How to file a motion to include a co-defendant in civil proceedings?

Sometimes responsibility for the violation of rights lies with several persons, and a participant in the case may file a motion to involve co-defendants. A co-defendant is a person who must or may, in accordance with the law, bear consequences with the main defendant for violations of the rights of the plaintiff.

It is also possible to involve a co-defendant in the process in order to avoid filing a claim for recourse. When the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant are subject to satisfaction, and the defendant, in turn, can, by force of law, turn to another person and compensate for the damage incurred (for example, in claims for consumer protection when a consumer claims a claim against a seller, and a seller claims a claim against a manufacturer).

It is not difficult to draw up a petition to involve co-defendants on your own. The main task of the applicant is to justify the need for such a person to participate in the case. With reference to legal norms. If you have any difficulties, you can contact the site’s duty lawyer.

:

Petition to involve co-defendants

Who is a co-defendant?

A co-defendant is a citizen who, along with the main defendant, is involved in the case.
The procedure may involve either one or several co-defendants. They have equal rights and are assigned responsibilities (Article 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation). The initiative to attract additional participants can come from the plaintiff and the defendant.

The procedure is carried out by submitting an official petition:

1. The plaintiff can indicate the required number of defendants directly in the statement of claim.
2. Other participants in the process must file a motion to involve a co-defendant after the case has been accepted for proceedings.

Reference! You can attract an unlimited number of co-defendants. If there are many persons participating in the case, the court may divide it into several cases.

Important points

A judge has the right to deny a motion to involve a co-defendant in a civil proceeding. For this reason, it is of great importance to provide compelling arguments associated with such an appeal.

When writing a petition, it is imperative that the following conditions be met:

• The presence of one basis for claims against the first, second and other defendants, compliance with the homogeneity of the subject of the dispute;
• The defendants must commit a general violation of the plaintiff's interests.

When determining the range of defendants, it is necessary to take into account all these circumstances. For example, if a salary arrear arises, it is impossible to demand its payment from the founder or accountant; only a legal entity can respond to such a requirement. This is explained by the fact that the emergence of labor relations is possible only between the employee and the institution.

How to file a motion to include a co-defendant in civil proceedings?

When submitting an application, you must follow the instructions given in the table.

Form

The Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not prescribe the form of the petition. But traditionally, the document is drawn up according to the general rules for filing a claim.

It is imperative to emphasize that the involvement of the specified person is necessary. It is worth noting that without his participation the case cannot be considered.

Content

The petition consists of several sections:

1. A cap. It indicates the name of the judicial authority and its address. The details of the applicant, plaintiff, and defendant are also recorded. These include last name, first name, patronymic, residential address, contact phone number. If one of the parties is a legal entity, the organizational and legal form and legal address are noted.
2. Content part. The name of the document and the essence of the dispute are written down. The following explains the reasons why it is necessary to involve a co-defendant. It is important to formulate them in such a way that the rationale for the decision is clear. A reference is made to Article 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, on the basis of which the petition is sent.
3. The essence of the request. Listing of the applicant's requirements.
4. Applications. A list of documents that are attached to the application is provided.
5. Date of compilation, signature of the applicant.

Sample

The document is drawn up randomly, indicating all the necessary information. If you have difficulties with the design, you can use this sample:

Download a sample petition to involve a co-defendant

Reasons for applying

Note! There are a number of main reasons why multiple defendants are allowed:

• Presence of unity of law. In cases where minor citizens (children) are involved as defendants and their parents are involved in the case as persons bearing responsibility;
• If there is only one reason. In other words, several persons are participants in the proceedings on the filed claim;
• If there is homogeneity of rights. If the defendant is not one person, but an organization, house, group, etc.;
• There are situations when, during the consideration of cases, the involved defendant is recognized as improper, which requires his replacement or the involvement of other persons.

Questions from our readers

Is it possible to involve an insurance company as a co-defendant if the victim in an accident immediately filed a claim against the culprit?
After a car accident, participants should contact their insurance company to resolve issues. But sometimes the parties bypass this point.

Attention! If the party injured in the accident has filed a claim against the culprit for compensation for damage, the insurance company can be brought in as a co-defendant.

