The court can go beyond the stated requirements. The court goes beyond the stated requirements in civil proceedings. Astrakhan Regional Court

1. When making a decision, the court evaluates the evidence, determines what circumstances relevant to the consideration of the case have been established and what circumstances have not been established, what are the legal relations of the parties, what law should be applied according to this case and whether the claim can be satisfied. 2. The court, having found it necessary to find out new circumstances that are important for the consideration of the case, or to investigate new evidence, issues a ruling on the resumption of judicial trial... After the end of the consideration of the case on the merits, the court shall hear the judicial pleadings again. 3. The court makes a decision on the claims filed by the plaintiff. However, the court may go beyond the stated requirements in cases provided for by federal law.

Legal advice under Art. 196 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation

Victoria? Kovaleva

A question for lawyers or experienced lawyers. The plaintiff indicating the factual grounds of the claim ,. one of legal grounds pointed out incorrectly. Does the court have the right to go beyond the legal grounds indicated by the plaintiff? I read somewhere that the plaintiff generally has the right not to legally substantiate the claim. Just don't write - you should have turned to a lawyer. This is not my situation.

Lawyer's answer:

Georgy Folin

EASY FORM OF A CHILD'S FANCOOK!
- there is no incubation period of this disease in any form of 21 days so that other children can infect in the garden? be sure to go to the garden .. so that other mothers do not have a sweet life. Better sit at home. Well, or ask the doctor. will not be allowed into the garden, strictly ...

Natalia Krylova

The question is right. Greetings from Ukraine)

Americans will make our people suffer http://www.vesti.ru/sdoc.html?id=1974305&pmkey=wJrIhW

(Official edition of Article 196 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation)

2. The court, having found it necessary to find out new circumstances that are important for the consideration of the case, or to investigate new evidence, shall issue a ruling on the resumption of the proceedings. After the end of the consideration of the case on the merits, the court shall hear the judicial pleadings again.

3. The court makes a decision on the claims filed by the plaintiff. However, the court may go beyond the stated requirements in cases provided for by federal law.

It follows from Article 196 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation that a judge cannot rely only on the opinion of an expert. Other evidence needs to be considered as well. In this case, the judge must evaluate the work of the expert. He finds out if the expert took into account everything that needed to be considered, how the analysis was carried out. And such an assessment is described in the decision. In the same place, the judge explains whether he agrees with the conclusions. When there are several experts, the judge is obliged to give an assessment to each. In the decision, he explains why he agrees or disagrees with one or another of them.

If the plaintiff in the claim incorrectly referred to the rule of law, this is not a reason to terminate the court. It is the responsibility of the judge to decide for himself which rule to apply. Therefore, the proceedings will continue, even if the plaintiff referred to the wrong thing. If the prosecutor defends the interests of others, the court must find out whether they really have these rights. If these persons have them and have been violated, the judge satisfies the application. Thus, the rights are restored.

The court is not bound by the stated requirements of the plaintiff (part 3 of Article 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation). This applies to public legal relations (for example, interaction with authorities). The judges listen to the plaintiff's reasons and arguments, but are not obliged to comply with them. First of all, they are guided by the law.

The court cannot decide that the employee should compensate the damage in full if the employer has asked for partial compensation. For example, the judge learned that the employee has full financial responsibility. But if the employer wants compensation in the range of the defendant's average earnings, the court will not award him any more. The opposite situation is possible. The employee has partial financial responsibility, and the employer demands full responsibility. The court then decides to award partial damages.

The court may decide to withdraw the unauthorized building. The plaintiff in this case is the administration of the city or district. But it is not the court that decides whether to demolish or keep this building. The court does not award the plaintiff more than he requested in his application. But there are exceptions to this rule. For example, when it comes to void transactions. They are described in Articles 168 - 172 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Then the court can declare such a transaction invalid. Another exception is the protection of minors.

