The meaning is “mutual responsibility.” How did the concept of “mutual responsibility” come about? "The mutual responsibility of birches..."

Mutual responsibility- responsibility of everyone for everyone and everyone for everyone; now usually serves to denote mutual concealment in unseemly matters. (Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language (1992), N. Yu. Shvedova, “Bail”)

Mutual responsibility- responsibility of the entire group as a whole and each member of it individually for each other. (Explanatory Dictionary (1935 - 1940), "Circular")

Bail- Same as guarantee. Give, take on someone's bail (on someone's responsibility). (Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language (1992), N. Yu. Shvedova)

The phrase "mutual responsibility" is mentioned in (1853):

- "Multiple responsibility. We'll demolish it peacefully" (section " ")

- "All for one, and one for all. Mutual responsibility" (section " ")

Examples

(1921 - 1997)

"In class there is always mutual responsibility, so everyone confirmed the correctness of my words."

(1826 - 1889)

"Diary of a Provincial", 4:

“How this mutual guarantee of leniency was created - I do not undertake to explain, but that this guarantee was once very strong - every provincial will confirm this.”

Gr. A. Tolstoy

The Dragon. 170:

“Lombardy is in trouble and all the torment.

Born only from our strife,

And from betrayal of mutual responsibility!"

(1801 - 1872)

P.A. Playful.

“When the body is sick, the soul also suffers; when the soul hurts, the body is exhausted. This is a mutual guarantee.”

CIRCULAL RESPONSIBILITY, joint responsibility of the group for the actions of each of its members, the purpose of which is the timely fulfillment of their obligations. The practice of mutual responsibility in the community has existed since the times of the primitive communal system, being one of the foundations of tribal relations and the most important norm of customary law. As a rule, mutual responsibility consisted of joint property liability for debts (payment of taxes, etc.), and in the early Middle Ages also in the responsibility of the community for a crime committed by one of the members of the group or on its territory. The presence of mutual responsibility is recorded in Russkaya Pravda; it was used when collecting a fine (vira) for a crime committed on the territory of the community (vervi). In Russia, mutual responsibility was later widely used mainly in the fiscal sphere when collecting various government taxes and fees, payments for arrears, etc.: their allocation was transferred to the discretion of the community members themselves under collective responsibility (for the same purpose, the collection of payments was entrusted to those elected by the payers themselves persons).

Legislatively, the collective responsibility of members of the peasant community for the correct payment of state taxes and arrears was established by the decree of Empress Catherine II of May 19 (30), 1769, confirmed by the Manifesto of Emperor Alexander I of May 16 (28, 1811) and other laws. However, in practice, the introduction of mutual responsibility and especially its compliance depended on the discretion of the landowners and officials responsible for the proper collection of payments. After the peasant reform of 1861, mutual guarantee remained an important means of ensuring timely payment by peasants of state, zemstvo and secular taxes and fees. The arrears of individual householders, by decision of the village meeting, were distributed among all householders in accordance with the profitability of their farms or were covered by worldly capital. To pay off the debt, the debtor's property could be sold, and his allotment could be temporarily taken away by the company and rented out. Guardianship by the rural community could be established over defaulters. If society refused to voluntarily pay arrears, it was forced to do so by the police. As a precautionary measure, the police described the property of rural societies; in case of further non-payment of arrears, the property could be sold. However, such cases, even with large debts of many rural societies, were rare, since the state was interested in preserving taxpayers, and a number of Senate clarifications of the current legislation limited the range of property liability of peasants for debts mainly to movable property. To prevent collections from all members of the community of rural society, when assessing taxes and fees, the poorest peasant farms or those affected by emergency circumstances were exempted from all or part of payments and established increased fees from wealthy farms, forcing defaulters to borrow from various sources (loans from worldly capital are often did not return). As a last resort, rural societies would take the land from arrears in advance to rent it out and cover the arrears from the rent.

Since 1869, if a rural society included several villages, the principle of mutual responsibility was applied only to villages for which there were arrears; For villages with fewer than 40 male residents, the principle of individual taxpayer responsibility was applied exclusively. Emperor Nicholas II significantly limited the use of mutual responsibility in European Russia and then completely abolished it; instead of mutual responsibility, individual responsibility of householders for the payment of taxes and fees was established (their distribution between households remained within the competence of the village assembly). In the Asian part of Russia, mutual responsibility was abolished on October 5(18), 1906.

Lit.: Sobestiansky I. Mutual responsibility among the Slavs according to the ancient monuments of their legislation. 2nd ed. Har., 1888; Lappo-Danilevsky A. S. Organization of direct taxation in the Moscow State from the Time of Troubles to the era of transformations. St. Petersburg, 1890; Brzhesky N.K. Mutual responsibility of rural societies. St. Petersburg, 1896; aka. Arrears and mutual responsibility of rural societies. St. Petersburg, 1897; Zyryanov P. N. Peasant community of European Russia, 1907-1914. M., 1992; Vronsky O. G. Peasant community at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries: Structure, management, land relations, law and order. Tula, 1999.

Examples

Construction of the Nikolaev railway;
Decree on the creation of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army;
Simultaneous shooting of all participants in the execution by firing squad (so that each one thinks to the other that the other is the murderer).
Membership in a consumer credit cooperative.

Federal Law No. 190-FZ of July 18, 2009 “On Credit Cooperation” Art.3. p3. paragraph 8) jointly and severally bearing subsidiary liability by members of the credit cooperative (shareholders) for his obligations within the limits of the unpaid portion of the additional contribution of each member of the credit cooperative (shareholders). where: additional contribution - membership fee paid if necessary to cover losses credit cooperative in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 116 of the Civil Code of Russia.

Story

Russia

One of the first mentions of mutual responsibility is found in Russkaya Pravda. Mutual responsibility was used, in particular, if a crime was committed in a certain territory (vervi) and the offender remained unknown, the punishment in the form of payment of penalties (vira) was imposed on the entire community. In the 15th-16th centuries, residents of the provincial districts were charged with the responsibility of preventing and eradicating crimes; for failure to fulfill this duty, they bore monetary and criminal liability. Mutual responsibility was also used in case of shortfall in customs and tavern revenues (the shortfall could be recovered from the posad, which elected the culprit of the shortfall as tselovalnik). Over time, mutual responsibility was preserved only in the area of the fiscus: the distribution of taxes that residents of a particular territorial unit had to pay between households was carried out by the residents themselves. Thus, in 1739, a royal decree ordered that the arrears in collecting taxes from the merchants and state peasants be distributed among the members of these classes among themselves, and the arrears from the peasants of the palace, factory, and monastery, first of all, should be replenished from the property of patrimonial managers and clerks.

As a general rule, the obligation of society to be responsible for the correct payment of taxes was enshrined in the Manifesto of May 16, 1811. To prevent arrears, volost heads, elected officials and elders had the right to use malicious defaulters in work in the settlement or send them to the workhouse until the debt was paid, from which they were released for rural work from April to November. Similar measures could be taken against negligent elders and elected officials. The use of mutual responsibility in collecting state and zemstvo fees from allotment lands of rural societies was significantly limited in 46 provinces of European Russia in 1899. In 1900, mutual responsibility for collecting food taxes was abolished.

Mutual responsibility in art

Bound by one chain - song by the group "Nautilus Pompilius"

Notes

Literature

// Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: In 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional ones). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.
K.A. Sasov Joint and several liability in tax law. - M.: Alpina Publisher, 2011. - 208 p. - ISBN 978-5-9614-1737-1

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Synonyms:

See what “mutual responsibility” is in other dictionaries:

- (agreement; round all one by one, one by all). Wed. I cannot explain how this mutual guarantee of leniency was created, but every provincial will confirm that this guarantee was once very strong. Saltykov. Diary... ... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)

Mutual assistance, hand washes hand Dictionary of Russian synonyms. mutual responsibility hand washes hand (colloquial)) Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical guide. M.: Russian language. Z. E. Alexandrova. 2011… Synonym dictionary

Mutual responsibility. We'll demolish it peacefully. See GOD'S OATH OF THE GUARANTEE All for one, and one for all. Mutual responsibility. See PEOPLE OF THE WORLD... IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

Legal dictionary

CIRCLE, a (y), in a circle and in a circle, on a circle and on a circle, pl. i, ov, m. Ozhegov’s Explanatory Dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

I in the civil legal sense is a type of correal obligation (see) in its Roman form, the only remnant of this form, it seems, in modern law. Obliging each for all and all for one, the participants of the K. guarantee are bound in all... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

Agreement (round all for one, one for all) Wed. I cannot explain how this mutual guarantee of leniency was created, but every provincial will confirm that this guarantee was once very strong. Saltykov. Diary of a provincial... ... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary

Mutual responsibility- Guarantee, mutual obligations of each member of a given group in relation to its other members. “We’ll throw you off the roof,” Vatnin said quietly. And it’s high here!.. Don’t torture your fate, Mr. Colonel. We'll throw it away and say later that we rushed ourselves. We have a guarantee... Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Literary Language

Razg. Mutual concealment, mutual gain. BMS 1998, 465; ZS 1996, 206, 220 ... Large dictionary of Russian sayings

mutual responsibility- responsibility of all members of the community (other collective) for the actions or performance of duties by each of its members. It existed in Russia from the moment the state appeared until 1903... Large legal dictionary

Books

Mutual responsibility among the Slavs according to the ancient monuments of their legislation.. Ed. 2nd, corrected and supplemented. , Sobestiansky I.M.. The book is a reprint of 1888. Despite the fact that serious work has been done to restore the original quality of the publication, some pages may...

"On the world." Painting by Sergei Korovin (1893)

The community, as a form of self-government of peasants living in the same village, has existed in Russia since ancient times. The peasants themselves called such associations “society” or “peace”, in Little Russia - “community”. These informal associations were engaged in the management of common (world) lands, distribution and redistribution allotments between individual farms.

Within the community, there were two main forms of land ownership - communal and household. The most common was communal ownership, in which all land was owned by the community itself. In 1905, in the European part of Russia, such ownership extended to 109.5 million hectares, from which 9.2 million peasant households fed. With household land ownership, each peasant household received an allocated plot once and for all. There were 2.8 million such farms, they owned 26 million hectares.

Under communal land tenure, peasants immediately periodically carried out redistribution (redistribution) of common land between farms, taking into account the size of families, their ability to cultivate this land and pay taxes. For each plot, the size of the tax was established, that is, the share of the fees that had to be paid into the general treasury of the community. The emergence of new families and the disappearance of old ones were taken into account. Sometimes the meeting could be limited to capes and discounts - to increase the allotment of one farm by reducing another, without touching other lands. As a rule, land was cut off from widows and old people who were no longer able to cultivate it, and was transferred to strong, enlarged families.

For the state, an important function of the community was the collection of taxes, based on the principle of mutual responsibility: community members seemed to vouch for each other and were collectively responsible for the full and timely receipt of all taxes. The treasury demanded the payment of taxes from the community as a whole, and its members themselves decided how much a particular household should pay. If a family was unable to pay in full, other members of the community had to cover the shortfall.

"Collection of arrears." Painting by Alexey Korzukhin (1868)

The first mention of the principle of mutual responsibility in Russia is found in Russkaya Pravda. It was used when residents of a certain area paid a fine if a criminal offense was committed there - for example, murder. Over time, the scope of mutual responsibility was limited to the collection of taxes. Thus, in the Moscow state, tax collectors or, for example, governors, who were in charge of the lands where the defaulters lived. Under pain of this liability, when collecting arrears, they could apply the principles of mutual responsibility to the villages where the debtors lived, although this was not yet supported by law.

From the end of the 18th century, legislation began to formalize the responsibility of the peasant community for the debts of its members. In 1797, a rule was adopted according to which the arrears accumulated on the debts of a particular household were collected from the entire society as punishment for the fact that “seeing one’s companion falling into laziness and negligence, one did not try to convert him to work and correct one’s debt.”

By the middle of the 19th century, the community's participation in tax collection took final shape. Special state chambers calculated the total amount of fees (salary sheet) from the entire community, indicating the types of payments (state, zemstvo, secular, etc.). They did not take into account changes in the numerical composition of the community and the economic situation of its members, as well as the distribution of payments between peasant farms. This was a function of the community itself.

The distribution sentence (distribution of taxes among peasant households) was approved at the beginning of the year at a village meeting when deciding on the redistribution of land, discounts and capes. The distribution of taxes between households was carried out taking into account tax duties, which depended on the size and quality of the land on the cultivated plot. Payments were reduced for fire victims, families who lost their breadwinner, and households that experienced livestock loss. Thus, by reducing the size of duties or removing them altogether, the community saved weakened farms from ruin, giving them the opportunity to recover. The amounts underpaid by such households were redistributed among the others. In these cases, the share of the payment falling on wealthy householders sometimes exceeded 100 rubles.

The principle of mutual responsibility in the community was beneficial to the state and increased tax collection. There was still almost nothing to take from the faulty payer. The land plot belonged to the community as a whole and could not be seized for the debts of an individual peasant. According to the law, it was impossible to take away from a peasant family its house and agricultural property: a single cow, production equipment, seeds. The rest of the property was usually not worth much.

However, according to contemporaries, community members tried in every possible way to avoid paying arrears for another, forcing the degraded householder to “sell his last shirt.” The law of May 16, 1811 stated that in order to prevent arrears, it was possible, by decision of the community, to send persistent defaulters to work in the village itself or send them to a workhouse until the arrears were paid. More extensive powers in this area were given to the community in the “Regulations on the Collection of Monetary Fees”, adopted on November 28, 1833. The assembly could apply the following measures to defaulters: 1) convert income from real estate belonging to the defaulter to compensate for the arrears; 2) send the debtor or one of his family members to work on the side - with the money earned being transferred to the community treasury; 3) instead of the faulty owner, appoint another member of the same family or a guardian as senior in the house; 4) sell personal real estate belonging to the debtor, with the exception of the purchased estate; 5) sell that part of the borrower’s movable property and buildings that is not necessary in his household; 6) take away from the borrower the entire allotted plot or part of it. The community resorted to the last three measures only in extreme cases.

Sometimes the community monitored the economic activities of its unreliable members, preventing them from committing ruinous acts and even managing their funds. The assembly could elect special persons to exert moral influence on the peasants, forcing them to pay taxes on time. A peasant from the village of Mlechi, Trubchevsky district, Oryol province, Nikolai Ivanovich Sechenov complained to Senate to the decision of the world, which took away his allotment. The audit showed that Sechenov had an arrears of 51 rubles over 17 years, which was paid off by the community. Therefore, on January 20, 1885, the assembly decided to take away the plots from Sechenov and transfer them to Timofey Solovyov, a serviceable and reliable payer. According to the results of the inquiry volost foreman reported: “Nikolai Sechenov did not pay anything, has no farm, in general, he is an unreliable person, he was in prison for theft, he was punished by the volost court with rods for non-payment of taxes, and he is seeking land in order to sell it to others.”

After 1903, even such cases became rare, since mutual responsibility was abolished in 46 provinces of the European part of Russia, and in 1905 - everywhere. Taxation of peasants became individual and was carried out without the participation of communities.

Conclusions (historical and financial)
The traditional task of the community is to manage the common lands. In the eyes of the state, the main function of the community was the collection and payment of taxes to the treasury

Peasant households that were able to pay taxes but evaded this duty were severely punished. Businesses that paid taxes on time were encouraged

Mutual responsibility sometimes saved peasant farms from ruin, and sometimes led to the expulsion of peasants from the community

Mutual responsibility- group joint and several responsibility, when all members of the group are responsible for the obligations of one.