To do this, a petition is drawn up, which indicates:

• name of the judicial authority;
• applicant details;
• details of the civil case;
• impossibility of considering a dispute without an insurer;
• link to Article 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation;
• please involve the insurance company as a co-defendant, indicating its name and address.

In the arbitration court

In this situation, you should be guided only by the rules of the AIC. This regulatory document contains provisions explaining what information must be included in the application.

Please note! First of all, it is necessary to indicate the grounds that served as the reason for filing an application with a request to involve a co-defendant. There are similarities between them and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, when drawing up a petition, it is recommended to rely on the Code of Civil Procedure (Article 46).

It is necessary to include such links throughout the main text.

In addition, the details of the document itself must necessarily contain an indication of the judicial authority. In this case, a reference to the arbitration court is provided. The same applies to the trial of the case. Its consideration takes place within the framework of the arbitration process.

Case studies

Example 1.

Sveta Kukushkina is trying to save up for an apartment. Six months ago, her friend Lyudochka persuaded her to borrow 200,000 rubles to buy a car, she promised to return everything with interest in a month, she even wrote a receipt. But Lyudochka unexpectedly divorced her husband and won’t give her the money; she says she has nothing to live on herself. And the car is registered to my husband. Sveta filed a lawsuit to collect a debt from her ex-girlfriend. But a lawyer she knew explained to her that there was a much greater chance of getting money from Lyudochka’s well-earning husband than from herself. Now Kukushkina is going to bring him in as a co-defendant - the former spouses borrowed money together.

Example 2.

Neighbors from below filed a claim for damages against Yakov Prikhodko. They say it flooded their apartment, which had recently undergone expensive renovations. Yakov inherited the apartment, and the pipes in it, of course, are old. But it’s not Yakov who lives in the apartment, but his tenant Irakli, maybe he’s to blame for the flood? Prikhodko does not want to answer for the tenant; he will demand that Irakli also be brought in as a defendant in the case.

Article 46 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Participation in the case of several plaintiffs or defendants (current version)

This basis for procedural complicity raises even greater objections, since the homogeneity of the subject of the dispute allows the consolidation of cases into one proceeding (Part 2 of Article 130 of the APC), but in itself does not in any way entail procedural complicity.

3. Part 3 art. 46 of the APC establishes an important rule on the procedural independence of each of the accomplices. In practical terms, this means that the use of any procedural rights is not made dependent on the will of the other accomplice. For example, one of the co-defendants may request evidence, while the other, on the contrary, may object. This does not have any impact on the design of procedural complicity and the possibility of implementing a specific procedural right; the arbitration court will have to resolve the said petition regardless of the will of the other accomplice.

However, when applying the rule on procedural independence, it is necessary to take into account the nature of the procedural and legal consequences of the implementation of some of the administrative powers: a change in the basis or subject of the claim, a change in the amount of claims by one of the co-plaintiffs, in fact, entails a change in the claim. Therefore, in our opinion, the implementation of these administrative powers should entail a change in the procedural status of the co-plaintiffs - after the arbitration court accepted such a change in the claim, the co-plaintiffs should more correctly be considered “ordinary” plaintiffs, each of whom filed an independent claim against the defendant. Accordingly, the arbitral tribunal must resolve each of the claims on the merits. At the same time, if the arbitration court considers that separate consideration of claims will correspond to the goals of effective justice, then nothing prevents the use of the institution of separating claims into separate proceedings (Part 3 of Article 130 of the Arbitration Procedure Code).

In addition, when performing such a procedural action as approving a settlement agreement, the arbitration court must check whether such an agreement does not violate the rights of an accomplice who is not a party to the settlement agreement, and also whether it does not interfere with the consideration of claims for which proceedings are not terminated as a result of the approval of the settlement agreement. agreements

———————————

See paragraph 10 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 18, 2014 N 50 “On the reconciliation of the parties in the arbitration process.”

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has developed a rule according to which a statement of limitation made by one of the co-defendants does not apply to other co-defendants, including in cases of joint and several liability (liability). However, the court has the right to refuse to satisfy the claim if there is an application for the application of the limitation period from only one of the co-defendants, provided that by virtue of law or contract or based on the nature of the disputed legal relationship, the plaintiff’s demands cannot be satisfied at the expense of other co-defendants (for example, in the case of presentation claim for the recovery of an indivisible thing).

