in raising the child. Special attention was given to the rights of female servicemen. The Supreme Court affirmed the right to early dismissal in cases of partial or complete mobilization for women who are at least 22 weeks pregnant or have one or more children under the age of 16.
The resolution also contains clarifications confirming the right of servicemen with three or more children to receive housing out of turn, even after their children reach adulthood. A key requirement remains the fact of cohabitation with the children, regardless of their age.
The Plenary Session of the Supreme Court approved initiatives to
establish two new courts: Vnukovo District Court in Moscow and Putinsky
District Court in Grozny. The relevant draft federal laws will be submitted by
the Supreme Court to the State Duma.
The establishment of Vnukovo District Court will allow for a
redistribution of workload among existing courts in the southwest of the capital,
where new areas are actively being developed and the number of cases is
increasing. The new court will be integrated into the system of district courts
in Moscow and will have its own jurisdiction defined by a separate federal law.
In the Chechen Republic, it is proposed to establish Putinsky District
Court in Grozny. Its establishment aims to optimize judicial workload and
enhance access to justice for residents of the region. It will become the fifth
district court in Grozny, thereby expediting case processing.
The Plenary Session also approved a number of personnel decisions concerning the composition of the judicial chambers of the Supreme Court. In order to optimize the activities of the judicial chambers, several judges formerly serving in the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes have been transferred to other within the Supreme Court. Judges Denis Kapkaev, Galina Kireykova, Ekaterina Kornelyuk, Anatoly Pershutov, and Natalya Chuchunova will continue their work in the Judicial Chamber for Administrative Cases, while Galina Popova will join the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases. The decision was made in accordance with the Federal Constitutional Law «On the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation».
Concluding the meeting, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court approved changes to the composition of the Scientific-Consultative Council at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. According to the decision adopted, Igor Krasnov, the Chief Justice, became the Council’s Chairman, and Oleg Zatelepin — the new Secretary of the Plenary Session, judge of the Supreme Court, doctor of law — was appointed as its Academic Secretary.
A resident of the Ulyanovsk Region filed a lawsuit against the social welfare authorities, the Ministry of Defense, and the wife of her grandson who was killed in the area of the Special Military Operation (SMO). She requested the monetary compensation granted to family members of deceased servicemen.
Elena Sakharova stated that she had served as the legal guardian of her grandson, Yevgeny, since 2003 and raised him until he reached adulthood. In 2020, he signed a military service contract, and three years later, he died in the Donetsk People’s Republic. The courts of first instance and appeal denied her claim, ruling in favor of the serviceman’s widow. However, the court of cassation reversed those decisions.
In its review of the case, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation emphasized that in order to be recognized as a de facto caregiver, an individual must prove that they not only raised the child but also provided full financial support for at least five years prior to the child reaching legal adulthood, without receiving monthly guardian remuneration from the state.
The Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases remanded the case
for reconsideration by the court of cassation.
A dump truck driver died as a result of a workplace accident. The State Inspectorate identified violations on the part of the construction company, including the absence of control over working hours and allowing employees to work under extreme temperature conditions.
Following the incident, the deceased worker’s wife filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for moral damage. She and their three children — one of whom is a disabled child — were left without means of financial support. To help the family, the eldest son had to switch to part-time studies at the institute.
The first-instance court agreed with the arguments regarding the employer’s liability and awarded the plaintiff compensation in the amount of 1.1 million Russian rubles. The appellate and cassation courts upheld this amount without changes.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned the previous rulings, stating that the lower courts had approached the case formally and failed to take into account the severity of the consequences for the deceased worker’s family. The highest judicial instance issued a new decision, fully satisfying the claim, and ordered the employer to pay 7 million Russian rubles to the family of Ilyas Aliev.
October 24
This was not the first working contact between Igor Krasnov and Mehmet Akarca — three years ago, a delegation headed by Mr. Krasnov, then serving as the Prosecutor General of Russia, was received at the Court of Cassation of Turkey, where Mr. Akarca held the position of President. In 2023, another bilateral meeting took place at the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation.“It is a great honor for me to welcome you to Moscow and to meet again — now in your new role as Chief Ombudsman of the Republic of Turkey, and mine as Chief Justice of the Russian Federation,” said Igor Krasnov.
During the meeting, the parties discussed the protection of citizens' rights and legitimate interests, cooperation between authorized institutions and the judiciary, and efforts to strengthen public trust in justice. “Turkey’s experience in this area is valuable for the Russian judiciary, as it allows us to compare national approaches and identify the most effective practices to improve the quality of justice,” emphasized the Chief Justice.
