home materials

Check traffic police fines for what exactly. Paid and unpaid traffic police fines - an overview of offline and online verification methods. Decree and information

At the service you will find

official fines according to the traffic police (website gibdd.ru)
MADI and Moscow parking (website avtokod.mos.ru)
Kazan parking

Information is provided from the state payment system GIS GMP. If you found a fine on our service, it means that it has not been paid according to the GIS GMP data.

To check traffic police fines from cameras, you need to enter the number of the vehicle registration certificate (STS) in the form at the top of the page. The search results will include:

unpaid traffic police fines in all regions of Russia
for violating the rules of stopping and parking in Moscow
for violating the rules of paid parking in Moscow
for violating the rules of paid parking in Kazan

Traffic police fines on a driver's license are usually issued by a traffic police inspector in the personal presence of the driver and remain in the driver's hands. Such resolutions can be paid by the resolution number (UIN).

According to the law, information about new fines is sent to the state payment system GIS GMP immediately (Part 4 of Article 21.3 of the Federal Law of July 27, 2010 N 210-FZ). In practice, fines enter the database within 1-3 days from the date of the decision.

If you are sure that the penalty exists
More than two weeks have passed since the decision
Nobody paid a fine
However, it does not appear online.

This means that the decision was not included in the GIS GMP database (state payment system). In this case, you need to contact the traffic police or MADI, or GKU "AMPP" (depending on who imposed the fine).

On the service, you can pay fines online in any popular way.

You can pay fines with a bank card when searching for fines by the number of the car registration certificate. On the page with the search results, you need to specify the full name and phone number of the payer to fill out the receipt, and click the "Pay" button.

It is possible to pay fines through Sberbank Online, as well as through Yandex.Money, QIWI and other means of electronic payments when searching for a fine by the decision number (UIN). For this:

search for a fine by UIN
enter the contact details of the payer
click "Pay"
choose a payment method: Sberbank Online, Yandex.Money, QIWI or other
follow the instructions to complete the payment.

Enter your email address when paying. The receipt will be sent to your email automatically.

Fine repayment (payment display) in the state payment system GIS GMP usually occurs within 1-3 business days. After another 1-2 days, the fine should be paid off in the traffic police database. If 5 days have passed, and the fine "hangs" in unpaid - contact the bank or service that accepted the payment.

The traffic police checks the status of payment of fines in the state payment system GIS GMP. After that, it updates its database and the official website gibdd.ru. This happens within 1-5 business days after payment of the fine. If this period has expired and the fine has not been paid off, contact the bank or service that accepted the payment.

Attention! Our service does not automatically debit money from bank cards. We do not store bank card data and do not auto-pay fines.

Fines can be paid in any of the following ways:

through the street terminal
Sberbank Online
through the cash desk of any bank

When paying through the traffic police service online, you are guaranteed to pay off your debt. We track paid fines in the state payment system GIS GMP and achieve the repayment of each resolution.

Instruction

For non-payment, you may not even be allowed to leave the country on vacation. And the debtor may not even know that he has to pay something. That is why it is important to ask in a timely manner whether any offenses have been committed for which a fine could be charged. Administrative offenses entail two types of punishments. The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation strictly defines punishment in the form of a fixed amount of a fine. But there are also, the exact amount of which is not indicated, but there is an interval between the minimum and maximum amount. Here, the employee who imposed the penalty determines how much the violator should pay. For the commission of an administrative offense, a fee of at least 100 rubles is charged. The maximum amount varies depending on who broke the law. If an unlawful act was committed by an organization, then the maximum amount of the fine cannot exceed 1,000,000 rubles. Officials, when committing unlawful acts, may be held liable to pay a fine in the amount of not more than 50,000 rubles. And for individuals, the maximum threshold should not exceed 5,000 rubles.

