Abstract
<jats:p>The article analyzes the issue of the concept of complicity in civil proceedings (hereinafter — complicity), criticizes the widespread definition of complicity as a subjective combination of claims. Preference is given to defining complicity as a combination of persons whose rights, claims or obligations do not exclude each other. The difference in the goals of complicity depending on the type is shown. The provision contained in paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Article 40 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, according to which complicity is allowed if the rights and obligations of several plaintiffs and defendants have the same basis, is considered erroneous, and it is proposed to exclude this provision from the Civil Procedure Code. Based on the analysis, it is concluded that it is necessary to change the wording of the grounds for complicity provided for in paragraph 3, Part 2, Article 40 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Attention is drawn to the inaccuracy of some recommendations made by the highest judicial authorities regarding the involvement of co-defendants in the case. According to the author, in a situation where complicity is mandatory, and one of the subjects of a right owned by several persons does not want to file a claim, the judge must refuse to accept the statement of claim or the court must terminate the proceedings.</jats:p>