Russian-Turkish cooperation in the legal field aligns with the broader interstate course toward deeper political dialogue and economic partnership. Mr. Krasnov recalled that the dynamic development of bilateral relations is guided by the Presidents of Russia and Turkey, Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and reaffirmed during the leaders’ meeting on the sidelines of the SCO Summit in Tianjin in September.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Chief Justice of the Russian Federation expressed confidence that continued legal cooperation with the Republic of Turkey — marked by its multidimensional and dynamic nature — would further build mutual trust and open new horizons for joint progress.
Both parties reaffirmed their willingness to continue dialogue in the areas of human rights protection and the enhancement of national legal systems.
October 23
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation returns ownership of Ivanovo Heavy Machine Tool Plant to the State
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has ruled in favor of the State in a claim against JSC “IZTS”, LLC “Tekhinvest”, LLC “Investproekt”, and several individuals, ordering the recovery of shares in OJSC “Ivanovo Heavy Machine Tool Plant”, JSC “IZTS”, and JSC “Stanki i Instrument” into State ownership.
During the proceedings, the Court established that in December 1992, the Property Management Committee of the Ivanovo Region Administration resolved to convert the Ivanovo Heavy Machine Tool Plant—which holds strategic significance for the country's defense and security—into a joint-stock company and approved its privatization plan, after which the enterprise’s assets were transferred to its charter capital.
In the absence of the required decision from the Government of the Russian Federation, these actions concerning the disposal of State property were undertaken in excess of authority. As a result, the property was unlawfully removed from the possession of the Russian Federation.
The Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes overturned the rulings of the appellate and cassation courts and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
A Moscow resident - the widow of a serviceman who took part in the Special Military Operation - filed a complaint with the Supreme Court against a collection agency that had acquired her loan debt from a bank.
The court of first instance and the appellate court ruled that the legal provisions allowing for the full discharge of credit obligations for the families of deceased servicemen did not apply to agreements concluded prior to February 2022. Consequently, they ordered her to repay 569,000 rubles to the collectors.
The Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases ruled in favor of Viktoria Golovina, overturned the decisions of the lower courts, and rejected the collectors’ claim for debt recovery.
"The credit obligations of a serviceman’s family members shall be terminated in the event of his death during the performance of duties within the period of the Special Military Operation, if the agreements were concluded prior to his conscription, participation in the operation, or signing of the military contract," the Supreme Court clarified.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Igor Krasnov, held a meeting with the Chairpersons of federal courts via videoconference. Opening the session, he noted that today the judiciary is facing a number of serious challenges that require prompt and effective responses. One of the most pressing issues, he emphasized, is the increasing workload on judges. “An analysis of the caseload of the courts has been conducted at my instruction, and it has revealed several regions that have been operating at maximum capacity for a number of years. In light of this, vacant judicial positions will be redistributed among courts within the staffing levels established by law,” stated the Chief Justice.
Particular attention was
given to the issue of digital transformation of justice.
Mr. Krasnov pointed out that citizens often face difficulties in accessing
necessary information or submitting documents remotely due to the user-unfriendly
interface of federal court websites. “AI-based analytical platforms represent a
promising direction for judicial development. We will actively introduce these
systems into court operations, enabling us to more quickly identify
inconsistencies in judicial practice and respond to them effectively,” he
noted.
Among the key priorities identified by the Chief Justice was ensuring judicial independence and impartiality in adjudication. “A judge must remain faithful to the oath and not be influenced by governors, authorized representatives, or federal inspectors. Neither they, nor state corporations, nor representatives of the Judicial Department or the judiciary community, should exert influence on judicial decisions. Judges must rely solely on the law and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Russia,” Igor Krasnov stressed.
He also called upon court Chairpersons not to limit themselves to administrative duties but to take an active part in the consideration of cases, combining managerial responsibilities with direct judicial work.
In conclusion, Chief Justice Krasnov emphasized that the Supreme Court will continue to work consistently to eliminate regional disparities in judicial practice, reinforce the principle of legal certainty, and ensure equal legal conditions for all parties to the proceedings.
October 15
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has reviewed a dispute concerning the execution of a state contract for the reconstruction of Olekminsk Airport in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). The case involved the Federal State Institution Rostransmodernizatsiya, the contractor Nordtransstroy LLC, and Almazergienbank JSC, which issued an independent guarantee to secure performance of the contract.
