Article 40. Participation in a case of several plaintiffs or defendants

Let's consider how an application to involve a co-defendant in a civil case is drawn up and submitted to the court, taking into account recent changes in legislation.

When filing a claim, the plaintiff himself determines to whom he makes his claims. Sometimes, due to complex legal norms, it turns out that the restoration of the plaintiff’s rights also depends on the actions of another person. Then an application to involve a co-defendant is used. If the defendant was initially identified incorrectly, use an application to replace the defendant. But some are “cunning”, attracting a new one, without excluding the original one from the case. This position has its own risks in terms of reimbursement of legal costs.

So, an application to involve a co-defendant is submitted to the court when it is impossible to consider the case without his participation. Such an application can be submitted by the plaintiff, the defendant, or any other person participating in the case.

Who is a co-defendant

The co-defendant is the same defendant. Whom the court invites to participate in the case in addition to the main defendant. If there are multiple defendants in a civil case, they are all called co-defendants. Co-defendants have equal rights and obligations as participants in legal proceedings in civil proceedings (Article 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation). Each of them provides their own response to the claim or objections. The court may impose duties on each of them in whole, in part, or only on one of them.

Commentary on Article 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation

1. The institution of procedural complicity presupposes the simultaneous participation in the process on the side of the plaintiff and (or) defendant of several persons. Accordingly, in the process they are called co-plaintiffs and co-defendants. The need to use this procedural construction is due to the fact that some substantive legal norms allow (provide for) a plurality of persons on the side of the creditor or debtor. For example, in accordance with Art. 47 of the Regulations on a bill of exchange and a promissory note, all those who issued, accepted, endorsed a bill of exchange or put an aval on it are jointly and severally obliged to the holder of the bill. If a claim is brought against several persons jointly and severally obligated under a bill of exchange, the latter will participate in the process as co-defendants <1>. On the contrary, when a vindication claim is brought by several participants in common shared ownership, all of them will participate in the process as co-plaintiffs.

——————————— <1> See paragraph 38 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 4, 2000 N 33/14 “On some issues in the practice of considering disputes related to circulation of bills" (BVS RF. 2001. N 3).

The differences between accomplices and other persons participating in the case are as follows:

1) co-plaintiffs differ from third parties who make independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute in that co-plaintiffs’ substantive and legal requirements always coincide; on the contrary, the claims of third parties who declare independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute always exclude the claims of the plaintiff (see commentary to Article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure);

2) co-plaintiffs and co-defendants differ from third parties who do not make independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute in that these third parties are not the subject of a controversial substantive legal relationship; accordingly, in this process they do not make material claims and, in turn, with nothing is exacted from them (see commentary to Article 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure);

3) in claims for an award, co-defendants differ from defendants (of which there may be several in a particular case) in that the satisfaction of claims against one of the defendants excludes the satisfaction of claims against the others (often, due to certain difficulties in interpreting the rules on liability, plaintiffs deliberately indicate several as defendants possible subjects, thereby inviting the court to independently determine which of them should answer <1>). On the contrary, with the participation of co-defendants in the case, in principle, it is possible to satisfy the claims against each of them (although this, of course, does not exclude the situation when, when satisfying a claim in a case in which several co-defendants are involved, one of them will be released from liability, and, accordingly, the claim against him will be denied <2>).

——————————— <1> As an example, we can cite cases when plaintiffs file property claims against the Russian Federation: here the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, the Federal Treasury and other government bodies are indicated as defendants (see. , for example, Determinations of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 26, 2001, of February 4, 2003 N 93-G03-3). <2> See paragraph 39 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation “On some issues of the practice of considering disputes related to the circulation of bills of exchange.”

Unfortunately, in practice, sometimes the institution of procedural complicity is confused with other procedural institutions; for example, the consolidation of cases does not always lead to defendants becoming co-defendants. From a practical point of view, terminological confusion does not always lead to negative consequences, but in any case it is necessary to clearly understand the essence of the material requirements and the nature of the disputed legal relationship, which can either exclude or allow active or passive plurality in a material legal relationship.

The institution of complicity is applicable to all entities that, according to current legislation, can be plaintiffs and defendants. In addition, we believe that the effect of the institution of complicity should also extend to third parties who make independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute (see commentary to Article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure), although neither procedural theory nor judicial practice has any special terminology for cases of plurality on the third party side did not work out.

