How to present a bill for payment after the due date?

Ways to indicate the maturity of a bill

The bill obliges the repayment of the debt to the one who presents it (the holder).
There are two types of DCB:

1. A simple bill (solo bill) is paid by the person who issued it (the drawer).
2. The transferable draft (draft) is repaid by a third party at the request of the debtor.

The form must include the “Payment Date” information, without which the promissory note loses its legal force. Debt repayment occurs:

• upon presentation;
• within a specified time after presentation;
• after a set time from compilation;
• on a specific day.

Specifying other periods or more than one is not permitted.

Upon presentation

In this way, the debt is repaid, even if the “Payment due date” column is not filled in. The DSB is presented by the holder within a year from the date of preparation. The debtor has the right to reduce or increase this period.

The option is inconvenient for the payer, since he must be ready to transfer the required amount at any time.

Within a specified time after presentation

Such a security must be presented for acceptance or protest within a year after issue. The fact of presentation is confirmed by the payer’s signature in the acceptance section.

If the payer signed but did not mark the date, then it is considered that consent to payment was given on the last day of the period agreed upon for the provision of the DSB for acceptance. Or the moment of protest is determined - an appeal to a notary to record the fact of signing by the payer.

The time for payment after presentation of the bill of exchange is calculated similarly to the time provided for payment from the moment of drawing up.

After a set time from compilation

Unlike the previous version of indicating the deadline, the moment of preparation is recorded on the form.

Debt repayment can be negotiated in different ways:

1. After a few months. The period begins on the day following the date of preparation (or presentation) and ends with the day of the month coinciding with the date of the beginning of the period. For example, if the CDB includes the condition “within 3 months”, it was presented (or compiled) by:
   April 23, 2021, then it must be paid on July 24, 2021, but not earlier;
2. November 29, 2021, then the debt will be repaid on February 28, 2021, since February 30 does not exist;
3. January 31, 2021, then payment will follow on May 6, 2021 (the nearest working date, since May 1-5 is a weekend).
4. In half a month. In this case, 15 days are considered.
5. In a few days. The debt is paid at the last of them.
6. Setting payment at the beginning, middle or end of a specific month means the first, fifteenth or last day, respectively.

On a specific day

Debt repayment can be scheduled for a selected date. If the calendars of the place of issue of securities and the place of payment are different, then the date of repayment of the debt is determined based on the calendar adopted at the place of transfer of the debt.

How to correctly calculate the debt collection period on a bill of exchange. According to the experience of lawyers

Due to missing the deadline, the court refused to collect the debt on the bill. The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation managed to prove that the term is calculated differently.

OJSC Rosagroleasing was the holder of a promissory note for 300 thousand rubles, issued in 2007 by OJSC Sberbank (hereinafter referred to as the issuer, the bank). Under this bill, the drawer undertook to unconditionally pay the amount specified in it to the peasant farm (this was the lessee of the company) or, by his order, to another person. The due date for payment of the bill is upon presentation, but not earlier than 01/23/08. However, the company holding the bill did not manage to present the bill for payment on the due date.

The possibility of making a claim from an “overdue” bill of exchange in court is confirmed in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 4, 2000 No. 33/14 “On some issues in the practice of considering disputes related to the circulation of bills of exchange” (hereinafter referred to as the resolution No. 33/14). The highest courts have clarified that failure to present a bill of exchange for payment within the period specified therein does not exempt the drawer from making payments on the bill in the event of a claim being brought within the established limitation period. In other words, a demand for payment on a promissory note can be asserted against the drawer by filing a lawsuit in court.

The company filed a statement of claim to collect the bill of exchange debt from the bank only on January 23, 2012 (the last day of the statute of limitations). The court of first instance satisfied the requirements (decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court dated June 29, 2012). But on appeal this decision was overturned (ruling of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 08/21/12). The appellate instance cited the expiration of the statute of limitations. In her opinion, it expired a year ago - 01/23/11, that is, three years after the date indicated on the bill - 01/23/08. Moreover, the company presented the original bill of exchange in court only on May 22, 2012.