2 months are given to pay the fine for an administrative offense. As a rule, this is enough for most citizens. But if during this period it was not possible to pay the fine, then the legislation of the Russian Federation also recognizes this as an administrative offense as a result of which consequences arise. The culprit, who did not pay the fine within the established time limits, will have to pay the same fine, but in double size. This rule is specified in the Code of Administrative Offenses in Article 20.25. If after that the offender has not paid the fine, then the case is transferred to the bailiff service. Now, on the side of the law, it is possible to forcibly recover the unpaid amount from the debtor by seizing property or a bank card. In addition, the bailiffs also impose on the debtor the payment of an enforcement fee - 7% of the amount of the fine, but not less than 500 rubles. If they do not affect the defaulter in any way, then the law provides for such types of punishments as administrative or public works in the amount of not more than 50 hours. To prevent this, it is necessary to pay fines in a timely manner. Unfortunately, some of them may not reach the addressee at the set time. For example, fines recorded by a traffic camera. Therefore, it is better to be sure that nothing should be done and periodically check whether there are any offenses.

Despite the fact that we do not always remember when and where we violated, under what circumstances we were fined, do not leave this matter unattended. Most often, fines are issued for offenses in the field of traffic. In this case, contact the traffic police, providing the inspectors with one of the documents - TIN or driver's license number. The database search will reflect information on all administrative fines of the traffic police that are available today.

If this option does not suit you, call the bailiffs at the place of registration, find out their work schedule and visit this authority at the appointed time of admission. They have the most complete information about all your administrative offenses - bailiffs can provide it to you in the form of a printout. After that, go to the nearest bank, fill out the necessary receipts and pay the fines.

Remember that fines for administrative offenses are not always issued directly by inspectors on the road; a large number of special cameras capture them automatically through photo and video recording. And only then receipts are generated for payment of fines for the offense committed, which are sent to the registration address of the car owner. If your registration address and actual place of residence do not match, take the trouble to independently check for fines in the traffic police.

More recently, it was possible to find out about your unpaid fines only in the above ways. But now the system is much simpler for ordinary citizens. It became possible to obtain the necessary information through special portals. The site gibdd.ru is one of them. Only the owner of the car will be able to get the necessary information, because when filling out the application, you will need to enter data such as a state number and a certificate of registration of the car. In order to find out about the presence of a fine on the main page of the site, hover over the "Services" menu section and select the "Check fines" item. Enter the requested information and click Request Verification. The service will ask you to enter a captcha. As a result, you should get the result of the check. If no fines are found, a green record will appear about this.

Have your passport and TIN on hand to fill in certain fields. At present, the system for citizens to find out about their administrative offenses has been significantly simplified. It is enough to have the Internet at home or at work. Go to the gosuslugi.ru website or the official website of your regional or district inspection, enter your personal data in the appropriate section "online service" and get the necessary information on all fines accrued to you. Print automatically generated receipts and pay them at the bank.

The bailiff service also has its own website, where you can look at the presence or absence of offenses for which you must pay a fine. On the main page of the site there is a form to fill out, thanks to which you can find out about the availability of fines. Enter your last name, first name, middle name and city. The system may also ask for your date of birth. As a result, you will receive information about the presence or absence of fines.

Definition and concept of the limitation period. Beginning of the limitation period. Conditions for the application of the rules on the limitation period. General and special limitation periods. The legal significance of the statute of limitations. Consequences of expiration of the statute of limitations. Suspension and interruption of the limitation period. Restoration of the statute of limitations.

Limitation period

1. The legal definition of the limitation period is contained in Art. 195 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which determines that the limitation period is the period for protecting the right on the claim of a person whose right has been violated.

It is during this period that it is possible to enforce the right belonging to the subject by resorting to judicial methods of protecting the right. Outside of the specified period, an appeal to the court, even in relation to an indisputably existing right, under certain circumstances may not have the desired effect, which will be discussed below.

Allocate a claim limitation in an objective sense- a civil law institution, that is, a system of legislative norms governing relations related to the protection of civil rights, while the limitation period in a subjective sense- this is the right of a person whose interests are violated to take advantage of the term for the protection of violated civil rights.

