Construction Permits in Russia: Procedure for Obtaining, Amending, and Extending

June 6, 2022

BRACE Law Firm ©

A construction permit (the "Permit") is a document providing a developer with the right to carry out construction on a land plot. The Permit contains construction parameters and is issued for a specific term.

In practice, problems and disputes frequently arise when obtaining a Permit, amending it, or extending it, which are often resolved only through judicial proceedings. This article reviews the primary regulatory aspects and problematic issues concerning construction permits.

Construction Permits

According to Article 51 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation (the "Town Planning Code"), a construction permit is a document that confirms that project documentation complies with the requirements established by town planning regulations, territory planning projects, and territory surveying projects during the construction or reconstruction of a capital construction project that is not a linear facility, or with requirements established by territory planning and surveying projects during the construction or reconstruction of a linear facility. A construction permit gives the developer the right to carry out construction or reconstruction of a capital construction project, except for cases provided for by the Town Planning Code. The Government of Russia has approved the form of the construction permit. [1]

As follows from Part 2 of Article 48 of the Town Planning Code, the preparation of project documentation precedes the issuance of a construction permit. Project documentation is defined as documentation containing materials in textual form and in the form of maps (diagrams) that defines architectural, functional-technological, structural, and engineering solutions to ensure the construction or reconstruction of capital construction projects, their parts, and major repairs.

Thus, a developer must obtain a construction permit for the construction of a facility as well as for its reconstruction.

The issuance of a construction permit is not required in the case of:

1. The construction or reconstruction of a garage on a land plot provided to an individual for purposes not related to entrepreneurial activity, or the construction or reconstruction of a residential house, seasonal house, or utility buildings on a garden land plot;
2. The construction or reconstruction of individual housing construction projects (in this case, a notification procedure applies);
3. The construction or reconstruction of facilities that are not capital construction projects;
4. The construction of buildings and structures for ancillary use on a land plot. The primary criteria for classifying buildings and structures as ancillary are their classification as structures with a low level of responsibility, the lack of a requirement to obtain permits for their construction, and the presence of a primary real estate facility on the land plot to which such a building or structure performs an auxiliary or servicing function. [2]
5. Modifications to capital construction projects and (or) their parts if such changes do not affect the structural and other characteristics of their reliability and safety and do not exceed the maximum parameters of permitted construction or reconstruction established by town planning regulations. The Russian Federation has approved a list of types of design work that affect the specified characteristics. [3]
6. Major repairs of capital construction projects;
7. The construction or reconstruction of boreholes;
8. The construction or reconstruction of embassies, consulates, and representative offices of the Russian Federation abroad;
9. The construction or reconstruction of facilities intended for the transportation of natural gas under pressure up to 1.2 megapascals inclusive;
10. The placement of antenna supports (masts and towers) up to 50 meters high intended for telecommunications equipment;
11. Other cases provided for by legislation. Such cases are provided for, for example, by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1816 dated November 12, 2020, [4] and include, for instance, power lines with a voltage class up to 35 kV inclusive, as well as associated transformer substations and distribution points; thermal networks transporting water vapor with a working pressure up to 1.6 megapascals inclusive or hot water with a temperature up to 150 °C inclusive; water pipelines and water conduits of all types with a diameter up to 500 mm; and linear drainage facilities with a diameter up to 1000 mm.

Generally, the local government authority of the territory where the land plot is located issues the construction permit.

If work to preserve a cultural heritage site affects the structural and other characteristics of the reliability and safety of such a site, the construction permit is issued by the executive state authorities or local government authorities authorized in the field of preservation, use, promotion, and state protection of cultural heritage sites.

In special cases, a construction permit is also issued by:

1. The authorized federal executive body, in the event that the construction of a capital construction project is planned on the territories of two or more constituent entities of the Russian Federation;
2. The executive body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, in the event that the construction of a capital construction project is planned on the territories of two or more municipal entities (municipal districts, urban districts), and in the case of reconstruction of a capital construction project located on the territories of two or more municipal entities (municipal districts, urban districts);
3. The local government authority of a municipal district, in the event that the construction of a capital construction project is planned on the territories of two or more settlements or on an inter-settlement territory within the boundaries of a municipal district, and in the case of reconstruction of a capital construction project located on the territories of two or more settlements or on an inter-settlement territory within the boundaries of a municipal district.