What did the lawyers do?

The company's legal department was faced with the task of proving in cassation that the appellate instance was mistaken and in fact the statute of limitations had not been missed. As part of this task, the first question was what moment should be considered the starting point for starting to calculate the three-year limitation period: 01/24/08, as the court of appeal believed, or 01/24/09, as the company representatives and the first instance believed? The second question: does it matter for the conclusion that the statute of limitations has passed that the original bill of exchange was not presented simultaneously with the claim - on the last day of the statute of limitations (calculated from January 24, 2009), but later?

The deadline for presenting a bill of exchange for payment established in Article 34 of the bill of exchange provision is the deadline for fulfilling obligations, and not the limitation period.

Legal position regarding the beginning of the limitation period.

It would seem that the fact that the statute of limitations in this case should have been calculated from 01/24/09 should not have raised any doubts. According to Articles 34 and 77 of the bill of exchange regulations, a promissory note with a maturity date of “at sight” must be presented for payment within one year from the date of its issuance. In this case, the drawer may establish that a promissory note with a maturity date of “at sight” cannot be presented for payment before a certain date. In this case, the one-year period for presenting the bill for payment is calculated from this date. Considering that in this case the bill of exchange indicated the payment period “at sight, but not earlier than 01/23/08”, the company could submit demands for payment of the bill of exchange to the bank before 01/23/09 (inclusive). Consequently, the three-year limitation period for going to court began on 01/24/09 and its last day was 01/23/12.

The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation clarified back in 1997 that the period for filing claims against the drawer of a promissory note begins to run from the date of payment (clause 25 of the information letter dated July 25, 1997 No. 18 “Review of the practice of resolving disputes related to the use of a bill of exchange in economic circulation” ). There is a similar explanation in paragraph 22 of Resolution No. 33/14: claims against the drawer arising from a promissory note are extinguished after three years from the date of payment, and the beginning of the three-year period is determined by the day of payment in accordance with the terms of the bill. But, given that in the situation under consideration, the bill was not presented for payment, the question arose: what should be considered the day of the payment deadline - the day of its beginning (01/23/2008) or the day of its end (01/23/2009).

The main difficulty was that arbitration courts (more precisely, judges, since different approaches could be found even in judicial acts of the same court) did not have unity on the issue from what starting point the statute of limitations should be counted in similar circumstances.

Legal position regarding the moment of presentation of the original bill of exchange.

The appellate instance drew attention to the moment the original bill of exchange was presented in court in connection with another clarification from resolution No. 33/14. Within the meaning of the last paragraph of paragraph 23 of this resolution, the demand for payment of the bill by filing a claim in court is considered to be the proper presentation of the bill for payment. Therefore, this situation is subject to the requirements for the procedure for presenting a bill of exchange for payment - in particular, the need to present the original bill of exchange to the drawer (clauses 38, 77 of the bill of exchange regulations). In this case, the original bill of exchange was presented by the plaintiff only at the court hearing on 05/22/12, that is, beyond the three-year limitation period, even if we count it from 01/23/09. This argument could be objected to by the fact that, according to the version of the Civil Code that was in force at the time the claim was filed, the running of the statute of limitations is interrupted by filing a claim in the prescribed manner (paragraph 1 of Article 203 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as amended). After the break, the limitation period begins anew. This means that in this case, the day after the filing of the claim, the limitation period began to run from the beginning, and, thus, the original bill of exchange was presented within the limitation period.

Appealing judicial acts.

The cassation court agreed that the statute of limitations began not from 01/23/08, but from 01/23/09. But she still considered the statute of limitations to have expired due to the fact that the original bill of exchange was presented in court only on May 22, 2012 (resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated December 26, 2012).

Appeal to the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation.