(M.Ya. Kirillova, P.V. Krasheninnikov)

Among the many reasons cited as grounds for establishing the institute of limitation, the most obvious are purely practical circumstances:

With the expiration of the statute of limitations, evidence is lost, circumstances that are important for the correct consideration of the dispute on the merits are forgotten, respectively, the very consideration of the case in court will be burdened with significant difficulties;

The threat of the expiration of the limitation period makes the participants in civil circulation more diligent in exercising their rights, ensures the stability of civil circulation, since after a certain period a person can be sure that no one will be able to strike his rights in court.

Arbitrage practice

Regarding the application of the norms on the limitation period, there is a very detailed joint explanation of the Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 12, 2001 N 15 and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated November 15, 2001 N 18 "On some issues related to the application of the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the limitation period."

2. The conditions for applying the rules on the limitation period are as follows.

The statute of limitations applies exclusively when considering disputes on the protection of subjective civil rights.

The right to be protected is understood as an exclusively subjective civil right, which makes it impossible to apply the rules on the limitation period to claims for contesting normative acts and to other cases arising from public relations, in which not civil, but other rights are subject to protection. In these cases, special rules are applied, other consequences take place, for example, Part 4 of Art. 198 APC RF.

3. The legislator allocates general and special limitation periods.

General statute of limitations in accordance with Art. 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is 3 years.

Special statute of limitations may be established for certain types of claims only by law and may be either reduced or longer than the general limitation period. Currently, the legislation of the Russian Federation does not know the statute of limitations for more than three years.

Examples of special statute of limitations:

a) the statute of limitations for a claim to declare a voidable transaction null and void and the application of the consequences of its invalidity is 1 year (clause 2, article 181 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);

b) the limitation period for claims to invalidate the issue of securities is 1 year from the date of commencement of the placement of securities (Article 13 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation "On the Protection of the Rights and Legitimate Interests of Investors in the Securities Market");

c) the limitation period for claiming recognition of the decision of the general meeting of participants in a limited liability company is 2 or 3 months, depending on the actual circumstances of the case (clause 1, article 43 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation "On Limited Liability Companies").

The duration of the limitation period is determined by the law in force at the time of filing a claim, since it is at the time of filing a claim that its course is stopped.

4. The rules for determining the moment of the beginning of the limitation period are established by Art. 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, the beginning of the limitation period is justified with reference to the moment when the person should have learned about the violation of his right, and extremely rarely - to the creditor's actual awareness of the violation, which is due to the practical impossibility of establishing the person's internal convictions.

When determining the moment at which a person should have learned about the violation of his right, not only the terms of the obligation, obvious circumstances are taken into account (so, it is obvious that a person learns about the violation of his right, established by part 1 of article 622 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, on the day when the property should have been returned, but it was not transferred to the lessor), and other circumstances in which a prudent participant in civil turnover should have learned about the violation of his right.

Thus, at the request of a shareholder to recognize a voidable transaction of a joint-stock company as invalid, as made in violation of the requirements of Art. 79 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation "On Joint Stock Companies", the limitation period should be determined not from the moment of the transaction, which the shareholder can learn about even 10 years after the transaction, but from the moment when the prudent shareholder should have learned about the transaction. So, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 52 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation "On Joint-Stock Companies", when preparing for the meeting of shareholders, among others, accounting documents are subject to submission for familiarization. Based on the content of such documents, it can be established whether the corresponding transaction was made. A competent participant in civil circulation, when analyzing the relevant documents, would certainly establish the disposal of a significant amount of property and take measures to protect their rights. Accordingly, the limitation period should be calculated from the moment the relevant information is provided for review. In turn, an imprudent shareholder who did not consider it necessary at his discretion to familiarize himself with the materials that were provided in preparation for the general meeting of shareholders, who did not take part in the general meeting of shareholders, independently bears the corresponding risks, for him the period will be determined no later than the moment the his actual opportunity to familiarize himself with the relevant materials.

