Shared Ownership of Unfinished Construction in Russia: Legal Regime and Practical Risks

 

October 24, 2022

BRACE Law Firm ©

 

The circulation of unfinished construction objects involves several complexities related to the necessity of their completion and existing restrictions on their use. The situation becomes even more complicated if such an object is owned by several persons, resulting in shared ownership.

This situation naturally raises numerous questions regarding the possession, use, and disposal of such an object, as well as issues regarding obtaining permits for the completion of the object. Questions arise both regarding the possession, use, and disposal of the object and regarding the possibility of allotting a share in order to terminate the right of shared ownership.

The Concept of an Unfinished Construction Object

An unfinished construction object (the "UCO") is a capital construction object whose construction is not completed. By virtue of the provisions of Article 130 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the "Civil Code"), unfinished construction objects are classified as immovable property (immovable things firmly attached to the land, the displacement of which is impossible without disproportionate damage to their purpose). Information about a UCO is entered within the framework of state cadastral registration of immovable property into the Unified State Register of Real Estate (the "EGRN"). [1]

In order for a UCO to acquire the status of a real estate object, it must be established, at the very least, that the construction of the foundation or similar work has been fully completed on it. [2] Foundation work that has not been finished in the prescribed manner indicates that the unfinished construction object lacks the characteristics of an independent thing, which is an obstacle to the state registration of ownership rights to this property. [3] Thus, if the foundation work for a UCO is not completed, such an object cannot be considered a real estate object. When establishing this fact (the completion of foundation construction work), reports from a cadastral engineer are typically used, and in the case of a dispute in court, forensic expert evaluations are conducted. At the same time, if the fact that the foundation construction work is unfinished is obvious, the court may make a corresponding conclusion without special evidence.

In a specific case, based on the structural elements of the disputed object, which consisted of only three piles without any connection between them, the court recognized it as the initial stage of the foundation for an apartment building to be constructed. In the case considered, the court found it possible to examine the case based on the evidence presented by the parties without conducting a forensic expert evaluation. [4]

The legal consequence of an object failing to meet the minimum requirements mentioned above is the fact that it is not recognized as a real estate object. At the same time, for a UCO to be recognized as a capital construction object when such objects are erected at the expense of the budget, by virtue of the provisions of Article 55.34 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation (the "Town Planning Code"), the object will be considered a capital real estate object from the date the information about it is included in the federal register of unfinished capital construction objects or regional registers of unfinished capital construction objects.

The grounds for inclusion are listed in Article 55.34 of the Town Planning Code (for example, establishing that the validity period of the construction permit has expired and has not been extended, or if more than twelve months have passed since the date of refusal to issue an operation permit for the capital construction object and the grounds for refusal have not been eliminated). The consequences of including such objects in the register are listed in Government Decree No. 1333 dated July 26, 2022. [5] The list of consequences is exhaustive. In general, the range of decisions listed in the specified regulatory act, which are made by authorized bodies, is limited to either making a decision on the expediency of completion (reconstruction) or on demolition. These measures are aimed at reducing the number of unfinished construction projects whose expediency of preservation and completion is not justified either from a financial perspective or from the perspective of the need to preserve such objects.

Shared Ownership of an Unfinished Construction Object

Property may be in common ownership with the determination of the share of each owner in the right of ownership (shared ownership). If the shares of the participants in shared ownership cannot be determined based on the law and are not established by an agreement of all its participants, the shares are considered equal. An agreement between the parties may establish otherwise. The agreement may also define the procedure for determining and changing their shares depending on the contribution of each of them to the formation and increase of the common property. Possession, use, and disposal are carried out based on an agreement between the parties, and if such an agreement is not reached, based on a court decision. The alienation of a share in shared ownership is possible only if the rights of the other shared owners, who have a pre-emptive right to acquire the alienated share, are respected.

When selling a share in the right of common ownership to a third party, the other participants in shared ownership have a pre-emptive right to purchase the share being sold at the price at which it is being sold and on other equal terms, except in the case of a sale at a public auction. When alienating a share, an important requirement is the notification of the other participants in shared ownership of the intention to sell the corresponding share.