“Judging by the fact that the same courts made opposite decisions in cases with similar circumstances, we realized that only the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation can put an end to this issue. Actually, in the supervisory complaint we focused on the fact that in judicial practice there is no uniform position on how to calculate the limitation period for bill of exchange disputes if the payment period is formulated as “upon presentation, but not earlier than such and such a date” “says Andrei Figol.

Nota bene!

According to the new edition of the Civil Code, from the date of application to the court in the prescribed manner for the protection of a violated right, the statute of limitations does not run throughout the entire time that judicial protection is carried out (clause 1 of Article 203 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as amended, which came into force in September 2013 ).

Three judges of the Supreme Arbitration Court, considering the appeal, confirmed the existence of grounds for transferring the case to the Presidium for consideration. As a result, the supervisory authority sided with the company (Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated November 5, 2013 No. 5054/13). She clearly indicated that in the present case, taking into account the terms of the bill itself and its failure to present it for payment, the last day of the three-year limitation period of the bill of exchange was 01/23/12, which means that the company filed a claim in court within this period. In addition, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation stated that the courts erroneously linked the expiration of the bill of exchange limitation period with the date the company presented the original bill of exchange at the court hearing. In this case, the company filed the claim within the three-year statute of limitations, after which the statute of limitations ceased to run during the entire period while the legal defense was carried out. This means that the fact that the bill was presented only during the consideration of the case was no longer significant for the conclusion that the statute of limitations had expired. Thus, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation actually applied in this case the approach that is formulated in the new edition of the Civil Code (clause 1 of Article 203 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). As the basis for this conclusion, he referred to Article 71 of the provisions on the bill (it states that the limitation period is valid only in relation to the person against whom the action interrupting the limitation period was committed), as well as the first paragraph of Article 70 and Article 77 of the provisions on bill of exchange

What has been achieved?

The Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation canceled the judicial acts of the appellate and cassation instances, leaving in force the decision of the court of first instance to collect the bill of exchange debt. The Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 05.11.13 No. 5054/13 contains a clause that judicial acts that have entered into legal force in cases with similar factual circumstances can be revised on the basis of paragraph 5 of part 3 of Article 311 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, if there are no other options for this. obstacles. The formality of the bill is manifested in the fact that the absence of at least one of the required details deprives the bill of legal force.

In clause 5 of the Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 25, 1997 No. 18 “Review of the practice of resolving disputes related to the use of a bill of exchange in economic circulation” (hereinafter referred to as Information Letter No. 18) the following is stated. The inclusion in the text of the bill of exchange of a condition that the payment period is established by an indication of a probable event is a violation of the requirements for the form of the bill of exchange and entails its invalidity.

Note!

The lack of bill of exchange force in a document does not prevent it from being considered as a debt document of a different legal nature - a promissory note. This position was expressed in the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 23, 1996 No. 6385/95. The legal holder of a bill is not required to prove the existence and validity of his rights, since they are presumed to exist and be valid. The burden of proof to the contrary lies with the bill debtor (Resolution of the Thirteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated October 15, 2010 No. A56-1419/2010).

Maximum validity period of a promissory note

The bill of exchange legislation does not provide for a period limitation.

For a simple bill of exchange, as well as a bill of exchange, there are only the following exceptions:

1. Paper upon presentation is provided within a year from the date of issue.
2. The form for acceptance or protest can be presented within a year after issue if the debt must be paid within a certain period after issue.
3. The holder of the securities must present the document on the day of repayment of the debt or within the next 2 business days, if it indicates the period from the date of provision (drawing up) or a specific date.

Is there a deadline for presenting a bill of exchange for payment?

Presentation of a bill of exchange for payment.

A bill of exchange for which the payment term has come is presented for payment to the drawer (the legal entity or individual who issued this security).

Payment term: The holder of a bill of exchange with a maturity date of “at sight” is obliged to present it for payment within a year from the date of drawing up the bill, unless the period is shortened or a longer period is specified. The period for presentation begins to run from the day the bill is drawn up. If a bill of exchange due at sight states that it cannot be presented for payment before a certain date, then in this case the period for presentation begins to run from the specified date.