It should be noted that in the overwhelming majority of cases, judicial practice substantiates the moment when the limitation period begins to run, perceiving any participant in civil circulation as interested in exercising their rights, and when determining the possibility of establishing information about a violation of a creditor’s right by exercising the right to receive information, information, courts determine the beginning of the period from this moment.

In essence, the mentioned rule of paragraph 1 of Art. 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is repeated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the same article, with the only exception that, in relation to specific types of obligations, the law determined the moment when the period began to run. However, it should be noted that the rules of paragraphs 2, 3 of Art. 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in essence, only determine the moment at which the creditor must find out about the violation of his right. In a detailed analysis, it should be recognized that the exception from the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, clauses 2, 3, Art. 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation would in no way change the practice of applying the legislation on limitation of actions.

When considering the issue of whose knowledge of the violation of the right is of legal importance, it should be borne in mind that only the creditor that existed at the time the limitation period began to run is subject to analysis. In this regard, the awareness of the universal successor, whether it is an heir or a legal entity created during the reorganization of a creditor, a person filing a claim in defense of the rights of third parties, does not matter at all (for example, the awareness of the prosecutor), the more so, the awareness of the sole executive body legal entity. The main thing is to establish the knowledge of the creditor at the time of the violation of the right, the further fate of the creditor is indifferent to the running of the limitation period.

5. The obligation to prove the moment of the beginning of the limitation period by virtue of Art. 56 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and art. 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is assigned to the person who declares its application in the dispute, that is, to the debtor, the defendant.

6. Time of expiration- the expiration of the relevant period (3 years or less) from the moment when the person knew or should have known about the violation of his right.

The limitation period is a normative imperative period, it is impossible to change its course, break and suspend by agreement of the parties, any agreement regarding the indicated circumstances is void.

7. Legal significance of the limitation period(expiration of the statute of limitations).

First of all. In accordance with par. 2 p. 2 art. 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the expiration of the limitation period, the application of which is declared by the party to the dispute, is an independent basis for refusing to satisfy the claims of the plaintiff, regardless of any other circumstances of the case before the court.

Secondly. As seen from the content of this provision, the application of the limitation period is possible only at the request of the party to the dispute. The parties to the dispute are, in essence, subjects of a civil legal relationship, the existence and content of which is established in the framework of the trial, respectively, a statement on the omission of the limitation period can be made:

Only by the debtor in the relevant legal relationship (in the terminology of procedural law - the proper defendant);

Only in relation to the creditor of this particular debtor and precisely from this legal relationship (in the terminology of procedural legislation - the proper plaintiff);

Only until the removal of the court to the deliberation room.

The statement of other persons participating in the case, for example, a third party without independent claims, on the omission of the limitation period has no legal significance.

An application for missing the limitation period in the second and subsequent instances also has no legal significance.

The form of the application for the application of the limitation period is not established by law, in connection with which the application can be made in any objectified form - written or oral (recorded in the minutes of the court session).

Thirdly. The principle of competitiveness, which has recently become especially relevant, predetermined the direct prohibition of the court in any form to promote the application of the limitation period, that is, to invite the party to make an appropriate statement, provide evidence, etc. The performance of these actions by the court calls into question, if not its legal qualification, then impartiality - without fail and should result in the removal of the court from the consideration of the case at the request of the plaintiff.

8. Consequences of the expiration of the limitation period: the expiration of the limitation period in the presence of a reasonable statement of the proper defendant is the basis for dismissing the claim, regardless of other circumstances of the case.

The application of legislation in this part by arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction differs significantly. In accordance with Part 1 and 6 of Art. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, a court of general jurisdiction, having established in a preliminary court session, on the basis of a justified application by the defendant, the fact that the limitation period has been missed, makes a decision to refuse to satisfy the claims, without considering the claims of the plaintiff on the merits, without examining the evidence and without establishing the actual circumstances of the case.

