This case comment examines Ruling No. 2-P of January 20, 2026, of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which reviewed the constitutionality of Article 14(6) of the Federal Law “On Digital Financial Assets and Digital Currency.” The contested provision conditioned judicial protection of claims related to digital currency on prior notification of tax authorities regarding ownership and transactions involving such assets. The presented analysis focuses on situations in which compliance with this requirement was objectively impossible, due to the absence of any established notification procedure for individuals who did not engage in digital currency mining. The Timchenko case demonstrates how a formally neutral access-to-justice condition operated in practice as a de facto denial of judicial protection, applied without any assessment of fault, unlawful conduct, or harm to public interests. The comment establishes that the provision conflicted with the principles of legal certainty and proportionality, as well as with the constitutional guarantees of equality before the law and the right to judicial protection. Particular attention is given to the Constitutional Court’s reasoning that the state, once permitting — even in a restricted form — the circulation of a certain asset, may not entirely exclude judicial protection of proprietary claims relating to that asset. The Court further emphasized that denying access to justice for failure to comply with a non-existent or indeterminate procedure is incompatible with constitutional standards. The final section highlights issues left unresolved by the judgment, including the broader permissibility of denying judicial protection as a means of enforcing public-law obligations and the growing tendency to employ private-law restrictions as instruments of state control. The comment recommends the establishment of clearer constitutional limits to prevent the use of civil-law mechanisms for purposes unrelated to the protection of private rights.