Before answering this question, it is necessary to clearly delineate the types of obligations that the party or parties are required to cede to a third party. The current Russian civil legislation makes it possible to distinguish three types of such obligations, the assignment of claims on which leads to different legal consequences depending on the position of the debtor or the prohibition of cession in the contract:
1. Obligation in which the identity of the creditor is of significant importance to the Debtor.
The assignment of claims for such obligations is not allowed without the consent of the debtor (paragraph 2 of Article 388 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
At the same time, Article 383 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes the peremptory norm, according to which the transfer to another person of rights inseparably connected with the creditor’s personality, in particular claims for maintenance and for compensation for harm caused to life or health, is not allowed.
In our opinion, these legal norms enter into a certain contradiction with each other: on the one hand, if the debtor has the consent of the debtor, the law allows assignment of claims for obligations in which the identity of the creditor is of significant importance to the debtor (paragraph 2 of Article 388 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) On the other hand, completely prohibits the assignment of rights that are inextricably linked with the identity of the creditor (Article 388 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
Thus, today it is impossible to say unambiguously whether, given the consent of the debtor, it is possible to assign such rights (claims for obligations) to third parties, or nevertheless such an assignment is prohibited, regardless of the availability of the debtor’s consent.
One thing is clear: in the absence of the consent of the debtor, this concession will clearly contradict the law.
Other types of rights in which the identity of the creditor is of significant importance to the debtor are established by the judge in each concrete case, and are not fixed in any generalized normative act of the Supreme Court of Russia. So, for example, from the decision of the Central District Court of Volgograd in case No. 2-10491/2016 of March 30, 2017, it follows that the rights to compensation for moral harm or the right of the consumer belong to such rights. At the same time, the Supreme Court of the Udmurtia Region, by its decision in the case No. 44G-19/2016 of 10 June 2016 in the case No. 44G-19/2016, abolished the determination of the magistrate of the judicial section No. 3 of the Industrial District of Izhevsk on 4 April, 2016 and the appellate ruling of the judge of the Industrial District Court of Izhevsk on May 12, 2016 on the grounds that these courts in their judicial acts unreasonably concluded that the procedural rights of the consumer are not subject to transfer to third parties because, in their opinion, are inextricably linked with personality Creditor. Abolishing these judicial acts, the Supreme Court of the Udmurt region indicated that the rights of the consumer are not related to maintenance obligations or obligations as a result of causing harm. On the contrary, in the opinion of the court, the rights of the consumer, transferred under the contract of assignment of the right of claim, are a monetary obligation arising in connection with the violation of the consumer’s rights under this obligation and possessing an independent property value.
2. Monetary obligations.
Paragraph 3 of Article 388 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation stipulates that an agreement between a debtor and a creditor to limit or prohibit the assignment of a claim on a monetary obligation does not invalidate such an assignment and can not serve as a basis for termination of the contract from which the claim arose, but the creditor is not released from liability to the debtor for this violation of the agreement.
Thus, any clause in the contract prohibiting the cession of claims under the contract does not deprive the creditor of the right to cede such claims to a third party, and the concession made in connection with these cession of claims (cession) can not be considered void, and also can not serve as a basis for termination of the contract of assignment of claims (cession).
At the same time, the conclusion of the contract of assignment of claims (cession) by the creditor (assignor) in the conditions of the prohibition of assignment contained in the main contract may entail the bringing of such creditor to the debtor for violation of this condition (in particular, when such liability is fixed in the main Contract).
3. Non-monetary obligations
Paragraph 4 of Article 388 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that the right to receive non-monetary performance may be assigned without the consent of the debtor, if the assignment does not make the fulfillment of its obligation significantly more burdensome for him. An agreement between the debtor and the assignor may prohibit or limit the assignment of the right to receive non-monetary performance.
Thus, if the contract provides for a ban on the assignment of rights to receive non-monetary performance or such an assignment is limited by the contract, the agreement on assignment of rights concluded in violation of this condition will be considered invalid, as the law explicitly prohibits the conclusion of such transactions.
At the same time, if there is no such prohibition in the main contract, the right to receive non-monetary performance can be assigned without the consent of the debtor only if such an assignment does not make the fulfillment of its obligation much more burdensome for the debtor.