Limitation period for criminal cases in 2021

Period of limitation: concept, definition

A person can be brought to a certain responsibility for a crime within the limits of the law, but only if the investigation was opened before the end of the period provided for by current legislation.

According to criminal procedural norms, liability is provided regardless of whether a person truly interested in a positive outcome of the case took action or not - it is enough for the investigative authorities to carry out a certain procedure prescribed by law.

After the expiration of the limitation period, punishment cannot be imposed on the guilty person, in addition, the necessary measures provided for by law cannot be taken.

Analytics Publications

The possibility of judicial protection will be jeopardized if in court the faulty debtor suddenly refuses promises to pay the debt and declares the application of limitation. Especially to protect the interests of the plaintiff in such cases, the legislator provided for the institution of a break in the limitation period (Article 203 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). However, the mechanism is poorly regulated: the law does not contain examples or criteria of behavior that would confirm the recognition of debt. Practice shows that for this reason it is often difficult for a creditor to determine which actions of the obligated person actually interrupt the statute of limitations and which only create an illusion.

Due to insufficient detail of the rules on interrupting the limitation period, a bona fide debtor may also suffer. Even if the obligated person did not plan to acknowledge the debt, his reckless behavior in relations with the creditor can easily be misinterpreted by the court and lead to an unjustified interruption of the statute of limitations. This will actually open the way for those claims that the creditor did not take care of in time.

Only active actions of the debtor indicate recognition of the debt

The list of actions confirming the recognition of a debt was formulated by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in paragraph 20 of Resolution No. 43 dated September 29, 2015 “On some issues related to the application of the provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the limitation period” (hereinafter referred to as Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 43).

These actions include:

— recognition of the claim;

- a change in the contract by an authorized person, from which it follows that the debtor acknowledges the existence of a debt, as well as the debtor’s request for such a change in the contract (for example, a deferment or installment plan);

— act of reconciliation of mutual settlements, signed by an authorized person.

Of course, the above list is approximate and does not exhaust the variety of actions that may indicate recognition of a debt in practice, for example:

The fact of issuing a receipt or letter of guarantee

, in which the debtor undertook to repay the debt, as evidence that the debt was recognized (decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 04/07/2015 No. 18-KG15-3, resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District dated 01/21/2014 in case No. A76-189/2013).

Novation of a debt into a loan obligation, or offset of counter similar claims

(decrees of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 14, 2009 No. 5286/09, the Arbitration Court of the Ural District dated August 14, 2014 in case No. A60-39962/2013).

As a rule, such incidents are possible if the relevant agreements are invalid, that is, when the initial obligation of the debtor is not considered terminated (Article 167 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The court states the legal consequences not of the transactions themselves, but of the fact of their conclusion. From this fact, in the absence of defects of will and subjective composition, it undoubtedly follows that the debtor recognized the original obligation.

Attempts by the debtor to agree on a debt repayment schedule with the creditor, correspondence between the parties about their intention to conclude a settlement agreement, or even a draft of an individual legal act

(decrees of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District dated December 3, 2014 in case No. A66-10301/2013, FAS Volga District dated August 21, 2007 in case No. A12-800/06-C32, dated October 22, 2007 in case No. A40-2162/05 -43-25).

However, it is easy to see that in any situation we are talking exclusively about the active behavior of the debtor. The fact is that in the context of the Civil Code, only the actions of the obligated person can indicate recognition of the debt

Quote: “The limitation period is interrupted by the obligor’s performance of actions indicating recognition of the debt” (Article 203 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

The law enforcer has repeatedly noted that a broad interpretation of this norm is unacceptable: the silence (inaction) of the debtor does not interrupt the statute of limitations under any circumstances. Therefore, the fact that the debtor did not challenge the payment document on the direct debit of funds does not prove recognition of the debt (clause 23 of Resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces No. 43). Or, for example, for similar reasons, the statute of limitations is not interrupted on the sole grounds that the debtor did not respond to the creditor’s claim or did not respond to the statement of reconciliation of accounts received from the creditor (resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District dated May 31, 2017 in case No. A60-29845/2016 , 9 AAS dated 04/14/2017 in case No. A40-125750/16).

