The study emphasizes the influence of judicial determinations on the evolution of doctrinal interpretation and the development of enforcement practice concerning a number of post-reform provisions governing pledge and lien. Particular attention is given to the judicial recognition of an expanded scope of pledge rights, encompassing revenues generated from the use of the encumbered property, insurance compensation, and other instances of «transformation» of the pledged asset (a collateral). The analysis underscores the restraining construction adopted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, whereby the scope of the pledgee’s right is fixed at the moment of its creation and does not automatically extend to subsequently acquired assets or proceeds. Furthermore, the paper examines the approaches, unified in 2025, to construing the contested legal concept of a pledge arising by virtue of attachment. This examination is undertaken with due regard to the Supreme Court’s consistent refusal to accord the respective creditors priority in insolvency proceedings, including in cases involving tax-related attachments. With regard to the consequences of a pledge established by an unauthorized party, the author draws attention to the mitigation of adverse effects for the owner, who, in such circumstances, does not assume any additional contractual obligations. The standing of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on this matter is noted to be subject to scholarly debate: the expiration of the limitation period for a claim to recover a debt entitles the pledgor to demand the removal of the pledge record, and this approach is likewise extended to situations involving the lapse of the time limit for presenting an order of execution for compulsory enforcement. The analysis further specifies the legal implications of an onerous acquisition of pledged property by a purchaser who was unaware of the encumbrance, with particular reference to the interruption of the chain of transfers at the good-faith acquirer. In relation to the right of retention, the author systematizes the conditions for its lawful application as follows: legitimate possession of the item; a direct connection between the creditor’s claim and the retained item; and the inadmissibility of unlawful possession. It is emphasized that retention cannot be indefinite: once the debtor loses interest in the item, the lienor is obliged to initiate enforcement within a reasonable period.
O. S. Grin (Tue,) studied this question.