“On the Price of Time in Property Law” — an article by Tatyana Tereshchenko for the publication “Zakon”
An article by Tatyana Tereshchenko, Head of the Analytical Department at Prime Advice Law Offices, for the "Legal Chronicle" section in the journal "Zakon." The section includes several notes by different authors on significant events. The authors write about what caught their attention in the legal sphere over the preceding month.
Rulings of the Constitutional Court often resemble an onion. At first glance, one sometimes feels like shedding a tear: dozens of pages, numerous references to its own legal positions, thorough reasoning about justice. However, when one shifts the focus, they can be of great benefit to practicing lawyers.
The reason is simple. The value of the Russian Constitutional Court's rulings is by no means always in the answer to the question posed by the petitioner. Far more important are the legal constructs that the Court creates along the way to that answer. Sometimes these very constructs begin to live a life of their own, are used by courts in entirely different categories of cases, and gradually influence the development of the legal system far beyond the specific dispute.
Ruling No. 22-P of the Russian Constitutional Court of April 9, 2026¹ (hereinafter — Ruling No. 22-P) serves as a good illustration of this. The petitioner reasonably raised the question of to what extent the expropriation of a land plot for state needs is permissible before the final determination of the amount of compensation to be paid to the owner. The trigger for the review was a situation in which the court separated the claim for determining the amount of compensation into separate proceedings, whereas the decision on the expropriation of the land plot had been made earlier and was subject to immediate enforcement.