27/08/2014

The Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides for such a right as recourse - a reverse requirement consisting in the possibility of a person who has compensated for damage caused by another person (an employee in the performance of official, official or other labor duties, a person driving a vehicle, etc.) demand from this person (the culprit) compensation for damage in the amount paid by him, unless a different amount is established by law. Let's look at who has this right and how to use it.

Recourse and assignment of claims

The right of recourse arises from one of the debtors under a joint and several obligation, which he has fulfilled in full and has the right to claim compensation at the expense of the remaining joint and several debtors, minus his own share (Article 325 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Joint and several obligations can be established by force of law (for example, the obligations of a joint stock company and its registrar - registrar to shareholders) or on the basis of an agreement (for example, a surety agreement providing for the joint liability of the guarantor together with the debtor to the latter's creditor).

The law gives a recourse requirement to the guarantor, who, in the absence of information about the fulfillment of the obligation by the debtor, himself fulfills it to the creditor. In this case, the guarantor can choose to either submit a recourse claim to the debtor or recover unjust enrichment from the creditor (Article 366 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

The right of recourse is available to the guarantor who has paid the creditor of his client the amount of money under the issued guarantee to secure the client’s obligations to his creditor, to his client-principal (Article 379 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), as well as to the person bearing subsidiary (additional) liability for the obligations the main debtor, to the latter (Article 399 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), etc.

Let us consider in what cases the person who has compensated for the harm has the right of recourse to the causer of the harm.

Regression differs from assignment (assignment of the right of claim) in that with it a new obligation arises and there is no change in the persons in the obligation, while with the assignment of the right of claim between participants in the turnover, no new obligation arises, there is simply a change in persons in the obligation (replacement of the creditor ), that is, its subject composition changes (for example, the lender under an assignment agreement has the right to assign its right to claim the borrower for repayment of debt to a third party, as a result of which the creditor simply changes in the loan obligation).

Therefore, the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the assignment of the right of claim do not apply to recourse claims. If the assignment of the right of claim by virtue of Art. 201 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not entail a change in the limitation period and the procedure for calculating it, then for recourse obligations the limitation period begins from the day of fulfillment of the main obligation (Part 3 of Article 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

However, a recourse claim that has arisen from an authorized person can be assigned by him in favor of another person according to the rules of Chapter 24 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, since the law does not prohibit such a possibility, as indicated in the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated August 17, 2004 N 5106/04. For example, the owner of a vehicle who has compensated for the harm to the injured person has the right to assign his recourse claim against the guilty employee to a third party for a fee or on other terms.

A recourse claim can, in addition, be terminated by novation (for example, for a loan obligation to repay a debt by a certain date) or by the provision of compensation (transfer of property in exchange for the fulfillment of a recourse claim), by offsetting a counter-similar claim, the due date of which has come or is determined by the moment of demand (for example , the debtor has the right to demand payment of funds from the creditor under a recourse obligation under another obligation, where the debtor himself is a creditor). A debtor in a recourse obligation, with the consent of the creditor, has the right to transfer his debt to a third party.

Cases of recourse

One of the most common cases of recovery of damages by way of recourse in practice is the situation when an employer is forced to satisfy the demands of persons affected by the guilty, unlawful actions (inaction) of its employee.

An employee of the enterprise without permission, without informing the head of the workshop, showing criminal negligence, instructed the plumber to carry out repair work at height in violation of clauses 6.15.1, 2.1.13 POT RM-012-2000 of the Interindustry rules for labor protection when working at height, the requirements of the job description approved by the director of the enterprise, did not issue a work permit, did not conduct targeted training with the plumber and did not provide him with a safety belt.

As a result of this, the plumber fell off the heating main, fell onto the concrete floor of the workshop and, as a result, lost at least one-third of his ability to work.

According to a court decision, damages were recovered from the enterprise in favor of the plumber. The company, by way of recourse, recovered it from the guilty employee, since payments to compensate for damage caused by the employee to third parties constitute damage to the employer by virtue of Part 2 of Art. 234 Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

However, the damage was not recovered from the guilty employee in full, since the court, in accordance with Art. 250 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation took into account his property status (Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic dated December 25, 2013 in case No. 33-4701/2013).