What Documents are Necessary to Obtain a Construction Permit?

The list of documents necessary to obtain a Permit is specified in Article 51 of the Town Planning Code and includes:

1. Title documents for the land plot. Such documents may include documents confirming ownership or a lease with the right to build on the land plot; In cases where the developer's lack of a lease agreement is a consequence of the actions of an authorized body, the refusal to issue a Permit due to the absence of a lease agreement will be recognized as illegal. [5]
2. Land Plot Development Plan (the "GPZU"), issued no earlier than three years before the date of application for the construction permit. Under Article 51 of the Town Planning Code, for the purpose of construction or reconstruction of a capital construction project, the developer sends an application for a construction permit directly to the bodies authorized to issue Permits, necessarily providing a Land Plot Development Plan issued no earlier than three years before the date of application for the construction permit, or in the case of issuing a permit for the construction of a linear facility — the reference details of the territory planning project and territory surveying project (except for cases where the preparation of territory planning documentation is not required for the construction or reconstruction of a linear facility), or the reference details of the territory planning project in the case of issuing a permit for the construction of a linear facility for which the formation of a land plot is not required. Previously, the Town Planning Code (in the version effective until January 1, 2017, the effective date of Law No. 373-FZ [6]) did not contain an indication of the term for using information contained in the Land Plot Development Plan submitted by an interested person for the purpose of obtaining a construction permit. However, Law No. 373-FZ introduced Article 57.3 to the Town Planning Code, dedicated to the Land Plot Development Plan, according to Clause 10 of which information specified in the Land Plot Development Plan may be used for the preparation of project documentation and for obtaining a construction permit within three years from the date of its issuance. After this period, the use of information specified in the Land Plot Development Plan for the purposes provided for in this part is not permitted. The legislator provided that information specified in a Land Plot Development Plan approved before the effective date of Law No. 373-FZ may be used within the term established by a normative legal act of the highest executive body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, which cannot be less than three years and more than eight years from the effective date of Law No. 373-FZ, for the preparation of project documentation for capital construction projects and (or) their parts constructed or reconstructed within the boundaries of such a land plot, and for the issuance of construction permits. After the established term, the use of information specified in such a Land Plot Development Plan is not permitted. Thus, a systemic interpretation of the provisions of the Town Planning Code and Law No. 373-FZ cited above provides grounds to consider that the term of application for Land Plot Development Plans issued before the effective date of this law should be calculated from the day this law entered into force, i.e., from January 1, 2017. Authorized bodies should have adopted normative acts determining the terms of validity for Land Plot Development Plans issued before January 1, 2017. However, the failure of authorized bodies to adopt such acts cannot serve as a basis for violating the rights of the developer. The Judicial Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reached this conclusion, agreeing that restricting terms for the purpose of using information specified in a Land Plot Development Plan issued before January 1, 2017, with reference to the establishment of terms for its validity by new provisions of the law, violates the rights of the developer as a participant in town planning activities. The absence of a corresponding normative legal act by the highest executive body regarding the term for using Land Plot Development Plans issued before January 1, 2017, allows for the application of the provisions of Part 1 of Article 9 of Law No. 373-FZ as a federal law containing transitional provisions with the terms specified in that article. This allows for the possibility of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation establishing other terms (no less than three and no more than eight years), but their failure to adopt an act cannot worsen the position of participants in town planning activities or affect the principle of the operation of legal norms over time. [7] Thus, such GPZUs (issued before January 1, 2017) were extended for at least three years. In the event that a developer acquires rights to a land plot in the manner provided for by Articles 201.15-1 and 201.15-2 of Federal Law No. 127-FZ dated October 26, 2002, On Insolvency (Bankruptcy), or upon the transfer of rights to a land plot to a housing construction cooperative, the term of validity of GPZUs issued before January 1, 2017, was extended for six years. [8]
3. Engineering survey results and project documentation materials;
4. A positive expertise conclusion on the project documentation; Under Article 49 of the Town Planning Code, three types of expertise are distinguished:

• Non-state expertise of project documentation;
• State expertise of project documentation;
• State environmental expertise of project documentation. Generally, a developer is entitled to choose which expertise of project documentation they will undergo: state or non-state. At the same time, in several cases, undergoing specifically state expertise of project documentation is mandatory (for example, regarding facilities whose construction or reconstruction is planned within the boundaries of specially protected natural areas);