Place of payment: Presentation of the bill of exchange for payment must take place at the place of payment indicated in the bill of exchange, and if the place of payment is not specified, then in the place indicated next to the name of the payer (acceptor) of the bill of exchange or at the place of drawing up the promissory note. Bill obligations of debtors can be fulfilled only if the bill is presented for payment in the proper place. The place of payment can be determined by indicating a locality or a specific address. A demand for payment presented in a place other than that specified in the bill of exchange cannot be considered duly presented. Accordingly, a protest for non-payment of such a bill cannot be considered adequate evidence of lack of payment and cannot be the basis for satisfying bill claims.

Missing the deadline for presenting a bill for payment.

The deadline for presenting a bill of exchange for payment is preemptive and cannot be restored.

If a bill of exchange is not presented within the specified period, the holder loses the rights arising from this bill against the endorsers, against the drawer and against other obligated persons, with the exception of the acceptor. If a promissory note is not presented, the holder loses his rights against persons obligated under the bill, except the drawer.

The deadline for presenting a bill for payment is established precisely for the exercise of the rights that arise from their circulation of the bill, and not for the protection of these rights.

Negative consequences of missing the deadline for presenting a bill:

1. Missing the deadline for presenting a bill of exchange for payment deprives the bill holder of the right to present his claims to other participants in the bill of exchange, in particular, to endorsers.

If the main debtor is unable to pay the bill (and this happens quite often), then the holder of the bill no longer has any other choice and is forced to deal only with him.

2. The size of the bill holder's claims is reduced.

If the deadline for presenting the bill for payment is missed, the holder of the bill will be able to collect only the principal debt, that is, the bill amount without interest and penalties, which are provided for by law. The reason for this is that the creditor, through his actions (namely, not presenting the bill for payment) contributed to the occurrence of delay.

The Civil Code provides that on a monetary obligation the debtor is not obliged to pay interest during the creditor's delay. In addition, the creditor's delay gives the debtor the right to compensation for losses caused by the delay. These clarifications are given in the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 6, 1999 N 191/99.

Making a protest by a notary.

The refusal of the drawer to make payment on the bill must be certified by an act - a protest of non-acceptance or non-payment. A protest can be certified by the acceptor’s refusal to date the acceptance, the drawer’s refusal to put a dated mark on a promissory note, refusal to issue a copy sent for acceptance, refusal to return the original of the bill and a number of other significant circumstances.

A protest against a bill of exchange with a maturity date of “at sight” must be made within the time limits established for presenting bills of exchange for acceptance, that is, within one year.

Protests on bills of exchange are carried out notarially by both public and private notaries. Before accepting a bill of exchange for protest, the notary is obliged to check the correctness and compliance with the form of its preparation. Protests for non-acceptance are made by a notary at the location of the payer, protests for non-payment - at the location of the payer or at the place of payment.

On the day the bill is accepted for protest, the notary, without making a protest, transfers it to the payer with an inscription in the established form on the bill itself about receipt of the amounts due. Upon receipt of a refusal or failure of the payer to appear when called by a notary, an act of protest of non-acceptance or non-payment is drawn up in the established form, a corresponding entry is made in the register and a note about this is made on the bill of exchange.

If the location of the payer is unknown, the protest is made without presenting a demand with a note to this effect in the act of protest and the register for registration of notarial actions. A protested bill of exchange is issued to the holder of the bill or a person authorized by him.

Missing the deadline for protesting a bill.

The right of action against the drawer of a promissory note does not depend on the fact of the protest and the timeliness of its commission. A protest is only a necessary condition for the holder of a bill to retain the right to file a claim against persons obligated under the bill, with the exception of the main debtors. These clarifications are given in the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated February 24, 1998 N 1278/96.

Adverse consequences of not protesting a bill:

1. If the deadline for making a protest is missed, the holder of the bill loses his rights against endorsers and other obligated persons, with the exception of the drawer and his avalist.

