On 21 April 2026 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted Judgement No. 25-П in accordance with Article 47.1 of the Federal Constitutional Law «On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation». The case on the review of constitutionality of Articles 322 and 1080 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation was considered in connection with the complaints of citizen Sh.U.Abbasov.Background
In 2023, Shamil Abbasov concluded a car purchase and sale agreement with OOO «Arkont V» (OOO – similar to LLC) for over 1.8 million roubles. However, when processing the purchase, it became clear that the indicated price was valid only if the car was purchased on credit and if an additional agreement to the purchase and sale agreement was signed, the terms of which worsened the consumer’s position (the car’s price increased to 2.4 million roubles). At the same time, the buyer was given a discount of 400,000 roubles by purchasing a number of financial products from the seller’s partners, including an agreement (contract price 220,000 roubles) with OOO «D.S.Auto» (the seller’s partner) on the provision of an independent guarantee to secure the performance of obligations in favour of the bank.
The applicant filed a lawsuit to invalidate the additional agreement, terminate the agreement with OOO «D.S.Auto» for the independent guarantee, and recover the paid amounts, moral damages, and a fine. The district court partially upheld the claim, refusing to invalidate the additional agreement, which the appellate court later did, finding an abuse of rights on the seller’s part.
Position of the Court
Joint and several liability is possible subject to the special conditions of joint and several liability, designed to balance the interests of debtors and creditors in obligations complicated by multiple parties. Joint and several liability is based on its essential substantive features, allowing the obligation to be considered as a single obligation for several debtors and preventing the specification of the individual debtor’s obligation. However, regulation permits the establishment of joint and several liability for multiple obligations, particularly to provide additional protection to the creditor or to encourage proper performance of the obligations.
When the buyer is a consumer and the weaker party in the relationship with the seller, the latter’s joint and several liability for the claims against the counterparties brought in at the seller’s initiative can effectively protect the buyer’s rights and encourage responsible search for appropriate counterparties. Moreover, the interests of the seller who has fulfilled the joint and several obligation are compensated by the right to demand compensation from the remaining debtors in equal shares, net of its share. This mechanism allows for the necessary differentiation, while maintaining a single obligation to the creditor, to achieve the balance of interests among the joint and several debtors.
The purchase of a car gives rise to a number of interrelated obligations, which can be formalized as a package of related agreements. The mere fact that agreements are related does not constitute grounds for imposing joint and several liability on the parties to these agreements. However, taking into account the relatedness of the agreements with a clear economic commonality is a prerequisite for achieving a fair balance of rights and obligations of their parties and ensuring effective protection of the buyer. Strict application of the principle of relativity of the obligatory relationship in law enforcement practice (as in the applicant’s case) violates the constitutionally significant requirement for a balance of rights and obligations of the parties to the agreement.
Article 322 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not contradict the Constitution. It does not prevent the seller and its business partners - the buyer’s counterparties - from being jointly and severally liable for the return of the amounts due to the buyer under an agreement terminated at the buyer’s request (including an independent guarantee agreement) concluded with these counterparties and stipulating the provision of a discount or another benefit to the buyer under a vehicle retail sale and purchase agreement, provided, in particular, that such agreements were concluded with the buyer at the initiative and/or with the mediation (assistance) of the seller, and the choice of the counterparties or their compilation for the buyer’s subsequent choice was made by the same seller (under circumstances limiting the buyer’s adequate information and/or freedom of choice). Any other interpretation of this article would violate the constitutionally justified and fair balance of rights and obligations between the seller and the buyer and would not ensure effective state, including judicial, protection of consumer rights.
The proceedings to review the constitutionality of Article 1080 of the Civil Code were terminated, as it was not applied in the applicant’s case.
The applicant’s case is subject to review.
Press Service of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation