Andrey Klishas, representing the Federation Council at Russia’s Constitutional Court, said existing law allows courts to replace a percentage-based child-support payment with a fixed sum when the standard calculation harms one party’s interests.
Klishas spoke at the court on Oct. 8 during a hearing on a complaint by Matvey Safonov, goalkeeper for Paris Saint-Germain and Russia’s national team. The case concerns paragraph 1 of Article 81 of Russia’s Family Code, which sets support for one child at one-quarter of a parent’s earnings. Klishas said that provision should be read alongside Article 83, which allows a fixed payment when a share of income would substantially harm either party’s interests.
He argued that a district court, rather than the Constitutional Court, should resolve the dispute by assessing the child’s needs, living conditions and expenses. The party seeking a different calculation must show that the percentage-based method infringes its interests. Klishas said the amounts involved were striking but did not, by themselves, make the law unconstitutional.
In January 2024, Moscow’s Nikulinsky District Court ordered Safonov to pay one-quarter of his income for his daughter Maya, who was born in 2021. The court used a monthly salary of 8 million to 12.5 million rubles that he had earned at FC Krasnodar. Safonov proposed fixed payments of 300,000 rubles a month. Appeals courts upheld the order, and Russia’s Supreme Court declined in May 2025 to refer his complaint for review.
Safonov’s complaint said he voluntarily paid about 8.9 million rubles for his daughter from December 2021 through November 2023, first 500,000 rubles and later 250,000 rubles a month. He also said he transferred an apartment worth about 57 million rubles and paid for renovations and improvements. After the court order took effect, he paid 61.7 million rubles in arrears for January 2022 through May 2025. He said his total payments exceeded 90 million rubles.
Dmitry Mezentsev, the president’s representative at the Constitutional Court, also said ordinary courts have the tools to balance both sides’ interests. He said the child’s needs should remain the priority while avoiding an excessive burden on the payer. Safonov did not attend the hearing and was represented by lawyers.