Why the writ was refused
An ad hoc tribunal divided a land plot between T. V. Solodovnikova and another owner, ending their co-ownership. The state court refused an enforcement writ, treating real property and subsequent registration as matters reserved to state courts. The applicant challenged Civil Code Article 131(1) and Real Property Registration Law Article 14(2)(5).
The constitutional interpretation
Under Judgment 46-P, those provisions do not exclude the duty to issue a writ in a civil ownership dispute unless a public-policy violation is established and fully explained. Real property or the need for registration alone does not establish such a violation. A separate exclusion, such as the dispute’s inheritance character, must still be considered.
Good faith and third-party rights
Sections 4.2 and 5.2 preserve protection for non-consenting third parties. An award deciding their rights and obligations conflicts with public policy; an independent property claim also remains possible. Established sham proceedings, evasion of law or disregard of third-party interests may justify refusal. Bad faith requires proof and explanation, not an inference from the type of property.
Disposition and limits
The Constitutional Court upheld the provisions as interpreted and ordered reconsideration of the applicant’s court decisions. It did not itself issue a writ or register title. The judgment does not guarantee enforcement of every real-property award: statutory exclusions, review grounds and third-party remedies remain applicable.
Using the comparison
First distinguish the private ownership dispute, registration and the particular public-policy objection. The guides on arbitrability, enforcement and setting aside and refusal address these questions. In another case, identify whose rights the award actually decides and the facts supporting the alleged violation.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.