The seller of a share must notify the other participants in shared ownership in writing of the intention to sell its share to a third party, indicating the price and other terms on which the seller is selling it. If the other participants in shared ownership refuse to purchase or do not acquire the share being sold in the right of ownership of the immovable property within one month from the date of notification, the seller has the right to sell its share to any person. If a share is sold in violation of the pre-emptive right of purchase, any other participant in shared ownership has the right, within three months, to demand in court the transfer of the rights and obligations of the buyer to them.

According to the meaning of these legal prescriptions, the seller's obligation to notify other participants in shared ownership of the sale of its share should be considered fulfilled from the moment the corresponding message is delivered to the addressees. A message cannot be considered delivered if it was not handed over to the addressee due to circumstances beyond the addressee's control.

The basis for the emergence of the right of shared ownership is the acquisition of property by several owners. Such acquisition is possible when several owners purchase a UCO based on a civil law transaction. Another basis is the recognition of the right of ownership to an unfinished construction object based on a court decision. When shared ownership of a UCO arises, a classic example of the emergence of such ownership is the recognition of the rights of participants in shared construction in an unfinished construction object, for example, an apartment building. According to Article 55 of the Town Planning Code, after the completion of the construction of an object, an operation permit must be obtained, which is a document certifying the completion of construction or reconstruction of a capital construction object in full accordance with the construction permit, and the compliance of the constructed or reconstructed capital construction object with the town planning plan of the land plot and the project documentation.

If the deadline for issuing the operation permit is violated, the shared construction participant has the right to protect its rights. If the rights of a shared construction participant are violated, the latter has the right to apply to court with a claim for recognition of ownership rights. At the same time, the possibility of such a right for the owner is confirmed by law enforcement practice.

The plaintiff's share in the construction is determined, has an exact description in the contract for shared participation in the construction of a residential building, as well as in the technical documentation for the apartment presented to the court, which is confirmed by the materials of the case, which, as the court correctly pointed out, allows the disputed residential premises to be separated from others and identified. Requirements for the recognition of ownership rights to an unfinished construction object in the form of an apartment in an apartment building are subject to satisfaction if the plaintiff has fulfilled the obligations under the shared participation construction contract and the apartment has been transferred to the plaintiff.[6]

A shared construction participant is a citizen who has duly fulfilled its obligations under the contract; if the other party (the developer) fails to fulfill the obligation, the citizen has the right to demand the protection of its rights by recognizing the right to a share in common shared ownership in an unfinished construction object in the form of an apartment and determining the size of the share in common shared ownership in the unfinished construction object. [7] The recognition of the ownership right of a shared construction participant to an unfinished construction object being erected (or a share in it) at the stage before the moment of commissioning as one of the measures for implementing such a mechanism of legal protection is not directly provided for by this law.

Meanwhile, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Civil Code, citizens and legal entities exercise their civil rights at their own discretion. At the same time, the limits for exercising civil rights are defined in Article 1 of this Code, and the methods of protection are in its Article 12, which establishes the recognition of a right as one of the methods of judicial protection of a violated right. Federal Law No. 214-FZ dated December 30, 2004, On Participation in Shared Construction of Apartment Buildings and Other Real Estate Objects and On Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation (the "Shared Construction Participation Law") also does not contain a prohibition on the recognition of ownership rights to an unfinished construction object (or a share in it). In accordance with Article 219 of the Civil Code, ownership rights to buildings, structures, and other newly created immovable property subject to state registration arise from the moment of such registration. A claim for recognition of a right is subject to satisfaction if the plaintiff presents evidence of the emergence of the corresponding right. The recognition of a right is one of the methods of protecting a right. At the same time, the person who considers themselves the owner of the disputed property must prove the legality of the grounds for the emergence of ownership rights to the real estate. Ownership rights to an unfinished construction object may be recognized by a court decision.

The fact that the construction of the disputed residential building was not completed at the time the court examined the case cannot violate the plaintiff's right to protect its civil rights by recognizing ownership rights to a share in the right of ownership to the unfinished construction object, since, based on the provisions of Articles 309 and 310 of the Civil Code, a shared construction participant who has duly fulfilled its obligations under the contract by making full payment for the apartment is entitled to expect the proper fulfillment of obligations under the contract by the investor, and if the other party fails to fulfill the obligation, to demand the protection of its rights, including by filing a claim for recognition of the right to a share in common shared ownership in an unfinished construction object in the form of an apartment and for the determination of the size of the share in common shared ownership in the unfinished construction object.