At the same time, the active behavior of the debtor does not always indicate recognition of the debt. In each specific case, taking into account certain criteria, the court will have to find out whether the debtor’s behavior gave rise to a reasonable assumption of recognition of the debt, and whether the creditor reasonably refrained from enforcing the protection of the right.

You can refer to the fact of debt recognition if the following criteria are met:

In order not to miss the limitation period due to a false assumption of a break, you need to understand what key conditions the debtor’s behavior meets, confirming the recognition of the debt within the meaning of Art. 203 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Taking into account the adversarial principle, it is the plaintiff who must prove that there has been a break in the limitation period (clause 12 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces No. 43). However, the information will also be useful for a debtor who wants to minimize the risks of a legal dispute drawn out over a long period. Since the question is rather of an applied nature, let us consider the requirements for the debtor’s behavior through the prism of judicial practice.

1. Actions to recognize the debt come from an authorized person.

The actions of the debtor's representative, indicating the recognition of the debt, interrupt the limitation period only if this person had the appropriate powers (clause 22 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces No. 43). The rule is universal and applies regardless of specific types of confirmatory actions. With this

In its explanations, the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces makes reference to the rule on representation (Article 182 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), due to which the authority may also be evident from the situation in which the representative acts.

The signing of a reconciliation report by the chief accountant is perhaps the most common case when, in refutation of arguments about interrupting the statute of limitations, the defendant points out the lack of authority of the representative who confirmed the recognition of the debt. The problem is that judicial practice on issues of the legal force of such reconciliation acts does not differ in uniformity of approaches.

Most courts take the position that, by virtue of Art. Art. 53 and 182 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the chief accountant of the debtor organization does not have the right to resolve legally significant issues such as confirming the fact of debt recognition without an appropriate power of attorney.

Thus, in the opinion of some courts, the presence of the organization’s seal on reconciliation acts does not indicate recognition of the debt by the obligated person (resolution of the Far Eastern District Administrative Court dated March 9, 2016 in case No. A37-998/2015, West Siberian District Arbitration Court dated March 23, 2017 in the case No. A81-5919/2015, AS of the North Caucasus District dated 04/11/2017 in case No. A22-2728/2016).

At the same time, other courts believe that the stamp on the reconciliation report means that the employee’s powers are clear from the situation (decrees of the Court of Justice of the West Siberian District dated 08/15/2016 in case No. A27-13820/2015, Court of the North-Western District dated 12/22. 2016 in case No. A56-84165/2015, AS of the Far Eastern District dated 02/08/2017 in case No. A51-4411/2016).

In such a situation, the safest option for the lender is to request statements of reconciliation of payments signed by the head of the organization. In addition, if the head of the organization approves the act of reconciliation of accounts signed by the employee, such an act can also be used as evidence of recognition of the debt (clause 1 of the Review of judicial practice of consideration of cases related to the application of the provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the limitation period, approved by the resolution of the Presidium of the North-Eastern Arbitration Court). Caucasian District dated December 11, 2015, resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District dated April 20, 2017 in case No. A34-6545/2016).

2. The will of the debtor is clearly expressed.

The limitation period is interrupted only by such behavior, from which the recognition of the fact of debt clearly follows. For example, a response to a claim that does not contain an indication of recognition of the debt does not in itself indicate recognition of the debt (clause 12 of Resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces No. 43). Moreover, the courts often side with the debtor and apply a statute of limitations if the evidence of recognition of the debt is ambiguous.

Thus, the court considered the case on the seller’s claim to collect debt for the delivered goods and came to the conclusion that the reconciliation act does not confirm the recognition of the debt by the buyer. It followed from the act that the plaintiff delivered goods to the defendant for a certain amount, but received only part of this amount as payment for the goods. This document also reflected information about other transactions of the parties, and it turned out that in the final line of the act the parties established the existence of a debt not with the defendant, but with the plaintiff. In such a situation, the court indicated that formally the reconciliation act does not contain phrases and expressions that the defendant acknowledges the debt; it does not follow from the act that the parties recorded his debt (resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga-Vyatka District dated June 28, 2011 in case No. A31-6102 /2010).