5. A permit for deviation from the maximum parameters of permitted construction or reconstruction. Under Article 40 of the Town Planning Code, right holders of land plots whose sizes are smaller than the minimum land plot sizes established by town planning regulations, or whose configuration, engineering-geological, or other characteristics are unfavorable for development, are entitled to apply for permits for deviation from the maximum parameters of permitted construction or reconstruction of capital construction projects;
6. The consent of all right holders of the capital construction project in the event of reconstruction of such a project. The consequence of the absence of consent from all owners of the facility, even provided that work is carried out (including if a Permit exists), will be an obligation to restore the premises to their original state. [9] Courts find no grounds for satisfying a claim by a person who carried out reconstruction to recognize the right of ownership to the reconstructed facility in cases where such reconstruction was performed without the consent of other owners. Construction or reconstruction resulting in a new real estate facility must be carried out in compliance with the requirements of the law and other legal acts. Furthermore, the exercise of the specified right must not violate the rights and legitimate interests of other persons. [10] A different approach would put a bona fide developer obtaining the documents necessary for construction (reconstruction) in the established manner in a worse position compared to an unauthorized developer who did not fulfill the requirements provided for by law. [11]
7. A copy of the accreditation certificate of the legal entity that issued the positive conclusion of non-state expertise of the project documentation, in the event that a non-state expertise conclusion on the project documentation is submitted;
8. Documents provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation on cultural heritage sites, in the event that work to preserve a cultural heritage site affects the structural and other characteristics of the reliability and safety of such a site;
9. A copy of the decision to establish or change a zone with special conditions for use of the territory in the case of construction of a capital construction project, in connection with the placement of which a zone with special conditions for use of the territory is subject to establishment in accordance with legislation;
10. A copy of the territory development agreement in the event that the construction or reconstruction of capital construction projects is planned within the boundaries of such territory.

The list of documents is exhaustive. It is impermissible to demand other documents from the developer.

The term for reviewing the application and documents submitted to obtain a construction permit is five working days.

A refusal to issue a construction permit may be challenged by the developer in court. Challenging a refusal to issue a Permit is carried out in a court of general jurisdiction (if the developer is a citizen and the construction of the facility is not related to entrepreneurial activity) or in an arbitration court.

Amending and Revoking a Permit

Parts 21.5–21.7 and 21.9 of Article 51 of the Town Planning Code provide for making changes to a construction permit in certain cases (upon the transfer of rights to a land plot, or the division or consolidation of land plots) in the manner established by Parts 21.10 and 21.14 of the specified article.

Making changes to a Permit on the specified grounds does not require the submission of documents identical to those for an application for the issuance of a Permit. Meanwhile, under Part 7 of Article 52 of the Town Planning Code, deviation of the parameters of a capital construction project (height, number of floors, area, volume) from the project documentation is permitted if the necessity for the deviation was identified during the construction, reconstruction, or major repair of such a project.

Taking into account the specified norm, it should be recognized that the grounds for making changes to a construction permit provided for by Article 51 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation are not exhaustive.

However, under Part 7 of Article 52 of the Town Planning Code, the deviation of the parameters of a capital construction project from the project documentation is conditioned by a necessity identified during the construction of the project and compliance with the procedure for changing the project documentation. It follows from the specified norm that the reasons entailing changes to the project documentation must be objective. [12] This practice was reflected in the amended Article 51 of the Town Planning Code.

When making changes to a Permit on the specified ground, the developer must submit the same documents for making changes as for the issuance of a Permit. If the developer does not justify the necessity of making changes to the project documentation, the change to the Permit will be refused.

Within the framework of a specific case, a company requested changes to the construction permits issued to it, caused by the intention of the specified person to increase the number of floors and sections of residential buildings. The court established that the case materials contained no evidence that an objective necessity to deviate the parameters of the capital construction projects from the project documentation was identified during construction, entailing a change to the project documentation and construction permit. In this regard, by refusing to re-register the construction permits under the circumstances described, the body that made the decision did not violate the provisions of active legislation, in the opinion of the court. [13]

At the same time, a developer is entitled to make necessary adjustments to the project documentation during construction, which does not contradict the Town Planning Code. Thus, according to Section 7 of GOST R 21.1101-2020 System of Design Documentation for Construction (the "SPDS"), during the performance of construction work, the developer is entitled to correct the architectural and planning solutions of the project under construction by making necessary adjustments to related sections of the project documentation. According to Articles 48 (Part 15) and 52 of the Town Planning Code, and Clauses 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 of Section 7 of GOST R 21.1101-2020 System of Design Documentation for Construction, changes to project documentation are made based on an amendment permit, which is approved by the head of the project developer organization.