The plaintiff can change the subject of the claim. His statement is entered into the protocol or attached to the case file (). The judge does not have the right to do this arbitrarily, but he can justify such a substitution to the plaintiff. If the judge sees that it is necessary to tell the plaintiff about his right to change the claim, then he does it. This happens, for example, if in the course of the proceedings new facts become clear. Then the judge in the final decision refers to these facts, in accordance with Article 196 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

G. Osokina, head of the department of civil procedure, Tomsk State University, professor.

Article 195 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the RSFSR (as amended by the Federal Law of November 30, 1995) provides for a rule according to which the court is obliged to resolve the case within the limits of the claims stated by the plaintiff. However, the court has the right to go beyond these limits if it finds it necessary to protect the rights and legally protected interests of the plaintiff, as well as in other cases provided for by law. In practice, the application of this provision causes great difficulties, since the law does not disclose the very concept of "going beyond the stated requirements".

It seems that when analyzing Art. 195 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is necessary to take into account two points. First, in Art. 195 of the Code of Civil Procedure is about going beyond the limits of claims solely on the initiative of the court, i.e. regardless of the consent of the plaintiff. Secondly, in Art. 195 of the Code of Civil Procedure means two ways for the court to go beyond the limits of the claim: the resolution by the court of claims not declared by the plaintiff, closely related to the declared ones, as well as changing the claim. The resolution by the court of claims not declared by the plaintiff, which are closely related to the declared ones, constitutes an exception to the principle of dispositiveness, and therefore is allowed only in cases directly specified in the law (Art.

The court went beyond the scope of the claim.

36, 39 Code of Civil Procedure, Part 2 of Art. 24 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation). As for the right of the court to change the claim filed by the plaintiff, the court, based on the circumstances of the case established in the course of the trial, has the right, regardless of the plaintiff's consent, to clarify the subject, basis and subject matter of the claim.

The right of the court to clarify the subject matter of the claim, i.e. the parties, by involving persons not indicated by the plaintiff in the process, is limited to cases of obligatory passive complicity, in other words, to cases of involving obligatory co-defendants in the process. As for the subject matter of the claim, the court, on its own initiative, depending on the circumstances of the case, as a general rule, can only clarify it by increasing or decreasing the size of the claim (see, for example, Article 1083 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 2 of Art. 39 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation). The subject matter of the claim can also be changed by replacing one method of protecting the subjective right or legitimate interest of the plaintiff with another. Such a change is only possible in claims with an alternative subject matter, i.e. in claims that are claims to protect a right or interest, for which the law provides for several (alternative) ways to protect the same subjective right or interest. Claims with an alternative subject include, for example, the requirements specified in Art. Art. 398, 475, paragraph 2 of Art. 687 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Since the right to choose one of the alternative methods of protecting the right (interest) belongs to the plaintiff, the court is not entitled, without the consent of the plaintiff, to replace one method of protection with another, unless such replacement is allowed by virtue of a direct indication of the law. So, according to Art. 1082 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, satisfying the claim for compensation for harm, the court, in accordance with the circumstances of the case, has the right to oblige the person responsible for the harm to compensate him in kind (to transfer the thing of the same kind and quality) or to compensate for the damage caused. A similar right of the court to change the subject of the claim claimed by a participant in shared ownership is provided for in paragraph 4 of Art. 252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Finally, the court, on its own initiative, has the right to change the basis of the claim only in the form of its clarification. This is understood as its addition by including in the basis of the claim facts that have legal significance for the case, but not indicated by the plaintiff, or excluding from the basis of the claim some of the facts indicated by the plaintiff that have no legal significance for the case. The provision of the court with the right to clarify the factual basis of the claim is due to the fact that persons who claim to protect their or someone else's right (interest) cannot always correctly determine which facts of reality have legal significance for a given case. The right and at the same time the duty of the court to clarify the basis of the claim directly follows from Part 2 of Art. 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the RSFSR, as amended by the Federal Law of November 30, 1995. It says: "the court determines what circumstances are relevant to the case ... puts them up for discussion, even if the parties did not refer to any of them."

