Invalidation of the Marriage Contract
The Plenum of the Supreme Court, in point 11 of its Resolution No. 5 of June 22, 2000, indicated, in particular, that the terms of a marriage contract that place one of the spouses in an extremely unfavorable position or violate the interests of minor children are grounds for declaring the contract invalid.
A marriage contract may be declared invalid by a court (voidable transaction) or be invalid regardless of such declaration (void transaction). A marriage contract is void if its content contradicts the legislation, in particular, if it is aimed at establishing rights and obligations of spouses prohibited by family or civil legislation, if it is fictitious or sham.
In this case, a fictitious marriage contract should be considered one that is made for appearance, without the intention to create corresponding legal consequences. For example, a marriage contract concluded solely to prevent the seizure of certain property belonging to the accused by changing the regime of separate ownership in the event of a criminal case for a mercenary crime that may result in confiscation of property in case of conviction, is fictitious.
A marriage contract may be sham when it is concluded with the aim of concealing some transaction (several transactions) that the parties actually intended. For example, in order to avoid paying income tax, the parties, through a marriage contract and by changing the ownership regime for certain types of property, concealed a contract for the sale of an apartment.
The Prosecutor's Office also uses civil law
For example, in a statement of claim to the court, D. indicated that she was in a registered marriage with D., with whom she concluded a marriage contract (23 years after the marriage registration). According to the terms of the contract, one of the two apartments and the property acquired during the marriage passes into her ownership. A criminal case was initiated against her spouse, for which her apartment and her property were inventoried. In court, the plaintiff asked the court to release this property from arrest.
The city prosecutor filed counterclaims in the case to establish the fact of the nullity of the Marriage Contract on the grounds of its fictitiousness, since it was concluded after the criminal case was initiated against D., with the aim of avoiding possible enforcement against his property.
The court of first instance refused the claim for recognition of the marriage contract as invalid, in connection with which the prosecutor filed a cassation protest against the court's decision.
The Vitebsk Regional Court, considering the case in the second instance, concluded that the Marriage Contract between spouses D. was concluded merely for show, without the intention of creating corresponding legal consequences, and therefore the specified transaction is null and void from the moment of its conclusion, overturned the decision of the court of first instance and issued a new one, establishing the fact of the nullity of the marriage contract.
Deputy Head of the Department for Supervision of Compliance with the Law of Judicial Decisions in Civil Cases, Justice Counselor Alla Sashcheko