Special opinion

The position of arbitration courts, developed by judicial practice, is the opposite (there is no analogue of parts 1 and 6 of article 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation in the APC of the Russian Federation) and consists in the fact that the expiration of the limitation period is the "last" ground for refusal of a claim. First of all, the arbitration court establishes the presence or absence of a violated right, whether it can be protected in principle, and only after examining the indicated circumstance, stating the presence or absence of a violation of the right, the court resolves the issue of applying the limitation period. So, if it is established that the violated right does not belong to the plaintiff, accordingly, there are no grounds to talk about the refusal of the claim due to the expiration of the limitation period, the claim will be denied precisely on the indicated grounds - due to the lack of the plaintiff's right, for protection whom he applied. It seems that the position of the arbitration courts is more correct, since, only by establishing the content of the legal relationship, it is possible to determine the possibility of applying the limitation period, tk. it applies exclusively to civil rights that may be subject to protection. In turn, the position of the courts of general jurisdiction may lead to the fact that the limitation period will be applied to a non-existent right, because, as seen from the content of Parts 1 and 6 of Art. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court is not obliged to establish the very existence of the right.

I am glad to welcome everyone to my blog. With you, Albert Sadykov, and today I would like to finish the topic of the statute of limitations. Moreover, readers have questions about its calculation.

Let me remind you that in my last article I talked about those enshrined in Chapter 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. But, as usual, in the process of applying these rules, many different questions arise. The answers to them are usually given by judicial practice. First of all, the Resolutions of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

Previously, clarifications on the limitation period were contained in the joint Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated November 12, 15, 2001 No. 15/18 “On Certain Issues Related to the Application of the Rules of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on Limitation of Actions”.

But it did not take into account the changes made to Chapter 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation by Federal Law No. 100-FZ of May 7, 2013.

Let's consider the most interesting provisions of this Decree and find out what the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation said about the statute of limitations.

Beginning of the limitation period

First of all, in paragraph 1, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation draws attention to the fact that the limitation period (hereinafter referred to as the SID) begins to run from the moment:

when a person knew or should have known about the fact of violation of his right;
that person learned who the proper defendant in the case was.

Moreover, the simultaneous presence of these two circumstances, and not one of them, is necessary.

Paragraph 2 establishes the rule for determining the moment of commencement of the course of the JIA in relation to individuals who do not have full civil or civil procedural capacity. These are young children and disabled citizens.

In case of violation of their rights, the limitation period begins from the day when the circumstances specified in paragraph 1 of Art. 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, any of their legal representatives, including the body of guardianship and guardianship, found out or should have found out.

The approach is very reasonable, granting the right to protect the violated right to those for whom the law secures the ability to independently speak in court.

But the situation is not ruled out when the same legal representative performed the powers assigned to him in a clearly improper way. In this case, the missed LED can be restored:

at the request of the person represented;
at the request of another authorized body in the interests of the person represented.

If the right of a person who does not have full legal capacity was violated by the legal representative himself, then the SID for filing a claim for such a violation is calculated from the moment:

when the violation becomes known to another legal representative acting in good faith (for example, the other parent);
when the represented person became aware or should have become aware of the violation of his rights and he became able to defend the violated right in court, that is, from the moment of the emergence or restoration of full civil or civil procedural capacity.

As for legal entities, in accordance with clause 3 of Decree No. 43, the SIA is calculated from the moment when the sole executive body learned about the violation of its rights and who the proper defendant was. Do not forget that it can consist of several persons.

With public law entities, the problem of limitation is resolved as follows. Authorized bodies act on their behalf. Accordingly, as pointed out by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the limitation period is calculated from the day when they learned or should have learned about the violation of the right of a public legal entity.

The Plenum does not determine the general criteria for determining the moment when the authorized body did not know, but should have known about the violation of its right. Although this approach was previously used by the Economic Disputes Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of July 14, 2015 in case No. 305-ES14-8858, A40-161453 / 2012). Instead, the most common circumstances indicating a violation of the rights and interests of a public legal entity are listed:

transfer of property to another person;
the commission of actions indicating the use by another person of the disputed property.