———————————

See paragraph 10 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated September 29, 2015 N 43 “On some issues related to the application of the provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the limitation period.”

We believe that the provision on the right of accomplices to entrust the conduct of the case to one or more of the accomplices should be considered as another (not named in Article 59 of the APC) case of contractual representation. Consequently, it is entirely possible for one subject to combine several procedural statuses within one case - for example, the status of a co-plaintiff and the status of a contractual representative of the remaining co-plaintiffs.

The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation admits that the payment of the state duty in the case may be entrusted by the co-plaintiffs to one or more of them.

———————————

See paragraph 9 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 11, 2014 N 46 “On the application of legislation on state duties when considering cases in arbitration courts.”

4. The need for a person to enter into a case with the status of a co-plaintiff may arise when, for example, a co-creditor in a material legal relationship did not promptly communicate to the other creditor information about his intention to file a claim, and the latter also intended to seek judicial protection.

Due to the principle of dispositiveness, the arbitration court does not have the right, without a corresponding application from the interested person, to involve him in participation in the case as a co-plaintiff. At the same time, the legislator did not indicate what procedural documents the interested party must submit to the arbitration court in order to implement what is provided for in Part 4 of Art. 46 APC law.

———————————

This conclusion is supported by the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (see: Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 04.04.2006 N 99-O “On the refusal to accept for consideration the request of the Novooskolsky District Court of the Belgorod Region to verify the constitutionality of the provisions of Articles 43, 148, 150 and 327 of the Code of Civil Procedure RF").

Logic dictates that a potential co-plaintiff is required to submit a corresponding petition to the arbitration court in which the case has already been initiated, especially since the procedural law itself mentions “refusal to satisfy a request for a co-plaintiff to join the case” (Part 7, Article 46 APK). However, is just this petition sufficient? Shouldn't a person seeking judicial protection simultaneously use a traditional procedural document - a statement of claim?

To answer the questions posed, it is necessary to return to the grounds of procedural complicity (Part 2 of Article 46 of the APC).

If the subject of the dispute is the general rights and (or) obligations (objects of civil, public and other legal relations, the protection of which is allowed in arbitration courts) of several co-creditors in a material legal relationship (clause 1, part 2, article 46 of the Arbitration Procedure Code), then the need to file one statement of claim is missing. This is explained by the fact that the co-plaintiff entering into the process agrees with the chosen method of defense, with the arguments that justify the substantive claim. And most importantly, proceedings on a claim with the same subject and on the same grounds have already been initiated.

The situation is more complicated with the entry of co-plaintiffs on the grounds specified in clauses 2, 3, part 2 of Art. 46 APK. We have already indicated above that joint consideration of claims should not be identified with the institution of procedural complicity (see commentary to Part 2 of this article). At the same time, legislative contradictions do not remove the question raised - potential “quasi-co-plaintiffs” in any case should be able to protect their subjective rights and interests protected by law. We believe that in cases where the claim for which proceedings have already been initiated and the claim filed by the co-plaintiff entering the case do not coincide (it does not matter what elements), the person seeking judicial protection must file an independent statement of claim. Otherwise, not only the general rules for filing a claim will be violated, but also the rights of the defendants (the procedure for filing a claim contains certain procedural guarantees for them), and fiscal interest (a state fee must be paid for a new claim).

Let us draw attention to the legislative inaccuracy. The indication of the possibility of co-plaintiffs to enter into the case before the adoption of a judicial act, which ends the consideration of the case on the merits in the arbitration court of the first instance, when literally interpreted means that chronologically the possibility of co-plaintiffs to enter into the process is limited to the moment of the adoption of the court decision (only it resolves the dispute on the merits - h 1, Article 167 of the APC). However, proceedings in the court of first instance may be completed on the basis of other judicial acts. Therefore, the provisions of Part 4 of Art. 46 of the APC should be interpreted broadly, based on the fact that plaintiffs can intervene in the case before the adoption of:

a) or a court decision;

b) or a ruling to leave the claim without consideration;

c) or a ruling to terminate the proceedings.

