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.

It products are often complex solutions combining hardware, software, and related services, delivered partly through digital means and integrated to serve a single purpose. Russian courts have been extremely cautious in extending the legal regime governing goods to intangible it products, including the application of civil law regulation to product quality and product delivery. Prerequisites for applying a consistent approach can be seen only in the sphere of consumer disputes. Against this background, Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 307-ES25-7553 dated 19 December 2025 in case No. 56-4294/2024 deserves particular attention. The case arose from a commercial dispute concerning the B2B supply of a comprehensive it product consisting of a server, software, and digital certificates granting access to technical support services. This commentary examines the distinctive features of the Supreme Court’s position regarding the legal characterization of the contractual relationship, the legal concept of it product quality, and the range of unresolved issues. The analysis employs formal-legal, systemic, and functional methods. The lower courts, relying on the contractual terms, excluded both the technical support certificates and the technical support services from the scope of statutory quality requirements, thereby limiting the application of Articles 469 and 475 of the Russian Civil Code. The Supreme Court, by contrast, endorsed a more functional understanding of the concept of “goods.” Under this approach, the central question concerns the legal nature of the certificates, their role within the entire IT product, and the extent to which the rules governing product quality are applicable to these certificates. The commentary outlines the specific features of applying a purposive (functional) approach to assessing the quality of complex hardware–software systems and highlights the issues associated with allocating contractual responsibilities between vendors (rights holders) and distributors within the supply chain. It is concluded that the Supreme Court’s position will prove significant for disputes involving business purchasers of IT products. The Court demonstrated the willingness to apply a less formal approach, thereby strengthening the remedies available to buyers. However, no comprehensive legal characterization was given, and several fundamental issues remained unresolved.