Recourse to the person who caused the harm. Regression requirement

Regression requirement - specific type a right in which a person (regressor), who has compensated for damage caused by another person (the culprit), has the opportunity to demand from the culprit financial compensation their losses. The amount of compensation that a person who has exercised the right of recourse can count on corresponds to the amount of his expenses when compensating for damage (unless otherwise prescribed by law). The recourse claim is a reverse right, and is regulated by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

The essence of the concept and the basis for the emergence of a recourse claim

A recourse claim can be filed by a debtor under a joint and several obligation - if he has fulfilled this obligation to compensate for harm in full, then he has the right to count on compensation for expenses from the remaining debtors.

According to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Article 1081), the grounds for a recourse claim may be:

• cases where an employer compensates for damage caused by one of its employees;
• cases when insurers (according to the MTPL agreement) cover expenses for the insured who caused harm during transport accidents, driving in drunk etc.;
• cases when insurers, within the framework of social insurance policies, compensate for damage resulting from the actions of other persons;
• cases when the owner of the object increased danger compensated damages for the person who managed these facilities.

Thus, a recourse claim usually arises in civil circulation. It relates to many areas, but most often recourse is resorted to in the insurance industry. An example of recourse for insurers is next situation: the injured party suffered damage from the culprit of the accident, who was in a state of alcohol intoxication. In this case, the victim submits a request to insurers to cover losses, the client of which is the person responsible for the accident. As a result, insurers compensate the victim for damage, but file a recourse claim in order to receive compensation for expenses from their client.

Based on this, compensation for damage in the context of recourse is possible only when the parties to joint and several obligations are officially in a legal relationship supported by an agreement (agreement between employer and employee, insurer and policyholder, etc.).

Debtor persons have the right to file recourse claim against the culprit in the arbitration court. In turn, the perpetrators can challenge the recourse claim, which entails financial liability.

Specifics of the recourse requirement according to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

The rules of recourse usually follow from Civil Code RF, in in some cases recourse rights may be regulated by the Labor Code. The legislation regulates the grounds for filing a recourse claim; the amount of compensation to the person who compensated the damage for the culprit; terms of claim, etc.

The rules of recourse arising from contractual legal relations include:

• the recourse obligation comes into force when the main obligation is fulfilled - payment of compensation for damage injured party(Article 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);

• debtor who performed joint obligation, may exercise recourse against other debtors in equal shares, excluding the share that falls on himself (Article 366 of the Civil Code);

• The amount of compensation payable to the tortfeasor may differ from the amount that the debtor compensated the victim. For example, an employee compensates the employer for damage caused without including the amount of lost profits in the amount (Article 238 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation);

• the actual causer of the damage has recourse obligations to the person who compensated the damage if he committed illegal act(crime) proven by the court (clause 1, article 1070 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Stay up to date with everyone important events United Traders - subscribe to our

1. A person who has compensated for damage caused by another person (an employee in the performance of his official, official or other labor responsibilities, person managing vehicle, etc.), has the right of recourse (recourse) to this person in the amount of compensation paid, unless a different amount 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 what was paid compensation to the victim in an amount corresponding to the degree of guilt of this tortfeasor. If it is impossible to determine the degree of guilt, the shares are considered equal.

3. Russian Federation, subject Russian Federation or municipality in the event of compensation for damage caused by the judge during the administration of justice, they have the right of recourse to this person if his guilt is established by a court verdict that 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 grounds provided for in articles 1069 and 1070 of this Code, as well as by decisions European Court according to human rights have the right of recourse to a person, in connection with illegal actions(inaction) of whom the said compensation was made.

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.

Comments to Art. 1081 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. The article repeats Art. 456 of the Civil Code of 1964, supplementing it with a number of short stories. Right of recourse ( reverse action) is the claim of the creditor (regredient) to the debtor for the return of the last compensation paid due to the fault of another person.