The general grounds for recognizing ownership rights to an unfinished construction object within the framework of shared participation are set out in paragraphs 3 and 17 of the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3 (2017).

Proper Fulfillment of Obligations by a Shared Construction Participant (Payment of the Contract)

These rules apply if the Developer is not in bankruptcy. At the same time, in the event of the developer's bankruptcy, claims of other persons against the developer for the recognition of the presence or absence of ownership rights or other rights or encumbrances in respect of immovable property, including unfinished construction objects, are subject to filing and consideration only within the framework of the bankruptcy case from the date the arbitration court issues a ruling on the introduction of observation in respect of the developer.[8]

The provisions of paragraph 7 of Chapter IX of Federal Law No. 127-FZ dated October 26, 2002, On Insolvency (Bankruptcy) (the "Bankruptcy Law") provide for special methods for satisfying the claims of citizens who are shared construction participants. By virtue of this, the legal position formulated in paragraph 17 of the Review cannot be applied to the disputed legal relations, as it is formulated for cases of claims filed by construction participants in action proceedings. According to the general rule of Article 201.1 of the Bankruptcy Law, the claims of construction participants who have fulfilled their obligations to make an investment contribution are included in a special register and are subject to satisfaction through the transfer of the corresponding premises provided for by the shared participation construction contracts.

Based on the provisions of paragraph 8 of Article 201.11 of the Bankruptcy Law, ownership rights in respect of a shared construction object may be recognized for a citizen (its participant) provided that the developer has obtained an operation permit for the residential building in the prescribed manner, and the developer and the construction participant have signed a transfer deed or another document on the transfer of the residential premises, parking space, or non-residential premises before the initiation of the bankruptcy case. Thus, the possibilities for recognizing a right to a UCO depend on the legal status of the developer and the fact of its being in bankruptcy proceedings.

Possession and Disposal of an Unfinished Construction Object Under Shared Ownership

The possession, use, and disposal of objects under shared ownership are determined by the general rules of the Civil Code. The disposal of property under shared ownership is carried out by agreement of all its participants. The possession and use of property under shared ownership are carried out by agreement of all its participants, and if consent is not reached, in the procedure established by the court. A participant in shared ownership has the right to be provided with a part of the common property proportionate to its share for its possession and use, and if this is impossible, it has the right to demand corresponding compensation from other participants who possess and use the property attributable to its share.

When alienating a share, the general rules on the necessity to notify the other owners apply. If a share is sold in violation of the pre-emptive right of purchase, any other participant in shared ownership has the right, within three months, to demand in court the transfer of the rights and obligations of the buyer to them. These norms provide legal guarantees for participants in common shared ownership when another participant sells its share in the common right of ownership.

In the event that the participants in common ownership were not notified of the foreclosure on the share of the debtor (a participant in common ownership) and their pre-emptive right to purchase this share before the public auction was violated by its sale to other persons at a public auction, such a right is restored in the procedure provided for by paragraph 3 of Article 250 of the Civil Code. [9] However, the pre-emptive right of the other owners applies only under the following conditions:

• The alienation of the share is in respect of a third party (not to another shared owner);
• The alienation is under a purchase and sale agreement or an exchange agreement (an onerous transaction).

The contribution of a share in the right of ownership of immovable property to the authorized capital of a company does not violate the rights of the co-owners of this property, does not require their prior notification, does not grant a pre-emptive right to its acquisition, and, as a consequence, does not provide them with the possibility of transferring the rights and obligations of the buyer to themselves. [10]

Possession and Obtaining a Construction Permit

Since a UCO cannot be operated other than for the purpose of completing construction, the shared owners must take actions to complete the construction.

In accordance with part 2 of Article 51 of the Town Planning Code, the construction and reconstruction of capital construction objects are carried out based on a construction permit. It should be noted that based on part 1 of Article 247 of the Civil Code, the possession and use of property under shared ownership are carried out by agreement of all its participants, and if consent is not reached, in the procedure established by the court. To obtain a construction permit for a UCO or for reconstruction to complete construction, the consent of all shared owners must be obtained. This requirement is mandatory.