So, from the foregoing, it follows that, depending on the circumstances of the case that have become clear and the interests of the plaintiff deserving attention, the court, on its own initiative, pursuant to Art. 195 Code of Civil Procedure is only entitled to clarify the composition of the persons participating in the case on the defendant's side, the basis and subject of the claim. As for changing the claim by replacing the parties, grounds and subject matter, the right to such a change in the claim is granted to the court by virtue of the principle of dispositiveness only with the consent of the plaintiff, except for cases of replacement of the subject matter of the claim by virtue of a direct indication of the law. In addition, the comparative analysis and interpretation of Art. Art. 213.3 and 195 of the Code of Civil Procedure give reason to assert that the prohibition on changing the basis and subject of the claim when considering a case in absentia does not apply to the court's right to clarify the basis and subject of the claim, and in the cases specified in the law, to replace the subject of the claim.

The court can go beyond the stated requirements in an administrative case, but only in limited cases

Article 178 of the CAS RF establishes the court makes a decision on the claims filed by the administrative plaintiff. The court may go beyond the stated requirements (the subject of the administrative statement of claim or the grounds and arguments given by the administrative plaintiff) in the cases provided for by the CAS RF. This norm is a reference, and it does not refer to any specific article of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation.

However, when analyzing the provisions of the CAS RF, we came to the conclusion that the court has such powers at the stage of considering administrative cases in the court of appeal, cassation and supervisory instance and only in some categories of cases in the court of first instance.

Chapters 34, 35, 36 of the CAS RF, which regulate proceedings in the courts of appeal, cassation and supervisory instance, establish an exhaustive list of the court's possibilities to go beyond the requirements stated in the complaint.

According to clause 1 of article 308 of the CAS RF "the court of appeal considers the administrative case in full and is not bound by the grounds and arguments set forth in the appeal, presentation and objections to the complaint, presentation".

In accordance with Part 2 of Article 329 of the CAS RF it is established “in administrative cases affecting the interests of an indefinite circle of persons, as well as the interests of an individual in administrative cases listed in chapters 28 - 31 of this Code, the court of cassation has the right to go beyond the arguments of cassation complaints, representations ".

In turn, Part 2 of Article 342 of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation established “in the interests of legality, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has the right to go beyond the arguments of a supervisory complaint or presentation.

Document protection

At the same time, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation does not have the right to check the legality of judicial acts in the part in which they are not appealed, as well as the legality of judicial acts that are not appealed. "

Let's return to the powers of the courts of first instance when considering administrative cases. On the one hand, Article 178 of the CAS RF establishes that the court may go beyond the stated requirements (the subject of the administrative claim or the grounds and arguments given by the administrative plaintiff). And if you follow the logic of the legislator, as well as the explanations contained in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 11/17/2015 No. 50 "On the application of legislation by the courts when considering certain issues arising in the course of enforcement proceedings" (hereinafter referred to as the Resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces), then you can to conclude that the court has limited and rather strict possibilities of going beyond the stated requirements.

So, according to clause 74 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the court has the right to reduce the amount of the performance fee by no more than one quarter, or to release the debtor from its collection not only when resolving claims to reduce the amount of the performance fee or exemption from its collection, but also when resolving claims on challenging the decision of the bailiff-executor on the collection of the performance fee.

In the second paragraph of clause 74, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation gives a more detailed interpretation: since the court is not bound by the grounds and arguments of the claims to challenge the decision of the bailiff, it has the right to establish circumstances indicating the need to reduce the amount of the enforcement fee, to release the debtor from its collection on the basis of the evidence examined in the court session, even if the parties did not refer to these circumstances (parts 6, 7, 9 of Article 112 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, part 3 of Article 62 of the CAS RF, part 4 of Article 200 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

With this clarification, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation stated that the court had the opportunity to go beyond the limits of an administrative claim. He also created a new procedural form for resolving a case in accordance with Chapter 22 of the CAS RF, by analogy with the form provided for in Part 9 of Art. 112 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" to resolve civil claims to reduce the amount of the enforcement fee.

