Admissibility of a National Limitation Period Under the Principle of Effectiveness in EU Law

Abstract

Like most of the central legal questions in the field of civil law, the question when a debt becomes time-barred is not harmonized within the EU, but is governed by rules at national level. This applies normally even in situations where the grounds of the claim itself are based on EU legislation. In this situation the applicable national rules must meet the requirements of equivalence and effectiveness. The requirement of effectiveness provides that national procedural rules must not render the exercise of rights conferred by EU law virtually impossible or excessively difficult. This article analyses under what circumstances national limitation rules may become inconsistent with the principle of effectiveness. The finding is that in this assessment the most influential criterion is whether commencement of the limitation period is postponed until the creditor has or should have had the possibility to enforce their claim, or if the creditor has in any case had a real possibility to present a claim prior to expiry of the period. If the answer is negative, the question must then be asked whether this outcome, namely the creditor’s claim becoming time-barred, is justifiable by the objectives of the prescription regime, and whether the norms that led to this outcome are similar to corresponding norms in other legal systems. Perhaps the most important factor here is the length of the applicable ‒ expired ‒ limitation period. If it is seen as sufficiently long in proportion to its objectives and not particularly short in international comparison, the prescription regime should most likely be held as admissible in the light of the principle of effectiveness. Law of obligations, European Union law, prescription, limitation of actions, the principle of effectiveness