Another employer, the state, which is forced to pay amounts in compensation for harm to persons who suffered from violations and abuses of government officials, also has the right to compensation for harm by way of recourse. So, in accordance with Art. 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation compensates for damage caused by a police officer in connection with unlawful inaction or abuse (Determination of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated 05.08.2008 N 56-B08-8).

A recourse requirement arises from the FSS in cases of payment of social benefits to insured persons in the event of harm to their life or health.

According to sub. 8 clause 1 art. 11 of Federal Law No. 165-FZ of July 16, 1999 “On the Basics of Compulsory Social Insurance,” insurers have the right to file claims in court to protect their rights and compensate for damage caused, including filing recourse claims for reimbursement of expenses incurred.

Based on the provisions of Art. 17 of Law N 165-FZ, the source of funds for the budgets of specific types of compulsory social insurance funds are funds reimbursed to insurers as a result of recourse claims against those responsible for causing harm to the insured persons.

Thus, recourse claims brought by the executive bodies of the FSS on the basis of these rules of law represent a legal mechanism for placing the burden of responsibility for the harm caused ultimately directly on the causer (Determination of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated January 21, 2011 N 48-B10-11).

From the regional branch of the Social Insurance Fund, by a court decision in favor of the senior mechanic of the production association, arrears of monthly insurance payments were collected, and the obligation to pay them from a certain date was established with their subsequent indexation taking into account inflation.

An industrial accident, as a result of which an employee was injured, occurred on a railway platform, which was in the possession of Russian Railways. The regional branch of the FSS achieved the recovery of amounts paid to the insured person by way of recourse from Russian Railways (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Eastern Military District dated January 30, 2009 in case No. A82-2539/2008-22).

Compensation for harm by way of recourse is also possible when the creditor and the debtor under the recourse obligation are in a contractual legal relationship.

The institution responsible for the operation and proper maintenance of the highway has the right, by way of recourse, to recover from the repair company with which it has a contract, damage caused by the payment to citizens of sums of money to compensate for the damage caused to them as a result of an accident, if it occurred from - for the poor condition of roads (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Central District of January 29, 2014 in case No. A36-505/2013).

A management company that has entered into an agreement with an energy supply company in the interests of consumers has the right to recover damages from it in a situation where compensation for damage caused as a result of broken wires was recovered from it in favor of consumers, which led to overvoltage in the electrical network of an apartment building. The management company has this opportunity, provided that it proves that the overvoltage in the network occurred in the zone of operational responsibility established by the agreement between it and the energy supply company (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service dated May 26, 2011 in case No. A55-39804/2009).

There is no right of recourse...

It should be borne in mind that a recourse claim does not arise if the person who compensated for the harm is himself responsible for it and does not have the right to shift it to another person.

A bank that has paid, by a court decision, in favor of its borrower compensation for losses caused by the imposition of life and health insurance services on the borrower from an insurance company, does not have the right to demand compensation for damage from the latter by way of recourse. The insurer is not responsible for this damage, since it was caused through the fault of the bank itself (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service dated November 16, 2012 in case No. A65-10298/2012).

An airport that, by a court decision, has compensated the airline for losses caused by late notification of the closure of the airfield due to the failure of lighting equipment due to excavation work on the taxiway in the area where the site abuts and damage to the cable, does not have the right to claim compensation from the repair company by way of recourse. who carried out the said work.

In this situation, the airport’s losses are due to the guilty inaction of its employees, who, in violation of clause 8.15 of the Federal Aviation Rules “Preparation and execution of flights in civil aviation of the Russian Federation,” approved. By Order of the Ministry of Transport of Russia dated July 31, 2009 N 128, information about the closure of the airport was not provided in time to the crew of the airline's aircraft during the period of decision-making on departure (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow Region dated May 28, 2013 in case N A40-91458/12-118-845).

The right of recourse does not arise for the person who has compensated for the damage even if he must present his claims to the counterparty within the framework of the agreement concluded between them, and not to a third party.

The department store sold refrigerators to citizens under retail sales contracts that it had purchased under a supply agreement from a manufacturing enterprise. During the warranty period, several consumers discovered defects in the product, and the department store reimbursed the costs of eliminating the defects.