So, according to the Appellate ruling of the Primorsky Regional Court of 20.07.2017 in case No. 33a-7217/2017, the court of first instance examined the materials of the enforcement proceedings, and it was established that the inaction by the bailiff-executor in the enforcement proceedings was not allowed. At the same time, the court of first instance found the decision to postpone enforcement actions unlawful, while it follows from the pleading part of the administrative statement of claim that the administrative plaintiff did not challenge this decision and the actions of the bailiff-executor to postpone enforcement actions.

In this judicial act, the court set out the following legal position: “Meanwhile, in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Article 178 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court makes a decision on the claims made by the administrative plaintiff. The court may go beyond the stated requirements (the subject of the administrative statement of claim or the grounds and arguments given by the administrative plaintiff) in the cases provided for by this Code. Thus, in violation of the requirements of Part 1 of Article 178 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, when considering this case, the court went beyond the stated requirements, which led to the adoption of the wrong decision by the court. "

In the Appellate Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 09/08/2016 No. 44-APG16-26, the position was once again approved, according to which going beyond the grounds and arguments declared by the party is a right, not an obligation of the court. In addition, the possibility of going beyond the stated requirements is provided only in cases stipulated by the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation.

At the moment, a broader interpretation of Part 1 of Article 178 of the CAS RF is not given either in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 11/17/2015 No. 50 "On the Application of Legislation by Courts when Considering Certain Issues Arising in the Course of Enforcement Proceedings" or in the Resolution of the Plenum Of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 27, 2016 No. 36 "On some issues of the application by the courts of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation."

In this situation, administrative plaintiffs need to be more careful in choosing a method for protecting violated rights, because the excessive constraint of the court's discretion at the will of the legislator does not allow the court to meet halfway with a bona fide administrative plaintiff.

Assistant Attorney at the Ternovtsov & Partners Bar
Edward Prokhorov

To print…

Judge Stus S.N. Case No. 33- 561/2011

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Astrakhan Regional Court composed of:

presiding over Sprygina O.B.,

judges of the regional court Obnosova M.V., Gubernatorova Y.Yu.,

under the secretary M.A. Chakieva,

heard in open court on the report of Judge Obnosova M.The. case for

cassation appeal of the Enotaevsky branch No. 3977 of Sberbank of Russia

years at the claim of A.I. Ryzhkova to Ryzhkov E.S.,

Ryzhkova I.S. on the recognition of ownership of property in the order

inheritance,

INSTALLED:

Ryzhkova L.I. went to court with a claim against Ryzhkov E.S., Ryzhkova I.S. on the recognition of ownership of the funds remaining after the death of her husband - RS, deceased (….), stored in deposits in the branch of the savings bank and due interest and compensation charges.

At the hearing Ryzhkova A.AND. supported the stated requirements.

Defendant Ryzhkov E.S. at the hearing the stated requirements were admitted.

Defendant Ryzhkova AND.C. admitted the claim.

Representative of the third party of Sberbank of Russia represented by Enotaevsky branch No. 3977 of Sberbank of Russia E.V. Samoilova. did not object to the stated requirements.

By the decision of the Chernoyarsk District Court of the Astrakhan Region dated December 22, 2010 from the Enotaevsky branch No. 3977 of Sberbank of Russia in favor of L.I. Ryzhkova. compensation was recovered for payment of funeral services for deposits in the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation in the amount of (...) rubles.

In its cassation appeal, Sberbank of Russia raises the issue of canceling the court decision, indicating that the plaintiff has filed a claim to recognize ownership of the funds remaining after the death of her husband and stored in the deposits of Sberbank of Russia with interest and compensation due. The basis for the payment of compensation is a document confirming the right to inheritance (notarial certificate, judicial act).

On the right of the court to go beyond the limits of the claim

OJSC Sberbank of Russia was involved in the case by a third party who does not declare independent claims on the part of the plaintiff and is not a defendant in this case, there are no rules of law allowing to recover from OJSC Sberbank of Russia compensation for payment of funeral services for deposits.