By general rule the debtor under a recourse claim is obliged to reimburse the creditor for the payment he made to a third party in in full. Exceptions to this provision may be provided by law. Thus, employees who cause harm while performing their job duties are liable to their employer in accordance with the provisions of Art. Art. 119 - 121 of the Labor Code, which under certain circumstances limit the amount of damages. If the harm is caused by employees not in the performance of their job duties (for example, unauthorized use of technical means), then they bear responsibility to their employer on the basis of the norms civil legislation, i.e. in full (clause 17.1 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the USSR Supreme Court of September 23, 1977 (with amendments and additions made on March 17 and December 1, 1983, September 23, 1987 and March 29, 1991) “On the application of legislation by courts regulating the financial liability of workers and employees for damage caused to an enterprise, institution, organization" // Collection of resolutions of the Plenums Supreme Courts USSR and RSFSR (RF) by civil cases. M.: SPARK, 1994. P. 49).

2. The right of recourse claim against the debtor arises from the time a citizen or legal entity pays to the victim the amounts subject to compensation in connection with the harm caused, and from the same time the period for filing a recourse claim is calculated. The court does not have the right to satisfy a recourse claim if, at the time of the decision, the plaintiff has not compensated for the damage caused (Bulletin of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. 1994. No. 8. P. 10).

3. In paragraph 2 of Art. 1081 we're talking about O recourse obligations co-perpetrators of harm, i.e. persons who jointly caused harm (see Art. 1080 and commentary thereto). Each of them, in the case of sole compensation for harm to the victim, has the right of recourse to others. Responsibility in this case must be assigned taking into account guilt, and only if it is impossible to determine the degree of guilt of each of the co-causers, shares are recognized as equal.

4. Provisions of paragraph 3 of Art. 1081 represent special case the general rule on recourse to the direct cause of harm, provided for in paragraph 1 of Art. 1081. Recourse claims based on clause 3 of Art. 1081 can be presented to officials of the investigative bodies, preliminary investigation, prosecutor's office and court only for the actions listed in paragraph 1 of Art. 1070 of the Civil Code, and only in cases where harm to citizens in this area is caused as a result criminal acts officials established by the verdict that has entered into legal force.

5. Since liability for the actions of other persons under Art. Art. 1073 - 1076 of the Civil Code is possible only through the own fault of the person held accountable, then the latter, having compensated for the harm, do not have the right of recourse to the direct causers of harm.

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 to Art. 1081 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. It is customary to distinguish between the actual causer of harm and the causer of harm in a tortious obligation. So, entity or a citizen compensates for harm caused by his employee in the performance of labor (official, official) duties (see Article 1068 of the Civil Code and the commentary thereto). In this case, the actual cause of harm is the employee; The tortfeasor in a tortious obligation (the person obligated to compensate for the harm) is the employer. A similar situation arises in a number of other cases (see Articles 1069 - 1076 of the Civil Code and the corresponding commentary).

The establishment of such rules is intended to ensure the interests of the victim as much as possible. On the other hand, they are due to the fact that often the actions of the actual causer of harm are a consequence of the omissions of the employer, parents, etc. (lack of proper organization of work, admission to work of an insufficiently qualified employee, failure of parents to fulfill their responsibilities in raising a child, etc.).

When one person, by operation of law, compensates for harm caused by another person, it would be unfair to relieve the actual tortfeasor from any liability. Moreover, as a general rule, the person who compensated for the harm can demand from the actual causer of the harm the compensation he paid to the victim in full. In other words, from the moment compensation is paid to the victim, a recourse obligation arises. Subjects of this obligation are the person who compensated the harm to the third party (the victim) and the actual causer of the harm. The object is the amount of money corresponding to the amount paid to the victim. The content of this obligation consists of the right of recourse (recourse) of the person who compensated the harm to the actual causer of harm for payment sum of money in the amount of compensation paid and the obligation of the actual causer of harm to pay, corresponding to this right the specified amount.