Evidence confirming the compliance of adjusted project documentation with requirements established by town planning regulations, territory planning projects, and territory surveying projects, as well as the permissibility of placing the construction project on the land plot in accordance with the permitted use of such a plot, is the presence of a positive conclusion of state or non-state expertise.

In judicial practice, there are examples of the approval of settlement agreements between a developer and an authorized body regarding the issue of making changes to a Permit. [14] When assessing the lawfulness of the actions of an authorized body regarding the revocation of a previously issued Permit, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation settled this issue by pointing to the existence of such rights for the authorized body. As justification, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation cited Part 1 of Article 48 of Federal Law No. 131-FZ dated October 6, 2003, On General Principles of Organization of Local Government in the Russian Federation, according to which municipal legal acts may be revoked or their operation may be suspended by local government authorities or local government officials who adopted (issued) the corresponding municipal legal act. [15]

Based on the content of the specified norm, a local government authority is entitled, by way of self-control, to revoke a legal act previously adopted by it in the event that a contradiction with the law is identified. This conclusion corresponds to the legal position formulated in the determination of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 309-KG17-20985 dated April 24, 2018.

However, such a revocation of a Permit must be motivated. Within the framework of a specific case, the court, having not established a violation in the developer's project documentation, recognized the revocation of the Permit by the authorized body as invalid. [16]

At the same time, if the Permit was initially issued with a violation, for example, regarding the non-compliance of construction parameters with the Land Plot Development Plan, or in the case of violations committed in the Land Plot Development Plan, the revocation of the Permit will be recognized as lawful. In a specific case, the court pointed out that the fact that a protected zone was not specified in the Land Plot Development Plan cannot testify to the lawfulness of construction even if a Permit exists. A protected zone is established regardless of the desire of the owner of a cultural heritage site to formalize such a zone and is necessary to ensure safe operating conditions and exclude the possibility of damage to such sites, the creation of negative conditions for their operation, and the exclusion of causing harm to the life and health of citizens and the property of individuals or legal entities. Taking into account the above, the courts recognized that the absence of approved protection zones for the cultural heritage sites considered in this dispute in the state real estate cadastre or the absence of information on approved protective zones of the boundaries of the territory of the specified cultural heritage sites on the town planning zoning map cannot serve as a basis for non-compliance with the regime for their use. [17]

Meanwhile, the existence of prohibitions established by active legislation on the construction of new capital construction projects within the boundaries of protection zones for cultural heritage sites was not taken into account by the company during the preparation of project documentation and was not reflected in the approved Land Plot Development Plan.

In the presence of violations that are grounds for refusing to issue a construction permit, the only way to eliminate such violations and suppress activities carried out on its basis was to revoke the issued permit by way of regulatory control in accordance with Article 48 of Federal Law No. 131-FZ dated October 6, 2003, On General Principles of Organization of Local Government in the Russian Federation.

How to Challenge a Refusal to Issue Construction Permits?

A significant portion of disputes between developers and authorized bodies consists of disputes over challenging refusals to issue Permits. As a rule, however, this method of protection leads not to a result in the form of an obligation for the authorized body to issue a Permit, but to an obligation for the specified body to reconsider the application.

Within the framework of a specific case to recognize as illegal a decision refusing to make changes to a construction permit and to impose an obligation to issue a permit for the construction of a project, the court pointed out that it is not entitled to oblige a state body having its own legal capacity to adopt an individually determined decision. Considering that this dispute was related to verifying the existence of grounds for making changes to a construction permit in connection with a change in technical and economic indicators and adjustments to the project for the purpose of separating block "B" into an independent capital construction project only on the land plot, the court of cassation concluded that the appellate court reasonably rejected the method of protection of the violated right proposed by the applicant and obliged the town planning control department to adopt a management decision appropriate to the situation in accordance with the respondent's powers. [18] That is, in fact, the developer returns to the stage of application review, which, undoubtedly, does not fully restore their rights.

