On behalf of the Russian Federation

RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

of February 15, 2016 No. 3-P

On the case of check of constitutionality of provisions of part 9 of article 3 of the Federal law "About Modification of Subsections 4 and 5 of the Section I of Part One and Article 1153 Parts Three of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation" in connection with the claim of the citizen E. V. Pototsky

Constitutional court of the Russian Federation as a part of the Chairman V. D. Zorkin, K. V. Aranovsky's judges, A. I. Boytsova, N. S. Bondar, G. A. Gadzhiyev, Yu. M. Danilov, L. M. Zharkova, G. A. Zhilin, S. M. Kazantsev, M. I. Kleandrov, S. D. Knyazev, A. N. Kokotov, L. O. Krasavchikova, S. P. Mavrin, N. V. Melnikov, Yu. D. Rudkin, O. S. Hokhryakova, V. G. Yaroslavtsev,

being guided by Article 125 (part 4) Constitutions of the Russian Federation, Item 3 parts one, parts three and the fourth Article 3, Article part one 21, Articles 36, 47.1, 74, 86, 96, 97 and 99 Federal constitutional Laws "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation",

considered in meeting without carrying out hearing case on check of constitutionality of provisions of part 9 of article 3 of the Federal law "About Modification of Subsections 4 and 5 of the Section I of Part One and Article 1153 Parts Three of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation".

Reason for consideration of the case was the claim of the citizen E. V. Pototsky. The basis to consideration of the case was the found uncertainty in question of whether there correspond the Constitutions of the Russian Federation disputed by the applicant of legislative provision.

Having heard the message of the judge-speaker L. O. Krasavchikova, having researched the submitted documents and other materials, including written responses of the plenipotentiary of the Federation Council in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation A. I. Alexandrov and the plenipotentiary of the President of the Russian Federation in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation M. V. Krotov, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

established:

1. Owing to part 9 of article 3 of the Federal Law of May 7, 2013 "About modification of subsections 4 and 5 of the Section I of part one and Article 1153 parts three of the Civil code of the Russian Federation" established by provisions of the Civil code of the Russian Federation (in edition of this Federal Law) terms of limitation period and the rule of their calculation are applied No. 100-FZ to requirements which terms of presentation were provided by earlier existing legislation and did not expire till September 1, 2013. At the same time according to the paragraph to the second Item 2 of Article 200 of Civil Code of the Russian Federation according to obligations which completion date is not determined or determined by the claiming moment the term of limitation period begins to flow from the date of presentation by the creditor of the requirement about obligation fulfillment and if term for execution of such requirement is provided to the debtor, calculation of term of limitation period begins upon termination of the term provided for execution of such requirement; at the same time the term of limitation period in any case cannot exceed ten years from the date of emergence of the obligation.

1.1. The decision of the Central district court of the city of Tula of January 30, 2014 partially met requirements of the citizen E. V. Pototsky about money recovery for three loan agreements which were concluded by it on August 14, 2000, on August 21, 2000 and on November 20, 2000, and also interest for using others money and legal costs. At the same time the court recognized that the term of limitation period according to these requirements is not passed and is subject to calculation since August 15, 2013, i.e. after thirty days from the date of presentation by E. V. Pototsky of the requirement about return of money for the specified agreements (in which the specific term of return of amount of debt was not established).

The resolution of the Trial Court is cancelled by appeal determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Tula regional court of April 3, 2014 and is refused satisfaction of requirements of E. V. Pototsky. As it was specified in determination, the term of limitation period according to the declared requirements really began to flow since August 15, 2013 and by the time of entry into force of the Federal Law "About Modification of Subsections 4 and 5 of the Section I of Part One and Article 1153 Parts Three of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation" (on September 1, 2013) did not expire, however, contrary to opinion of Trial Court, regulations on the term of limitation period and the rule of its calculation, stipulated in Item 2 Articles 200 of Civil Code of the Russian Federation in edition of this Federal Law, in particular that the term of limitation period according to obligations which completion date is not determined or determined by the claiming moment in any case cannot exceed ten years from the date of emergence of the obligation are applied to such requirements; as from the moment of emergence of agreement obligations of loan, the prisoner E. V. Pototsky in 2000, there passed more than ten years, the term of limitation period according to its requirements expired.

Determination of the judge of the Tula regional court of December 5, 2014 in transfer of the writ of appeal E.V. Pototsky on appeal determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Tula regional court it was refused on the same bases. The judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, refusing transfer of the writ of appeal E.V. Pototsky on the given appeal definition for consideration in judicial session of Judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, also marked out that at the time of presentation of the claim the term of limitation period for protection of the violated E. V. Pototsky's right expired (determination of January 26, 2015).

Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info