2. According to Art. 122 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, if the demand is based on a protest against the bill, then in this case a court order may be issued.

This is a very significant circumstance, because the procedure for issuing and executing a court order is a simpler and faster process than lawsuit proceedings.

Also, an application for the issuance of a court order is paid with a state fee in the amount of 50 percent of the rate calculated on the basis of the disputed amount when filing a claim in court in the manner of litigation.

The limitation period for presenting a bill of exchange for payment.

Claims arising from a bill of exchange against the acceptor are extinguished upon the expiration of three years from the date of payment. That is, the very right to demand payment on the bill is extinguished. These clarifications were given by the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation in Information Letter dated July 25, 1997 No. 18 “Review of the practice of resolving disputes related to the use of bills of exchange in economic circulation.”

It is necessary to take into account that this period applies both in relation to the claim of the bill holder, and in relation to the claims of the drawer, endorsers, persons who gave aval for them, and other persons to whom the rights under the bill were transferred as a result of their fulfillment of the bill obligation.

The drawer of a promissory note is obliged in the same way as the acceptor of a bill of exchange. Taking this into account, claims against the drawer arising from a promissory note are also extinguished upon the expiration of three years from the date of payment. This period applies both to the claim of the holder of the bill of exchange, and to the claims of the indorsers of the bill of exchange, the persons who gave the aval for them, brought against the maker of the promissory note, as well as the persons who paid the bill through mediation.

In these cases, the beginning of the three-year period for filing claims against the acceptor of a bill of exchange or against the drawer of a promissory note is determined by the day of the payment deadline in accordance with the terms of the bill.

The expiration of the prescribed preemptive periods terminates the substantive right to demand payment from the persons obligated under the bill. These terms are applied by the court regardless of the application of the parties and cannot be changed by agreement of the parties; they are not subject to suspension or restoration.

Missing the limitation period for presenting a bill of exchange for payment.

There is a point of view that if for some reason the deadline for presenting the bill for payment, the deadline for protesting the bill and the limitation period were missed, then the bill does not lose the force of a promissory note, which allows the holder of the bill to receive money on this bill.

The obligation to pay money does not disappear anywhere, but the bill acquires the status of a loan agreement and the relevant provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation must be applied to it.

This means that debt collection can also be carried out on it, for which the holder of the bill should go to court.

If the bill is “overdue”, the following actions are possible:

1. Sell an overdue bill.

2. Apply to the debtor with a claim, inviting him to pay a nominal amount.

3. If the debtor refuses or misses the deadline specified in the claim, he will file a lawsuit to collect the amount of the debt document.

What happens if you miss a payment deadline?

After the expiration of the time associated with the fact of presentation, the holder loses his rights against the debtor, but retains them against the payer who signed the acceptance. This means that the promissory note is not payable, since the acceptor is concerned only with the draft.

But paragraph 78 of the Resolution of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated 08/07/1937 No. 104/1341 equates the payer to the debtor on a solo bill. It turns out that the holder of the rights can defend in court during the bill of exchange limitation period:

1. 3 years from the date when the payment should have been made are allotted for a claim against the payer.
2. 1 year from the date of protest – to file a claim against the debtor.

Bill of limitations (am. Erdelevsky)