The plaintiff Ryzhkova A.I. did not appear at the meeting of the collegium, the defendants: Ryzhkov E.S. and Ryzhkova I.S., duly notified, the reasons for failure to appear are not known, due to

with which the panel of judges finds it possible to consider the case in the absence of persons who did not appear.

After listening to the speaker, representatives of Sberbank of Russia, E.V. Samoilova. and Levina V.V., who supported the arguments of the complaint, after checking the case materials and discussing the arguments of the complaint, the panel of judges comes to the conclusion that the court decision was canceled due to violation of the rules of procedural law.

As follows from the case file Ryzhkov A.AND. filed a lawsuit against Ryzhkov E.S. and Ryzhkova I.S. on the recognition of ownership of property by way of inheritance.

Collecting from Sberbank of Russia in favor of L.AND. Ryzhkova compensation for payment of funeral services for deposits in the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation in the amount of (...) rubles, the district court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff clarified his requirements in court.

However, the panel of judges cannot agree with the first instance court on the following grounds.

On the basis of part 1 of article 131 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the statement of claim is submitted to the court in writing.

In accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the tasks of civil proceedings are the correct and timely consideration and resolution of civil cases in order to protect violated or disputed rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens.

According to part 3 of article 196 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court makes a decision only on the claims made by the plaintiff. The court may go beyond the stated requirements in the cases provided for by federal law.

By virtue of Article 39 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the plaintiff determines the basis and subject of the claim. The court does not have the right, without the consent of the plaintiff, to change the grounds or subject of the claims stated by the plaintiff.

Clause 5 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 19, 2003 N 23 "On the court decision" draws the attention of the courts to the fact that the stated requirements are considered and resolved on the grounds indicated by the plaintiff, as well as on the circumstances brought up by the court for discussion in accordance with with part 2 of Art. 56 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

In the case file there is no written statement by Ryzhkova A.AND. to clarify the claims.

The court of first instance, when making a decision, violated the norms of procedural law, went beyond the scope of claims and resolved an issue that was not declared by the plaintiff during the consideration of the case in court. The court did not resolve the stated claims, but resolved the issue of the rights, for the protection of which Ryzhkova A.AND. did not apply.

According to part 1 of Article 43 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, third parties who do not declare independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute may intervene on the side of the plaintiff or the defendant before the court of first instance adopts a court ruling on the case, if it may affect their rights or obligations in relation to to one side. They can also be involved in the case at the request of the persons participating in the case, or at the initiative of the court. Third parties who do not make independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute enjoy procedural rights and bear the procedural obligations of the party, with the exception of the right to change the basis or subject of the claim, increase or

reduction of the amount of claims, rejection of the claim, recognition of the claim or conclusion of an amicable agreement, as well as the filing of a counterclaim and the requirement for the enforcement of a court decision.

Part 1 of Article 38 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation determines that the parties in civil proceedings are the plaintiff and the defendant.

From the above legal norms, it follows that third parties are not subjects of a disputed legal relationship, which has become the subject of consideration in court, and therefore, the judicial board considers that when considering the issue of collecting compensation from Sberbank of Russia for payment of funeral services for deposits in Savings Bank of the Russian Federation, the court of first instance incorrectly applied the rules of procedural law, which, in accordance with Art. 362 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation is the basis for canceling the appealed decision.

In a new consideration of the case, the court must take into account the above, ensure that the procedural rights of the parties are respected and their arguments regarding the stated requirements and objections are checked, after which, having established legally significant circumstances, assess all the arguments of the persons involved in the case, make a new decision in accordance with the requirements of the law and taking into account the rules of law governing controversial legal relationships.

Guided by Art. 361 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Astrakhan Regional Court

ABOUT THE LIMIT:

The decision of the Chernoyarsk District Court of the Astrakhan Region of December 22, 2010 to cancel, the case should be sent for a new consideration to the same court.

Presiding Officer:

Regional court judges.