Paragraph 8 of Decree No. 43 specifies the application of the limiting "objective" 10-year limitation period. This term begins to be calculated from the date of violation of the right, regardless of whether:

whether the person whose right was violated knew at that moment about such a violation or not;
whether it knew who was the proper defendant or not.

This 10-year period applies only at the request of a party to the dispute. Up to this point, the court is considering the case in the usual manner.

It is also noted that the plaintiff cannot be denied protection of the right if before the expiration of the 10-year period there was an appeal to the court in the prescribed manner or the obligated person committed actions indicating the recognition of the debt. Below, we will discuss exactly what actions indicate this.

An important point is that the 10-year period does not apply to claims that are not subject to limitation by virtue of law (for example, Article 208 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

The procedure for applying the limitation period

This section begins with the provision that the limitation period is subject to application only at the request of the party to the dispute, which bears the burden of proving the circumstances indicating the expiration of the JIA. Typically, this is the defendant.

If an improper person declares the application of the limitation period, then it has no legal significance and the case will be considered further in the manner prescribed by the procedural legislation. The application of a third party on the application of the limitation period, as a general rule, does not entail its application.

An exception, according to paragraph 10 of Decree No. 43, is the situation when, when satisfying a claim against the defendant, the latter may file a recourse claim or claim for damages already against a third party.

Since Chapter 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not contain any special requirements for the form of an application for the application of the limitation period, it can be made both in writing and orally at any stage of the case before a decision is made. In the appellate instance, it is possible to make an appropriate statement if he proceeded to consider the case according to the rules of proceedings in the first instance (part 5 of article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, part 6.1 of article 268 of the APC of the Russian Federation).

The plaintiff must prove the circumstances indicating the interruption or suspension of the limitation period.

Restoration of the SIA is possible only in exceptional cases and only in relation to an individual due to circumstances related to his personality. The deadline missed by a legal entity, as well as an individual entrepreneur, according to the requirements related to the implementation of entrepreneurial activities by him, is not subject to restoration (clause 12).

Attention should be paid to the conditions for the suspension of the JI when considering the case in court (paragraph 14). Even if the court subsequently applies other rules of law than those referred to by the plaintiff, or the plaintiff changes the method of protecting the right, this does not affect the suspension of the limitation period. It stops flowing from the moment it goes to court.

With the increase in claims, the situation is interesting. As a general rule, as the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation points out, an increase in requirements for determining the moment from which the limitation period ceases to run does not affect either. Unless the increase in claims is related to debts for other periods.

This applies to cases where the obligation provides for periods of payment, periodic payments, interest.

For example, the plaintiff originally filed a claim for the recovery of debt for one delivery period. While the case has reached the main court session, the buyer has a delay in paying for the next delivery period and the plaintiff (supplier) increases the claims. In this case, the AIT on the amended requirements ceases to flow from the date of the statement of precisely these requirements, and not the original ones.

We finally got to paragraph 20 of Resolution No. 43. It reveals the content of Art. 203 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on actions indicating the recognition of a debt. Their specification is necessary to determine the circumstances that lead to the interruption of the SID. These actions are:

recognition of the claim;
amendment of the contract by an authorized person, from which it follows that the debtor recognizes the existence of a debt, as well as the debtor's request for such a change in the contract (for example, a deferral or installment payment);
an act of reconciliation of mutual settlements, signed by an authorized person.

A response to a claim may not necessarily contain an acknowledgment of a debt. Therefore, if such recognition is not explicitly mentioned in it, then the JID is not interrupted.

Recognition of a part of the debt, including by partial payment, as a general rule, does not indicate recognition of the debt as a whole.

This position is the opposite of that expressed in the no longer in force Decree No. 15/18. Now the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation proceeds from the fact that the limitation period for partial payment of the debt is not interrupted.

The latter indicated that the recognition of a debt is evidenced by the recognition of a partial payment of the debt.