3. The actions of the debtor relate to a specific obligation.

The creditor may refer to the recognition of debt if the actions of the debtor confirm not only the recognition of the fact of the debt, but also relate to the specific obligation from which the recognized debt arises. To do this, information must be recorded such as the amount, basis and period of indebtedness for a specific obligation (resolution of the Moscow District Court dated September 28, 2016 in case No. A40-184790/2015, FAS East Siberian District dated June 25, 2014 in case No. A58 -5226/2013).

However, sometimes the debtor’s behavior indicates recognition of a specific debt even without strict detail. Thus, if the debt reconciliation act reflects the defendant’s total debt under various legal relations and the disputed obligations are not specified, but there are no other obligations between the parties, the court recognizes such an act as a basis for interrupting the limitation period (resolution of the Administrative Court of the North Caucasus District dated October 27, 2016 in case No. A32-35328/2015).

4. Recognition of the debt is confirmed specifically in relation to the creditor.

Actions confirming the recognition of debt must be addressed to the creditor. And although the literal wording of Art. 203 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not limit the circle of addressees in this way; the approach is still common in judicial practice. As a rule, courts do not accept the actions of the debtor in relation to third parties as evidence of recognition of a debt.

We believe that the position of the courts is based on an assessment of the purpose of the expression of will of the obligated person. The limitation period is only interrupted if the purpose is to inform the creditor directly of the acknowledgment of the debt. If the latter finds out about the relevant circumstances against or against the will of the obligated person, the consequences in the form of a break should not occur.

Court case card

For example, in one court case, the landlord demanded to recover rental payments from a once bankrupt tenant. The lawsuit was filed nearly two years after the tenant's bankruptcy case ended with the approval of a settlement. The plaintiff objected to the arguments about the statute of limitations, based on a document from the bankruptcy case - a conclusion on the possibility of restoring the debtor's solvency. The bankruptcy trustee provided this conclusion to the bankruptcy case on the eve of consideration of the petition for approval of the settlement agreement. The document contained information about all the debts of the defendant, including to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff assumed that the limitation period was interrupted by an action indicating recognition of the debt. Despite the fact that the plaintiff participated in the bankruptcy case as one of the creditors, the court rejected such evidence. He motivated his decision by the fact that the conclusion was not addressed to the plaintiff, it was not prepared to recognize the debt directly to him (decision of the Perm Territory Court of Justice dated October 2, 2015 in case No. A50-12978/2015; higher courts upheld this decision, but paraphrased the reasons court of first instance).

As an example, we will also give a situation where an obligated person reports any information about a debt as part of an interrogation in a criminal case. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation noted that such behavior cannot be considered as the commission of actions indicating recognition of the debt. The debtor's message in the above case is not a legal act of a civil nature committed by an obligated person in relation to the creditor (decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 25, 2014 No. 18-KG13-165). It is obvious that during the interrogation the debtor did not pursue the goal of notifying the creditor of the recognition of the debt.

5. Acknowledgment of the debt is confirmed on the voluntary initiative of the debtor.

The expression of the will of the obligated person is based on an independent decision to confirm the recognition of the debt. If the debtor cannot choose a specific behavior and performs a public duty, it is unlikely that in such a situation the court will qualify his behavior as evidence of recognition of the debt within the meaning of Art. 203 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Therefore, for example, the statute of limitations does not interrupt the act of reconciliation of calculations, which the tax authority compulsorily draws up at the request of the taxpayer in order to identify and eliminate discrepancies between data on the state of settlements with the budget (resolution of the AS of the West Siberian District dated November 18, 2016 in case No. A67 -8393/2015).

Another important conclusion from judicial practice is that the debtor’s statute of limitations is not interrupted in order to fulfill the requirements for maintaining accounting records (resolutions of the FAS Moscow District dated March 26, 2009 in case No. A40-32412/08-138-283, FAS North Caucasus District dated February 17. 2010 in case No. A53-10356/2009). In addition to the fact that by such behavior the debtor only fulfills a public duty, his actions are also not addressed to the creditor.

