The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation issued an important ruling concerning the application of acquisitive prescription, finding that the mere knowledge of the long-term possessor of their lack of ownership of the property is not an absolute basis for refusing to recognize possession in good faith.

This decision was made following a complaint by a woman who had lived in her deceased stepfather's apartment for over 30 years, but the courts refused to recognize her right of ownership by acquisitive prescription, citing her knowledge of the public ownership of the escheated property.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation recognized that there are two approaches to determining the good faith of acquisitive prescription in law enforcement practice and provided a binding interpretation of the law.

The court stated that the public owner's prolonged inaction creates legitimate expectations in the owner, and that continuous possession does not always mean continuous use of the apartment.

Therefore, knowledge of the public owner cannot be the sole obstacle to recognizing possession in good faith.

Conclusion:

Courts can no longer automatically deny recognition of ownership by adverse possession solely on the basis that the owner knew of the lack of a registered right or of the public nature of the property. Other circumstances evidencing bad faith must be proven, as well as the public owner's prolonged inaction. This opens up new opportunities for protecting the rights of long-standing owners, particularly in cases of ownerless property.