The law may establish that the actual causer of harm, by way of recourse, pays the person who compensated for the harm a different amount than that paid to the victim. So, by virtue of Art. 238 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employee is obliged to compensate the employer for direct damage caused to him actual damage. Lost income (lost profits) cannot be recovered from the employee. In accordance with Art. 241 of the same Code, for damage caused, the employee bears financial liability within the limits of his average monthly earnings, unless otherwise provided federal law. Employees under the age of 18 bear full financial responsibility only for intentional causing damage, for damage caused while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or other toxic substances, as well as for damage caused as a result of committing a crime or administrative offense(Article 242 of the Labor Code).

2. As is known, persons who jointly caused harm are jointly and severally liable to the victim (see Article 1080 of the Civil Code and the commentary thereto). If any of the persons who jointly caused harm compensated the harm to the victim, then this should not lead to unjust enrichment other harmers. Therefore, the tortfeasor who has paid compensation has the right of recourse against the remaining tortfeasors (co-debtors). Each of them must pay a certain share compensation paid, minus the share falling on the tortfeasor who paid the compensation. The share of each co-debtor is determined based on the degree of his guilt, taking into account the specific circumstances of each particular case. If the degree of guilt cannot be established, the shares are considered equal.

3. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1 of Art. 1070 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, damage is compensated to the victim regardless of the guilt of officials of the bodies of inquiry, preliminary investigation, prosecutor's office and court. This was established in order to ensure the interests of the victim as much as possible. At the same time, in order to ensure the interests of the relevant officials, paragraph 3 of the commented article provides that the recourse claim addressed to them will be satisfied only if the guilt of the official is established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force. Thus, in in this case the actual causer of harm is liable to the person who compensated for the harm if he committed a crime, as established by the court verdict.

4. Persons who compensated for damage on the grounds specified in Art. Art. 1073 - 1076 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, are deprived of the right of recourse (recourse) to the actual causer of harm, since they are responsible for their guilt (for themselves) (see. mentioned articles and comments to them).

What is regression? This concept is well known to lawyers in the field of civil law in Russia; in Latin it literally means “to return back.” Collection by way of recourse always occurs at the initiative of a third party civil relations, who had to compensate for damage actually caused by another person. Let's get acquainted with this procedure in this article.

What does regression mean?

There are always at least three sides:

1. The person who has the right to demand payment can be an organization (for example, Insurance Company);
2. The person who was obliged to pay and did not pay;
3. A person who is not a debtor, but through the fault of the debtor has paid the debt by virtue of certain reasons, – from the moment of payment he has the right of recourse.

A clear example of a procedure that allows you to “return what you paid” are the following situations:

1. The employer brings a claim against his employee, for whom he paid damages to other persons.

Example No. 1. During the construction of a house, one of the builders working under a contract with Semenov K.A. violated labor protection and safety requirements, as a result of which a poorly secured beam fell on the designer, who came to the site to adjust the plan, causing damage injuries. Semenov K.A. had to pay the victim compensation in the amount of 120,000 rubles court decision. Subsequently, by way of recourse, Semenov K.A. recovered this amount from the employee responsible for the incident.

2. The insurance company recovers what was paid from the insured person. Here it is necessary to distinguish between the terms recourse and subrogation.

So, if the victim of an accident contacts his insurance company, there is a subsequent recovery on behalf of this organization from the company of the culprit of the accident - this is subrogation.

A claim is considered recourse when an insurance company recovers what it has paid under compulsory motor liability insurance from its client. The grounds for filing claims in this manner are provided by law:

1. When the policyholder was driving while intoxicated.
2. When an accident is caused by a person who does not have a driver's license.
3. When the driver was not included in the insurance.
4. If the driver fled the scene of the accident.

3. Recourse is allowed in the area social insurance when compensating for damage caused by the actions of a third party.

Example No. 2. Yakovlev A.P. was a victim in a criminal case - he was stabbed by K.R. Mironov, who was brought to criminal liability according to Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Yakovlev A.P. had to be treated in a hospital, he had two complex operations. Health care was provided free of charge under the policy, financing in such cases is provided from the Mandatory Fund health insurance(MHIF). Since the harm to Yakovlev was caused by the fault of another person, a claim was filed against Mironov on behalf of the Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund for recovery by way of recourse Money in the amount of 12,087 rubles (cost of treatment). The claim was granted by the court, as stated directly in the verdict of guilty.