2. In part 2 of the commented article, the legislator exhaustively listed the grounds for procedural complicity.

Procedural complicity is allowed if (alternatively):

1) the subject of the dispute is the common rights or obligations of several plaintiffs or defendants. There is no doubt that specific rights and obligations can be an independent subject of dispute (for example, in a claim for compulsion to conclude an agreement, it is the legal relationship as a set of rights and obligations that will be the subject of dispute). However, in most cases, the subject of dispute is material objects (money, securities, other things). Therefore, the basis specified in paragraph 1 of part 2 of the commented article should be interpreted broadly: procedural complicity is allowed if the subject of the dispute is the common rights (responsibilities) of several plaintiffs or defendants, as well as other objects of civil, family, labor, housing, land, environmental and other legal relations, the protection of which is permitted in courts of general jurisdiction;

2) the rights and obligations of several plaintiffs or defendants have the same basis. Paragraph 2 of Part 2 of the commented article contains, in our opinion, a very controversial norm: the legislator, in fact, asserts that the coincidence of the grounds from which the specific substantive rights (obligations) of the plaintiffs (defendants) arose is a sufficient condition for the emergence of the institution of procedural complicity . We believe that this is not the case. For example, if the defendant, while driving a car, caused harm to the health of several citizens as a result of one traffic accident, then we can talk about a coincidence of grounds: each of the victims, demanding compensation for the harm caused by damage to health, will refer to the same legal fact. However, this does not lead to procedural complicity: each of the victims files his own independent claim, and even the fact that such cases can be combined into one proceeding, again does not turn several obligations for compensation for health damage into one multi-subject material obligation. Commenting on clause 2, part 2, art. 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure also cite as an example a case where the defendant caused damage to the common property of the plaintiffs <1>. There is no doubt that there is complicity on the plaintiff's side here. However, complicity itself in this example arises not because there was one basis (the defendant’s unlawful action), but because the plaintiffs have common rights to property, which led to the emergence of a single multi-subject protective legal relationship;

——————————— <1> See: Zhilin G.A. Commentary on the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. M., 2003. P. 49.

3) the subject of the dispute is homogeneous rights and obligations. This basis for procedural complicity raises even greater objections, since the homogeneity of the subject of the dispute allows for the consolidation of cases into one proceeding (Part 4 of Article 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure), but in itself does not in any way entail procedural complicity. The legislator, characterizing the institution of procedural complicity, in Part 1 of the commented article directly indicates that a claim (and not claims) is being brought jointly by several plaintiffs or several defendants. Thus, co-plaintiffs and co-defendants are always parties to the same material legal relationship. We believe that there is a semantic contradiction between the legal definition of complicity and the basis specified in paragraph 3 of part 2 of the commented article, since the latter directly allows procedural complicity only on the basis of the homogeneity of material rights and obligations in two or more material legal relations. It should be noted, however, that the homogeneity of the requirements and the coincidence of the grounds of claim in the scientific literature are considered by a number of authors as grounds for optional complicity <1>.

———————————

KP: note.

A commentary on the Civil Procedure Code of the RSFSR (edited by M.K. Treushnikov) is included in the information bank according to the publication - Spark, Gorodets, 1997 (second edition, corrected and supplemented).

<1> See, for example: Course of Soviet civil procedural law. T. 1: Theoretical foundations of justice in civil cases. P. 256; Scientific and practical commentary on the Civil Procedure Code of the RSFSR / Ed. M.K. Treushnikova. M., 1999. P. 62.

3. Paragraph 1 of Part 3 of the commented article establishes an important rule about 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. At the same time, when performing such a procedural action as approving a settlement agreement, the court must check, among other things, whether such an agreement does not violate the rights of an accomplice who is not a party to the settlement agreement.

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). However, the court has the right to refuse to satisfy the claim if there is an application for missing the statute of limitations 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 claims cannot be satisfied (in whole or in part) at the expense of others co-defendants (for example, in the case of a claim for the recovery of an indivisible thing that is jointly owned by several persons) <1>.

——————————— <1> See paragraph 4 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated November 12/15, 2001 N 15/18 “On some issues related to the use norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the limitation period."

4. In para. Part 2, Part 3 of the commented article formulates a procedural rule that was absent in the Civil Procedure Code of the RSFSR: if it is impossible to consider a 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. This procedural construction should be distinguished from the case of involving a second defendant in the process, which was previously allowed in Part 3 of Art. 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the RSFSR within the framework of the institution of replacing an improper defendant. 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 <1>.

——————————— <1> See, for example: Civil procedural legislation: Commentary / Ed. M.K. Yukova. P. 103.