Example
Under the supply agreement, the buyer received goods in the amount of 100,000 rubles. But it requires a commensurate price reduction to 60,000 rubles. due to inadequate product quality. The supplier does not recognize such a requirement.
The limitation period runs from the moment the buyer fails to pay. Two months later, the buyer paid 60,000 rubles. The question is: is the statute of limitations interrupted?

Based on Decree No. 43, then it is not interrupted. The Plenum considered that this requires an explicit recognition of the debt in full.

When the debtor has partially paid the debt and expressly indicated that he recognizes the debt in the remaining part, then in this case the right of the creditor will be considered violated from the moment of non-payment of the remaining part of the debt.

In other words, the debtor says: “Creditor, here’s 60,000 rubles for you, I know that I owe another 40,000 rubles, I’ll pay them to you later, I don’t have any money right now. I'll pay when they show up. And when they will appear - I do not know ".

The debtor has paid a part, admitted that he still owes the creditor, but is not going to pay yet for one reason or another. In this situation, the debtor violated the right of the creditor when he refused to pay the remaining part of the debt and the term is interrupted.

If the debtor did not recognize the debt, but paid a certain amount, believing, for example, that the rest of the amount presented for payment is unreasonable, then from his point of view there is no violation of the creditor's right.

It turns out another situation: “Creditor, here’s 60,000 rubles for you, and beyond that I don’t owe you anything. For those 40,000 rubles that you keep telling me, the price of the goods should be reduced due to its inadequate quality..

The situation is difficult. On the one hand, I paid part of it, it seems that the term can be interrupted. But after all, in general, he did not recognize the debt and substantiated why he did not recognize it. What if the deadline is interrupted, and later it turns out that the demand for a price reduction is justified? Or vice versa, the creditor's claim for the payment of the remaining 40,000 rubles. unreasonably?

We remember that the limitation period runs from the date when the creditor found out or should have found out about the violation. But in the case when, for one reason or another, the debtor does not pay the rest of the debt and does not stipulate its recognition, the existence of a violation of the creditor's right in the remaining part in itself becomes controversial and not obvious.

In this situation, interrupting the term and recalculating it from a moment that cannot be unambiguously determined as the moment of violation is hardly lawful.

I explained the question in detail, I hope everything became clear with this. Move on.

If the terms of the obligation provide for its fulfillment in parts or in the form of periodic payments, and the debtor has recognized only a part of the debt or the debt for a separate periodic payment, then the AID is not interrupted for other parts or payments.

One important point - actions to recognize the debt must come from an authorized person according to the rules of Art. 182 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (p. 22).

Limitation period for time payments and interest

This section deals with the calculation of the limitation period for obligations and contracts involving performance in installments in the form of time payments (for example, rent) and interest (for example, on a loan).

In accordance with clause 24 of Decree No. 43, the limitation period for each late payment is calculated separately.

In the same way, the limitation period is calculated separately on the claim for the collection of a penalty or accrued on each overdue payment.

According to clause 25 of Decree No. 43, recognition of the principal debt does not mean recognition of additional claims in the form of a penalty, interest under Article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, or compensation for losses. Accordingly, with regard to these additional requirements, the LED is not interrupted, but continues to flow further.

The limitation period for a claim for payment is calculated according to similar rules.

The last point, within the framework of Decree No. 43, which is worth considering, concerns the calculation of the AIT in relation to the main and additional requirements.

Submitting a claim for payment of only the principal debt does not affect the running of the term for additional claims. If a claim is filed only for the payment of the principal debt, the limitation period for the penalty continues to run.

The limitation period for the main claim has expired - the period for the additional one has also expired. But an exception is possible.

The parties under the loan (credit) agreement may establish that interest on it is paid after the repayment of the principal debt. In this case, the IIA on the demand for payment of these interest is calculated separately and does not depend on the expiration of the term on the demand for payment of the principal amount of the loan (credit).

