The case was brought by Anastasia Osipova, a self-employed lawyer from Cheboksary. She signed a debt collection contract setting her fee at 20% of the amount recovered. After the work was successfully completed, the client challenged the price clause in court and won: the courts declared the wording invalid because there was no fixed amount in rubles, and ordered Osipova to pay a fine of 50% of the amount awarded and compensation for moral damage.
The Constitutional Court acknowledged that the mandatory requirement for a fixed price is designed to protect the economically weaker party from hidden payments and unforeseen losses. At the same time, the court noted that in aleatory contracts, where payment is made only after the consumer actually receives material benefits, there is no threat to the consumer’s property interests. In such cases, a percentage-based pricing model fully serves the client’s interests.
The court set out how the burden of proof is distributed: in a dispute, the contractor must prove that at the time the contract was concluded the chosen payment method did not harm the consumer’s interests and that the consumer received, in an accessible form, all the information needed to estimate the maximum costs.
At the same time, the Constitutional Court defined the limits of its new position. Flexible pricing does not apply to procedural representation in civil, administrative and criminal cases: this category of contracts remains subject to the previous restrictions.
The rulings issued in the Osipova case are subject to review.
For entrepreneurs who provide services with result-based fees, such as consulting, brokerage and agency services, the ruling makes it possible to lawfully set percentage terms in consumer contracts without the risk of the price being declared invalid. The key condition: before signing the contract, the client must receive a clear explanation of how the final amount will be calculated and what its possible maximum is. Without this, the contractor will lose the dispute regardless of the Constitutional Court’s position.
Related news:
- A fixed-term contract with a substitute employee ends on the day the main employee returns — court practice on employment contracts
- Supreme Court allowed the Federal Tax Service to assess an additional 477 million after a closed audit — when the tax service can assess additional taxes after liquidation
- VAT on long-term contracts: new rules from 1 October 2026 — how to calculate VAT on long-term contracts
- Marketplaces will not be able to cut product prices at the seller’s expense without consent from 1 October 2026 — what discount restrictions marketplaces now face