Acknowledgment of debt is confirmed only within the limitation period

A break in the limitation period takes place only within the limitation period, and not after its expiration (clause 21 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces No. 43). The explanation is simple: you cannot interrupt a non-existent deadline. At the same time, the limitation period will begin anew if, after the expiration of the initial period for judicial protection, the debtor or other obligated person acknowledges the debt in writing (Clause 2 of Article 206 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Partial recognition of debt does not interrupt the limitation period

Recognition of a part of a debt, including by paying such a part, does not indicate recognition of the debt as a whole, unless otherwise agreed by the debtor. From the point of view of the law enforcer, such actions of the obligated person do not interrupt the limitation period both in the case of a single debt and in the case of obligations providing for execution in parts or in the form of periodic payments (paragraph 3, 4 of paragraph 20 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation No. 43).

It is natural that the courts apply a similar approach to additional claims of the creditor (penalty, interest for the use of other people’s funds, etc.) and claims for compensation of losses - the limitation period for these claims does not occur if the obligated person recognizes only the principal debt (para. 2 clause 25 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation No. 43).

For practical reasons, it is advisable to turn to the previous joint explanations of the higher courts. Previously, they differentiated the consequences of partial payment of a debt depending on the basis of the debt.

Partial payment indicated recognition of the debt, if the latter had only one basis and did not consist of various grounds (clause 20 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 12, 2001 No. 15, Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated November 15, 2001 No. 18 “On some issues related to the application of the provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the limitation period”). For example, if the debtor paid the debt, albeit partially, but with reference to the agreement as a whole, the payment could not be called periodic and this meant that the limitation period was interrupted for all obligations arising from the said agreement.

Without touching on the discussion about the fairness of the new clarifications, let us draw attention to the problems that were provoked by the change in the approach to the qualification of partial recognition.

Court case card

So, the lender filed a lawsuit against the borrower to recover the loan amount. The plaintiff believed that the limitation period was interrupted by the partial return of the loan amount, whereas at the time of such return the joint clarifications of the higher courts were in effect. Based on the fact that the previous interpretation was no longer valid, the court of first instance dismissed the claim on the grounds that the statute of limitations had passed. After all, it turns out that, taking into account the current explanations, the defendant’s behavior does not indicate recognition of the debt. But the court did not take into account that the new interpretation obviously worsens the plaintiff’s position and does not have retroactive effect without special instructions. Only the court of cassation corrected the mistake of the lower courts. He pointed out that the interpretation of Art. 203 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which was proposed by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, does not apply to the relations of the parties, since the defendant returned part of the loan when a different interpretation was in effect (resolution of the Far Eastern District Court of June 24, 2016 in case No. A04-7847/2015).

If the debtor has repeatedly acknowledged the debt, the subjective statute of limitations begins to run again

Actions indicating the recognition of a debt, in practice, can be performed repeatedly and at different times (decrees of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga Region dated 08.21.2007 in case No. A12-800/06-C32, 15 AAS dated 03.21.2017 in case No. A53-21460/2016 , 12 AAS dated November 11, 2015 in case No. A57-11249/2015). Moreover, each break in the limitation period implies that the period for compulsory protection of the right begins anew and the period preceding the break is not included in it.

To answer the question of how long the debtor’s actions can interrupt the statute of limitations, it is necessary to determine the relationship between the institution of interruption and the rules on the maximum period of limitation.

In any case, the limitation period cannot exceed ten years from the date the obligation arose (paragraph 2, paragraph 2, article 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). However, the Plenum of the RF Supreme Court clarified that the plaintiff cannot be denied protection of the right if, before the expiration of the ten-year period, the obligated person has committed actions indicating recognition of the debt (clause 8 of Resolution of the Plenum of the RF Supreme Court No. 43).

In our opinion, taking into account the above explanation, the mechanism for interrupting the limitation period works as follows. For example, the right of the interested party was violated and the ten-year statute of limitations for its judicial protection ran out (objective limitation). However, one year before the expiration of the maximum limitation period, the plaintiff learned of the violation of his right and of the proper defendant. Then, within this last year, the debtor confirmed the recognition of the debt. In such a case, the maximum period rule does not apply. First of all, because this does not correspond to its purpose - the debtor himself has shown that there is no uncertainty, he sees the interest of the creditor and is aware of the likelihood of an upcoming legal dispute. Consequently, after recognition, the (subjective) limitation period is renewed for the full period.