In judicial practice, one can find court decisions where requirements for the issuance of a Permit upon refusal are satisfied (without indicating an obligation for reconsideration). [19] However, in the majority of cases, courts recognize that the right-restoring measure will be to oblige the authorized body to reconsider the application.

Is it Possible to Have a Construction Permit Recognized as Invalid?

A Permit may be recognized as invalid upon a claim by an interested person, who may be not only the developer but also another third party whose rights are violated by the issued construction permit.

Within the framework of a specific case, a requirement to recognize a Permit as invalid was satisfied because, when issuing the challenged permit and making changes to the permit, the authorized body did not request information about the right holders of the building subject to demolition. By a judicial act, the right of common shared ownership of the land plot on which construction was planned was recognized for the applicant, and the latter's consent for construction was not obtained. [20]

Furthermore, recognizing a construction permit as illegal does not in itself entail the classification of the building as unauthorized, but if town planning and construction norms and rules were significantly violated during the creation of the building and its preservation creates a threat to the life and health of citizens, then the court is entitled to adopt a decision to demolish such a building based on Article 222 of the Civil Code. [21]

The determining criterion for the consequences — a prohibition on construction (in the event that construction is not completed) or the possibility of recognizing the constructed volume as unauthorized — is the establishment of violations creating a threat to life and health.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has repeatedly pointed out that the obligation to demolish an unauthorized building represents a sanction for a committed offense, which may consist of a violation of both the norms of land legislation regulating the provision of a land plot for construction and town planning norms regulating design and construction. [22] Furthermore, the introduction of liability for an offense and the establishment of a specific sanction restricting a constitutional right must, based on the general principles of law, meet requirements for justice, be proportionate to constitutionally fixed goals and interests protected by law, and also to the nature of the committed act. [23] Consequently, in each specific case concerning the demolition of an unauthorized building, courts must investigate the circumstances of the creation of such a building, clarify whether significant violations of town planning and construction norms and rules were committed during its erection, whether the preservation of the unauthorized building violates the rights and interests of other persons protected by law, and whether such a project creates a threat to the life and health of citizens.

The necessity of establishing the specified circumstances when resolving the issue of demolishing an unauthorized building or its preservation is indicated in Clause 26 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 10/22. [24] This clause also clarifies that the absence of a construction permit cannot in itself serve as a basis for refusing a claim to recognize the right of ownership to an unauthorized building, and therefore cannot be the only unconditional basis for demolition. Since the demolition of an unauthorized construction project is an extreme measure, the elimination of the consequences of the violation must be proportionate to the violation itself and must not create an imbalance between public and private interests that leads to a violation of the stability of economic circulation and the infliction of disproportionate losses. The absence of a construction permit as the only basis for demolition cannot indisputably testify to the impossibility of preserving the building. A significant circumstance in this case is the establishment of the fact that the person who created the unauthorized building applied to authorized bodies for the purpose of its legalization, in particular for a construction permit and (or) a facility operation permit, and also whether the authorized body lawfully refused to issue such a permit or operation permit (Paragraph 2 of Clause 26 of the Resolution of the Plenum No. 10/22). [25]

In the sense of Article 222 of the Civil Code and the cited clarifications, the absence of a construction permit as the only sign of the unauthorized nature of a building cannot indisputably testify to the impossibility of preserving the building, as civil legislation links the necessity of demolishing an unauthorized building not with formal compliance with requirements to obtain a construction permit, but with the establishment of circumstances that could prevent the use of such a building due to its non-compliance with safety requirements and the possibility of violating the rights of third parties.

Within the framework of a specific case, a judicial expertise conclusion confirmed that the disputed building complied with safety requirements, and the authorized body of a public entity, by issuing the construction permit, confirmed by its actions the compliance of the project documentation developed by the company with town planning and construction norms and rules. The courts needed to establish whether the preservation of the unauthorized building violated the rights and interests of other persons protected by law (for example, adjacent land users) and public interests, and whether the requirement to demolish the unauthorized building was proportionate to the violations committed by the respondent. [26]

Extending the Term of Validity of a Permit

In accordance with Part 21.14 of Article 51 of the Town Planning Code, within a period of no more than 5 (five) working days from the day of receipt of a developer's application to make changes to a construction permit (including in connection with the necessity of extending the term of validity of the construction permit), the local government authority authorized to issue construction permits adopts a decision to make changes to the construction permit or to refuse to make changes to such a permit, indicating the reasons for refusal. The notification, documents provided for by Clauses 1–4 of Part 21.10 of Article 51 of the Town Planning Code, the application to make changes to the construction permit (including in connection with the necessity of extending the term of validity of the construction permit), and also documents provided for by Part 7 of Article 51 of the Town Planning Code in cases where their submission is necessary in accordance with this part, may be sent in the form of electronic documents.