A construction permit obtained without the consent of one of the owners of shared ownership may be declared invalid in court. [11]

Termination of Shared Ownership and Allotment of a Share

By virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 247 of the Civil Code, the possession and use of property under shared ownership are carried out by agreement of all its participants, and if consent is not reached, in the procedure established by the court. A participant in shared ownership has the right to be provided with a part of the common property proportionate to its share for its possession and use, and if this is impossible, it has the right to demand corresponding compensation from other participants who possess and use the property attributable to its share.

If the participants in shared ownership do not reach an agreement on the method and terms for the division of the common property or the allotment of the share of one of them, the participant in shared ownership has the right to demand in court the allotment of its share in kind from the common property. If the allotment of the share in kind is impossible, the owner being allotted has the right to be paid the value of its share by the other participants in shared ownership. According to the meaning of the above-mentioned norms of civil legislation, a co-owner, in the absence of an agreement between all participants in shared ownership on the use of the property and in conditions where it is impossible to allot its share in kind, has the right to demand payment of monetary compensation from the other participants.

The universally recognized principles of the inviolability of property and freedom of contract, which presuppose equality, autonomy of will, and property independence of the participants in civil law relations, and the inadmissibility of arbitrary interference by anyone in private affairs, determine the freedom of possession, use, and disposal of property, including the possibility of alienating one's property to the ownership of other persons, and transferring the rights of possession, use, and disposal of property to them while remaining the owner, and at the same time — the necessity of correlating the right of ownership belonging to a person with the rights and freedoms of other persons. This means, in particular, that the owner has the right, at its discretion, to perform any actions in respect of the property belonging to it, provided they do not contradict the law and other legal acts and do not violate the rights and legitimate interests of other persons.

Paragraph 3 of Article 252 of the Civil Code, acting in conjunction with other provisions of this Article, is aimed at implementing the constitutional guarantee to have property in ownership, to possess, use, and dispose of it both individually and jointly with other persons, at ensuring the necessary balance of interests of participants in shared ownership, as well as at providing guarantees of judicial protection of their rights (Rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 19, 2009, No. 167-O-O, dated July 16, 2009, No. 685-O-O, and dated July 16, 2013, No. 1202-O and No. 1203-O). If an agreement between all participants in shared ownership on the allotment of a share of the property to one (or several) of them is not reached, the court decides this issue in each specific case based on the study and evaluation of the totality of evidence presented by the parties. [12]

These norms of the law, in conjunction with the provisions of Articles 1 and 9 of the Civil Code, which determine that civil legislation is based on the recognition of the equality of participants in regulated relations and the inadmissibility of arbitrary interference in private affairs, require that when resolving disputes over imposing on other participants in shared ownership the obligation to pay monetary compensation to one of them, the necessity of observing the balance of interests of all co-owners must be taken as a basis.

At the same time, the right of the owner being allotted to be paid the value of its share can be realized only when the court establishes all legally significant circumstances, which include establishing the insignificance of the share of the owner being allotted, the possibility of their use of the disputed property, and the study of the objections of other participants in shared ownership regarding their acceptance of the share of the owner being allotted into their ownership, including establishing whether they have the material capacity to do so. Otherwise, the content and meaning of Article 252 of the Civil Code, which is intended to ensure the observation of the necessary balance of interests of all participants in shared ownership, is distorted.

Thus, the provisions of Article 252 of the Civil Code do not provide for an unconditional (compulsory) obligation for other participants in shared ownership to acquire the ownership right of the property of the owner being allotted. [13] That is, in a situation where the shared owners have not been able to agree, only a participant in shared ownership whose share is extremely insignificant and where the material capabilities of the other participants allow them to buy out such a share may demand payment of compensation for the belonging share.

When considering the issue of allotting a share in a UCO, the following should be taken into account. Since a UCO cannot be operated for purposes not related to the completion of construction, it is consequently impossible to allot a corresponding part in such an object. As follows from Article 219 of the Civil Code, ownership rights to buildings, structures, and other newly created immovable property subject to state registration arise from the moment of such registration. Proprietary rights, including ownership rights to real estate objects, arise only after state registration of the corresponding rights to these objects. A shared construction object becomes an object of civil rights, in respect of which, among other things, the recognition of ownership rights is possible, only from the moment of its individualization with the help of technical registration as a real estate object. [14]

Unfinished construction objects are classified by law as immovable property. Allotment can be demanded only in respect of an object that can be individualized. Considering the subject of a claim for the allotment of a share, the plaintiff must prove that as a result of the realization of its right to allot a share, ownership rights will also be established for an object that can be individualized and act as an independent object of civil rights.

