Along with resolving issues related to the immediate subject economic dispute in the course of the proceedings, the problem arises of the distribution of costs of litigation between the parties. This procedure is performed according to certain rules. They are established by Art. 110 agribusiness of the Russian Federation. Let's consider this norm in more detail.
General information
In h. 1 Article 110 of the APC of the Russian Federation it is determined that the costs associated with production are recovered from the party in whose favor the decision was made. With the partial satisfaction of the claim, the costs are attributed to the entities in proportion to the amount of recognized claims. In h. 2 Article. 110 APC of the Russian Federation determines the procedure for recovering costs for the services of a representative. If the requirements are satisfied, these funds are reimbursed by the other party to the production. Cost recovery is reasonable.
Additionally
The Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation provides for the possibility of exemption of the plaintiff from payment of state duty. In this case, it shall be recovered from the defendant in proportion to the amount of the satisfied claims, unless otherwise provided by law. Parties to production may enter into an agreement on the distribution of costs between them. In such a situation, cost recovery is carried out in accordance with the terms of the document. The costs that arose in connection with the proceedings of appeals (appellate, cassation) are reimbursed according to the above rules. The Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation provides for the possibility of conducting an examination within the framework of the proceedings. The costs of it, fully or partially unpaid, are recovered in favor of the contractor in proportion to the satisfied requirements.
Art. 110 agribusiness of the Russian Federation with comments
The considered norm describes the rules for reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with and during production. The decision of the ECHR of November 6, 1980, serves as a fundamental act on this issue. In a generalized form, approaches to resolving this problem are included in the letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court No. 121 of December 5, 2007. The Supreme Court approved the Review of Practice on Matters Relating to Payment Costs lawyers and other entities acting as representatives in a dispute. In addition, approaches to resolving this issue were formulated in decisions issued on specific proceedings. Particular attention was paid to the problem of cost recovery with partial satisfaction of the requirements.
The general rules are formulated in part one of Art. 110 agribusiness of the Russian Federation. Judicial practice, meanwhile, reflects a slightly different approach to solving this issue. In particular, in Decree No. 7959/08 of November 13, 2008, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court determined that, given the non-property nature of a certain category of disputes, the provisions of the first part of the rule in question cannot be applied to them. In the case of partial or full recognition of the validity of a statement regarding the contest of non-normative acts, actions / inactions, decisions of state and territorial authorities, other structures, as well as employees, legal expenses should be fully reimbursed by these institutions. 
Third parties
The issue of compensation for legal expenses incurred by third parties that did not state their own claims was resolved in Decree No. 11839/09 of 06.22.2010. The Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court established that these costs are not compensable. In particular, the tax inspectorate acted as a third party in the dispute.She did not state the requirements regarding the subject of the proceedings; she did not dispute the decisions made. In this regard, the inspection cannot be recognized as a party that, in accordance with Art. 110 APC RF has the right to rely on compensation for costs incurred in connection with the entry into the dispute. Thus, the interest of the inspection cannot serve as a basis for cost recovery.
At the same time, the information letter No. 121 of December 5, 2007 provides a slightly different example. In particular, the document states that when a third-party entity with a certain interest in the outcome of the proceedings lodges a complaint against the act, that is, takes an active position in the dispute, and his application is satisfied, he has the right to demand compensation for the costs under Art. 110 agribusiness of the Russian Federation. If he was refused, then within the meaning of the rule in question, he can be charged with reimbursement of expenses. 
Other position
It was expressed by the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court in Decree No. 14592 of June 7, 2012. In accordance with the document, a third party who acts on the side in whose favor a decision was made in the dispute has the right to demand compensation for court expenses even if it did not dispute the act in a higher court. That is, in this situation, it is not an active subject of production, but can use the general rule.
Compensation Amount
The obligation to prove the validity of the calculations is distributed by resolutions No. 18118/07, 6284/07, 100/10, 2544/12, 2598/12, 2545/12. Based on the legal position of the Constitutional Court, expressed in determination No. 454-O of December 21, 2004, the use of the right to reduce costs is allowed only if the court finds them excessive due to the specific circumstances of the dispute.