4. the owner of a source of increased danger paid for the damage caused by the person who operated it. The source of increased danger refers not only to vehicles, but also various mechanisms, explosives, construction equipment etc. Article 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation reflects the obligation of the owner of a source of increased danger to bear the burden of responsibility for harm caused by him to other persons. At the same time, the owner has the right to recourse order make demands for the return of what was paid from the actual culprit.

Example No. 3. Activities of Makarov A.R. was associated with renting out his own crane - this was his good income, on which, in fact, he existed. Tenant Ivanushkin R.G., who regularly paid him monthly rent, he himself was behind the wheel of the crane control. Due to inexperience, Ivanushkin R.G. lost control and caused bodily harm to a stranger who happened to be near a construction site. Makarov A.R., by virtue of Art. 1079 of the Civil Code, the victim had to pay compensation for the damage caused, determined by the court in the amount of 120,000 rubles. Subsequently Makarov A.R. went to court by way of recourse, collecting from Ivanushkin R.G. the specified amount.

An approximate list of the grounds on which the recourse procedure for considering claims set out above is possible follows from Art. 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In fact, within the framework of this rule, it is possible to “return back” everything that was paid by a person who was not the real debtor for almost any obligation due to harm.

There are other norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation that regulate special cases of recourse - for example, Art. 147 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (in the field of obligations under securities), Art. 379 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (according to the paid bank guarantee), Art. 399 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (if subsidiary liability) etc.

So, in accordance with Art. 325 Civil Code of the Russian Federation, with joint liability a debtor who has paid the entire amount of the debt has the right to recover it minus his share from other debtors. This situation may arise when one of the co-owners of a residential premises has paid for utilities - he can apply to the court to collect the paid debt by way of recourse from the other co-owners.

Example No. 4. The three owners of the apartment lived together and used utilities, but did not pay for them. Since a notice of water and electricity shutoff was received by mail, one of the residents decided to pay the entire amount of debt that had accumulated over 8 months. Subsequently, the tenant, who paid off the debt, collected 2/3 of the amount from the other two co-owners in equal shares (the calculation was based on their overall size debt divided equally among three).

One of the most common examples of requirements similar to recourse, but in legal sense not related to it, is the claim of the guarantor to recover the amount paid by him for the borrower. Now, given the high percentage of Russians with debt, people have begun to more often refuse requests to become a guarantor for loans, whereas previously almost every second loan was secured by a guarantee.

Example No. 5. By loan agreement Kinetin R.P. was the borrower, and Suknov A.V. - guarantor. After two years of timely payments, Kinetin R.P. I stopped depositing money into the account for personal reasons, the essence of which we will not go into. Then the work of employees of the bank’s bad debt department began, and then with third-party collectors. As a result, Kinetin R.P. I didn’t even pay current debt, and a written claim demanding repayment of the entire amount of the debt was sent to the guarantor. Suknov A.V. and I myself tried to talk to my friend, whom I had once agreed to help, but I did not achieve a positive effect. The debt continued to grow, fines and penalties grew. The bank announced its intention to recover the entire amount from the borrower and guarantor in equal shares. To prevent this from happening (Suknov A.V., first of all, was afraid of the arrest of accounts, since he was an individual entrepreneur and then all his activities would simply cease), the guarantor repaid the debt in full. From that moment on, he had the right of recourse claims. Suknov A.V. filed a lawsuit to recover from the borrower the entire amount of debt paid for him, a court decision was made in favor of the guarantor.

Thus, the guarantor returned back what he had paid, but since these requirements became possible within the framework of Art. 365 of the Civil Code, according to which the guarantor actually “takes” the place of the creditor, even taking advantage of the right of pledge if it exists, then it would be legally competent this situation do not qualify as regression. This is directly stated by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation in the Resolution of the Plenum on guarantee issues No. 42 of July 12, 2012 (clauses 13-14).

