Problematic issues regarding the application of the rule of Part 3 of Art. 267 of the Civil Code of Ukraine
Authors: Guyvan P. D. 
Published: December 2022

The work is devoted to a critical analysis of the current civil legislation of Ukraine in terms of the introduction of the rule on the application of the statute of limitations by the court only in the case of a statement by the party. The author emphasizes that such an approach is not based on the real nature of the relationship that actually takes place, moreover, it distorts one of the fundamental concepts of civilization - subjective substantive law and its content. After all, this rule is not consistent with the recognized general theoretical concept of the legal nature of civil material terms and their significance for the exercise of subjective rights and responsibilities. Indeed, the civil law period is the period of time with the onset or expiration of which occur legally significant phenomena. In this case, the term is an element of the subjective substantive law of the person, and its expiration, as well as the exhaustion of other characteristics of the latter (in terms of scope of authority, behavior, etc.) leads to the termination of subjective rights. The innovation of the current civil law not only eliminated the importance of the statute of limitations as a limit to the existence of this protection right, it made it dependent on the implementation of the parties’ subjective right to a statement on the expiration of the statute of limitations. This right, as well as the right of the party to the dispute to make any other statements, is procedural, as it cannot be exercised outside the process. Therefore, the existence of substantive authority for judicial protection is made dependent on the fact of realization or non-exercise of a certain procedural authority. In other words, if the process has not started, the claim has an indefinite period of existence. This means that the statute of limitations does not in fact affect the viability of the claim, for which there is only a certain probability that it will be declared lost in the future. Such an approach is unlikely to meet the social needs for stability of civil relations, which were the basis for the introduction of the ancient institution. The paper criticizes the position of some scholars, who assess the introduction of the rule on the binding nature of the party’s statement in the dispute for the application of the statute of limitations as a manifestation of the principle of dispositiveness. They consider the application of the statute of limitations only at the request of the defendant to be a manifestation of this principle in the process. In fact, it is not. The article argues that the statute of limitations is not evidence in the case, the evidence may be any factual evidence of the expiration of the statute of limitations. To assess the course of the statute of limitations, a set of arguments is sufficient to establish the facts of the legal relationship, its violation by the obligor, etc. Therefore, the position that the application of the statute of limitations only at the request of the party to the dispute is a manifestation of the general civil principles of discretion and exercise of civil rights voluntarily and in their own interest is frankly unconvincing. Another legal mechanism is proposed, which allows to solve the problem of unlimited uncertainty of the duration of the statute of limitations: to give the defendant the right to make a statement of waiver of the statute of limitations.

Key words: statute of limitations, missed deadline, application for application.