ВІДНОВЛЕННЯ ПОЗОВНОЇ ДАВНОСТІ В ПРОЦЕСІ СУДДІВСЬКОГО ПРАВОЗАСТОСУВАННЯ

Abstract

Purpose. The purpose of this work is to investigate a topical issue regarding the regulatory and enforceable regulation of protection of violated subjective rights of a person. In this sense, the substantive guarantees of the fact that the right to defense is not extinguished with the expiry of the statute of limitations, if it happened for valid reasons, are very relevant, and the claims for the protection of the infringed right are considered by the court irrespective of the expiration of the limitation period. Methods. The methodology of scientific analysis is to study the application of general civilizational principles of justice in the activities of the national legal system. In the area of judicial protection, such a position is manifested in the possibility of obtaining it by the competent judicial authority by means of the competent judicial authority, even when the holder of the infringed right has filed a claim after the expiration of the statutory limitation period. The focus is on explaining the content and substance of the judicial authority’s obligation to assess the reasons for missing the limitation period on all requirements of the managed person and, if the reasons for the limitation period are considered valid, to exercise the authority to protect civil law. Results. As a result of the research, it was found that the restoration of statute of limitations does not take place automatically, but only after the court has made the appropriate decision to assess the validity of not taking actions to realize a substantive right to a claim during the specific limitation period. If a legally significant circumstance adversely affected the creditor’s ability to go to court, it is quite fair that the statute of limitations would be renewed. The article analyzes the factors affecting the recovery of the limitation period, which should be objective in nature, which makes it impossible to file a claim. Consider their difference from those that pull the suspension of the prescription period. Conclusions. The author concludes that the specific situations related to the restoration of the statute of limitations have not been sufficiently studied in legal science. The commented mechanism requires additional legal regulation, in particular, when adopting a judgment that violates a civil right which is infringed by a certain person; when reviewing a court decision; if the claim is not filed by the claimant; when canceling the decision or resuming the transaction, etc. Specific suggestions were also made regarding adjustments to existing substantive legislation in the area under study.