Reopening Bankruptcy Court Acts in Russia on New Circumstances

⚖ Legal sources checked: 25 October 2026 · For parties to bankruptcy disputes

This guide is for a creditor, debtor or counterparty participating in a separate bankruptcy dispute. It covers reopening on new or newly discovered circumstances. Ordinary review of errors in admitting a claim is addressed in the creditor-register appeal guide. The special mechanism for hidden assets discovered after personal bankruptcy is explained separately.

New or newly discovered circumstances

A newly discovered circumstance existed when the act was made. Under Article 311(2)(1), it must be material and neither known nor capable of being known to the applicant. Explain why the fact itself could not have been known, rather than merely when a paper was received. Paragraphs 4–5 of Supreme Commercial Court Plenum Resolution No. 52 distinguish that fact from new evidence on an issue already examined.

New circumstances arise after the act and must fall within Article 311(3). The table provides common checks rather than an exhaustive list of grounds. Constitutional and other special grounds require the precise statutory conditions.

Which act can be reopened, and by which court?

Article 309 concerns a final act. Paragraph 1 of Resolution No. 52 separately addresses court orders: their appealability or obstruction of further proceedings matters. For first-instance orders appealable to the appellate court, the guidance connects reopening with expiry of the appeal period. Check the status of the particular bankruptcy order instead of transferring rules from a different kind of act.

Under Article 310, the application goes to the court that issued the act to be reopened. If a higher court varied it or made a new act, that court conducts the relevant reopening. If it merely upheld the earlier act, paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 52 leaves reopening to the court that issued that earlier act. Collect the complete sequence and identify the operative outcome.

A special bankruptcy challenge to an underlying debt judgment, changing the register and reopening a bankruptcy order are different procedural steps. When disputing another creditor’s claim, first compare your standing and requested relief with the guide to objections against a creditor claim. This article does not replace special Bankruptcy Law grounds and time limits.

Three months from the ground, not from any new paper

The general rule in Article 312(1) is no more than three months from the emergence or discovery of the ground for reopening. On application, the court may restore time if the restoration request is filed within six months of the same event and the reasons for delay are accepted as valid. This is a judicial assessment, not an automatic extra three months.

A change of practice under Article 311(3)(5) has special rules: publication of the relevant resolution or, in the situation covered by Article 312(1), posting of the refusal to transfer the complaint. Article 312(3) additionally limits this particular ground to six months from the finality of the last merits act, provided appeal and cassation opportunities have been exhausted. Do not apply this special outer limit to every reopening ground.

Hypothetical reasoning check, not a reported case. A dispute concerned RUB 900,000. The applicant finds a record of a RUB 250,000 payment and calculates a balance of RUB 650,000: 900,000 − 250,000 = 650,000. Correct arithmetic does not establish a reopening ground. Identify the fact, whether it existed when the act was made, whether it was known or previously discoverable and why it affects the result. If the payment was already debated, a fresh copy of its confirmation does not turn an old argument into a newly discovered circumstance.

Document pack and application outline

1. Acts and standing: the challenged act, subsequent decisions, case and separate-dispute references, evidence of participation and authority.
2. Ground matrix: exact Article 311 provision → fact → supporting document → affected judicial finding.
3. Chronology: dates of the act and its finality, emergence and discovery of the circumstance; incoming correspondence, delivery or publication records and other evidence of knowledge.
4. Why it could not have been known: earlier requests, replies, available case materials and an explanation of why the fact was not discoverable during the original proceedings. For the relevant ground, personal forgetfulness does not answer that question.
5. Filing: signature and authority, copies of the application and documents other participants do not have, and proof of service under Article 313. If late, include a separate reasoned restoration request with evidence.

Article 313 requires the court and parties, details of the challenged act and dispute, the relief sought, the specific new or newly discovered circumstance, supporting documents and an attachment list. Paper copies go to other participants by registered post with delivery notification; the law specifies systems for electronic delivery. An arbitrary email is not equivalent to proven compliance.

After filing, retain receipt evidence and monitor the court’s decision on acceptance or any direction to remedy defects. A clear connection between the statutory ground and the outcome matters more than the volume of attachments.

Questions and answers

Legal sources

Checked on 25 October 2026: the Commercial Procedure Code as revised on 15 December 2025, effective 1 January 2026; Resolution No. 52 as revised on 9 December 2025. Future amendments were not applied.

• Article 309 and Article 310.
• Article 311, including paragraph 2.1.
• Article 312: time limits; Article 313: form and attachments.
• Supreme Commercial Court Plenum Resolution No. 52 of 30 June 2011, paragraphs 1–5.