5. Sometimes the nature of a controversial material legal relationship (taking into account the method of defense chosen by the plaintiff) necessarily implies the possibility of issuing a judicial act that will directly affect the rights and obligations of one of the debtors, not indicated by the plaintiff as a defendant. For example, recognition of ownership of a thing that is in common ownership of several entities inevitably affects the rights of all co-owners. Therefore, in order to exclude the possibility of issuing judicial acts on the rights and obligations of persons not involved in the case (Article 42 of the APC), such persons should be involved as co-defendants.

At the same time, the plaintiff’s choice of a different method of defense may lead to completely different procedural structures. For example, vindication of an item that is in common ownership of several entities is carried out by the person in whose possession the item itself is located. Therefore, persons who do not own the disputed thing, even if they consider themselves co-owners, should not be brought to participate in the case as co-defendants.

So, to establish the impossibility of considering a case without the participation of another person as a co-defendant (Part 5 of Article 46 of the APC), it is necessary to have at the same time:

a) multi-subject composition on the side of the debtor;

b) such a legal connection between the creditor and the debtors in which any substantive resolution of the dispute will affect the rights and (or) obligations of the co-defendant not involved in the case in relation to the plaintiff.

In procedural science, cases when it is impossible to consider a case without the participation of another person as a co-defendant are usually called obligatory complicity.

Unfortunately, in the practice of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, cases of compulsory complicity are sometimes considered more broadly. For example, paragraph 1 of Art. 323 of the Civil Code establishes that in case of joint and several obligations of debtors, the creditor has the right to demand performance both from all debtors jointly and from any of them separately, both in full and in part of the debt. It is obvious that this substantive legal norm establishes the priority of the creditor’s will both in terms of the amount of claims and in terms of determining the obligated entity. Meanwhile, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation indicated that since the main company (partnership) is jointly and severally liable with the subsidiary for transactions concluded by the latter in pursuance of the mandatory instructions of the main company (partnership), both legal entities are involved in such cases as co-defendants in the manner established by the procedural legislation The legal inconsistency of this recommendation lies in the fact that the failure to involve the second joint and several debtor in the case as a co-defendant in no way affects his rights in relation to the plaintiff: the latter, regardless of the substantive resolution of the dispute with the first debtor, will have the right to subsequently make a similar claim against to the second debtor (joint and several debtors remain obligated until the obligation is fulfilled in full - voluntarily or forcibly). We believe that in such situations, the second debtor in a joint and several obligation should be involved in the process as a third party who does not make independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute, on the side of the defendant, since when the first joint debtor fulfills his obligation to the creditor, material and legal consequences arise for his relations with the second debtor (see paragraph 2 of Article 325 of the Civil Code). In addition, it should be taken into account that the above explanation of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation violates one of the fundamental principles of civil procedure - the principle of dispositiveness, since without the grounds established in the law it allows the involvement in the process without the consent of the plaintiff as a co-defendant of an entity against which the plaintiff himself has no substantive legal requirements does not present.

———————————

See paragraph 31 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 1, 1996 N 6/8 “On some issues related to the application of part one of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.”

Let us also draw attention to the fact that the involvement of a co-defendant in accordance with Part 5 of Art. 46 of the APC should be distinguished from an outwardly similar, but nevertheless different legal structure - the involvement of a second defendant within the framework of the institution of replacing an improper defendant (Part 2 of Article 47 of the APC). The fact is that the involvement of a second defendant indicates the possible presence of another subject of a specific legal obligation, while the presence of a co-defendant, on the contrary, implies a plurality of obligated subjects in one obligation. The second defendant also differs from the co-defendant in that his interests and the interests of the original defendant are mutually exclusive.

Part 5 Art. 46 of the APC contains a clause stating that the involvement of a co-defendant in the case is carried out only at the request of the parties or with the consent of the plaintiff. Consequently, the legislator establishes that in the absence of the corresponding expression of will of the plaintiff or defendant, a person cannot be brought in as a co-defendant. We believe that such legal regulation is defective: if it is stated that it is impossible to consider a case without the participation of a co-defendant, then he must be involved without fail (regardless of the will of the parties). Let us return to the previously discussed example of recognizing the right of ownership of a thing that is in common ownership of several entities. If an arbitration court by a judicial decision recognizes the right of ownership of the plaintiff without involving one of the co-owners of the thing as a co-defendant, this will be an unconditional basis for the cancellation of the judicial act in the appellate and cassation instances (clause 4, part 4, article 270, clause 4, part 4 Article 288 of the APC). Consequently, while formally following the letter of the law, the arbitration court will ultimately allow a significant violation of the rights of a person not involved in the case. Therefore, we believe that Part 5 of Art. 46 of the APC should be interpreted as obliging the arbitration court, regardless of the will of the parties, to involve as a co-defendant a person, without whose participation it is impossible to consider the case (more precisely, to make a legal and justified decision). Moreover, a similar norm in civil proceedings very clearly formulates the imperative duty of the court (if it is impossible to consider the case without the participation of a co-defendant or co-defendants due to the nature of the disputed legal relationship, the court invites him or them to participate in the case on its own initiative - paragraph 2, part 3 Article 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