Note that in a number of cases the right of recourse is excluded by law:

• If parents have compensated for the harm caused by their children, they do not have the right to demand that the minors return what they paid.

  Example No. 6. 13-year-old Nikonov P.A. caused bodily harm to the minor Egorov K.A., as a result of which the parents of the victim filed a claim for compensation moral damage and compensation for damage to health to the father of Nikonov P.A., in the amount of 30,000 rubles. The claim was satisfied because instead minor children The defendants are the parents, as follows from the rules of Art. 1073 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. When Nikonov P.A. reached adulthood, his father, who was in a long-term hostile relationship with his son and ex-wife, decided to file a lawsuit for the return of the amount he paid, and indicated his child as the defendant. The court decision rejected these claims, since in this case recourse is not applicable.

• If the harm caused by the incompetent person was compensated by the guardian, then he does not have the right to make recourse claims against the incompetent person.

Statute of limitations

As is known, total term limitation period in cases of debt collection is 3 years, unless otherwise specified in the contract. For recourse claims, this three-year period begins from the day the main obligation is fulfilled - then the right to “demand back” arises.

Example No. 7. Individual entrepreneur P.D. Morozov, who organized the installation suspended ceilings by hired workers, paid for the damage caused by the explosion gas equipment, used in the installation of ceiling canopies. Compensation was paid on November 2, 2016 in the amount of 300,000 rubles. Since in this case there are grounds for recourse claims arising as a result of payment for damage caused by the employee, Morozov P.D. filed a lawsuit for recovery from the workers of V.U. Semenov. and Polyakova P.M. the amount paid in equal shares, the court decision satisfied these requirements in full. At the same time, the court rejected the defendants’ arguments that Morozov P.D. missed the statute of limitations: the incident itself took place on March 1, 2014, and the statement of claim was received by the court office on March 17, 2017, that is, 3 years later. The decision stated that the statute of limitations for this case starts from November 2, 2016.

Earlier we indicated that recourse must be distinguished from subrogation. However, one of the differences is the rule for determining the limitation period: the right of subrogation begins from the date of the event (for example, an accident), and not from the date of payment of the insurance premium.

If the statute of limitations for recourse claims has passed, good reason The plaintiff, by analogy with an ordinary claim, must prove the circumstances that were an obstacle to compliance with the three-year period.

What you need to know when preparing a recourse claim

In practice, pre-trial recourse to the debtor for payment of what has been paid is allowed. Certainly, voluntary compensation party to the obligation for which the third party paid a certain amount would be the most painless way to resolve the situation. You can file the requirements as a regular claim and send them to the debtor’s address. If there is no answer or you already know for sure that no one intends to return the money you paid, you should go to court, guided by the following:

1. The territorial jurisdiction of district courts is determined by the place of residence of the defendant - that is, the person for whom you paid.
2. The application should be submitted to the magistrate's court if the amount of the claims does not exceed 50,000 rubles; in other cases, the citizen applies to a court of general jurisdiction.
3. You need to draw up a statement of claim in three copies (for the court, for the defendant and for yourself).
4. The text of the statement of claim must indicate:
   • all information about the main obligation. For example, if we are talking about compensation for damage caused by an employee, then the date of the court decision on recovery, the amount determined by the court to be paid, as well as the data of the citizen to whose account the funds were sent should be reflected;
   • You must indicate the date of payment; you can specify the number of the payment order, receipt, etc. in the text of the application.
   • need to refer to those legal events, on the basis of which the plaintiff’s obligation arose to bear the burden of responsibility for the debtor - for example, for an agreement (lease, contract, contract of employment etc.) indicating the details, dates and substance of the document;
   • date and method of payment (cash, bank transfer);
   • total amount, which you are asking to recover by court decision: it includes both the amount of money directly paid for the debtor and any costs associated with this: the services of a lawyer, representative, the amount of state duty (paid according to the general rules);
5. Attach to the statement of claim copies of the documents to which you refer in the claim.
6. It is advisable to participate in court hearing, to yourself or to another person instead of you, by proxy.

