In its Ruling No. 18-P of March 25, 2026, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation provided significant clarifications regarding the application of the doctrine of acquisitive prescription, addressing a crucial aspect of civil commerce: the possibility of aggregating periods of property possession. This decision directly relates to property disputes arising from long-term de facto possession.
The Core Problem: Ambiguity in the Interpretation of Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
The doctrine of acquisitive prescription (Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) allows a person who has possessed someone else’s real estate in good faith, openly, and continuously as their own for a specified period (15 years) to acquire title to that property.
Difficulties arose regarding the interpretation of Paragraph 3 of the same Article, which allows the period of possession to be extended by the time the property was possessed by the person to whom the current possessor is a successor. Previously, judicial practice did not provide a definitive answer as to whether this rule applies if the transfer of possession occurred under a contract of sale (so-called singular succession). Courts often refused to aggregate these periods, recognizing this possibility only in cases of universal succession (e.g., inheritance). This created legal uncertainty and infringed upon the interests of bona fide acquirers.
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation’s Position
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, having considered the complaint of citizen G.V. Zubakhin, found that the current wording of Paragraph 3 of Article 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, due to the uncertainty of its normative content and application practice, does not provide a clear answer to the question of the permissibility of aggregating possession periods upon property transfer by contract. The Court noted that such ambiguity contradicts the constitutional principles of:
Equality before the law and the court (Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).
The right to freely use one’s property (Article 34 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).
The guarantee of the right to private property (Article 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).
Effective judicial protection (Article 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).
The Ruling’s Impact
The Constitutional Court ruled that:
Aggregation of possession periods is possible: Pending legislative amendments, periods of acquisitive prescription may be aggregated even if the property was transferred under an alienation agreement.
Mandatory conditions: For this to be possible, each consecutive possessor (both the predecessor and the current one) must have possessed the property in good faith, openly, and continuously as their own for the statutory period.
Burden of proof: A person claiming title by prescription must prove compliance with all these criteria of possession, both for themselves and for the predecessors whose periods they wish to aggregate.
Practical significance: This decision creates new opportunities for legalizing rights to real estate and other property that has been used de facto for a long time but faced legal registration issues. It stimulates the return of such property to full civil commerce, protects the interests of bona fide acquirers, and promotes the stability of property relations.
The federal legislator has been tasked with introducing the necessary amendments to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to resolve the identified uncertainty. Until then, courts must be guided by the legal positions set forth in this Ruling.
If you are facing a situation involving acquisitive prescription, ownership disputes, or other real estate-related matters, including Property disputes, qualified legal assistance is of critical importance.