On 24 April 2026, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted Judgement No. 27-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 111, 114 and 133 (part 3) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation was considered in connection with the complaint of citizen P.V. PonomarevBackground
In the summer of 2017, Pavel Ponomarev, the head of the administration of the Khokholsky Municipal District of the Voronezh Oblast, was temporarily suspended from his position due to criminal proceedings on suspicion of abuse of power. The legality of the initiation of the criminal case was repeatedly challenged in courts and was ultimately confirmed on the ground that the applicant did not hold an elective position requiring a special procedure for criminal proceedings (Articles 447–451 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).
On 17 September 2018, P. Ponomarev’s contract was terminated due to its expiration. On 12 October 2018, the head of the investigative department overturned the investigator’s decision to initiate a criminal case against P. Ponomarev, citing a lack of evidence that the special procedure for criminal proceedings applied to him. Two days later, he initiated a criminal case against the applicant for the same crime for which he was subsequently convicted.
Later, the applicant’s lawyer demanded compensation for the damages caused by his temporary suspension from office. The courts, however, refused such compensation, linking that measure to the charge of committing a crime for which the applicant was convicted.
Position of the Court
The Constitution of the Russian Federation requires the creation of effective mechanisms to prevent, detect, and eliminate procedural violations resulting from the application of criminal procedural coercion measures, as well as to compensate for the damage caused by such violations. The legality of such measures should be assessed not only formally but also substantively, including compliance with the grounds and conditions for their application.
A fundamental guarantee of legality and validity of temporary suspension from office is the judicial procedure for its application, within which the judge proceeds from an analysis of the totality of facts and circumstances and grants the defence the right to be heard. The legality of such a judicial decision may be challenged in accordance with the established procedure, in particular before the appellate and cassation courts.
Temporary suspension from office may be revoked by the investigator (inquirer) when it is no longer necessary, which in itself does not indicate its illegality prior to such revocation. The revocation by the head of the investigative authority of an investigator’s decision to initiate criminal proceedings and the immediate initiation of a substantially identical criminal case, as occurred in the applicant’s case, does not serve as a means of assessing the lawfulness of the judicial decision on the temporary suspension of the accused from office. Such actions, which are not common practice, do not predetermine the assessment of this measure of procedural coercion as unlawful and, moreover, do not establish the right to compensation for damages caused by its application.
Confirmation of a person’s guilt by a final verdict does not preclude the right to compensation for damages caused by the unlawful application of this measure of procedural coercion. The court is obliged to determine whether the suspect (accused) suffered harm as a result of their temporary suspension and whether this damage was caused by an unjustified decision to initiate criminal proceedings, where the criminal proceedings for the same offense have been continued, and whether the unlawfulness of the said measure has been established in accordance with the established procedure. The court must, in particular, assess not only the violation of the procedural rules on the basis of which this coercive measure was applied, but also the nature and significance of such a violation in the context of the criminal prosecution, its impact on the criminal proceedings and its elimination in the criminal process, if any. A substantive assessment of the lawfulness of a coercive measure also presupposes establishing whether it was necessary and reasonable (or, conversely, unnecessary) in the specific circumstances.
Unconditional (i.e. automatic) compensation of lost salaries to an individual as a result of temporary suspension, where the individual’s criminal prosecution is confirmed by a guilty verdict that precludes his rehabilitation, and where the lawfulness and validity of the application of this measure against him have not been challenged in the manner prescribed by law taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the criminal case, would lead to a deviation from the constitutional principles of legality, justice, and equality.
The contested provisions do not contradict the Constitution: in the absence of the right of a convicted person to rehabilitation, the court has the right to compensate him for property damage (lost wages) caused by temporary suspension from office due to suspicion of committing a crime confirmed by a guilty verdict, provided that the unlawful and unjustified application of the indicated measure is confirmed in the manner prescribed by law and taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, and that it is established that the property harm was caused precisely by its illegality and unjustified nature.
The applicant’s case is subject to review.
Press Service of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation