ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEGAL CONCEPTS INTERRUPTION AND TERMINATION OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD

Authors

  • P. D. Guyvan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32782/klj/2021.4.14

Keywords:

interruption of the statute of limitations, termination of the statute of limitations, proper filing of the claim.

Abstract

This paper is devoted to the research of the topical issue of theoretical and factual separation oflegal concepts of interruption of the statute of limitations and early termination of the statute of limitations. Thecommentary on the rule of Art. 264 of the Civil Code, according to which the statute of limitations is interruptedin case of any filing of a claim under the same requirements to the same defendant. Researchers' efforts to link theduration of a claim (statute of limitations) not to the substantive right to sue, but to the specifics of the process,which is incorrect, have also been criticized. In fact, the exercise of the right to judicial protection that arose afterthe violation may occur if the entitled person has applied to the court within the established (statute of limitations)period. In this case, the statute of limitations does not apply to the period of enforcement of the claim by the court,but only regulates the duration of the claim. The right to sue, as well as everything else, limited by the cut-offperiod, can be exercised only once, after which it is exhausted and has no further capacity to exercise. The currentlegislation does not contain such legal constructions that would allow to talk about the re-protection of the sameright after the process. The decision of the court on the merits of the dispute resolves the issue of protection andremoves the issue of re-dispute. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize the absence of the statute of limitations afterfiling and in the process of consideration of the claim. Thus, from each violation may arise only one right to sue, thecontent of which is a substantive claim. Since it has already been implemented, no other claim can arise, so therewill be no new statute of limitations. Thus, the proper filing of a lawsuit terminates the statute of limitations at therequest of a certain person of the same content and to the same debtor, and does not interrupt it.

References

Пушкар Е.Г. Конституционное право на судебную защиту: гражданско-правовой аспект. Львов: Вищашкола, 1982. 215 с.

Сергеев А.П. Некоторые вопросы применения правил об исковой давности в российском законодатель-стве Сборник статей к 50-летию Е.А. Крашенинникова. Ярославль: ЯрГУ, 2001. С. 35-60.

Самойленко В. Переривание срока исковой давности. Юридическая практика. 2003. № 39. С. 10-11.

Харитонов Е.О Гражданский кодекс Украины. Научно-практический комментарий. Харков: Одиссей,1999. 848 с.

Святогор О. Інститут позовної давності: проблемні питання. Юридичний журнал. 2002. № 6. С. 7-9.

Горовець С. Переривання позовної давності: сутність і призначення. Юридичний журнал. 2005,№ 4. С. 102-111.

Иоффе О.С. Советское гражданское право. Москва: Юрид. лит., 1967. 494 с.

Новицкий И.Б. Сделки. Исковая давность. Москва: Госюриздат, 1954. 247 с.

Энгельман И.Е. О давности по русскому гражданскому праву. Историко-догматичесмкое исследова-ние. Москва: Статут, 2003. 511 с.

Цікало В.І. Давність у цивільних правовідносинах. Автореф. дис. …. канд. юрид. наук. Львів. 2004. 19 с.

Лебедева К.Ю. Исковая давность в системе гражданско-правовых сроков: дис. … канд. юрид. наук.Томск, 2003. 243 с.

Гуйван П.Д. Позовна давність: монографія. Харків: Право, 2012. 448 с.

Published

2022-04-22

How to Cite

Гуйван, П. Д. (2022). ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEGAL CONCEPTS INTERRUPTION AND TERMINATION OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD. Kyiv Law Journal, (4), 103-108. https://doi.org/10.32782/klj/2021.4.14

Issue

Section

ЦИВІЛЬНЕ ТА ГОСПОДАРСЬКЕ ПРАВО І ПРОЦЕС