"Removal of corporate veils" and limitation period

In the comments to the previous article, I was asked a question about the calculation of SID in corporate relations. Specifically, when "removing the corporate cover."

A few words about this doctrine.

It appeared for the first time in the Anglo-American doctrine of law. Continental law, in particular German law, de jure does not know it in this form, but similar situations occur.

Why "lifting the corporate veil"?

The legal entity is a fiction. This is where the Anglo-American system of law comes from. This is a certain legal construction created for convenience. In reality, a legal entity, as a tangible, materialized person, does not exist.

The allocation of such a structure is caused by the need to unite among themselves not persons, but capital in order to achieve common economic goals. The classic provision, which is also contained in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, is the limitation of the limits of liability between the corporation and the participants. The founders (participants) of a legal entity are not liable for the obligations of the legal entity, and the legal entity is not liable for the obligations of the founders (participants).

This design is the "corporate cover". Why take it off?

Although the corporation is legally separate from its owners, the latter may use this to achieve illegal goals and unjustified benefits. A legal entity, instead of being an instrument contributing to the achievement of the general economic goals of the participants, becomes a cover for committing illegal actions.

In this case, the independence of the corporation should be ignored, and for transactions legally made by the corporation itself, the personally guilty participant is liable.

In Russian practice, cases are common when a corporation suffers losses due to illegal actions of a director. In this case, the legal entity may recover these losses from the director.

A claim for this may be brought by the legal entity itself or by the participants of the legal entity.

When a claim is filed by a member of a legal entity, it is taken into account that, by virtue of paragraph 3 of Art. 53 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 225.8 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation acts in the interests of a legal entity. The limitation period runs from the moment the participant learned or should have learned about the commission of actions (inaction) by the director that caused losses for the legal entity.

But here another problem arises - how to determine the moment when the participant should have known or learned about the violation?

You can catch on here only for the annual general meetings. At the general meeting, the director reports on the work done. In this case, it is the acceptance of the report or the expiration of the period for familiarization with it that is the starting point for the limitation period. A similar logic is expressed in the Ruling of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 27, 2013 No. VAS-6286/13 in case No. A40-17159/12-13-154 (however, it does not consider the issue of recovering damages from the director, but the issue of invalidating a major transaction).

A claim may also be filed by a participant who, at the time of the director's actions (inaction) that caused losses for the corporation, was not such. This is stated in paragraph 10 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 30, 2013 N 62 “On some issues of compensation for losses by persons who are part of the bodies of legal entities”. It also states that the course of the IIA begins from the day when the legal predecessor of such a participant in a legal entity (for example, the seller of a share or shares) learned about the violation on the part of the director or should have known.

The same paragraph clarifies the issue of the beginning of the limitation period when filing a claim by the legal entity itself:

“In cases where the relevant claim for damages is filed by the legal entity itself, the limitation period is calculated not from the moment of violation, but from the moment when the legal entity, for example, represented by a new director, got a real opportunity to learn about the violation, or when the violation knew or should have known the controlling participant, who had the opportunity to terminate the powers of the director, except in the case when he was affiliated with the said director.

Despite the obvious solution to the problem, some believed that the moment when the corporation found out about the violation on the part of the director was the moment when the unscrupulous director himself found out about it.

The idea smacks of some delusion, but apparently proceeds from the direct identification of the director with a legal entity. Here we already run into a problem: is the director a body or a representative of a legal entity?

Nevertheless, the statute of limitations should begin to run from the moment when the corporation becomes aware of the violation in the person of the new director or the participants who had a real opportunity to remove the director became aware of the violation.

That's all that needs to be said about the statute of limitations for today. The topic is interesting, new questions constantly arise. Therefore, most likely, the article will be updated periodically. For example, within the framework of the same “removal of the corporate cover”, it would not hurt to consider the issue of determining the beginning of the limitation period when presenting creditors’ claims against the head of the debtor as part of the bankruptcy procedure.

That's all, I hope the article was helpful. Leave comments, repost and... see you in the next article!

Best regards, Albert Sadykov