The material was prepared using legal acts as of February 1, 2001 by A.M. ERDELEVSKY Alexander Erdelevsky, professor of the Moscow State Law Academy, Doctor of Law. Russian bill of exchange legislation has always raised a large number of difficult questions both among participants in commercial transactions and among judicial authorities. A number of such issues were considered in the joint Resolution of the plenums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 33/14, adopted on December 4, 2000, “On some issues in the practice of considering disputes related to the circulation of bills of exchange” (hereinafter referred to as Resolution No. 33/14). Considering the focus of this Resolution on establishing uniformity in the practice of applying bill of exchange legislation, its effect as a whole can be assessed as very positive. At the same time, it is not possible to fully agree with all the provisions formulated in Resolution No. 33/14. The above fully applies to the application of the institution of promissory notes. First of all, let us pay attention to the fact that Art. 815 of the Civil Code is a reference norm, by virtue of which relations related to the circulation of bills of exchange are currently regulated in the Russian Federation mainly by the Federal Law of March 11, 1997 “On Bills of Exchange and Promissory Note” and approved by the Resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated 7 August 1937 Regulations on bills of exchange and promissory notes (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). These Russian regulations must be applied in accordance with the 1930 Bill of Exchange Conventions, to which Russia is a party. One of them adopted the Uniform Law on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Note (hereinafter referred to as the EBZ), the other was aimed at resolving some conflicts of laws on bills of exchange. The norms of the Civil Code can also be applied to bill relations, but only to the extent that they do not contradict special bill legislation. The rules for the application of bill limitation are established in Art. 70, 71 Regulations. According to Art. 70 of the Provisions, claims arising from a bill of exchange against the acceptor are extinguished upon the expiration of three years from the date of payment. The claims of the holder of the bill against the endorsers and against the drawer are extinguished after the expiration of one year from the date of protest made within the established period, or from the date of payment due, in the case of a clause on turnover without costs. The claims of the endorsers against each other and against the drawer of the bill are extinguished after six months, counting from the date of payment of the bill by the endorser or from the date of filing a claim against him. Clause 71 of the Regulations establishes that the interruption of limitation is valid only in relation to the person against whom the action interrupting the limitation was committed. According to Art. 77, 78 Provisions of the rule art. 70, 71 also apply to relations under a promissory note, with the drawer taking the place of the acceptor. Instructions for the application of Art. 70 The provisions are formulated in paragraph 22 of Resolution No. 33/14. In it, in particular, it is quite correctly noted that established in Part 1 of Art. 70 of the Regulations, the three-year period after which the claims arising from the bill of exchange against the acceptor are extinguished applies both to the claim of the bill holder and to the claims of the drawer, endorsers, persons who gave aval for them, and others against the acceptor of the bill of exchange. persons to whom the rights under the bill of exchange were transferred as a result of their fulfillment of the bill of exchange obligation. As stated in paragraph 22 of Resolution No. 33/14, the beginning of the three-year period for filing claims against the acceptor of a bill of exchange or against the drawer of a promissory note is determined by the day of the payment deadline in accordance with the terms of the bill. In this case, the courts are asked to proceed from the fact that with the expiration of the provisions provided for in Art. 70 of the Provisions of Preventive Time Limits, the substantive right to demand payment from persons obligated under the bill of exchange is terminated; the terms provided for in the Regulations for filing claims under the bill of exchange cannot be changed by agreement of the parties and are not subject to suspension or restoration, and they should be applied regardless of the application of the party. However, the validity of the approach of the highest Russian courts to the qualifications established in Art. 70 The provisions of the deadlines raise serious doubts. Moreover, it should be noted that this is not the first time that this approach has been formulated by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. Thus, in paragraph 26 of the Review of the practice of resolving disputes related to the use of a bill of exchange in economic circulation, attached to the information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 25, 1997, it was noted that the expiration of the deadlines provided for in Chapter XI of the Regulations on bills of exchange and promissory notes, extinguishes the substantive right to demand payment of a bill. So, from Resolution No. 33/14 and the Review it follows that the Supreme Arbitration and Supreme Courts of the Russian Federation propose to consider those established in Art. 70 of the Regulations, deadlines are not