The Supreme Court: subrogation and regress give different legal consequences
As the Court explained, the legal consequences of the fulfillment of the obligations of the surety to the creditor and the obligations of the joint and several debtor who jointly caused harm to the creditor are not the same.
Attorney, partner of the law firm Tenzor Consulting Group Anton Makeichuk in an expert opinion for Advocacy newspaper explained that the conclusions of the RF Armed Forces touch on two points: “Firstly, the Supreme Court corrected the organizational error of the court of cassation, which simply did not consider the complaint filed by one of the co -assors. Second, the Court corrected a theoretical error by recalling the difference between subrogation and regression. By and large, the definition of the Supreme Court was a good reminder to all law enforcers, including judges, of the theory of civil law on the opposite request, since in the practice of lower courts there are acts in which these concepts were confused, “he is convinced.
{{ 1}} Anton also called it important for the Supreme Court to justify the fact that the differences between regression and subrogation are not formal, but have different legal implications.
The material of the Advokatskaya gazeta is fully available here.