Expiration of the limitation period

The time frame for initiating a criminal case starts from the moment of commission of certain crimes.

But there are some exceptions to the general rules, for example, if the crime was not completed (prevented at the planning stage) , in this case the limitation period starts from the moment of commission of any action prohibited by law, which became the cause or could have caused the subsequent an act that poses a danger to the public.

A continuing violation of the law, consisting of many systematically occurring facts of an illegal nature, then the period for closing the claim is calculated from the fact of the commission of the last act in this chain.

The periods of storage and termination of criminal proceedings do not include the time during which the accused prevented the official from fulfilling the obligations imposed on him to bring the guilty person to a certain type of responsibility.

In this case, it is worth remembering that such circumstances include only intentional actions of a person carried out in order to avoid punishment for the criminal act he has committed, for example, changing initials, place of permanent residence, etc.

In addition to the opening of such a concept as the statute of limitations in criminal cases, the law also provides for the moment of its closing - the final day of a certain period established by the current legislation on the territory of the Russian Federation or the date from which the decision of the judicial authorities on this legally comes into force business.

When the running of the limitation period is suspended or interrupted

Under certain circumstances, the LED is suspended. We are talking about clause 1 of Art. 202 Civil Code:

emergency and unpreventable situations that prevent recourse to judicial authorities;
cases where the plaintiff or defendant serves in the army during the period of martial law;
introduction by the government of a moratorium on the fulfillment of obligations (for example, a moratorium on bankruptcy cases during the quarantine period);
suspension of legal acts regulating violated legal relations.

The main condition is that these circumstances arise in the last 6 months of the limitation period. As soon as they stop, the period for filing a claim in court will continue to flow and will last for another 6 months (clauses 2, 4 of Article 202 of the Civil Code).

In addition, the limitation period is interrupted by actions indicating the defendant’s recognition of the debt. For example, if the debtor admits the claim, asks for a deferment/installment plan or signs a reconciliation report (clause 20 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 43 of September 29, 2015). If the plaintiff can prove such facts, the time to file a claim will begin to run again from that moment (Article 203 of the Civil Code).

Liability according to the letter of the law: statute of limitations

In 2021, when determining the limitation period, the Criminal Code provides for various terms , the use of which is directly related to the criminal act.

These terms are reflected in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Art. 78 :

In the case of a minor crime, the statute of limitations is several years. This refers to criminal actions, the responsibility for which requires detention in a colony for no more than 36 months.
If a crime recognized as moderately serious was committed, then the legal statute of limitations period will be 6 years. Criminal Code Art. 15 says that for acts of this kind a certain type of punishment is provided - imprisonment for a longer period than in the case described above: for pre-planned actions - 60 months, for actions committed without malicious intent - 3 years.
The duration of the investigation in criminal cases qualifying as especially grave is 120 months. Grave - planned actions, imprisonment for which is provided for up to 120 months.
For 15 years, prosecution has been provided for especially serious criminal acts. They are understood as acts for which punishment is provided in the form of detention in a maximum security colony for 120 months or more.

Is it possible to reinstate a missed statute of limitations?

In exceptional cases, when the court recognizes a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations due to circumstances related to the personality of the plaintiff (serious illness, helpless state, illiteracy, etc.), the violated right of a citizen is subject to protection. This rule is provided for in Art. 205 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The reasons for missing the limitation period may be considered valid if they occurred in the last six months of the limitation period, and if this period is six months or less than six months, during the limitation period.

In other words, it is possible for individuals to restore the time limit for filing a claim.

Within the meaning of this norm and paragraph 3 of Art. 23 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the limitation period missed by a legal entity on claims related to its business activities cannot be restored, regardless of the reasons for its omission (clause 12 of Resolution No. 43).

Limitation periods for fraudulent activities

In order to accurately determine whether the victim can seek help from law enforcement agencies to protect legal rights, you should accurately determine the starting point of the limitation period .