limitation periods, but preemptive periods. It should be noted that none of the mentioned judicial acts provides even a brief justification for this approach, although the motivation for the position taken on such an important issue would be more than appropriate. It is with the view of the terms established in paragraph 70 of the Regulations as preemptive that the statement made in Resolution No. 33/14 is connected that they are not subject to suspension and restoration and are applied regardless of the application of the party. In other words, according to the Supreme Arbitration and Supreme Courts, the rules of the Civil Code regulating the limitation period are not applicable to these deadlines (Articles 195 - 208 of the Civil Code). Let us note that although the Resolution does not directly mention the interruption of the bill of limitations periods, it follows from the indication of their preemptive nature that these periods cannot be interrupted either, since the possibility of a break is provided for in Art. 203 of the Civil Code only for the duration of the limitation period. Strictly speaking, a break in the limitation period is a type of its restoration in the broad sense, since a break in the running of this period means that the time elapsed before the break is canceled for the purposes of calculating the limitation period, and its course after the break begins anew, that is, the limitation period is restored in full (Article 203 of the Civil Code). The restoration of the limitation period in the narrow sense (Article 205 of the Civil Code) is, in essence, an extension of this period by the court beyond the limits established by law in the presence of exceptional circumstances related to the personality of the citizen - the plaintiff. Let us recall that Russian legislation does not contain the concept of “preventive period”. In the science of Russian civil law, a pretrial period is understood as the period of existence of subjective civil law; with the expiration of this period, the subjective right itself ceases to exist. In contrast to the pretrial period, the limitation period is a period for protecting a violated subjective right. With the expiration of the limitation period, the right to claim in the material sense ceases to exist, that is, the right to receive protection from the court for a violated subjective right, while the subjective right itself continues to exist, albeit in a “weakened” form. Since preventive periods are not periods of limitation, the rules on limitation of actions, including its interruption, suspension and restoration, are not applicable to them. The pretrial period can be extended only if there is a direct indication of this in the law (Article 547 of the Civil Code of the RSFSR, 1964). Let's return to the deadlines established in Art. 70 Regulations. To analyze the nature of these terms, we focus on those provisions of both bill of exchange Conventions that are directly related to them. First of all, this is the article itself. 70 Provisions that speak not just about demands, but about claims, which are usually understood as demands addressed to the court for the protection of a violated subjective right. Next, this is Art. 71 of the Regulations, from which we learn that the break established in Art. 70 The provisions of the statute of limitations are possible, and such a break occurs only in relation to the one against whom the action was committed that interrupts the limitation period. This is very similar to a break in the statute of limitations on one of the grounds established in Art. 203 of the Civil Code - in connection with filing a claim in the prescribed manner. The second of those established in Art. 203 of the Civil Code, the grounds for interruption of the limitation period - the obligated person performing actions indicating recognition of the debt - apparently are not covered by Art. 71 Regulations. The fact is that in Art. 71 of the Regulations speaks of two categories of persons: the first includes the person authorized by the bill in the singular, the second includes one or those of the plural number of persons obligated by the bill, against whom or whom the authorized person commits an action that interrupts the limitation period. As for actions indicating the recognition of a debt, they are performed by the obligated person, and not necessarily in relation to the authorized person, and therefore do not fall under the grounds of a period of limitation in the sense of Art. 71 Regulations. But this circumstance in itself does not in any way interfere with the deadlines provided for in Art. 70 of the Regulations, be the limitation period, since the possibility of derogation in Art. 71 Provisions from the rules of Art. 203 of the Civil Code is explained by the fact that Art. 71 of the Regulations reproduces verbatim Art. 71 EvZ, which is part of an international treaty (Convention on EvZ) and has priority over the norms of Russian legislation, including the Civil Code itself (Article 7 of the Civil Code). Let's move on to Appendix No. 2 of the EBP Convention. In Art. 17 of Appendix No. 2 establishes that the legislation of each of the participating states must determine the grounds for interruption and suspension of the limitation period for claims arising from a bill of exchange, which will be considered in the courts of that state. However, other participating states have the right to determine the conditions under which they recognize such grounds. Thus, the Convention allows for the possibility of not only a break (Article 71 EAB), but also a