Background of the Dispute
Under the state contract, Rostransmodernizatsiya engaged Nordtransstroy to carry out reconstruction work at Olekminsk Airport. Almazergienbank provided an independent guarantee covering the return of advance payments and the payment of fines and penalties in the event of non-performance.
The contract was terminated by the contractor, citing serious deficiencies in the project documentation and restrictions associated with treasury-supervised accounts, which limited access to budgetary funds. Following the termination, Rostransmodernizatsiya demanded repayment of the unearned advance and penalties. When the contractor failed to comply, the institution submitted a claim under the independent guarantee. The bank refused to pay, arguing that the non-performance had resulted from the contracting authority’s actions.
Position of the Supreme Court
In its cassation appeal, Rostransmodernizatsiya argued that the lower courts had improperly interpreted the guarantee’s terms by making the guarantor’s obligation dependent on the circumstances of contract performance, contrary to the principle of independence of the guarantee from the underlying obligation.
The Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court agreed, holding that such interpretation contradicts the legal nature of independent guarantees. The Supreme Court therefore overturned the lower courts’ rulings and remitted the case for a new hearing before the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia).
The Supreme Court of Russia upheld the veteran’s right to a land plot
Under the lease agreement, Viktor Frantsuz, as a military service veteran, was provided with a plot of 1,000 square meters in Vladivostok for suburban farming. He also registered ownership of a residential house on this land. However, when he requested to receive the plot in ownership without bidding, the municipality refused.
The lower courts, recognizing the refusal as lawful, based their decision on the fact that land plots are provided only for gardening, vegetable gardening, livestock farming, or personal subsidiary farming, and not “for the operation of a residential house.”
The Judicial Chamber for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reviewed the legality of the decisions made. The case materials confirmed that the applicant’s ownership of the residential house located on the land plot had been duly registered in the Unified State Register of Real Estate and was not contested by any party.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that, in this case, the provisions of law establishing the applicant’s exclusive right to acquire the land plot into ownership are applicable.
October 13
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation declared the dismissal of a mother of four children unlawful
An inspector of the Audit Chamber of the Artemovsky Urban District was dismissed in December 2023 due to a “loss of trust.” The employer made this decision on the grounds that the employee had failed to submit income declarations for a period of three years.
In her defense, the employee explained that she had been on maternity leave caring for her child, which required her full attention and caused her official duties to recede into the background. She is the mother of four children, three of whom are minors, while her husband is unable to work due to health reasons.
Furthermore, the employee did not have the necessary software to complete the required declarations. She repeatedly applied to the Chairman of the Audit Chamber requesting permission to use her workplace computer to fill out income, expenditure, and property declarations, citing the absence of other technical means, but her requests were denied “on the grounds that material and technical resources may not be used for purposes unrelated to official duties.”
As a result, the employee managed to submit income information only for one year. Disagreeing with her dismissal, she appealed the employer’s decision in court.
The court of first instance partially upheld her claims, recognizing the dismissal as unlawful. The employee was reinstated to her position as inspector of the Audit Chamber of the Artemovsky Urban District. The employer was ordered to pay her compensation for the period of forced absence from work and moral damages in the amount of 5,000 rubles. The court’s decision was subject to immediate enforcement.
However, the appellate and cassation courts disagreed with these conclusions, finding that the employee had committed a corruption-related offense and that dismissal was the only possible disciplinary measure.
Upon reviewing the cassation appeal, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned the rulings of the appellate and cassation courts and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
The Supreme Court upheld the claim of a Moscow resident who sought recognition of ownership rights to a land plot beneath a private house built during the Soviet period.
The Court emphasized that individuals owning buildings constructed prior to the adoption of the Land Code of the Russian Federation retain an exclusive right to formalize shared ownership of the land, even in the absence of original title documents.
Background of the Case
The applicant sought recognition of ownership over a 3,880-square-meter land plot located beneath a residential building that had belonged to her family since 1943. The ownership of the house was established through a contract of sale and the right of development granted in the Soviet period. Over the years, the applicant inherited a share of the property and continued its lawful possession, supported by archival records and historical court decisions regulating the use of the land among co-owners.
Following repeated refusals from government authorities to formalize the land rights, the applicant turned to the courts. The Solntsevsky District Court of Moscow ruled in her favor, recognizing her ownership. However, the appellate and cassation courts reversed this decision, citing insufficient evidence of lawful allocation of the plot.
