Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation’s Economic Disputes Board: Key Positions from June 2025

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (SC RF) continues to shape uniform judicial practice, resolving complex economic disputes. In June 2025, the SC RF’s Economic Disputes Board expressed its position on a range of pressing issues in the fields of insurance, bankruptcy, intellectual property, lending, real estate, contracting, and leasing. Below are the most significant rulings.

1. Insurance: Protecting Policyholders and Clarity of Terms

· Clear Definition of Subject Matter Required: The SC RF emphasized that the subject matter of an insurance contract cannot be defined solely through a list of excluded events. Without a clear description of circumstances constituting an insured event, the policyholder is deprived of the ability to assess the actual scope of coverage. An insurer has no right to exclude the most probable risks (e.g., common causes of fire) from coverage, thereby unreasonably minimizing its obligations (Case No. 305-ES25-842).

· Negligence Does Not Excuse Payout: An insurer’s refusal to pay compensation solely due to the policyholder’s negligent actions (e.g., violation of instructions) was deemed unlawful by the SC RF. Contract terms making payouts dependent on any actions of the policyholder, rather than the occurrence of the insured event itself, are void. The insurer must prove the policyholder’s intent to cause the event (Case No. 307-ES24-24190).

2. Credit and Loans: Interest and Nature of Contracts

· Increased Interest as a Liability Measure: The SC RF confirmed that increased interest charged for late loan repayment constitutes a measure of civil liability. Consequently, a court has the right to reduce its amount under Art. 333 of the RF Civil Code if it is clearly disproportionate to the consequences of the breach. Simultaneous recovery of such increased interest and interest under Art. 395 of the RF Civil Code is inadmissible (Case No. 304-ES24-24421).

· Actual Legal Nature Prevails Over Title: If a contract titled as a loan contains features of a joint activity (participation in profit/loss, control over fund usage, indefinite term), the court is obliged to investigate its true legal nature. Qualifying such a contract merely as a loan without considering these features may be erroneous (Case No. 305-ES24-24318).

3. Intellectual Property: Displaying Product Images

· Trademark on Website: Not Always Infringement: Merely displaying an image of a product bearing someone else’s trademark on a website does not constitute an infringement of the right holder’s rights if the seller offers genuine goods for sale (e.g., based on a contract with an official dealer) and the goods have not yet been purchased. The burden of proving that counterfeit goods are being offered lies with the right holder (Case No. 309-ES25-764).

4. Leasing: Lessor’s Risks

· Liability for Vendor Selection: A lessor who independently selected the vendor of the leased asset (by posting the offer, conducting negotiations, sending draft contracts) bears the risk of that vendor’s failure to perform. The lessor’s retention of interest charges for the use of financing in a situation where the vendor failed to deliver the leased asset and returned the funds was deemed unlawful by the SC RF (Case No. 307-ES22-5301).

5. Bankruptcy: Evidence and Costs

· Acceptance Certificate as Sufficient Proof of Work: At the stage of the customer’s bankruptcy, an acceptance certificate for completed work, signed without objections, constitutes sufficient evidence of the work’s completion and the resulting debt. The bankruptcy trustee or court must refute this document; they cannot require the contractor to submit additional evidence (e.g., full execution documentation) without grounds, absent signs of affiliation or the contractor’s bad faith (Case No. 305-ES24-23946).

· Bank Fees for Payments to Individuals: An increased bank fee for transferring funds to an individual creditor within bankruptcy proceedings may be deemed unjustified and prohibitive. The court must verify its economic justification (whether the bank incurs additional costs compared to transfers to legal entities). An unfairly high fee damages the bankruptcy estate and violates creditors’ rights (Case No. 305-ES24-24245).

6. Supply and VAT: Refund for Price Reduction

· Refund Includes VAT: When reducing the contract price for the supply of non-conforming goods, the amount to be refunded to the buyer by the supplier includes VAT. Excluding VAT from the refund amount contradicts tax legislation, as the price change necessitates an adjustment to the supplier’s VAT base and the buyer’s input VAT deductions (Case No. 305-ES25-115).

7. Real Estate and Land: Lease, Reclassification, Use

· Post-Auction Rent is Fixed: The winner of an auction for public property (a building), who received the underlying land for lease under terms fixed in the auction documentation and contract, has no right to demand a reduction in rent after signing the contract, citing the land’s restricted circulation status. The rent amount is part of the auction terms (Cases No. 305-ES25-1291, No. 305-ES23-20462).

· Assignment of Forest Plot Lease Rights: Assigning rights and obligations under a forest plot lease contract requires the lessor’s mandatory consent, as stipulated by forest legislation and the standard contract. Provisions of the Land Code on a notification procedure for assignments under land lease contracts exceeding 5 years do not apply. Cadastral registration of the plot does not negate the need for consent (Case No. 304-ES24-3145).

· Reclassifying Residential to Non-Residential: Not a Loophole: The procedure for reclassifying a residential building (IHS) as non-residential premises cannot be used as a simplified way to legalize commercial real estate initially built in violation of requirements for non-residential properties (e.g., needing a construction permit, project documentation expertise). Failure to indicate the intended use of the reclassified property and claims that reconstruction/re-planning are unnecessary may indicate an attempt to circumvent the law (Case No. 306-ES25-218).

· Land Payment When Leasing a Building: If a building lease contract does not stipulate a separate fee for land use, the building rent inherently includes payment for the land beneath it and the area necessary for its operation. The lessor (e.g., a municipality) must prove that the tenant used the entire plot beyond this necessary part to claim additional payment (Case No. 307-ES25-1444).

The June practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation demonstrates a consistent approach towards protecting bona fide market participants, ensuring clarity and predictability of contractual terms (especially in insurance), preventing abuses (unjustified bank fees, attempts to bypass construction norms), and strictly adhering to procedural rules (auctions, bankruptcy). The positions outlined by the SC RF in its rulings serve as crucial guidelines for lower courts and legal practitioners.