LIMITATION OF CLAIMS – THE PERIOD OF PROTECTION OF A VIOLATED RIGHT BY A PERSON

Abstract

This scientific article is devoted to the study of such a legal phenomenon as the statute of limitations. It is emphasized that this is not a period for going to court (despite the incorrect regulatory qualification), because that is a procedural term, but the time during which a person, on the condition that he commits a unilateral active action - filing a lawsuit, acquires the possibility of legal protection of the violated subject objective law. This definition reproduces the material and legal essence of this temporal factor. The work examines in detail the issue of the scope of material requirements that are subject to coverage by the legal institution of statute of limitations. It is emphasized that the ancient mechanism does not apply to a number of claims that are essentially non-civil, as well as those that are not implemented in court. But even not all civil law claims can become statute-barred. At the same time, it is indicated that the Ukrainian civil legislation in relation to certain categories of relations has not determined at all the possibility of statute of limitations for certain claims, which is its essential drawback. Currently, the resolution of these issues is entrusted to the judiciary, which, as is generally recognized, is not the best way to solve the problem. In addition, this approach leads to an ongoing controversy in the doctrine regarding the actual effect of the statute of limitations on such relationships. Researched scientific concepts regarding the impossibility of statute of limitations for some claims, which due to their special properties cannot be statute-barred at all, because given their legal nature, there can be no grounds for the beginning of the statute of limitations. The thorough analysis made it possible to establish the merits and demerits of the relevant national regulatory mechanism. The resolution of the issue of not extending the statute of limitations to demands for the cancellation of normative acts (Article 264 of the Code of Administrative Procedure) and the legislator's position regarding the temporal assessment of so-called "ongoing violations" were recognized as positive. The shortcomings should include the fact that the legislator sometimes unjustifiably provided a claim form (rather than the form of a separate fact-finding proceeding) to protective relationships that by their nature did not need it at all. Therefore, the application of the statute of limitations to such demands is incorrect.