The Balance of Public and Private Interests in Land Expropriation: Issues of Legal Practice

The article addresses the legal problems of balancing public and private interests in the expropriation of land for state and municipal needs. This institution has a dual nature: on the one hand, it enables the implementation of strategic infrastructure and defense projects; on the other hand, it directly restricts the constitutional right to private property guaranteed by Article 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The analysis covers the criteria of “public necessity,” the equivalence and timeliness of compensation, and the risks of replacing genuine public interests with corporate ones. Special attention is given to the interaction and conflicts between land, civil, housing, and urban planning law, as well as their impact on judicial practice. The study also examines recent case law of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (2023–2025), which demonstrates a trend toward limiting expansive interpretation of expropriation grounds and emphasizing the exceptional nature of this measure. The methodological framework includes the formal legal method, applied to the interpretation of Article 49 of the Land Code and Article 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in defining the permissible limits of state interference in private property; the comparative legal method, used to contrast Russian approaches with foreign concepts of public necessity; and the systemic method, employed to analyze the interaction and conflicts between land, housing, and urban planning legislation. The novelty of the study lies in the identification of key trends in the application of land expropriation law based on the Supreme Court’s practice in 2023–2025. An examination of cases involving compensation, the reconciliation of competing public interests, the enforcement of compensation awards, and the compulsory expropriation of agricultural land at the request of subsoil users demonstrates the Court’s effort to restrict broad interpretations of Article 49 of the Land Code and to reaffirm the exceptional nature of expropriation. The article argues for the adoption of a federal standard for calculating compensation, encompassing market value, lost profits, and relocation expenses, as well as the strengthening of procedural safeguards for verifying alternatives to expropriation and prioritizing compensation payments to owners. These proposals are directly linked to the identified gaps in legislation and practice and are aimed at reinforcing the balance between public and private interests.