Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, dated March 24, 2017, case No. 544/525/15-ц. Available at http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/66907384

A limitation period can be interrupted by submission of a lawsuit by a plaintiff to a court, including by mail. The submission should be done in compliance with requirements of  procedural law, in particular Articles 109, 119, 120 of the Ukrainian Code of Civil Dispute Resolution Procedure.

If a court refuses to accept a lawsuit or returns it, the limitation period shall not be interrupted.

Additionally, running of the limitation period will not be interrupted if a lawsuit is filed with a court which has no jurisdiction over a dispute, or if a lawsuit contains claims and causes of action, other than those that were appropriate under the circumstances.

Resolution of the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine, dated February 07, 2017, case No. 910/10472/16. Available at http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/64621163

Provisions of Article 256 of the Ukrainian Civil Code stipulate that a limitation period for filing a lawsuit is the period within which a person can submit an action to a court requesting to protect this person’s civil rights or interests.

Article 258 of the Ukrainian Civil Code sets forth that a law may specify limitation periods for certain types of claims: a reduced or longer one in comparison with the general limitation period. A one-year limitation period shall be applied, in particular, in respect of claims for recovery of fines, penalties.

Article 259 (1) of the Ukrainian Civil Code allows to increase a limitation period by an agreement of its parties. The agreement increasing a limitation period must be in written form. A limitation period prescribed by law may not be reduced by an agreement of its parties. Parties are allowed to increase both general and special limitation periods.

Article 260 (1) of the Ukrainian Civil Code prescribes that for calculation of limitation periods Articles 253 – 255 of the Code must be applied. In accordance with these articles calendar timescales shall be used to calculate limitation periods, which start to run on the next day after a respective date or after some event occurred, on which the beginning of a limitation period depends (article 253 (1)).

Article 260 (2) of the Ukrainian Civil Code prohibits changing by an agreement the principles of calculating limitation periods. A limitation period starts to run on the day when an aggrieved person learned or could have learned about violation of his/her right or about the person who violated the right.

Consequently, based on the provisions of the above norms, the limitation period starts on the day when a person person learned or could have learned about violation of his/her right or about the person who violated the right, and expires on its due date specified by a law or by an agreement entered into in writing and which meets general requirements for contracts to be concluded in writing.

At the same time Article 232 (6) of the Ukrainian Commercial Code sets forth that accrual of penalties for a delay to carry out an obligation, unless otherwise provided by law or an agreement, shall be terminated in six months after the date when the obligation must have been carried out.

This provision does not determine a limitation period, but the period within which a penalty shall be accrued and which should not exceed six months from the day when the corresponding obligation must have been carried out; a law or an agreement may make this period longer or shorter. It starts to run on the day following the last day on which an obligation must be carried out, and the starting date of this period may not be changed by an agreement.

Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, dated February 22, 2017, case No. 6-17цс17. Available at http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/65074110

A comparative analysis of the terms “learned” and “could have learned” (Article 261 of the Civil Code) gives grounds for a conclusion that there is a presumption of the possibility and the duty of a person to know whether this person’s rights are violated, and, therefore, proving the mere fact that a plaintiff did not know about a violation of his civil rights and for this reason did not request a court to enforce the rights, is not enough.

The plaintiff must also prove that he could not have learned about the violation of his rigths. The defendant, on the contrary, has to prove that information about the violation could have reached the plaintiff earlier.

© Yuriy Karlash, English translation, 2017

© Yuriy Karlash, compilation, 2017