Position of the Supreme Court
Upon reviewing the complaint, the Judicial Chamber of the Supreme Court found that the lower courts failed to take into account the legal principle of unity of the fate of a land plot and the building located upon it.
The Supreme Court clarified that ownership rights to land remain with the owners of buildings erected before the enactment of modern land legislation, even where official documentation confirming the land’s allocation has been lost.
“Given that the disputed land plot was originally granted under the right of development prior to the enactment of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, and that a residential building is located upon it, the property owners possess an exclusive right to this land,” — stated the Court.
The Court further noted that issues concerning the division of rights to land should be resolved within a single judicial proceeding and not postponed due to formal deficiencies in historical documentation. Courts, the ruling emphasized, must ensure legal certainty in property relations rather than leave ownership undefined.
Outcome
The Supreme Court annulled the appellate and cassation rulings and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, thereby confirming the applicant’s ownership rights. The case was remanded for reconsideration to ensure that the rights of all co-owners of the property are duly taken into account.
The review summarizes the most significant legal positions adopted by the judicial chambers and provides clarifications on issues arising in judicial practice.
The Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases presented cases concerning the protection of property rights, the rights of consumers of financial services, non-property rights, as well as housing, labor, and social rights of citizens.
The Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes focused on cases involving the application of legislation on legal entities, the contractual system in the field of public procurement, taxation and fees, administrative offenses, and disputes arising from contractual obligations.
The Judicial Chamber for Criminal Cases outlined its legal position on matters related to the qualification of crimes and the imposition of punishment.
The Judicial Chamber for Administrative Cases provided clarifications on cases arising from public-law relations, as well as on the application of provisions of legislation governing administrative offenses.
On 24 September 2025, the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation appointed Igor Viktorovich Krasnov as the Chief Justice of the Russian Federation.
Earlier, the High Qualification Board of Judges had recommended Mr. Krasnov for the position of the Chief Justice of the Russian Federation.
Subsequently, his candidacy was endorsed by the Federation Council’s Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State Building.
At the 596th plenary session, upon the submission of the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the senators unanimously voted in favor of Mr. Krasnov’s appointment.
In a solemn ceremony, in the presence of judges and staff of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and in accordance with the Law “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation”, Igor Viktorovich Krasnov took the judicial oath.
In accordance with the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 18, 2024, No. 601 “On perpetuating the memory of Vyacheslav Lebedev” and pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 24, 2024, No. 49-P on January 27, 2025 the Russian State University of Justice (RSUJ) was named after Vyacheslav Lebedev, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
A meeting of judges of general jurisdiction, military and arbitration courts of the Russian Federation was held in Moscow on February 20. Traditionally, the participants summarized the results of the Russian judicial system's activities over the past year and discussed priority tasks for the current year.
The meeting was attended by judges of the Supreme Court, courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts, the heads of the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of Russia, and representatives of federal authorities.
The event was opened by the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. The President highly appreciated the work of the Supreme Court of Russia and the entire judiciary.
“I would like to emphasise that the effectiveness of the judicial authority (it is absolutely obvious to you and me) and people’s trust in it depend on profound knowledge, competence, and high professionalism of everyone who is involved in legal proceedings, and above all, judges themselves.”
The President noted that in 2024 more than 42 million cases were considered in all types of legal proceedings, and almost everywhere court cases were resolved with high quality and within reasonable time. “On the initiative of the Supreme Court, a number of significant decisions have been made that aim to further improve the quality of justice and streamline judges’ workload,” the President added.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Irina Podnosova delivered a report on main areas of work of the Russian courts in 2024.
The head of Russia's highest court noted the great legislative work of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation: “The Supreme Court is actively involved in lawmaking process on a wide range of issues. Thus, in 2024, realizing the right of legislative initiative, the Supreme Court submitted five bills to the State Duma aimed at improvement of justice”.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Russia confirmed with specific examples that an important place in judicial practice is occupied by cases on the protection of social rights of citizens. “The social focus of justice is ensured, including in cases on the protection of pension rights of citizens, in 2024, 84 percent of claims in this category of cases were satisfied,” said Irina Podnosova.
Addressing the issues of practice in economic disputes, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Russia explained that over 1 million 800 thousand cases were considered by arbitration courts during the reporting period. Irina Podnosova drew attention to the fact that a significant part, about one fifth, of the structure of economic disputes are bankruptcy cases of citizens and organizations. More than 400 thousand such cases were considered, including more than 2 million 750 thousand separate disputes within these cases.