Believing that it has the right to demand compensation for damage directly from the manufacturer of the goods in a recourse manner, the department store filed a corresponding claim. In refusing to satisfy it, the court proceeded from the fact that, by virtue of Art. 518 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, claims arising in connection with the supply of goods of inadequate quality may be presented to the supplier, and not to the manufacturer of the goods.

Clause 3 of Art. 492 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that the law on the protection of consumer rights and the legal acts of the Russian Federation adopted in accordance with it apply only to relations under retail sales contracts with the participation of a citizen buyer. In this regard, consumer rights cannot be transferred to sellers under retail sales contracts, in this case to a department store (Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 22, 1999 N 612/99).

However, even from the counterparty to the transaction, the person who compensated for the damage will not be able to receive compensation if he cannot prove that it was the fault of the latter that he had to compensate for it.

By court decision, the entrepreneur compensated several citizens for losses and moral damages in connection with the sale of radiators of inadequate quality. Considering that this was due to the fault of the supplier, who sold him low-quality equipment that had manufacturing defects, the entrepreneur filed a lawsuit.

In refusing to satisfy the stated claim, the court proceeded from the fact that the contract for the supply of equipment presented by the entrepreneur did not confirm the fact of its execution, given that there was no delivery note or other document on the transfer of goods, and the supplier denied the fact of execution of the transaction. In addition, the court found that the supplier manufactured radiators consisting of 2-8 sections, while according to the court decision in favor of citizens, damages and moral damages were recovered in connection with the sale of low-quality radiators consisting of 9 sections (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service VBO dated 09.11.2012 in case No. A79-8837/2011).

We noted above that, in accordance with Art. 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the state is compensated for damage caused by a police officer due to unlawful inaction or abuse. However, causing harm to the health of a police officer himself during the performance of his official duties cannot serve as a basis for collecting from the harm-doer the amount of a one-time benefit by way of recourse, since the payment of the said benefit by the state (insurance guarantee) is not made dependent on the fault of the harm-doer (Determination of the RF Armed Forces dated 02/07/2014 N 41-KG13-34).

It should also be taken into account that the right of the person who compensated for the harm to demand compensation from the causer by way of recourse does not mean the possibility of receiving exactly all those amounts in full in which he himself incurred them. In addition to the case of limiting the liability of the person who caused the harm (for example, in accordance with Article 250 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), this may be a case of guilt or negligence of the person who compensated for the harm.

A person against whom a claim for compensation for damage has been brought may not bring the case to court if the stated claims are highly likely to be satisfied. Thus, a person can avoid the incurrence of additional costs associated with the payment of penalties, legal expenses, a 50% fine for refusal to voluntarily satisfy consumer demands, etc. in favor of injured persons. The court will not recover such expenses by way of recourse (decrees of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Eastern Military District dated 09.13.2012 in case No. A38-4510/2011, dated 02.25.2011 in case No. A43-8098/2010).

Civil Code, N 14-FZ | Art. 1081 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

Article 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Right of recourse to the person who caused harm (current version)

1. A person who has compensated for damage caused by another person (an employee in the performance of official, official or other labor duties, a person driving a vehicle, etc.) has the right to claim back (recourse) against this person in the amount of compensation paid , unless another size is established by law.

2. The causer of harm, who has compensated jointly for the harm caused, has the right to demand from each of the other causers of harm a share of the compensation paid to the victim in an amount corresponding to the degree of guilt of this causer of harm. If it is impossible to determine the degree of guilt, the shares are considered equal.

3. The Russian Federation, a subject of the Russian Federation or a municipality, in the event of compensation for damage caused by a judge in the administration of justice, have the right of recourse to this person if his guilt is established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force.

3.1. The Russian Federation, a subject of the Russian Federation or a municipal entity in the event of compensation for damage on the grounds provided for in Articles 1069 and 1070 of this Code, as well as according to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, have the right of recourse to the person in connection with whose illegal actions (inaction) the specified compensation.

4. Persons who have compensated for damage on the grounds specified in Articles 1073 - 1076 of this Code do not have the right of recourse to the person who caused the damage.

• BB code
• Text

Document URL [copy]

Commentary to Art. 1081 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

Judicial practice under Article 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation:

• Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination N 78-КГ16-5, Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases, cassation

  In terminating the proceedings in this case, the court of first instance referred to the provisions of Article 220 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and Article 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, indicating that the FSSP of Russia for St. Petersburg does not have the right to bring such a claim...

• Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination N VAS-17421/12, Supreme Arbitration Court, supervision

  The amount of damage recovered by the magistrate from the plaintiff is not damages due to harm, but the latter’s liability for violation of the rights of the counterparty under the contract, which is not subject to the provisions of Article 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on recourse...

• Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination N VAS-13476/13, Supreme Arbitration Court, supervision

  Since the defendant did not voluntarily compensate for these losses, the plaintiff filed this claim in the arbitration court on the basis of Article 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a person who has compensated for damage caused by another person has the right to claim back (recourse) against this person in the amount of compensation paid, unless a different amount is established by law...

1. A person who has compensated for damage caused by another person (an employee in the performance of official, official or other labor duties, a person driving a vehicle, etc.) has the right to claim back (recourse) against this person in the amount of compensation paid , unless another size is established by law.

2. The causer of harm, who has compensated jointly for the harm caused, has the right to demand from each of the other causers of harm a share of the compensation paid to the victim in an amount corresponding to the degree of guilt of this causer of harm. If it is impossible to determine the degree of guilt, the shares are considered equal.

3. The Russian Federation, a subject of the Russian Federation or a municipality, in the event of compensation for damage caused by a judge in the administration of justice, have the right of recourse to this person if his guilt is established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force.

3.1. The Russian Federation, a subject of the Russian Federation or a municipal entity in the event of compensation for damage on the grounds provided for in articles of this Code, as well as according to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, have the right of recourse to the person in connection with whose illegal actions (inaction) the specified compensation was made .

Legislation under Art. 1081 Civil Code of the Russian Federation part 2

• Commentary on Article 1081

  1. Under the right of recourse (right of recourse) in the commentary. Art. refers to the demand of the person who compensated the harm to the victim (regredient) to the person who caused the harm (regressant) to return what was paid due to the fault of the latter. By exercising the right to recourse, the regredient restores his property sphere, which was damaged due to the actions of the tortfeasor.

  In general, the right to recourse in relation to the relations in question is enshrined in clause 1 of Art. 1081. The general rule is that the damage suffered by the regredient is compensated to him in full, unless otherwise provided by law. In subsequent paragraphs of Art. 1081 indicates the peculiarities of the application of recourse claims in some torts.

  2. Clause 2 of Art. 1081 relates to recourse in cases of joint infliction of harm. The causer of harm, who has compensated for the harm to the victim, acquires the right of recourse to the other causers of harm, who are liable to him on a shared basis. The size of the shares is determined by the degree of guilt of each of the causers or is assumed to be equal.

  3. As an additional condition for submitting recourse claims to officials of the bodies of inquiry, preliminary investigation, prosecutor's office and court in connection with the harm caused by their illegal actions listed in paragraph 1 of Art. 1070 Civil Code, clause 3, art. 1081 provides for the establishment of the guilt of these persons by a court verdict that has entered into legal force. This provision needs significant adjustment for the same reasons and in the same direction as Art. itself. 1070 Civil Code (see commentary to it).

  Also, comment. The clause does not at all exclude, as is sometimes stated in the literature, but, on the contrary, implies the possibility of holding law enforcement officials accountable by way of recourse for harm caused by their other illegal actions. In this case, it is not at all necessary that the guilt of these persons be established by a court verdict, since they are liable on the same basis as any other employees.

  4. According to paragraph 4 of Art. 1081, parents, adoptive parents, guardians and some other persons who have compensated for damage caused by children or incapacitated persons under their control do not have the right of recourse. The reason for this is their own guilty behavior, expressed in improper education or control over their charges.

A recourse requirement is a legal norm that relates to the financial and insurance areas of the economy. This concept is most often encountered by lawyers involved in civil claims. According to the established rules, the organization that has compensated for the damage caused may exercise the insurer’s right of recourse and demand compensation from the culprit in the amount of the compensation paid. This rule is laid down in Art. 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and other regulations. This right is often used by those trying to minimize losses in this way.

What is a recourse claim?

This concept is often found in claims aimed at recovering the costs of insurance companies, and such claims are addressed to those responsible for the accident. This type of regulation first appeared in the banking and financial sector. The bank filed a recourse claim against the person who issued the invalid bill of exchange, for which the bank had already made payment. An integral part of a recourse claim is a direct claim to the courts.

