Decisions of Rosreestr can be appealed to appeal commissions

The White House plans to expand the possibilities for pre-trial appeal of Rosreestr decisions to suspend registration of rights to real estate and cadastral registration – a bill has been submitted to the State Duma to introduce such a procedure from 2026. The procedure will not be mandatory—the option to go straight to court remains. Experts note that disputes with Rosreestr over its decisions often occur, but they doubt the effectiveness of the introduced procedure – it, however, is capable of cutting off obviously unlawful decisions.

The government has submitted to the State Duma a bill providing for the introduction, starting in 2026, of a pre-trial procedure for appealing decisions of Rosreestr to suspend cadastral registration or registration of rights to real estate. Such decisions, let us explain, are made if the registrar doubts the existence of grounds for registration or accounting. In fact, we are talking about expanding the pre-trial appeal procedure – now its application is limited to decisions to suspend cadastral registration and registration of rights in the event that these procedures are carried out simultaneously as a single service (for example, when creating a new property).

The proposed pre-trial procedure will not become optional. Applications will be submitted to appeal commissions, which include equal parts representatives of the rights registration authority and the national association of self-regulatory organizations (SRO) of cadastral engineers. At the same time, representatives of the SRO will not always participate in the proceedings – they will be involved only when appealing the suspension of cadastral registration. If you disagree with the commission’s decision, you can appeal it in court – simultaneously with the appeal of the suspension decision.

ProLegals lawyer Andrei Statsenko believes that the introduction of a pre-trial procedure is generally justified and is in line with general trends – trials on such disputes take six months, and the court may oblige a re-examination of the application rather than registration. Rustam Kurmaev and Partners lawyer Vladislav Gates notes that Rosreestr quite often suspends registration. There are more than 60 grounds for this, which “gives a certain margin of appreciation” – and therefore the validity of the suspension often becomes the subject of legal dispute. Moreover, adds Nikolai Titov, co-founder of the law firm at Legal, “now citizens, having received a decision to suspend, even an obviously illegal one, prefer to follow the instructions of Rosreestr – it’s faster and cheaper than months-long trials, but this practice does not contribute to the legality of the registrars’ activities.”

However, senior lawyer at IM Legal Olga Shaposhnikova believes that the effect of pre-trial challenge will be small – by analogy “with the out-of-court challenge of the cadastral value, in which the effectiveness of the review was low, the procedure itself delayed the period of challenge for several months – despite the fact that the workload of the courts for such business has practically not decreased.” Vladislav Gates has similar forecasts: “If this procedure became mandatory, then we could say that such a step could help reduce the burden on the courts.” In addition, he adds, the commissions “cannot be considered as a completely independent authority,” since they are half formed from representatives of Rosreestr – in this case, interested parties will most likely prefer the court. According to Nikolai Titov, extrajudicial procedures can become a “filter” for obviously unlawful decisions.

Evgenia Kryuchkova