Regarding criminal cases, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Russia explained that in 2024, 670 thousand criminal cases were considered against 679 thousand persons, which is 9 percent less than in 2023.
“The most important indicator of the work of the courts remains the practice of application of preventive measures. Thus, in 2024, the courts received 97 thousand petitions for the selection of a preventive measure in the form of detention in custody, of which 88 percent were satisfied, and 172 thousand petitions to extend the period of detention in custody,” she said.
In addition, Irina Podnosova drew attention to the fact that the Supreme Court, following an assignment from the President of the Russian Federation, had drafted a federal law proposing to limit significantly the possibility of detaining suspects and accused of committing crimes of minor gravity and non-violent crimes of medium gravity, as well as minors and women with young children.
In her speech, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Russia noted that in 2024 significant attention was paid to the development of international judicial dialog. It was significant that the Supreme Court of Russia organized the Forum of BRICS Supreme Court Chief Justices.
In conclusion, Irina Podnosova expressed her gratitude to the President of Russia for the support and attention to the judicial system of the Russian Federation.
The 20th Anniversary Meeting of Chief Justices of the Supreme Courts of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) member states was held in Hangzhou, China.
Delegations from participating countries took part in the event and discussed key issues of law enforcement, digitalization of judicial systems, protection of juvenile rights, countering crime and terrorism, and exchanged best practices in the field of judicial proceedings.
Irina Podnosova, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, welcomed the participants of the forum. According to her, the Meeting of Chief Justices of the Supreme Courts of the SCO countries has established itself as a proven international platform where participants in an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect share best practices in the field of justice improvement. “The activities of the meeting have a practical substance, the topics of discussions have always corresponded to the current challenges and tasks facing the judicial systems of the participating countries”, - said Irina Podnosova.
“In recent years, the introduction of elements of artificial intelligence in the work of judges has been actively discussed. I believe that the discussion on this topic has not only an applied, but also an ethical aspect. Automated justice can significantly facilitate the work of judges and court personnel, but its application is possible only on undisputed issues, when the work of the judge is not related to the analysis of legal relations of the parties and has a technical nature”, - said the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Russia.
The head of the highest court also emphasized the need to protect the rights of minors and counter transnational crime, including new forms of terrorism. In her opinion, cooperation between the courts of the SCO countries remains a key element in combating these challenges.
Irina Podnosova noted that the adopted Joint Statement demonstrates the unified approaches of the Supreme Courts of the SCO states to key legal issues. “I am convinced that the announced decisions will contribute to strengthening trust and can be successfully implemented in the work of our courts,” summarized Irina Podnosova.
Almaz Ibragimov, Deputy Director General of the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, noted during his speech that the digital transformation of the judicial system requires increased attention to cybersecurity. He spoke about the implementation of the state automated system “Justice”.
Tatyana Vavilycheva, a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, stated in her report that it was the responsibility of the court to ensure the protection of children's rights while considering relevant cases. She noted the need for a detailed examination of all the circumstances, including the living conditions of the child and his or her relationship with the parents.
The judge paid special attention to the housing rights of minors, emphasizing that children have an unconditional right to move in with their parents without the consent of the landlord. Tatyana Vavilycheva also spoke about the importance of taking into account the child's opinion in court proceedings with minimal psychological pressure.
Alexander Voronov, a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, mentioned in his presentation the introduction in domestic legislation of a new qualifying feature for public demonstration of violent crimes. According to him, these measures contribute to a further reduction in violent crime.
The next, 21st meeting of the Supreme Courts of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization member states will be held in 2026 in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Seminar-meeting of judges of the Supreme Courts of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation hosted a Russian-Belarusian seminar-meeting focused on current issues in legislation and judicial practice in the field of insolvency (bankruptcy). The event served as an important platform for professional dialogue between the judicial systems of the two countries.
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Oleg Shilokhvost recalled the main principles of bankruptcy legislation in Russia. “I would like to emphasize that the consolidation of bankruptcy legislation and its more accurate regulation are a priority for the judicial system,” Shilokhvost noted during his speech.
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Irina Bukina detailed the procedural innovations: “Over the past decade, we have adopted about 100 amendments to bankruptcy legislation. This is one of the most rapidly changing areas.” The main topics of the meeting were the active introduction of digital tools into court proceedings, ensuring a balance between simplifying procedures and protecting the rights of participants, and sharing experiences on the practice of “subordination” of creditors.
The participants of the seminar-meeting agreed to continue working together to improve bankruptcy practices and share their experiences.
.png)