How does the right of recourse work?

A recourse claim is an asset of the insurance company itself, which it is trying to realize. The amount of possible compensation in this case is limited by the amount of insurance payments. This norm is laid down in paragraph 1 of Article 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, the insurance organization may request compensation for expenses that arose during the consideration of insurance claims or during the consideration of the case in court. In the latter case, this paragraph must be included in

Insurance requirements for compulsory motor liability insurance

The most common option for a regressive claim to arise is to make claims under a compulsory motor liability insurance policy. It is more likely that the insurer may request a monetary payment in the following cases:

• If harm to the health or life of the victim is caused due to malicious intent. For example, a hit-and-run, if it was done on purpose and it was proven in court, becomes a reason to demand a monetary payment from the guilty person.
• If the damage was caused due to a person acting under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Medical examination certificates can serve as evidence of this fact. The insurer's recourse claim cannot be satisfied if the fact of alcohol (or drug) intoxication has not been proven by medical professionals. Such acts are attached to the case and can serve as evidence on one side or another.
• If the damage in an accident was caused by a person who at that time did not have the right to drive a vehicle. This means that the insurance company’s recourse claims have a legally reliable basis if the offender did not have a driver’s license or was deprived of it for previous traffic violations.

Other cases of application of recourse claims

This compensation is especially relevant in cases of malicious violation of the rules of conduct in the event of an accident. However, in order to take advantage of this clause of the law, a representative of the insurance company must prove that the culprit of the accident actually fled the scene of the accident. An administrative protocol documenting the commission of such an offense will not be sufficient evidence in court. Information on bringing the driver to administrative liability must be attached to the materials of the lawsuit. The representative of the insurance company is obliged to present facts that convincingly prove that the driver intentionally left the scene of the accident.

Recourse claim based on an insurance contract

An auto insurance policy usually specifies the persons authorized to drive the insured vehicle. If damage was recorded, the culprit of which was a person who was not included in the OSAGO contract as a driver allowed to drive a car, then the insurance company has the right of recourse.

This type of claim will be very likely if the insurance contract contained a clause limiting the number of persons authorized to drive the insured vehicle. MTPL agreements must be concluded taking into account this requirement. Restrictions on the use of the insured vehicle are as follows:

• a list of persons entitled to drive the insured car is indicated;
• indicates the period in which it is possible to use this vehicle within the insurance period;

If the insurance contains a clause about the circle of persons allowed to drive the vehicle, then the policy must indicate the names of the drivers allowed to drive this vehicle.

For citizens, limited use of a car by period of time means that the car can be used during a certain season. For example, for convertible cars, the use limit is limited to the warm season, but it makes sense to insure snowmobiles only for the winter period. Organizations and businesses can also take advantage of “seasonal” insurance, applying the insurance period to watering and snow removal machines in different seasons.

If an insured event occurs when these conditions are violated, the insurance company has no right to refuse payment, since these restrictions are not included in the list of points according to which payment may be denied. But by violating the terms of the insurance contract, the insured driver exposes himself to the risk of running into recourse claims from the insurance company.

Technical inspections and regression requirements

Our legislation does not coordinate the dates of purchase of an insurance policy with the time of issuing technical inspection coupons. Meanwhile, in 2012, a provision came into force according to which the car owner is obliged to ensure on his own the timely passage of state technical inspection of a truck, passenger taxi, truck, passenger bus and some other types of transport. If at the time of the occurrence of the insured event the technical coupons are valid, then the insurance company has the right to file a claim, and the recourse claim under OSAGO in this case will be satisfied.

Cases triggering recourse claims

In particular, the insurance organization has the right to claim compensation for:

• if the “culprit” of the insured event was a car malfunction;
• if this malfunction has already been detected by the inspection operator, but data about it was not entered into the diagnostic card.

What to do if the insurer makes a recourse claim

Every car owner may find himself in such a situation, so it would be useful to outline an algorithm of actions in which the claims of insurers can be reasonably challenged in court.