Sample statement of claim for recovery by way of recourse

In general, when drawing up a claim you need to be guided by general requirements civil procedural legislation. You can use example statement of claim for recovery of damages by way of recourse. Explanations are highlighted in blue.

In the Zavodskoy District Court of Yekaterinburg
Plaintiff: Markov P.L.,
living at the address: Ekaterinburg, st. Lenina, 12, apt. 3
Tel. 8926666777
Defendant: Peredelov O.D.,
living at the address: Ekaterinburg, st. Elektrozavodskaya, 34, apt. 4
(make sure that the defendant’s address is correct, as the determination of territorial jurisdiction depends on this).
Cost of claim: 70,000 rubles.
(the price must be equal to the amount that was paid by the plaintiff)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM
in accordance with Art. 1081 Civil Code of the Russian Federation (by way of recourse)

Between me, Markov P.L. and Peredelov O.D. an employment contract dated February 12, 2016 was concluded, according to which I, Markov P.L. I am an employer as individual entrepreneur, and Peredelov O.D. - my employee. The responsibilities of Peredelov O.D. included the start-up and commissioning of refrigeration units received in faulty condition from individuals and organizations on orders. As a result poor quality work Peredelova O.D. to troubleshoot a unit received on 04/02/2016 from the Kholod company, an employee was harmed the specified organization– master Simonova K.A.

(Here we reflected the legal relations, the nature of which explains the plaintiff’s obligation to pay the debt for P.L. Markov)

Factory's decision district court Ekaterinburg dated May 25, 2016 from me as an employer, in accordance with Art. 1068 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, recovered 70,000 rubles as compensation for causing harm to the health of Simonova K.A. During judicial trial it was proven that the harm to Simonova was caused by the employee P.L. Markov employed in my company, since the victim, being convinced of the serviceability of the unit, began working with it. As a result, I, as an employer, was found to be a defendant. This decision entered into legal force, on 07/01/2016 I transferred to the account of Simonova K.A.:

• 62,000 rubles as compensation for damage caused by the court;
• 6000 rubles – expenses of Simonova K.A. to file a claim, prepare materials for the court;
• 2000 rubles – National tax, paid by Simonova K.A., and in total for a total amount of 70,000 rubles.

In addition, I incurred additional expenses:

• 2000 rubles is the state duty paid by me.
• 2000 rubles is the cost of the services of the lawyer who drafted this claim, and in total the total amount is 4000 rubles.

It is better to indicate in detail what expenses the plaintiff incurred in fulfilling the obligation to compensate for damages for the actually guilty person.

Be sure to provide the legal provisions on the basis of which, in the plaintiff’s opinion, the claims must be satisfied.

According to Art. 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a person who has compensated for damage caused by another person (including an employee in the performance of work duties) has the right to claim back (recourse) against this person in the amount of compensation paid.

Based on the above, guided by Art. Art. 1081 Civil Code of the Russian Federation, 131-132 Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

Collect by way of recourse from Peredelov O.D. in my favor 74,000 rubles, of which:

• 70,000 rubles - the amount paid by me in accordance with Art. 1068 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation by court decision dated May 25, 2016;
• 4,000 rubles (additional costs for paying state fees and legal services).

Application to the claim:

1. A copy of the statement of claim.
2. Receipt for payment of state duty.
3. A copy of the decision of the Zavodsky District Court of Yekaterinburg dated May 25, 2016;
4. Copy employment contract between IP Markov P.L. and Peredelov O.D. dated 02/12/2016;
5. A copy of the payment order for transfer to the bank account of Simonova K.A. from the account of IP Markov P.L.

Date, signature

After the decision

Based judicial practice, recourse claims in most cases are satisfied in full by the courts. Partial satisfaction possible in cases where there is a dispute not about the right to repay the debt, but about the amount of the amount claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, in some cases, defendants do not agree with the additional expenses incurred by the plaintiff (for example, travel costs - if we are talking about the plaintiff’s residence in another city, legal expenses for preparing documents for court, etc.).