Grounds for refusing to make changes to a construction permit (including in connection with the necessity of extending the term of validity of the construction permit) are established by Part 21.15 of Article 51 of the Town Planning Code. Grounds for refusing to make changes to a construction permit include, among others:

• The absence of a title document for the land plot;
• The absence of documents provided for by Part 7 of Article 51 of the Town Planning Code in the event of an application to make changes to a construction permit, except for an application to make changes to a construction permit exclusively in connection with extending the term of validity of such a permit;
• The submission of an application to make changes to a construction permit less than ten working days before the construction permit expires.

Furthermore, the termination of a lease agreement, if it contains a condition on the possibility of renewal for an indefinite term, cannot be a basis for refusing to issue a Permit. [27]

Thus, obtaining a Permit and making changes to it represents a complex process. Despite the regulation of the procedure for obtaining a Permit, in practice, developers nevertheless face a significant number of issues requiring resolution.

_____________________________

References

1. Order of the Ministry of Construction of Russia No. 117/pr dated February 19, 2015, On the Approval of the Construction Permit Form and the Operation Permit Form (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on April 9, 2015, No. 36782).
2. Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 1 (2022) (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on June 1, 2022).
3. Order of the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia No. 624 dated December 30, 2009, On the Approval of the List of Types of Engineering Survey, Project Documentation Preparation, Construction, Reconstruction, and Capital Repair Work for Capital Construction Projects that Affect the Safety of Capital Construction Projects (registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation on April 15, 2010, No. 16902).
4. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1816 dated November 12, 2020.
5. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District No. F04-3408/2021 dated June 23, 2021, in Case No. A46-19321/2020.
6. Federal Law No. 373-FZ dated July 3, 2016, On Amending the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, Individual Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation Regarding the Improvement of Regulation of the Preparation, Coordination, and Approval of Territory Planning Documentation... (the "Law No. 373-FZ").
7. Determination of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 302-ES20-16910 dated January 28, 2021, in Case No. A33-15156/2019.
8. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 874-p dated October 25, 2017, On Establishing the Term for Using Information Specified in GPZUs Approved Before July 1, 2017.
9. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District No. F06-17496/2022 dated May 18, 2022, in Case No. A57-1058/2021.
10. Clause 26 of the Resolution of the Plenums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 10/22 dated April 29, 2010.
11. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District No. F09-8997/21 dated November 30, 2021, in Case No. A07-29721/2020.
12. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 301-PEK15 dated November 11, 2015.
13. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 11, 2015, in Case No. 301-PEK15.
14. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District No. F09-7270/21 dated October 18, 2021, in Case No. A07-7755/2021.
15. Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 307-KG18-21642 dated April 29, 2019.
16. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District No. F07-19422/2021 dated January 26, 2022, in Case No. A13-16845/2019.
17. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District No. F03-1043/2020 dated June 22, 2020, in Case No. A51-5345/2019.
18. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District No. F09-234/22 dated March 25, 2022, in Case No. A07-22095/2020.
19. Resolution of the Tenth Arbitration Appellate Court No. 10AP-7138/2018 dated June 29, 2018, in Case No. A41-99489/17.
20. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District No. F09-7022/21 dated October 21, 2021, in Case No. A50-21272/2020.
21. Clause 10 of Informational Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 143 dated December 9, 2010.
22. Determinations No. 595-O-P dated July 3, 2007; No. 147-O-O dated January 17, 2012; No. 520-O dated March 29, 2016; No. 1174-O and No. 1175-O dated May 29, 2018; No. 2689-O dated October 25, 2018; and No. 3172-O dated December 20, 2018.
23. Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 13-P dated July 30, 2011.
24. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 10 and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 22 dated April 29, 2010, On Some Issues Arising in Judicial Practice when Resolving Disputes Related to the Protection of Property Rights and Other Real Rights.
26. Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 306-ES19-15447 dated December 17, 2019.
27. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District No. F09-2168/21 dated June 16, 2021, in Case No. A76-11785/2020.