Securing a claim in a civil proceeding is allowed from the moment the relevant demand (petition) is filed. This provision is contained in Art. 139 GPC. Next, we consider in more detail how the security of the claim is carried out, the cancellation of the security of the claim. 
General information
Measures to secure the claim are allowed in relation to the claiming party, the defendant and third parties involved in the proceedings. They are accepted by the judge at the request of the parties concerned. According to Art. 139 (in contrast to Article 133 of the previously existing Code of Civil Procedure), an official authorized to consider a dispute cannot implement security measures on a personal initiative. The prosecutor also applies to the participants in the hearing. According to Part 2 of Art. 45 Code of Civil Procedure, he also has the right to submit an application for securing a claim.
Controversial moment
Securing a claim (a sample of the petition is presented in the article) is provided at the production stage. At the legislative level, there is no counterclaim for the defendant. He could have filed a counterclaim to secure the claim. In this case, he will cease to be a defendant. When filing a counterclaim, the security will relate to the substantive claim against the person presenting the initial claim. It should be noted that during the consideration a new dispute will appear. The independent claim of the former defendant is aimed at securing a claim that is not related to the initial claims. The court cannot consider two dissimilar cases within the framework of one proceeding. In this regard, it would be unreasonable to talk about the defendant's right to file such a claim. It would be wise to consider collateral provision as the implementation of a claim to:
- Bilateral requirement.
- Claims of the defendant or plaintiff to a third party.
- Tripartite requirement and so on.
Counterclaim support in a civil process, therefore, can take place where its implementation will be aimed at protecting the right of the opposite party with respect to the same claim.
Presentation Features
Upon suing, the security may be executed separately - as indicated directly in the content of the initial claim. According to the Civil Procedure Code, the latter may state a petition. It is assumed that it will act as a statement of collateral. However, there is no direct reference to this in the legislation. The security of the claim may be declared by the persons participating in the proceedings, orally, directly during the hearing. This application is recorded in the minutes.
Seizure
In pursuance of court decisions (decisions), as well as to prevent probable consequences in case of failure to comply with court orders, the Code of Civil Procedure provides a list of relevant tools. Interim measures, in particular, include seizure of property belonging to the defendant, the property held by him or by other persons. This tool is fixed in Art. 140, p. 1, part 1.
Such security for a claim is considered the most common. Its implementation acts as an integral element in the proceedings of disputes, the subject of which is property alienated or otherwise hidden by the defendant. The seizure is considered a temporary measure. It meets the need for the realization of a probable subsequent confiscation of possibly illegally obtained property.The provision of a civil claim for the recovery of money from the defendant is used to prevent the likelihood of evading the obligation to pay the imputed amount. In pursuance of the decision of the judicial authority, the arrest of the defendant’s money may also be used, wherever it may be. 
Prohibition of actions
Pursuant to the decision of the authorized body, as well as to prevent damage that may be caused to the person making property claims as part of the claim, the security may imply restrictions on the behavior of the defendant. The prohibition of actions is provided for in Art. 140, p. 2, part 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When deciding on the provision of a claim of this nature, it is important to specifically list those behavioral acts that are not permissible for the defendant.
Classification of Prohibited Actions
They are divided into two categories: legal and factual. The latter include those aimed at changing the appearance and internal condition of the property, its functional purpose. For example, a court may prohibit the construction or demolition of a building, carry out financial transactions on an account, lay communications on a disputed site, and so on. Legal actions include those that can contribute to changing the legal status of property, being in someone else's possession, belonging to someone else. For example, a court may prohibit burdening things with obligations, transferring them to third parties, and so on. When making a determination, prohibitions should be formulated so that the legal nature of the prohibition is immediately clear. Moreover, they should fit into the framework of the existing legal categories and concepts that are present in the legislation. For example, the wording may be as follows: entering into an obligation, transferring things, encumbrance, and so on is unacceptable. 
Prohibitions for third parties
They are installed in Art. 140, para. 3, para. 1. Actions that the court may prohibit relate to the subject of the dispute. These include, but are not limited to, transferring property to the defendant or fulfilling any obligation in his favor. This measure of security is also associated with the imposition of property, cash on the account, seizure. For example, in the latter case, the bank is forbidden to give the defendant any amounts - to fulfill the deposit obligation in his favor. The purpose of such measures is to prevent the occurrence of adverse consequences for the plaintiff, mainly related to changes in the legal status of property. In practice, a ban on the fulfillment of obligations not only of Art. 307, Part 1 of the Civil Code, but also other conditions. So, in the framework of administrative-legal relations it is not allowed to issue a warrant for a dwelling. This prohibition is addressed to the local administration.
Termination of the sale of property
The basis under which such security for a claim is applied is the cancellation of the security for a claim relating to the inclusion of things in the inventory. This is the case if the property was previously seized and its sale started. But upon filing a lawsuit to exclude him from the inventory, this procedure is terminated. 
Suspension of recovery in accordance with the executive document
This measure is recorded in Art. 140, paragraph 5, part 1. Its implementation is carried out at the request of the interested person. It may be the plaintiff himself, another participant in the case or another authorized subject. The use of this method prevents the actions of an authorized person aimed at obtaining, in a direct (indisputable) manner, the appropriate amount of money before a court ruling on the proceedings challenging an executive or other document, which includes:
- Agreements (or copies thereof) on the issue of the payment of alimony, notarized.
- Conclusions issued by commissions considering labor disputes.
- Acts of bodies that carry out control and supervisory activities, on the recovery of monetary amounts with the attachment of securities, with notes of a bank or other credit organization where a settlement or other account of the debtor is opened; full or partial failure to comply with the requirements of these authorized bodies due to the lack of funds on the defendant’s account to pay off the obligation.
- Acts of courts, other instances and officials in cases concerning administrative offenses.
Additional features
The list of interim measures fixed in the legislation is not considered to be exhaustive. The judicial authority has the ability to implement certain methods within the framework of the norms with maximum adequacy and effectiveness. In this case, the factual circumstances of the case and the essence of the disputed legal relationship should be taken into account. To achieve this goal, the legislation provides for the judicial authority to use several interim measures when considering one case, and to implement them separately.
Activities of the bailiff
When implementing interim measures related to the seizure of property and its inclusion in the inventory, one of the pressing issues is the breadth of authority of an official. In particular, it is a question of whether the bailiff can independently determine the actions that he needs to perform to execute the decision of the court, including establishing specifically those things that should be arrested. Accordingly, another question arises: whether it is necessary to indicate in the act on the implementation of the interim measure in the form of inclusion in the inventory of specific property. The legal positions that exist on these issues are as follows.
The election of an interim measure and the determination of the executive actions that must be taken to implement it are within the powers of a judge, but not a bailiff. This is because property is not seized bailiff to comply with the requirements in accordance with the decision of the authorized authority. This measure is used by the court to secure the claim. The act must indicate the specific property that will be included in the inventory (it is seized on it).
