The majesty of a court is measured neither by the height of its columns nor the pomposity of its phrasing. It manifesteth in that singular moment when the great machinery of State uttereth a 'no' to a citizen, and the Court possesseth the fortitude to compel that machine to heed the Law. On the twenty-fourth day of August, in the year of our Lord 2026, the Supreme Court of Russia did precisely this.
| | | |
|---|---|---|
|3
decrees of lower tribunals overturned|47.8%
the proportion of places in the 10th forms for 9th form graduates planned in Yekaterinburg|>63%
of 9th form graduates across the Realm choose Vocational Education|
Sources: Supreme Court of the RF, Yekaterinburg data for 2026, Ministry of Education of Russia.
This chronicle commenceth at School No. 80 in Yekaterinburg. The son of one Mistress Valentina Berseneva, a resident of the Sverdlovsk region, completed his ninth year of schooling and successfully underwent the state final examinations. The family desired that the youth continue his studies at the same establishment, not in a specialised track, but in an ordinary general education tenth form.
Alas, the school had seen fit not to open such a class; admissions were conducted solely for specialised directions, requiring an individual selection. Rather than continuing the educational bond, the Headmaster effected an expulsion with a phrasing of most tedious bureaucratic coldness: "in connection with the receipt of education (completion of studies)." The ninth year was declared the finale, though the Law deemeth the tenth and eleventh years to be obligatory.
Mistress Berseneva sought redress in the courts. The court of first instance sided with the school. The appellate and cassation courts followed suit: three judicial tiers relied primarily upon the local ordinances of the schoolhouse. Only the Judicial Chamber for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court saw fit to annul all previous decisions in Case No. 45KAS-26-34-K7, stating plainly that the circumstances had been assessed in a "formalistic" manner.
The intent of the highest authority is most lucid. The state final examination after the ninth class confirmeth the conclusion of one stage—the basic general education. It doth not imply that the child hath received a full general education, and therefore, it granteth the school no right to sever the educational relationship.
Part 5 of Article 66 of Law No. 273-FZ "On Education in the Russian Federation" nameth primary, basic, and secondary general education as obligatory. For a specific pupil, the necessity of secondary general education persisteth until the age of eighteen, should it not be obtained sooner. Article 67 demandeth the admission of all who possess the right to education of the corresponding level; for a state or municipal school, the sole legitimate ground for refusal remaineth the absence of vacant places, save for those exceptions explicitly enumerated by Law.
Indeed, the Law permitteth individual selection for classes of advanced study and specialised tracks. Yet, the Supreme Court hath restored the proper hierarchy of norms: a permitted selection cannot be transformed into a filter, after which a child is effectively told that his schooling is at an end. The local regulations of a school stand beneath the Federal Law and the Constitution—not above them.
This decree doth not imply an automatic prohibition of specialised classes, nor doth it guarantee a place in any chosen school should there truly be no room. Rather, it signifieth this: the school and its governors are not entitled to first cast a youth out of the system and subsequently cite their own organisation of the curriculum as a justification. If the network of classes faileth to provide a lawful choice, it is a failure of governance, not the fault of the child.
The figures from Yekaterinburg reveal why the struggle of one family possesseth a significance for the whole Realm. For the academic year of 2026/27, the city counted 19,436 ninth-form scholars across 701 classes. To continue their studies, it was planned to open 333 tenth-form classes with 9,283 places. This representeth but 47.8% of the graduates—less than one place for every two souls. The universal profile was the weakest of all, and in the vast majority of schools, an individual selection was mandated.
Such a ratio, in itself, doth not prove a violation: many youths consciously choose technical schools and colleges. According to the Ministry of Education, in 2025, more than 63% of ninth-form graduates opted for secondary professional education. This is a noble and necessary path, provided it be chosen by the child and family, and not imposed by a dearth of school benches.
But choice ceaseth to be a choice when the general tenth form vanishth, specialised selection becometh ubiquitous, and the refusal is accompanied by a ready suggestion to seek a college. Then, vocational guidance stealthily transformeth into administrative distribution: the system decideth for a fifteen-year-old that his academic trajectory is complete. It is precisely this deception that the Supreme Court hath halted.
In this tale, it is paramount not only who triumphed, but against whom. On one side stood an ordinary family, devoid of administrative influence. On the other—the school, its local rules, and three enacted judicial decisions. The highest authority did not shield a convenient practice with the prestige of the State, but rather corrected a State error. Herein lieth the true vocation of the judiciary.
Such episodes are precious precisely because they are rare. In the daily experience of the citizen, a departmental parchment often appearth more potent than a general principle, and a formal reference to procedure more convincing than a living violation of rights. Here, the Supreme Court hath reminded us: the Law existeth not so that the administration may more easily draft its timetables and staffing lists. The administration existeth so that the lawful right of a human being may be realised.
This decision hath a most unpleasant underside. The Constitutional Court, as far back as Decree No. 39-P of July 23, 2020, had explained the constitutional-legal meaning of individual selection. Nevertheless, six years later, a family was forced once more to traverse three tiers of litigation. According to "Kommersant," in 2025, following the intervention of the Prosecutor General, similar violations were discovered in the schools of nine regions. Thus, the problem lay not in the absence of a rule, but in the habit of reading the convenient portions of the Law in isolation from the inconvenient ones.
Justice in a school dispute is most sensitive to the passage of time. A judicial decree may be overturned, but a lost academic year cannot be restored by a procedural act. Therefore, the merit of the Supreme Court is indubitable, yet the true scale of its authority shall be determined not only by the victory of Mistress Berseneva, but by the swiftness with which this position is adopted by schools, municipal bodies, and lower courts.
Following this cause, it is insufficient to merely dispatch another circular to the schools. The governors should examine their local acts, abolish the automatic expulsion after the ninth form, and reconcile the number of universal tenth forms with actual demand. Should places be lacking, the family ought to receive assistance in securing a place in another establishment, rather than a mere oral direction toward the vocational system.
To the lower courts, a vital beacon hath been lit: one cannot examine local procedure outside the context of constitutional law, which that procedure is bound to serve. Otherwise, the court transformeth into a mere notary for an administrative decision. In this matter, the Supreme Court acted as a true court—it saw the human being behind the papers and restored the hierarchy of the legal system.
On the twenty-fourth of August, the highest judicial instance proved its authority not by declaration, but by the restraint of the State in favour of the citizen. It did not bestow a privilege upon the schoolboy—it returned to him that which was already guaranteed by Law. In today's Russia, such clarity is most precious. A strong court is not one that always supporteth the Crown or the Government. It is a court whose "no" the government is obliged to hear when an ordinary man standeth before it.
Supreme Court of the RF: communication of August 24, 2026, regarding the protection of a minor's right
Federal Law No. 273-FZ: Article 66 — obligatory levels of general education
Federal Law No. 273-FZ: Article 67 — admission for study and individual selection
"Kommersant": circumstances of the case and the practice of specialised selection
EAN: data on ninth and tenth forms in Yekaterinburg for 2026
Ministry of Education of Russia: results of the admission campaign to colleges and technical schools in 2025