The implementation of cadastral registration is provided for in respect of buildings and structures that have been commissioned in the prescribed manner, premises located in them, as well as in respect of an unfinished construction object. Since the presence of an unfinished construction object implies the possibility of its further transformation into a building or structure, this may entail a change in its characteristics and the composition of the premises in the object, which are determined upon completion of construction and commissioning of the object and are subsequently subject to indication in the technical plan of the building or structure. [15] By virtue of the foregoing, the placement of a room on cadastral registration before the completion of construction and commissioning of the building (structure) in which it is located is not provided for by Federal Law No. 221-FZ dated July 24, 2007, On the State Cadastre of Real Estate. [16]

Given the above, current legislation allows for the state registration of common shared ownership rights to the unfinished construction object itself, rather than to the premises within it.[17] This indicates the impossibility of allotting individual premises in a UCO for the purpose of terminating the right of common shared ownership. [18]

Thus, in the event that the shared owners have not been able to agree on the procedure for possession and use of the UCO, it appears that buying out the shares of the other owners is the only possible option. At the same time, a forced buyout is possible only in strictly defined cases: in the case of the insignificance of the share being bought out, if an agreement is not reached by the parties, if the other co-owners have the opportunity to acquire such a share, and also if the allotted object possesses characteristics that allow it to be identified. In this case, allotment can only be considered in cases with a high percentage of completion of the UCO.

Judicial Determination of the Procedure for Possession, Use, and Disposal of an Unfinished Construction Object

According to Article 244 of the Civil Code, property may be in common ownership with the determination of the share of each owner in the right of ownership (shared ownership) or without the determination of such shares (joint ownership); common ownership of property is shared ownership.

If the shares of the participants in shared ownership cannot be determined based on the law and are not established by an agreement of all its participants, the shares are considered equal; an agreement of all participants in shared ownership may establish the procedure for determining and changing their shares depending on the contribution of each of them to the formation and increase of the common property; a participant in shared ownership who has carried out at its own expense, in compliance with the established procedure for using common property, inseparable improvements to this property has the right to a corresponding increase in its share in the right to the common property.

Article 246 of the Civil Code provides that the disposal of property under shared ownership is carried out by agreement of all its participants. If an agreement on the procedure for possession and use of the UCO is not reached, a participant in shared ownership has the right to apply to court.

Within the framework of a specific case, the court established that since the plaintiff and the defendant, as participants in common shared ownership, did not reach an agreement on the procedure for possession, use, and disposal of the disputed object and the procedure for determining shares in the right of ownership to this object, and the defendant refuses to participate in financing the completion of the object's construction and does not give consent to perform any actions with the object, the plaintiff may demand in court to determine the procedure for using the common property by granting them the right to carry out the completion of the house with a subsequent increase in their share in the right of ownership to the specified object. Furthermore, a plaintiff who has provided evidence of incurring expenses for the further construction of the house may demand in court that their ownership right to a share in the corresponding amount be recognized. The possession and use of such an object can only be expressed in performing work for its further construction and commissioning. Since the parties did not reach an agreement on the issue of performing work to complete the construction, and the defendant refused to participate in financing the construction work of the house, thereby depriving the second owner of the possibility to exercise the powers provided for by Article 209 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff rightfully applied to court with a demand to determine the procedure for using the named object and to grant them the right to carry out the completion of the house. [19]

The operative part of the judicial act is formulated in an interesting way: to satisfy the plaintiff's demand to determine the procedure for using the common shared property, granting the plaintiff the right to complete the unfinished residential building at the specified address at its own expense to a 100% degree of readiness. The court left the determination of the size of the shares for consideration within a future claim. This example of judicial practice confirms that, firstly, the possession and use of a UCO are possible only for the purpose of completing construction (which excludes demands for the allotment of shares in kind in the form of separate objects of law); secondly, it confirms the admissibility of the method of protection in the form of determining the procedure for use in the form of completing the UCO.