Representative Services
In the second part of Art. 110 APC RF established the obligation to recover costs for a lawyer and other entities acting in the dispute in the interests of one of the parties in a reasonable amount. This is one of the legal methods provided for in the legislation that is used to prevent unlawful overstatement of the cost of representatives' services. This implements the provision of Part 3 of Art. 17 of the Constitution. In this regard, in the second part of the considered norm, the obligation, established by the body authorized to consider the dispute, to balance the rights of the parties is established. 
Change in recovery
When a reasoned decision is made to adjust the amounts to be compensated, the court cannot reduce them at random, especially if the other person has not filed an objection and has not provided evidence confirming the excessive costs. As the latter, for example, information from statistical authorities on the cost of relevant services in the region can be made. In the absence of evidence, the court can reduce the amount of the penalty only if, in his opinion, it is clearly overstated.
Example
When considering the case, a contract was provided with a law firm for the provision of services, as well as a payment document. These papers confirmed the costs incurred by the entrepreneur. The amounts indicated in the documents corresponded to the cost of legal services in the whole region. This is also confirmed by papers. The tax inspectorate has objected to the claim made by the entrepreneur. However, the supervisory authority did not show evidence of the excessive costs incurred by the economic entity.
As mentioned above, the court on its own initiative can reduce the amount of the claim if, in his opinion, they are clearly overstated. Due to the fact that there were no such grounds for the consideration of the dispute, the conclusion of the cassation instance about the unreasonability of the amounts claimed to be compensated by the entrepreneur cannot be considered based on the materials of the proceedings.
Some enterprises have a legal department, which employs qualified staff.However, in such cases, entities often turn to outside organizations for help. In this regard, the question arises: does this fact affect the establishment of reasonable costs? In resolution No. 14616/07, the BAC Presidium concluded that the costs of an enterprise for paying for the services of a law firm cannot be considered unjustified solely on the basis that the structure has a legal service that performs similar functions. 
A special case
When considering a corporate dispute, a question arose regarding the distribution of costs of litigation between joint and several entities. The findings on this issue are set out in resolution 16147/07. The Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court indicated that parts one and two of Art. 110 APC of the Russian Federation are based on the principle of cost-sharing. In this regard, the determination of a specific amount is carried out taking into account all the circumstances of the dispute. Court expenses exacted from all sides, including those who declared a waiver of the claim. In this case, the exemptions specified in Article 111 are taken into account. The agribusiness does not provide for the joint recovery of costs of judicial proceedings.
Nuances
By decree No. 5811/11, the EAC Presidium expressed a legal position that the costs of judicial proceedings are not subject to compensation by the administrative authority in the event that the application to hold him responsible was denied. This is possible with the recognition of the insignificance of the violation. The relevant judicial act cannot be considered as adopted in favor of the perpetrator. In resolution No. 14140/11, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court expressed its opinion on situations where the reimbursement of expenses for legal proceedings was ceded to the representative. This fact does not act as an obstacle to cost recovery. 
Conclusion
It should be noted that the question of the distribution of legal costs in the consideration of disputes arises quite often. Institutions authorized to proceed must carefully study the materials presented. Of particular importance are the evidence presented by the parties. It is not only a documentary evidence of the plaintiff's claims, but also the objections of other parties. An economic dispute is often accompanied by large legal costs.
They may be related to the need to turn to the services of qualified lawyers, to conduct an examination. The amount of payment of the latter, for example, will depend on the number of questions posed to the specialist, the nature of the audit, the volume of materials. As for the services of a representative, upon presentation of a claim for reimbursement of expenses for him, there must be documents confirming the fact of applying for legal assistance and justifying the amounts that have been transferred. In this case, the entity provides the contract and payment receipts. 
A party opposing the stated requirements shall also provide reasons. If she seeks a reduction in compensation, documents must be presented confirming the excessiveness of the amounts claimed. If we are talking about legal services, it is necessary to provide documents indicating that the cost given in the lawsuit exceeds that which is established on average in the region. To do this, contact the statistical authorities. The task of the court is greatly facilitated if there is an agreement between the parties to the dispute on the distribution of costs. In this case, the authorized authority acts in accordance with the terms of the contract. In general, the distribution of legal costs between the persons participating in the case is carried out without any special difficulties.
