On Friday Vedomosti published a piece on our study of court practice on the seizure of property in Moscow.
Using the ASSETO platform we went through 371 cases in the Arbitration Court of Moscow. This was not a sample of "interesting" proceedings. It was practically all of the court practice available on the subject.
Today a piece on the same subject appears in another business paper, with entirely different conclusions.
The reader is told, for example, that "half of right-holders go to court", and that the uplift on the compensation offered can reach 73%.
It sounds striking. The problem is the method.
If you study 100 cases that have already reached court, you are from the outset studying those who decided to sue. That does not show how many owners go to court out of the total number of properties being seized.
Our figures give a different picture:
- about 5% of properties with a seizure decision reach court;
- the average uplift in cases where compensation increased is +35.3%;
- in aggregate the courts added 17.4 billion rubles for owners to the 56.3 billion rubles the city had offered.
And the point that matters most: the mere fact of going to court does not mean that compensation will rise.
Where there was no court expert examination, the court approved the sum proposed by the city in 95% of cases. In the remaining cases the sum changed for a reason other than a revaluation of the property: either the city itself increased the payment, or the court deducted from it the owner's debt to the City Property Department. Where an expert examination was carried out, compensation rose in 93.1% of cases.
The question is not simply whether to "go to court". The question is how the dispute is prepared, and what the value of the property is proved with.
We also have extreme cases. In individual matters the uplift was +272-385%. We do not build a headline on them. Analysis is not a search for the loudest figure. It is an attempt to show the real picture.
We consider that the property market ought to become more transparent. That requires figures which can be checked, rather than handsome percentages taken out of context.
We do not invent a picture of the market from individual cases. As the operators of ASSETO we have access to the data on every property in Moscow: its history, its owners, the changes, and what happened to it afterwards. Our analysis is therefore built on the data and on the full picture of what is happening, not on conjecture.
We are grateful to Vedomosti for its attention to the study. We will go on doing what we know how to do: collecting the data, checking it, and showing the market as it is.
The full study
The Vedomosti article
A transparent market starts with transparent data.
The piece (Vedomosti): https://www.vedomosti.ru/realty/articles/2026/08/28/1224518-summa-kompensatsii-virosla
Follow Consul Group on Telegram.
.jpg)
News
Events