The Civil Code of the Russian Federation stipulates that there are several possible options:

The starting point begins from the day when information was received that your rights were violated and by whom it was done. For example, the employer, having collected contributions, disappeared in an unknown direction, the countdown period will begin from the day when you wanted to contact him but were unable to do so. In this case, you realize that you have been deceived.
If the fulfillment of obligations was scheduled for a certain date , then the beginning of the limitation period begins on the next day and can be a maximum of 10 years from the period when such obligations arose. For example, when selling a car to your friend, you agreed that part of the amount would be paid in a few months. The title to the vehicle has been transferred, the documents have all been reissued, the payment deadline has already arrived, but there is no money, that is, it is clearly fraud. The countdown begins from the moment claims are presented to the debtor, unless a payment deadline has been provided. You present demands to the debtor and set a period of 10 days; after this time, if you have not been paid in full, you can go to court.

If the debtor is hiding and the amount of debt is significant, that is, exceeds one million rubles, and there is evidence of criminal intent, then he faces criminal liability in accordance with current legislation.

In what cases is the limitation period not established?

Article 208 of the Civil Code defines the requirements to which the validity period of a statement of claim to the court does not apply. We are talking, in particular, about claims:

on the protection of non-property rights, for example the right to non-interference in private life;
to banking organizations regarding the issuance of deposits;
on compensation for damage to life and health;
on eliminating violations of the rights of the property owner that are not related to deprivation of possession;
according to requirements arising from family relations (Article 9 of the Family Code).

How to obtain information about the statute of limitations in relation to criminal proceedings?

In order to find out the deadline for terminating criminal proceedings, you should :

Find in the Criminal Code the corresponding article that you need, if it has sub-articles, then about the corresponding part of this article.
Study the maximum severe punishment provided for such an act, which can be assigned under this article of criminal law, or the part of this article that you need.
Based on the most severe punishment, determine the severity of the crime committed by you or another person.
Determine the timing of inquiries in criminal cases based on the severity of the criminal act committed. Here you should follow the rules, according to Art. 78 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

It should be remembered that the size of the limitation period in relation to criminal proceedings is related to the category of gravity of the criminal act committed.

According to the requirements of official legislation on the territory of the Russian Federation, all adult citizens can be brought to a certain type of responsibility at any time , but only if the investigation itself and the prosecution were carried out before the end of the limitation period determined by the existing law.

In addition, it should be noted that the limitation periods for civil and criminal cases are different.

But in order not to ask such a question, never cross the line of the law , otherwise everything may not end as well as you would like.

The procedure for applying the limitation period.

The procedure for applying the limitation period is set out in Art. 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

According to paragraph 1 of this article, a claim for the protection of a violated right is accepted for consideration by the court regardless of the expiration of the statute of limitations.

In accordance with paragraph 2, the limitation period is applied by the court only upon the application of a party to the dispute made before the court makes a decision. As noted in paragraph 10 of Resolution No. 43, this party bears the burden of proving circumstances indicating the expiration of the statute of limitations.

The expiration of the limitation period is an independent basis for refusal of a claim (paragraph 2, paragraph 2, article 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). If it is established that a party to the case has missed the limitation period, then if there is a statement from the appropriate person about the expiration of this period, the court has the right to refuse to satisfy the claim only for the specified reasons, without examining other circumstances of the case. This is stated in paragraph 15 of Resolution No. 43. In other words, missing the statute of limitations does not deprive a citizen or organization of the opportunity to file a claim. The claim will still be accepted for consideration. Moreover, judges, on their own initiative, are not obliged to determine compliance with the said deadline. Only if the defendant during the process declares that the statute of limitations has passed and proves this, the court can refuse to satisfy the plaintiff’s claims. If the defendant does not report missing the deadline, the case will be considered according to the general rules.

For your information:

In paragraph 2 of Art. 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation there are no requirements for the form of an application for skipping the limitation period: it can be made both in writing and orally, when preparing a case for trial or directly when considering the case on the merits in a court of first instance or in court the appellate instance, if he proceeded to consider the case according to the rules of proceedings in the court of first instance. If the statement was made orally, this is indicated in the minutes of the court hearing (clause 11 of Resolution No. 43).