Article 196. Issues to be resolved when making a court decision

1. Analysis of the rules of Part 1 of Art. 196 allows us to draw a number of conclusions:

a) the law imperatively establishes a certain sequence of procedural actions carried out by the court in the course of making a decision;

b) the assessment of evidence is carried out in accordance with the rules of Art. 59, 60, 67 Code of Civil Procedure (see comments to them);

c) the court, proceeding from the analysis of the entire course of the consideration of the civil case on the merits, determines:

what circumstances relevant to the case can be recognized (considered) established (subsequently this is indicated in the reasoning part of the decision on the case - Article 198);

which of the above circumstances have not been established. It is not necessary to indicate this in the reasoning part of the decision;

what are the legal relations of the parties (for example, civil, housing, etc.);

d) the court must unconditionally determine which specific law (meaning the norm of substantive law) should be applied in this case. It should be borne in mind that:

the court in the reasoning part of the decision is obliged to indicate the law that it applied (see commentary to Art. 198);

incorrect application of the norms of substantive or procedural law, as well as their incorrect interpretation, is an unconditional basis for cancellation of a court decision, for example, in cassation (see commentary to Art. 362-364 of the Code of Civil Procedure);

e) after that, the court must answer the question whether the claim is subject to satisfaction. The conclusion about this should be contained in the operative part of the decision (part 5 of article 198). It should be borne in mind that:

the law gives the court the right to go beyond the claims stated by the plaintiff (see comments below);

if the defendant admits the claim, then this is indicated in the reasoning part of the decision (part 4 of article 198).

2. The specifics of the rules of Part 2 of Art. 196 is as follows:

a) they shall be applied if the court, during the deliberation, finds it necessary:

find out new circumstances that are important for the case, without which it is impossible to correctly resolve the case;

explore new evidence. At the same time, it is possible that they were presented earlier, but the court, by its determination, excluded them from the circle of the investigated;

b) they establish that the court must issue a ruling on the clarification of new circumstances, the study of new evidence. After that, he (by ruling) resumes consideration of the case on the merits. However, on all the aforementioned issues, the court has the right to issue one (general) determination. Anyway:

the above definitions must be motivated and meet the requirements of Art. 225 (see the commentary to it);

consideration of the case on the merits (after its renewal) must take place with the obligatory observance of the procedure established by Art. 172-189.

Having considered the case on the merits, the court again (in the manner established by Articles 189, 190 - see comments to them) hears the conclusion of the prosecutor, judicial pleadings, remarks.

The law does not provide for the possibility of any reduction, simplification of the process after the resumption of the trial. In practice, the question arose: is it possible in this case to use the rules of Part 4 of Art. 169? Systematic analysis of Art. 196 and Art. 169 (see the commentary to it) does not allow an affirmative answer to this question: the fact is that in this case the circumstances of the resumption of the trial are different than when the proceedings were postponed.

3. Characterizing the rules of Part 3 of Art. 196, it should be noted that:

a) as a general rule, the court resolves the case within the limits of the claims stated by the plaintiff (the scope of which the plaintiff must clearly indicate in the text of the statement of claim);

b) nevertheless, the court has the right to go beyond the requirements stated by the plaintiff, but only insofar as:

this is expressly provided for by federal law. Article 196 did not accept the rules of Art. 195 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1964 that the court has the right to go beyond the stated requirements and if it is necessary to protect the rights and legally protected interests of the plaintiff. The law now proceeds from the fact that the plaintiff (most often is not a professional lawyer and does not always have complete information, etc.) may not even mention in his claim the claims that are closely related to the declared ones (and sometimes inseparable with them).

For example, Art. 394 of the Labor Code gives the court the right (when making decisions on disputes about dismissal and transfer to another job) to go beyond the requirements stated by the plaintiff.

4.Considering that the court goes beyond the requirements stated by the plaintiff precisely during the delivery of the decision (in the deliberation room), it:

is not obliged to make a special determination about this;

indicates that he went beyond the stated requirements both in the reasoning part (justifying such a withdrawal), and in the operative part of the decision.

An additional court decision should be distinguished from the court going beyond the limits of the claim (referred to in Art. 196) (see comments to Art. 201).