At the same time, the payment of compensation to a participant in shared ownership by the other owners instead of allotting its share in kind is allowed with its consent. In cases where the owner's share is insignificant, cannot be realistically allotted, and they do not have a substantial interest in using the common property, the court may, even in the absence of the owner's consent, oblige the other participants in shared ownership to pay them compensation.

A participant in shared ownership who has carried out at its own expense, in compliance with the established procedure for using common property, inseparable improvements to this property has the right to a corresponding increase in its share in the right to the common property. A participant in shared ownership who has carried out inseparable improvements to the property at its own expense has the right to a corresponding increase in its share in the right to the common property if they were carried out in compliance with the established procedure for using the common property, that is, upon reaching the consent of its participants. [20] Thus, the law establishes the consequence of creating, with the consent of other co-owners, inseparable improvements to property under shared ownership in the form of an increase in the share of the person who carried out the inseparable improvements in the right to the common property. [21]

It appears that in the absence of the consent of other shared construction participants for completion, an interested participant may first apply to court for the determination of the procedure for possession and use of the UCO in the form of its completion, with the subsequent determination of the actual share taking into account the costs incurred. Thus, in the absence of the consent of shared construction participants in the realization of powers to complete a UCO, the solution to the resulting problem appears to be extremely long-term: after attempts to coordinate the procedure for possession, use, and disposal of the UCO (which must be documented), the participant has the right to apply to court to determine the procedure for possession, use, and completion, after which they have the right to apply to court with a demand to establish the true size of the shares and for the compulsory buyout of the shares of the other participants if there are grounds provided for by Article 252 of the Civil Code.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that the completion of an unfinished construction object is a complex institution in itself. In the case of owning a UCO under shared ownership, the completion of the UCO's construction becomes many times more complicated. At the same time, questions arise not only with the shared owners but also with authorized bodies, which will require the consent of all participants in shared ownership. When resolving the issue of possession, use, and disposal of a UCO, the mechanism should be worked out in detail and every stage related to attempts to reach an agreement with the shared owners and the costs incurred for completion should be documented.

__________________________________

References

[1] Part 7 of Article 1 of Federal Law No. 218-FZ dated July 13, 2015, On State Registration of Real Estate.

[2] Paragraph 38 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 25 dated June 23, 2015.

[3] Paragraph 24 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 73 dated November 17, 2011, On Certain Issues of the Practice of Applying the Rules of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on Lease Agreements.

[4] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga-Vyatka District dated October 18, 2021, No. F01-4920/2021 in Case No. A39-8468/2020.

[5] Government Decree No. 1333 dated July 26, 2022, On the Consequences of Including an Unfinished Construction Object, the Construction or Reconstruction of Which Was Carried Out Wholly or Partially at the Expense of the Budgets of the Budget System of the Russian Federation and Was Not Completed, in the Federal Register of Unfinished Capital Construction Objects or in a Regional Register of Unfinished Capital Construction Objects.

[6] Paragraph 16 of the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3 (2017).

[7] Ibid, paragraph 3.

[8] Review of the Practice of Resolution by Courts of Disputes Arising in Connection with the Participation of Citizens in the Shared Construction of Apartment Buildings and Other Real Estate Objects (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on December 4, 2013).

[9] Paragraph 63 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 50 dated November 17, 2015, On the Application by Courts of Legislation When Considering Certain Issues Arising in the Course of Enforcement Proceedings.

[10] Paragraph 1 of the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for January – July 2014 (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on September 1, 2014).

[11] Resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District dated January 27, 2011, in Case No. A75-4795/2010.

[12] Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 50-O dated January 15, 2015.

[13] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 56-KG20-10-K9 dated October 26, 2020.

[14] Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 10/22 dated April 29, 2010, On Certain Issues Arising in Judicial Practice in Resolving Disputes Related to the Protection of Ownership Rights and Other Proprietary Rights.

[15] Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 306-ES14-2019 dated December 2, 2014.

[16] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District No. F04-3261/2019 dated September 10, 2019, in Case No. A46-15742/2018.

[17] Letter of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia No. OG-D23-1407 dated February 16, 2018.

[18] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District No. A46-15742/2018 dated September 10, 2019.

[19] Resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the North-Western District dated August 19, 2013, in Case No. A21-5396/2012.

[20] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District No. F09-7694/19 dated November 21, 2019, in Case No. A71-13088/2017.

[21] Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 1 (2017), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on February 16, 2017.