Definition

According to the Legal Dictionary, mutual responsibility should be understood as the responsibility of all members of a community (another team) for the actions or performance of duties by each of its members.

In common parlance, this term means the agreement of group members with the actions of any of its members, as well as his support, passive or active. Often used with a negative connotation.

Principles

Here, everyone for all and all for one, the participants are mutually responsible and are bound in all consequences of debt. Liberation acts, which do not matter how the creditor is materially satisfied, if they are applied to one debtor, are valid in the case of mutual responsibility for all its participants. Thus, the purpose of mutual responsibility is to place the whole community as such before the creditor, instead of individuals.

At the same time, mutual guarantee should not be confused with a simple guarantee and the rule of gradual collection (beneficium excussionis) should be applied to it. The purpose of mutual guarantee, like any joint and several obligation, is to guarantee timely and immediate fulfillment of the obligation.

Story

Russia

In the 15th-16th centuries, residents of the provincial districts were charged with the responsibility of preventing and eradicating crimes; for failure to fulfill this duty, they bore monetary and criminal liability.

In the Moscow state, mutual responsibility was also used in case of shortfalls in customs and tavern revenues (the shortfall could be recovered from the posad, which elected the culprit of the shortfall as a kisser). In addition, losses caused to the treasury by the contractor were sometimes recovered from the settlement to which he belonged, and by recruiting detachments of archers from free people, the government held them mutually responsible for the proper performance of each of his duties and for material damage to the treasury in the event of escape from service.

Over time, the use of the institution of mutual responsibility by the state was preserved only in the field of the fiscal: residents of a certain territorial unit were originally obliged to pay a certain amount of taxes. The distribution of taxes that residents of a particular territorial unit had to pay among households was carried out by the residents themselves, and the collection of taxes was entrusted to persons chosen by the payers. From this, some scientists conclude that the responsibility for the arrear-free receipt of taxes lay with the society of payers. There is no doubt, in any case, that tax collectors, governors and other persons in charge of peasants of this category were responsible to the government for arrears. Under pain of this liability (property and personal), they could, when collecting arrears, apply, to a greater or lesser extent, the beginning of the responsibility of some payers for others, even in cases where mutual responsibility was not sanctioned by law.

In the 18th century, increasingly developing bureaucratic procedures and refusing to apply the principle of mutual responsibility in various branches of government, it apparently lost any concept of the mutual responsibility of tax payers, as one of the principles of organizing the tax business in earlier times. In view of this, being forced in the end to turn to mutual responsibility as a means of ensuring the regular receipt of taxes, the government did not introduce it immediately, but first used it as an extreme measure and gave this application various motivations. Thus, in 1739, a royal decree ordered that the arrears in collecting taxes from the merchants and state peasants be distributed among the members of these classes among themselves, and the arrears from the peasants of the palace, factory, and monastery, first of all, should be replenished from the property of patrimonial managers and clerks, and only in case of their inability to pay shortage, collect arrears from the peasants themselves.

With the establishment of the department of appanages in 1797 and the formation of the category of appanage peasants, it was decided that in the event of arrears accumulating due to laziness and negligence of the villagers, the perpetrators would be brought to justice, and the arrears would be collected from the entire rural community, as punishment for the fact that “ Seeing his companion fall into laziness and negligence, he did not try to convert him to work and correcting his debt» .

As a general rule, the obligation of society to be responsible for the correct payment of taxes was enshrined in the Manifesto of May 16, 1811, supplemented by a decree of 1828, but there were no specific penalties to be applied to the entire village. At the same time, in the manifesto of 1811, in order to prevent arrears, volost heads, elected officials and elders were given the right to use malicious defaulters in work in the settlement or send them to a workhouse until the debt was paid, from which they were released for rural work from April to November. Similar measures could be taken against negligent elders and elected officials.

With the new division of the villages of state-owned peasants into societies in 1833, the obligation of the latter to be responsible for the correct payment of taxes was confirmed, with the addition that if the arrears of the society increase to the annual salary, then responsibility is transferred to the entire volost. Thus, the government clearly showed that it does not consider mutual responsibility to be in connection with the land relations of members of society. Although with the establishment of the Ministry of State Property the responsibility of the volost for the arrears of rural communities was abolished, nevertheless mutual responsibility was not brought into connection with land ownership. Only in 1869 was the collective responsibility for collecting government taxes, with communal ownership of land, limited to the boundaries of the land unit.

After the peasant reform of 1861, the collection of taxes from peasants, as well as government, zemstvo and secular fees, was entrusted to elected village elders and collectors, who were under the supervision of the volost foreman. They did not have the right to resort to any coercive collection measures against defaulters, with the exception of short-term arrest and a small fine. Rural societies themselves were given greater powers. In particular, according to the law, they had the right to resort to more serious measures in relation to defaulters: the sale of real estate belonging to the defaulter in order to repay the arrears, the giving of the defaulter or one of his family members to outside earnings, with the withdrawal of the earned money to the community treasury, assigning a guardian to the debtor or appointing another member of the same family as the elder in the house instead of the faulty owner. In extreme cases, rural society, in order to influence the debtor, had the right to resort to more stringent measures: the sale of real estate belonging to the debtor personally (with the exception of the purchased estate), the sale of that part of the movable property and buildings of the debtor that is not necessary for his farm, seizure from arrears of all or part of the land allotted to him. If, despite all the measures taken, the peasant could not pay off his debts by October 1 of the year, then the debt was divided by the village assembly among other peasants of the society, who were supposed to repay it by January 15 of the following year. If the rural society could not cope with the payment of the debt. then it was forced to pay arrears through the local police, and if these coercive measures were unsuccessful, the arrears were paid off by the police through the sale of peasant movable property.

In practice, the procedure for collecting taxes and applying mutual responsibility proceeded somewhat differently. Thus, coercive measures against defaulters, which, according to the law, only the rural community had the right to apply, as a rule, especially in areas where household land ownership predominated, were used by rural and volost authorities and even the police. When society resorted to them under strong pressure from the police, in most cases it was limited to measures specified in the law as extreme: the sale of the movable property of the arrears or the temporary confiscation of an allotment from him for rent to pay off the arrears, bypassing easier measures , How inapplicable in peasant life. Very rarely was the division of the debt of individual peasants among all members of society applied. If this measure was used, it was sporadically, at the request of the police. In these cases, the share of payment that fell to wealthy peasants sometimes reached 100 rubles or more.

At the end of the 19th century, each rural society, both with communal, and with plot or household (hereditary) use of land, was responsible for mutual guarantee for each of its members in the regular service of government, zemstvo and worldly duties. Rural societies located within the same volost were given the opportunity, by general agreement, to unite among themselves to facilitate mutual guarantees. Peasants who had all the land of their allotment in separate ownership could not be held jointly responsible for serving state taxes and duties for other peasants, even those living in the same society or village, but not participating in the said ownership. If in a village or part of a village that had separate ownership of land and received a separate salary sheet on this basis, there were less than 40 revision souls on the salary list, then taxes and duties were collected from the peasants without mutual responsibility. While placing responsibility on societies for the proper fulfillment of taxes and duties by their members, the government did not indicate the means that village gatherings could resort to to force individual payers to pay fees.

The use of mutual responsibility in collecting state and zemstvo fees from allotment lands of rural societies was significantly limited in 46 provinces of European Russia in 1899. In 1900, mutual responsibility for collecting food taxes was abolished. In 1903, mutual guarantee was completely abolished in those provinces where the provision of 1899 was introduced, with the simultaneous release of rural societies from mutual guarantee for the payment of secular fees and fees for the use of poor members of these societies in public charity institutions.