suspension of the deadlines established in Art. 70 EvZ and Art. repeating it. 70 Regulations. As stated above, interruption and suspension are characteristic of the limitation period, but not preemptive periods. Another thing is that Art. 1 of the EAB Convention provided for the right of each state party to condition its participation in the Convention on the reservations mentioned in Appendix No. 2 to the Convention, which the state party taking advantage of this right had to declare at the time of its ratification or its accession. USSR such a clause in relation to Art. 17 of the Convention did not, therefore, the existing rules in Russian legislation for the application of the limitation period in relation to the deadlines established in Art. 70 Provisions cannot be applied. Thus, the impossibility of applying the provisions of the Civil Code on the limitation period is due only to the conditions of the USSR’s accession to the Convention and is by no means a basis for qualifying the terms of Art. 70 Provisions as preemptive. These deadlines are established as deadlines for protecting the violated right of an authorized person to receive payment from a direct debtor or from a debtor by way of recourse. In the absence of a violation of this right, there would be no need to bring an action. It should be noted at the same time that the definition proposed in paragraph 22 of Resolution No. 33/14 of the beginning of the three-year period for filing claims against the acceptor of a bill of exchange or against the drawer of a promissory note (the day of payment due in accordance with the terms of the bill) exactly coincides with the moment when it begins to flow as a limitation period, which would follow from paragraph 2 of Art. 200 GK. Therefore, it appears that those established in Art. 70 The provisions of the deadlines are limitation periods in the sense that Art. 195 of the Civil Code, however, the rules of the Civil Code on interruption, suspension and restoration of the limitation period are not applicable to them due to the priority of the Convention over the rules of the Civil Code. In such a situation, the noted inaccuracy in Resolution No. 33/14 does not acquire significant practical significance, since the consequences of the expiration before filing a claim established in Art. 70 The provisions of the deadlines turn out to be almost the same, whether they are preemptive periods or limitation periods. However, in other cases, such inaccuracies may be much more significant in terms of practical consequences. Unfortunately, recently there has been a certain tendency on the part of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation to incorrectly classify the limitation periods as preemptive periods. This can be illustrated using the example of the deadline established in paragraph 3 of Art. 250 of the Civil Code, previously in exactly the same wording established in Art. 120 of the Civil Code of the RSFSR of 1964. Article 250 of the Civil Code is devoted to the preemptive right of purchase by participants in shared ownership of a share in the right of common property when it is sold to an outsider by one of the participants. According to paragraph 2 of Art. 250 of the Civil Code, the seller of a share is obliged to notify in writing the other participants in shared ownership of his intention to sell his share to an outsider, indicating the price and other conditions under which he sells it. If the remaining participants in shared ownership refuse to purchase or do not acquire the sold share in the right of ownership of real estate within a month, and in the right of ownership of movable property - within ten days from the date of notification, the seller has the right to sell his share to any person. In accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 250 of the Civil Code, when selling a share in violation of the pre-emptive right, any other participant in shared ownership has the right, within three months, to demand in court the transfer of the rights and obligations of the buyer to him. Here, without any doubt, we are dealing with a statute of limitations - the violated pre-emptive right to purchase is protected by filing a demand in court to transfer the rights and obligations of the buyer; To protect this right, a three-month, that is, reduced, limitation period has been established. It is in this capacity that this period was perceived both in legal doctrine and in judicial practice. However, quite unexpectedly, the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation in paragraph 20 of Resolution No. 8 of February 25, 1998 “On some issues in the practice of resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other property rights” indicates that established in paragraph 3 of Art. 250 of the Civil Code, a three-month period is preemptive, therefore claims filed outside the specified period are subject to rejection. It is interesting to note that this Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court came into direct conflict with the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR dated March 22, 1966 N 32 (as amended on December 21, 1993) “On some issues that have arisen in the practice of the courts” that is still in force today when applying the norms of the Civil Code regulating the relations of ownership of a residential building.” Paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 32 directly states that the three-month period established by Art. 120 GK (exact analogue of the term in

On the export of foreign currency (AM Erdelevsky) »

Comments on laws »