Mandatory complicity, which is discussed in paragraph. 2 part 3 of the commented article arises solely in connection with the nature of the controversial legal relationship. We believe that this nature presupposes the presence simultaneously of: 1) a multi-subject composition on the debtor’s side; 2) such a legal connection between the creditor and the debtors in which any substantive legal 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.

Thus, if a demand is made to invalidate the order, then all persons who, on the basis of this order, have the corresponding housing rights must be brought in as co-defendants.

Part 2 of Art. 18 of the Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 N 2124-1 “On the Mass Media” <1> establishes that the founder of a mass media has the right to oblige the editorial office to publish a message or material on his behalf free of charge and within a specified period of time (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, it acts as a co-defendant. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated that if a plaintiff makes claims against one of the proper defendants, who jointly disseminated untrue defamatory information, the court has the right to involve a co-defendant in the case only if it is impossible to consider the case without his participation <2>.

——————————— <1> Russian newspaper. 1992. 8 Feb. <2> See paragraph 5 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 24, 2005 N 3 “On judicial practice in cases of protecting the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities” (BVS RF. 2005. N 4).

Unfortunately, in the practice of the Supreme 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 of the Russian Federation 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, in paragraph 31 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the 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” <1> it is indicated that, since the main company (partnership) is jointly and severally liable with the subsidiary company for transactions concluded by the latter in pursuance of the instructions of the main company (partnership) that are binding on it; both legal entities are involved in such cases as co-defendants in the manner established by 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, the above explanation violates one of the fundamental principles of civil procedure - the principle of dispositivity, 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 to which the plaintiff himself does not make any substantive legal requirements.

——————————— <1> BVS of the Russian Federation. 1996. N 9.

In the judicial acts of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation there are other indications of cases of compulsory complicity. Thus, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered it mandatory to involve a co-defendant in case of subsidiary liability on the grounds of paragraph. 1 item 2 art. 1074 of the Civil Code, indicating that “if. If there is a need for additional responsibility of the parents, then the co-defendants in court are the harm-doer and his legal representative" <1>. We believe that here, too, there was a legally unjustified appeal to the institution of complicity. The fact is that the very structure of subsidiary liability (clauses 1, 2 of Article 1074 of the Civil Code) excludes duplication of obligated subjects: either the minor himself or his legal representative is responsible for harm. Moreover, even in a situation where the damage to minors is partially compensated, the liability of the legal representative is limited to the missing part. Thus, if there is a need for additional liability of a legal representative, then he must participate in the process as a defendant - a person held accountable for a claim for compensation for damage in whole or in part.

——————————— <1> BVS of the Russian Federation. 2001. N 4.

It is important to note that the provision of paragraph. Part 2, part 3 of the commented article on the right of the court to involve a co-defendant (co-defendants) in a case on its own initiative is not subject to a broad interpretation. In particular, the court, due to the principle of discretion, does not have the right to involve him in participation in the case as a co-plaintiff without a corresponding application from the interested person. This conclusion is also supported by the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: “In the case of joint actions of spouses to protect the rights to common property of P.A. Kamenskikh, according to part one of Article 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, would have to participate in the trial as a co-plaintiff, but joining the case in such a procedural capacity depended solely on her discretion. This means that the court of first instance, in the absence of the will of P.A. Kamenskikh had no right to involve her in the case as a co-plaintiff.” <1>.

——————————— <1> Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated April 4, 2006 N 99-O “On 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 Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation” // HQS of the Russian Federation. 2006. N 4.

The involvement of a co-defendant in the case is formalized by a court ruling, after which the preparation and consideration of the case begin from the very beginning. The determination to involve a co-defendant in the case cannot be the object of an independent appeal (see Part 1 of Article 331, Part 1 of Article 371 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

How to attract co-defendants to participate in a case

The plaintiff may exercise his right to involve a co-defendant when filing a statement of claim. In this case, in the statement of claim he indicates as many co-defendants as he deems necessary. Other persons exercise their right to involve a co-defendant only after the case has been accepted for trial by the court. By filing an application (petition) to involve a co-defendant.

The number of co-defendants in a civil case is not limited in any way. It could be 2 people, or much more. Another thing is that if there are a large number of citizens participating in the case, the court can divide it into several independent cases.

How to prepare a petition

The Code does not establish requirements for the form of a petition to involve a co-defendant. However, practicing lawyers have developed certain standards that make it possible to reflect in a document all the necessary information for its successful consideration by a judge.

