The RF Constitutional Court checked the constitutionality of the provision of part 4.1 of Article 63 of the RF Town-Planning Code according to which the land use and development rules in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Sevastopol are approved by the highest executive authorities.

In the applicants' opinion, this provision resulted in a violation of the principle of separation of powers and is an undue invasion by the federal legislation in the regions' jurisdiction; however, the RF Constitutional Court disagreed with that position.

The practice of establishing an easement has been summarized:

  • the owner of a land plot on which a utility line owned by another person constructed after the land plot became privately owned is located may file a request for an easement;
  • the easement may be established only if the owner of the land plot (immovable property) does not have another way of exercising its right to use its plot (property);
  • an easement cannot be established if its terms deprive the land plot's owner of the ability to use its plot for the permitted use;
  • if there is more than one way of walking or driving to the land plot across the neighboring land plot the court should proceed on the basis that it is necessary to ensure the balance of the parties' interests and establish the easement on the terms least onerous for the owner of the land plot over which the easement is being established;
  • the terms of the easement may envision a way of changing the fee. Each of the parties may file a claim with a court to change (increase or decrease) the fee amount in the event of a change in the scope of restrictions of title of the owner of the land plot encumbered by the easement.

These findings are not revolutionary. These provisions were already being used in the law enforcement practice when resolving disputes over the establishment of an easement.

In this case the court once again noted that a condition restricting the tenant's access to premises for late payment of rent is a measure of the tenant's additional civil-law liability. So, a tenant who is behind in paying rent must pay for the time when the tenant didn't have access to the premises under the agreement.