There is no need to make concessions to insurers and immediately agree to compensation for a recourse claim. An accident or other incident that caused damage to property or health must be proven both from the point of view of the victim and from the point of view of the perpetrator of the tragedy. First of all, the basis for the claim should be the transfer of insurance compensation to the victim. If such payment was refused, all claims by the insurance company for recourse can be safely rejected.

Please note that the insurer has the right of recourse only at the moment of transferring the insurance payment to the victim!

Amount of claim and limitation of claim

The defendant can appeal the claims of the insurance company if the amount of the claims exceeds the insurance payments made. According to the law, the amount of recourse should not exceed the actual amount of insurance payment. You should also make sure that the limitation period has not yet expired - otherwise the insurer’s recourse claims will be automatically rejected.

And remember that only proven guilt in a traffic accident gives the insurance company grounds to hope for a positive court decision on recourse. If the actions of an individual resulted in the occurrence of an insured event, but for a number of reasons the person was not found guilty, all claims of the insurance company for recourse do not have any valid grounds.

Full text of Art. 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with comments. New current edition with additions for 2019. Legal advice on Article 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

1. A person who has compensated for damage caused by another person (an employee in the performance of official, official or other labor duties, a person driving a vehicle, etc.) has the right to claim back (recourse) against this person in the amount of compensation paid , unless another size is established by law.
2. The causer of harm, who has compensated jointly for the harm caused, has the right to demand from each of the other causers of harm a share of the compensation paid to the victim in an amount corresponding to the degree of guilt of this causer of harm. If it is impossible to determine the degree of guilt, the shares are considered equal.

3. The Russian Federation, a subject of the Russian Federation or a municipality, in the event of compensation for damage caused by a judge in the administration of justice, have the right of recourse to this person if his guilt is established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force.
3.1. The Russian Federation, a subject of the Russian Federation or a municipal entity in the event of compensation for damage on the grounds provided for in Articles 1069 and 1070 of this Code, as well as according to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, have the right of recourse to the person in connection with whose illegal actions (inaction) the specified compensation.

4. Persons who have compensated for damage on the grounds specified in Articles 1073 - 1076 of this Code do not have the right of recourse to the person who caused the damage.

Commentary on Article 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

A person who has compensated for harm on behalf of another entity is entitled to the right of recourse (recourse) to the causer of harm:
- to a third party who caused harm;
- to persons who together with him caused harm, in shares determined for such entities by the court.

The right of recourse against judges and other state and municipal employees, as well as against another person in connection with illegal actions (inaction) of whom the specified compensation was made, belongs to the state, constituent entities of the Russian Federation or municipalities.

In relation to judges, special conditions for filing a recourse claim against him are normatively established:
- the harm was caused in the course of his professional activities;
- the claim is made solely on the basis of a court verdict that has entered into legal force.

In relation to other persons, state and municipal requirements are implemented according to the general rules established by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

The provisions of paragraph 4 of the commented article establish a list of cases in which the right of recourse does not arise. This norm is reference and covers facts of harm caused by incapacitated or partially capable subjects.

2*. Applicable law:
________________
*Numbering corresponds to the original. - Database manufacturer's note.

- Labor Code of the Russian Federation;
- order of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dated January 20, 2009 N 12/3n;
- letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated October 3, 2014 N 08-04-06/3395;
- letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated June 15, 2012 N 08-05-04/1733;
- letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated May 24, 2012 N 08-05-04/1503;
- letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated March 21, 2012 N 08-05-04/785;
- letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dated May 13, 2009 N 08-06-06/37;
- analytical report on the practice of courts considering claims brought by the FSSP of Russia in recourse (attachment to the letter of the Federal Bailiff Service dated December 29, 2009 N 12/07-21712-AP).

3. Judicial practice:
- determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated June 17, 2013 N 1038-O;
- determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated June 23, 2009 N 648-О-О;
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated June 27, 2013 N 20;
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated October 18, 2012 N 21;
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated January 26, 2010 No. 1;
- resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated August 13, 2014 in case No. A40-119808/13-172-1040;
- decision of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region dated August 14, 2014 in case No. A41-37969/2014;
- decision of the Arbitration Court of the Yaroslavl Region dated 08/05/2014 in case No. A82-5911/2014;
- decision of the Kirovsky District Court of Primorsky Krai dated August 21, 2014 in case No. 2-619/2014.