A cap

The header must include the name and address of the court hearing the case. In addition, information about the applicant, plaintiff and defendant is entered here. For all persons, it is necessary to indicate not only their full name, but also contact information: address, telephone and (or) email. In the event that a legal entity participates as one of the parties, it is mandatory to record the full name indicating the organizational and legal form and legal address.

Preparation of the content begins with indicating the title of the document, which will be the same for all such requests.

In the first part of this block it is worth indicating information about the case under consideration: the participants and the essence of the dispute.

Then you should proceed to an explanation of the reasons why the applicant considers it necessary to involve a co-defendant. It is necessary to pay close attention to the formulation of the arguments: the reasons must be truly objective.

In the conclusion of the content part, a reference to Art. 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the legislative norm on the basis of which the petition is formulated.

The essence of the request

After the arguments are stated, the applicant lists his own requirements. In the case of involving co-defendants, it is enough to indicate only the full name (or name for the legal entity).

Application

All reasons given in the content must be documented. The list of attached documents must be listed.

Full name, signature

It is not necessary to send a copy of the petition to other participants in the process.

Form of petition to involve a co-defendantSample petition to involve a co-defendant

Filing an application to involve a co-defendant

An application for the involvement of co-defendants can be submitted at any stage of the consideration of the case, starting from its initiation and up to the removal of the court to the deliberation room.

First you need to prepare a petition, it is better to do it in writing according to the provided sample. Only then will it be possible to comply with all formal requirements for such applications. The applicant is advised to justify his position on the involvement of co-defendants in great detail in the text of the application.

At the court hearing, you can submit several applications to involve co-defendants. Or indicate everyone in one statement.

Case studies

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. Therefore, Kukushkina is going to bring him in as a co-defendant - after all, the ex-spouses borrowed money together.

Or such a case. 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.

Consideration of an application to involve a co-defendant

Involving a co-defendant is a right, not an obligation of the court. The court will take into account the position of all participants in the process on this issue. The decisive factor for the court will be the possibility or impossibility of considering the case without this defendant. The court's ruling regarding the involvement of co-defendants or the refusal to satisfy the stated petition is not subject to independent appeal. However, your arguments regarding disagreement with the actions of the court can be included in the appeal against the final judicial stay in the case.

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.

How is replacement carried out?

Free legal consultation by phone:

Calls are free. We work seven days a week!

• preliminary stage;
• the plaintiff's position;
• court ruling.

The first stage is preliminary. At this stage, the initiative can come from the plaintiff, the defendant, or maybe from the judge himself.

Each party must have compelling and specific reasons for appeal that would indicate a misunderstanding or improper choice of the defendant's side. Here it is important to draw up a legally correct application (see.

sample), submit it to the relevant authorities in the manner prescribed by law.

Next, directly at the hearing, the judge listens to the applicant’s position. If the plaintiff does not object and agrees to replace or prosecute the second defendant, the verdict is made on the spot.

After a few days, a written ruling should be issued, but at the meeting, the verbally announced verdict will still be entered into a special protocol.

If the plaintiff completely disagrees with the replacement and does not want to hear about the exclusion of the person from the list of defendants, then the court does not start a new case, but resumes the one already under consideration. Without the consent of the applicant, nothing will change, and the process continues with the participation of the previously announced parties.

Consideration by the court of a petition to replace an improper defendant

An improper defendant may be replaced after consideration of the received petition by the court or obtaining the consent of the plaintiff (in cases where the need for replacement is identified by the court). The decision must be formalized in the form of a reasoned determination (clause 4 of article 47 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

Expert opinion

Novikov Igor Timofeevich

Legal consultant with 6 years of experience. Specializes in the field of civil law. Law teacher.

The replacement of an improper defendant and other actions related to this procedure are subject to mandatory recording in the protocol (paragraph 6, paragraph 23 of Resolution No. 11).

An improper defendant, removed by such a determination from the list of defendants in the case, may withdraw from the list of participants in the case altogether or act in a different procedural role.

About the problems arising in the process of replacing an improper defendant,

Who can file a motion to change the defendant?

Only the plaintiff in the case has the right to file a petition to replace the improper defendant. A person designated by the plaintiff as a defendant, in case of disagreement with the claim, may express his objection to the court.

If it becomes clear that the defendant is inappropriate, the plaintiff is advised to consider the court's offer of substitution to avoid further unnecessary legal costs and time wasted if the court, as is very likely in such a case, refuses to protect the plaintiff's rights.

For information on how to draw up a petition for succession, read the material Drawing up a petition to replace a party with a successor.