5. On the practice of the Constitutional Court related to Art. 196 see its Definition of 12.21.2004 N 458-o. For the correct application of Art. 196 see also the explanation given in paragraph 5 of Resolution No. 23 (that the court, for example, has the right to go beyond the stated requirements and, on its own initiative, on the basis of paragraph 2 of Article 166 of the Civil Code, apply the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction; cases from public legal relations, the court is not bound by the grounds and arguments of the stated claims, i.e. the circumstances on which the applicant bases his claims, see the commentary to Part 3 of Art. 246).

The full text of Art. 196 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation with comments. New current edition with additions for 2020. Legal advice on Article 196 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

3. The court makes a decision on the claims filed by the plaintiff. However, the court may go beyond the stated requirements in cases provided for by federal law.

Commentary on Article 196 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation

1. When applying to the court in civil proceedings and participating in the process, the interested person pursues the goal of protecting his rights or legally protected interests by resolving a legal conflict in his favor by the court, and in special proceedings - by judicially establishing the legal status of a citizen or property. Accordingly, the other party in cases where there is a dispute about the right, seeks to defend against the claims of the interested person, seeking a decision to refuse to satisfy the claim.

The decision must make the final conclusions of the court of first instance on the merits of the issues put before it, in order to ensure the protection of unlawfully violated or contested rights or interests protected by law. However, for this, the court must resolve a number of preliminary issues formulated in Part 1 of Art. 196 Code of Civil Procedure.

2. First of all, when making a decision, the court is obliged to give a final assessment of the evidence examined during the consideration of the case on the merits, being guided by the rules. The specific procedure for assessing evidence is determined by whether the case is considered individually or collectively.

So, in a single-handed consideration of a case, the assessment of the relevance, admissibility and reliability of evidence, as well as their sufficiency and interconnection, is carried out by the judge in the process of his mental activity, accompanied, if necessary, by additional perception of evidence recorded in the case file or attached to the case. In a peer review of the case, all the evidence examined for their assessment should also be discussed by the judges in a deliberative procedure in order to develop a common position of the court on this issue, accepted by a majority vote.

3. Based on the assessment of the evidence, the court determines which circumstances relevant to the formation of conclusions on the merits of the case have been established and which have not been established, as well as whether there is a disputed legal relationship between the parties and what is its content. Having determined the legal relationship of the parties, the court finally chooses the norm of substantive law to be applied and concludes whether the declared claim is subject to satisfaction.

4. In the operative part of the decision, the court distributes the court costs between the parties (). At the hearing, the parties may claim to recover compensation for the loss of working time, to reimburse the costs of paying for the assistance of a representative (Articles 99, 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The circumstances of a particular case may require that the decision be addressed to the immediate execution of the decision, measures to ensure its execution.

All these issues, if raised, should also be discussed and resolved by the judges in the deliberation room when making a decision.

5. As a result of the assessment of the evidence, the court may come to the conclusion that not all the circumstances essential for the case have been clarified, although there was a possibility for this, not all the evidence has been examined. In such cases, the court makes not a decision, but a ruling by which it resumes the proceedings to eliminate the identified deficiencies. After the end of the additional stage of the consideration of the case on the merits, the court again holds judicial pleadings and retires to the deliberation room to make a decision.

6. In accordance with the requirements of the principle of dispositiveness, the court makes a decision on the claims filed by the plaintiff. The right granted to the court to go beyond the stated requirements in cases provided for by law is usually associated with the protection of the public interest or the rights and legally protected interests of minors.

So, according to Art. 166 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the court may apply, on its own initiative, the consequences of a void transaction. In accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 70 and clause 2 of Art. 71 of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, when considering a case on deprivation of parental rights, the court decides the issue of collecting alimony for a child, regardless of whether such a claim is filed. According to Part 3 of Art. 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when considering and resolving cases arising from public legal relations, the court is not bound by the grounds and arguments of the stated requirements (see also paragraph 17 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of May 27, 1998 No. 10 "On the application of legislation by courts in resolving disputes related with the upbringing of children ", clause 5 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 19, 2003 N 23" On the court decision "*).