Example No. 8. A hired driver hit a pedestrian, as a result of which the owner of the car paid compensation to the victim A.P. Zinovieva, the amount of which was quite significant - 500,000 rubles. Woman long time spent in the hospital, her health was damaged serious harm, resulting in the inability to move (the spine was affected). The culprit of the accident was convicted under Art. 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, however claim were presented to the owner of the car in accordance with Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to K.E. Nosov, who did not have financial opportunity pay the debt immediately. Nosov K.E. had to take out a loan for the specified amount - so he still paid compensation to A.P. Zinovieva. Subsequently, Nosov K.E. filed a recourse claim against the driver, and included in the amount of the claim not only the amount of money actually paid to the victim, but also the interest that he paid under the loan agreement before the date of going to court. Defendant in part additional expenses(that is, credit interest) disputed the claim, indicating in the objections that he did not force Nosov K.E. draw up a loan obligation and will not pay anything in excess of 500,000 rubles (he agreed with the main amount).

In this situation, a court decision was made to collect claims from the defendant in favor of K.E. Nosov. in full. At the same time, the practice of courts in terms of satisfying additional requirements in the order of regress is ambiguous. In any case, the need for such expenses must be confirmed in court with evidence.

What to do when a court decision by way of recourse has taken place? There are no special recommendations here. General rules apply claim proceedings: if you do not agree with the decision, you can appeal it within a month from the date of announcement full text, if you agree with the decision and it has entered into legal force – performance list must be presented to the Federal Bailiff Service to initiate enforcement proceedings.

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.

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

1. The right of recourse (retroactive action) is the claim of the creditor (regredient) to the debtor (the direct cause of harm) to return the compensation paid due to his fault to the victim.

As a general rule, the debtor under a recourse claim is obliged to reimburse the creditor for the payment he made to a third party in full. Exceptions to this rule may be provided by law. Thus, employees who cause harm while performing their job duties are liable to their employer in accordance with the provisions of Art. Art. 238 - 248 Labor Code, which under certain circumstances limit the amount of damages awarded. If the harm was caused by employees not performing their job duties (for example, unauthorized use technical means), then they bear responsibility to their employer on the basis of civil law, i.e. in full (clause 171 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the USSR Supreme Court of September 23, 1977 “On the application by courts of legislation regulating the financial liability of workers and employees for damage caused to an enterprise, institution, organization” // Collection of resolutions of the Plenums of the Supreme Courts of the USSR and the RSFSR (RF) on civil affairs. M.: SPARK, 1994. P. 49).

2. The right of recourse claim against the debtor arises from the time of payment to the victim of the amounts subject to compensation in connection with the harm caused, and from the same moment the period for filing a recourse claim is calculated. The court does not have the right to satisfy a recourse claim if, at the time of the decision, the plaintiff has not compensated for the damage caused (Bulletin of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, 1994, No. 8, Art. 10).

3. In paragraph 2 of Art. 1081 we are talking about recourse obligations of persons who caused harm jointly (see Art. 1080 and commentary thereto). Each of them, in the case of sole compensation for harm to the victim, has the right of recourse to others. Responsibility must be assigned taking into account guilt, and only if it is impossible to determine the degree of guilt of each of the co-causers, shares are recognized as equal.

4. Provisions of paragraph 3 of Art. 1081 represent a special case of the general rule of recourse to the direct cause of harm, provided for in paragraph 1 of Art. 1081. Recourse claims on the basis of clause 3 can be brought against officials of the bodies of inquiry, preliminary investigation, prosecutor's office and court, but only for the actions listed in clause 1 of Art. 1070 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and only in the case when harm to citizens in this area was caused as a result of criminal actions of officials established by a sentence that has entered into legal force.

5. Since liability for the actions of other persons under Art. Art. 1073 - 1076 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is possible only if the person held accountable is at fault, then the latter, having compensated for the harm, does not have the right of recourse to the direct causers of harm.