Drawing up an application for exclusion

The petition is drawn up according to the standard type (a sample is provided on the website). Like all official petitions, the document consists of three parts: introductory (the head of the document), descriptive (the content of the application) and final (the request itself, the date and signature of the applicant).

If difficulties arise in drafting, it is recommended to contact a lawyer.

If you decide to write on your own, use a clear example and petition. The header of the application is written in the upper right corner indicating:

• to the court (full name of the judicial institution where the case is being considered, its address, contact information about the judge);
• on the parties to the process (their last names, first names and patronymics);
• to the applicant (contact information).

The petition to replace the inappropriate defendant in the descriptive part contains:

• Petition to replace an improper defendant in civil and arbitration proceedings
• Contents of a petition to replace an improper defendant
• Who can file a motion to change the defendant?
• Consideration by the court of a petition to replace an improper defendant

The concept of parties in civil proceedings, their rights and obligations

Parties to civil proceedings are persons participating in the case, the substantive dispute between whom is subject to consideration and resolution in court.

Article 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation classifies the parties as persons participating in the case, therefore, the characteristics of the parties include features characteristic of all persons participating in the case. To become parties to civil proceedings:

1. persons must be parties to the disputed substantive legal relationship. For this reason, their interests are opposed to each other;
2. one of the parties to the dispute must apply to the court to protect his rights;
3. the case for resolving a controversial legal relationship must be within the jurisdiction of the court;
4. persons must have legal capacity. Therefore, even a newborn may be a party to the proceedings (for example, in cases of collection of alimony for the maintenance of a minor child).

The parties participate in the process on their own behalf and in their own interests. A court decision is made regarding the parties, and legal costs are distributed between them.

The parties exist in litigation.

In litigation, the parties are called “plaintiff” and “defendant”. Regardless of the plurality of participants on the side of the plaintiff and (or) the defendant, only two named parties participate in the process.

A plaintiff is a person whose rights are allegedly violated or challenged by someone. The plaintiff is an active party, since it is he who turns to the court for protection (or certain entities turn to the court to protect the interests of the plaintiff).

At the same time, the plaintiff may be a person who does not independently turn to the court for protection, when other subjects of the process turn to the court for protection of his violated rights (for example, his legal representatives or the prosecutor, as well as state authorities, local governments, organizations or citizens participating in the process on the grounds specified in Article 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation). Regardless of who went to court to protect their interests, the plaintiff is the subject of the disputed material legal relationship. Thus, the plaintiff in the case of collecting alimony for the maintenance of a newborn child is a child, the mother acts as a legal representative, performing all procedural actions on behalf and in the interests of her child.

The defendant is a person involved by the court in a civil proceeding in connection with the plaintiff’s statement that his rights are being challenged or violated. The defendant is a passive party, since he is brought to court without his own initiative.

Until the end of the process, the plaintiff remains the plaintiff, and the defendant remains the defendant, even if it becomes clear that the rights of the defendant have actually been violated.

The parties to the proceedings have equal rights.

The rights of the parties are divided into general and special. All persons participating in the case have general rights, only the parties have special rights.

General rights are listed in Art. 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation: the right to get acquainted with the case materials, make extracts from them, make copies, file challenges, present evidence and participate in their study, ask questions to other persons participating in the case, witnesses, experts and specialists; file petitions, including requests for evidence; give explanations to the court orally and in writing; present your arguments on all issues arising during the trial, object to the requests and arguments of other persons participating in the case; appeal court decisions and use other procedural rights provided by the legislation on civil proceedings. The list is not exhaustive.

Special rights of the parties are provided for in Art. 39 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. The plaintiff has the right to change the basis or subject of the claim, increase or decrease the amount of the claim, or abandon the claim. The defendant has the right to admit the claim. The parties can end the case with a settlement agreement.

Responsibilities depend on the position of the party in the proceeding (the defendant is the obligated party) and are divided into general (characteristic of all persons involved in the case) and special (applicable to the parties). General are the obligations to comply with the law when performing procedural actions, conscientious attitude to the rights granted, etc., special ones are the obligation to bear legal costs, present evidence in accordance with the distribution of the burden of proof, report a change in place of residence, etc.

If a party fails to fulfill its obligations, it may be held liable. For example, on the part of the party that has filed an unfounded claim or dispute against the claim in bad faith, or has systematically opposed the correct and timely consideration and resolution of the case, the court may seek compensation in favor of the other party for the actual loss of time (Article 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).