A difficult situation arises when, as a result of the involvement of a co-defendant in the case, the arbitration court becomes incompetent to consider the case. We believe that the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 39 of the APC, since this would create the ground for procedural abuses (some plaintiffs, wanting to circumvent the rules of competence, would deliberately apply to the arbitration court without indicating an individual as a co-defendant, and after involving him in participation in the case, they would achieve their goal - proceedings under the case would remain in the arbitration court). It seems more reasonable to appeal to the rules of Part 4 of Art. 39 of the APC, which provides for the transfer of the case to a court of general jurisdiction, although the literal interpretation of this norm assumes that the case was initially subject to consideration in a court of general jurisdiction.

6. Part 6 art. 46 of the APC contains a rule, the meaning of which is that in certain categories of cases the arbitration court is obliged to involve a certain person as a co-defendant, even if the plaintiff did not ask for this or generally objects to this. The main condition is that there is a direct indication of this in federal law.

For example, according to the rules of the Code of Merit in claims for compensation for damage from pollution, the defendant has the right in all cases to demand that the owner of the vessel be involved in the case as a co-defendant (clause 4 of Article 325). Consequently, if there is a corresponding demand from the defendant, the arbitration court, regardless of the will of the plaintiff, will be obliged to involve the co-defendant in participating in the case.

Part 2 of Art. 18 of the Law on Mass Media establishes that the founder of a mass media has the right to oblige the editorial office to publish, free of charge and within a specified period, a message or material on his behalf (statement of the founder). In this case, for claims related to the founder’s statement, the founder bears responsibility, and if the ownership of the specified message or material to the founder is not specified by the editors, the latter acts as a co-defendant.

At the same time, the validity of some recommendations of higher courts regarding the application of Part 6 of Art. 46 of the APC raises doubts.

For example, the plaintiff’s mistake in choosing the appropriate defendant in a claim for compensation for losses caused by inter-tariff differences, according to the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, entails the obligation of the arbitration court to involve the appropriate defendant as a co-defendant. Meanwhile, there are no norms corresponding to Part 6 of Art. 46 of the APC for such a claim is not contained in the current legislation.

———————————

See paragraph 3 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 6, 2013 N 87 “On some issues in the practice of considering disputes related to the recovery of losses of resource supply organizations caused by inter-tariff differences.”

A similar mistake is made by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, when, in cases where victims bring a claim directly against the harm-cauter, it imperatively orders the courts to involve an insurance organization in the case as a co-defendant, to which, in accordance with the Federal Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance, the victim has the right to apply with an application for insurance payment or direct compensation for losses.

———————————

See paragraph 91 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated December 26, 2017 N 58 “On the application by courts of the legislation on compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners.”

In the letter of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated May 25, 2004 N C1-7/UP-600 “On federal laws that are applied by arbitration courts in accordance with the reference norms contained in the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation” in relation to Art. 46 of the APC there is a reference to Art. 56 of the Law on Mass Media. This norm establishes that “the founders, editorial boards, publishers, distributors, government bodies, organizations, institutions, enterprises and public associations, officials, journalists, authors of disseminated messages and materials are responsible for violations of the legislation of the Russian Federation on the media.” We believe that such a completely general instruction cannot be considered as the mandatory participation in the case of another person as a co-defendant provided for by the Federal Law. And it’s difficult to imagine what the claim should be so that everything listed in Art. 56 of the Law on Mass Media, the subjects became co-defendants.

Similarly, the reference in the said letter of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation to Art. 158 BC: neither the edition in force at the time of adoption of this letter, nor the current edition of this article contains any references to the institution of complicity.

