- Статьи
- Society
- Objective limitation period: the time limit for challenging privatization will be limited to 10 years
Objective limitation period: the time limit for challenging privatization will be limited to 10 years
The limitation period for privatisation cases may be limited. Such a bill was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers. The state, Russian regions and municipalities will be able to refuse claims if more than 10 years have passed since the violation. At the same time, this project does not affect the processes of seizure of property on anti-corruption and anti-extremist lawsuits. It is this provision that carries risks, experts believe — the plaintiffs will try to qualify the cases as anti-corruption in order to exclude the use of the statute of limitations. How the mechanism will work and whether it will protect the interests of bona fide purchasers is described in the Izvestia article.
Limitation period in cases of privatization
The term for challenging the results of privatization will be limited to ten years, even if it took place in violation of the law. The relevant draft amendments to Article 217 of the Civil Code were developed by the Ministry of Economic Development, and on March 23 it was approved by the government commission on legislative activity, sources in the Cabinet of Ministers told Izvestia.
— The court will refuse to satisfy the claim for the recovery of privatized property if 10 years have passed since the date of the violation of the right after the disposal of the property, — explained Vladimir Gruzdev, Chairman of the Board of the Association of Lawyers of Russia.
The decision is aimed at implementing the instructions of the President of Russia to protect the rights of bona fide purchasers, as there is now serious legal uncertainty in the field of privatization, said Vladimir Kuznetsov, chairman of the All-Russian Trade Union of Mediators.
Although the general statute of limitations in civil law is three years, courts often count them not from the moment of the transaction, but from the moment when the prosecutor's office conducted an audit and formally learned about the violation, the expert explained. This approach allows the state to challenge privatisation deals made 20 or even 30 years ago.
At the end of February 2026, the draft law of the Ministry of Economic Development was supported by the Presidential Council for the Codification and Improvement of Civil Legislation. The Supreme Court opposed it, stating that the adoption was "inappropriate." The Prosecutor General's Office believes that the current regulation is sufficient, and "the initiative contradicts the norms of the Civil Code and infringes on the interests of the state."
However, the initiative of the Ministry of Economic Development will not be applied when considering anti-corruption and anti-extremist lawsuits. This corresponds to the decision of the Constitutional Court, which in 2024 indicated that the statute of limitations does not apply to anti-corruption lawsuits, recalled Asiyat Alibekova, partner of the Sokolov, Trusov and Partners Law Firm, head of corporate practice.
"Then the Constitutional Court separately emphasized that this exception does not apply to disputes about the recovery of property privatized with violations," she said. — However, in practice, the courts have already developed a different approach. They often consider such cases as the protection of non-property rights or public interests, so they actually ignore the statute of limitations. Because of this, a contradiction arises: on the one hand, there are deadlines in the law, on the other — in reality they are not always applied.
Why changes were needed
Alexander Shokhin, head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, noted that the issues of property protection when previously privatized property has been in the focus of attention of the business community over the past three years.
"The use of limitation periods creates certainty and stability of legal relations and at the same time encourages the parties to take timely care of protecting their rights," he stressed. — Since privatization is a type of purchase and sale, and the state participates in civil law relations on an equal basis with other persons, there is no reason not to apply the statute of limitations when challenging privatization.
An analysis of the practice of challenging privatization indicates the need to fully apply the statute of limitations to these relations, said Alexander Shokhin. Most of the privatization deals were completed about 30 years ago.
— Many privatized assets were in a worn—out condition, - said the head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs. — During the time after privatization, property, as a rule, has changed dramatically. The property has been rebuilt or renovated, and the equipment has been upgraded or replaced. This leads to the seizure of property from the owner, which is incomparably more valuable than the privatized one.
When challenging privatization, according to him, lawsuits are filed for the recovery of property from someone else's illegal possession to persons who did not even participate in the privatization. And the new bona fide owners actually cannot protect their rights, since they were not parties to the privatization transactions.
"Without making clear legislative decisions, there is a danger of replicating the practice of not applying the statute of limitations in other disputes in the presence of "public interests", which, if desired, can be found in any court case," Alexander Shokhin emphasized. — For example, when challenging transactions involving state corporations or state-owned companies.
The main purpose of the draft law is to establish clear and unambiguous statute of limitations for challenging transactions on the privatization of state and municipal property, Vladimir Kuznetsov believes.
— The non-application of limitation periods in practice leads to numerous cases of deprivation of large industrial assets and real estate, when owners who have invested in the development of enterprises for many years suddenly lose their property due to formal errors in documents from the early 1990s, - the lawyer recalled.
According to the expert, this practice actually blocks normal economic activity, since no owner of a privatized asset can feel completely safe, which has a very negative impact on the investment climate and the possibility of long-term planning.
Will the statute of limitations work?
The adoption of the bill will create reliable legal protection for bona fide owners, Vladimir Kuznetsov believes. The ten-year suspension period will ensure that, after a reasonable period of time, the results of privatization will not be reviewed under the pretext of old procedural flaws.
"This should stimulate the inflow of investments, as businesses will gain long—awaited confidence in the inviolability of property rights," he said. — At the same time, it is important to emphasize that the new rules will not affect lawsuits related to corruption, terrorism or extremism, which allows maintaining the necessary balance between the protection of private property and the interests of national security.
In fact, this is not a "cosmetic change", but an attempt to close one of the most painful gaps in civil turnover, says Alexey Gavrishev, managing partner of AVG Legal.
"However, it's too early to talk about full business protection," he said. — The bill explicitly leaves out anti-corruption and individual public law lawsuits, where the statute of limitations may still not apply. This means that the key risk is the qualification of the dispute. If the case is "transferred" to the anti-corruption plane, the ten-year limit will no longer save.
In practice, this is where the main difficulties will arise. Perhaps it is not a decrease in the number of conflicts, but their shift towards disputes about the legal nature of the claims, the lawyer believes. The business will argue that this is a limited—term privatization dispute, and the state will argue that this is a public legal requirement without a statute of limitations.
The real effect, experts say, will depend not so much on the text of the law as on how the courts begin to draw the line between "ordinary" privatization disputes and cases with a public element.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