7. Part 7 art. 46 of the APC contains an important rule on the possibility of appealing determinations on issues of complicity.

Why did the legislator need to give the parties the right to appeal these determinations? We believe that the main goal is to exclude the possibility of issuing judicial decisions on the rights and obligations of persons not involved in the case (Article 42 of the APC). Potential co-plaintiffs and co-defendants should have the opportunity to be immediately involved in the case, and not after the court decision is overturned precisely because the issue of their rights and obligations is resolved.

At the same time, the novella in question requires careful study.

Firstly, from the point of view of legal technology, the provisions of the second sentence of Part 7 of Art. 46 of the APC are not set out entirely successfully: upon first reading, one can come to the conclusion that the legislator has provided for an appeal against the determination to involve a co-defendant. There is no logic in securing the right to such an appeal, since it would be extremely strange if a person whose petition to involve a co-defendant was granted, then suddenly began to appeal against a court ruling that was favorable to him. Therefore, the only possible result of the interpretation of this norm is the conclusion about the possibility of appealing against a refused ruling - a ruling to refuse to satisfy a petition to involve a co-defendant.

Secondly, the procedural expediency of the very possibility of appealing against rulings refusing to satisfy a petition to involve a co-defendant in cases where such rulings were made at the request of the original defendant raises doubts. It is obvious that during the consideration of the appeal, the arbitration court of first instance will be deprived of the opportunity to consider the case on the merits (the decision made in the event of a subsequent cancellation of the ruling to refuse the request to involve a co-defendant becomes vulnerable - clause 4, part 4, article 270, clause 4 Part 4 Article 288 APC). It turns out that the legislator himself provided unscrupulous defendants with a legal opportunity to delay the process. By filing clearly unfounded requests to involve a co-defendant in the case, they can subsequently appeal such refusal to the arbitration court of appeal and thereby de facto exclude proceedings in the arbitration court of first instance for some period.

The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation indicated that, within the meaning of the provisions contained in Part 7 of Art. 46 APC, in conjunction with Part 3, 5 Art. 188 of the APC, an appeal to the cassation court against the decision of the appellate court, adopted based on the results of consideration of the appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance, is not provided for by law.

———————————

See clause 6.1 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated May 28, 2009 N 36 “On the application of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation when considering cases in the arbitration court of appeal.”

8. After a co-plaintiff enters into the case and a co-defendant is brought into the case, the case is considered from the very beginning (see commentary to Part 2 of Article 153 of the APC).

At the same time, the arbitration court and the participants in the process, in order to ensure the correct and timely consideration of the case, have the right to raise the question of studying at the stage of trial the circumstances covered by the stage of preparing the case for trial.

———————————

See question 29 of the Recommendations of the NKS at the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga-Vyatka District based on the results of the Council meeting dated February 27, 2008 “On the practice of applying procedural legislation” // https://chuvashia.arbitr.ru/pract/nks/2172.html.

Negative consequences

It should be noted that the plaintiff has the right to file a claim against a certain person. No one has the right to force a plaintiff to call as a defendant a person against whom he has no claims.

In other words, the plaintiff has the right not to make claims against any persons if he does not want to do so.

To some extent, this principle makes it possible to reduce the plaintiff’s material costs, since when new participants are involved in the process, legal costs increase.

For example, the provisions of Art. 323 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation speaks of joint liability of debtors, although on the part of the creditor it will be sufficient to file claims against only one of them.

But at the same time in Art. 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains an indication of the mandatory involvement in the proceedings of the case of persons without whom it is impossible to understand the problem due to the existence of controversial legal relations.

You should also remember the provisions of Art. 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for the cancellation of a judicial act if its adoption affected the rights of persons who did not take part in the proceedings of the case.

Note! Based on practice (and in accordance with the logic of the law), most often the requirement to involve co-defendants is satisfied by the courts. This is due to the fact that appealing against such decisions is impossible, and if the request is refused, the results of the dispute may be canceled.

In accordance with Art. 442 of the Code of Civil Procedure, involvement in the process is mandatory only in a situation where an application has been submitted demanding the removal of the seizure from the property.

All other situations are optional, where it is necessary for the plaintiff to prepare a petition demanding the involvement of a co-defendant.