1 What happened? In early May, two almost identical definitions were published on the website of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The court refused to check the complaints of companies to cancel the decisions of 1994 on the privatization of buildings, where the hospital of the Saratov bearing plant was previously located. In 2023, the Arbitration Court of the Saratov Region decided to return these buildings to the state in the suit of the prosecutor’s office. Then, the correctness of the decision was confirmed by the twelfth appeal of the Arbitration Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. None of the media called these rows of the Constitutional Court the cancellation of the limitation period in the affairs of privatization: 2 what is still for the limitation period? This is a period of time established by law, during which a person may be filed with a lawsuit, whose right was violated. After the period of the violator, it is impossible to hold accountable. In Russian law, there are different periods of the statute of limitations for criminal, administrative, tax and civil liability. For example, in criminal law, the statute of limitations for crimes of minor gravity is two years, and for especially serious crimes – for 15 years. He begins to count from the moment of the crime; For consuming or continuing crimes – from the moment they are completed or the latest action. In the event of the cancellation of decisions on the privatization of property, the Civil Code is applied. He simultaneously sets a three -year and ten -year limitation period. Three -year -old begins to count from the moment when the person has learned or should have learned about the violation of his right and who is the defendant. The sixth -year term is counted from the moment of violation of the law. This is the maximum term – it cannot be exceeded, regardless of when the plaintiff found out about the violation of the right. 3NU and why is this period needed at all? Isn’t it quite fair to do without him? The question of justice is quite complicated. First of all, the institution of limitation ensures the stability and predictability of legal relations. It prohibits the endless resumption of proceedings on old disputes. Especially when some evidence has already been lost, the witnesses forgot the details, and the circumstances are difficult to check. True, in some cases, the state still clearly refuses the statute of limitations. 4 And what kind of cases are these? For example, cases in which the state wants to ensure the inevitability of punishment or guarantee compensation to the victims: for example, in the Criminal Code, the statute of limitations do not apply to almost all terrorist and extremist crimes; and in the Civil Code – to compensate for harm to property, property. The terrorist act caused as a result. In 2022, in Russia, he was convicted of terrorism 40 (!) times more people than in the years preceding Putin’s return to the Kremlin in 2012, the study of the Re: Russia project-about how the fight against terror turned into a tool for 2022, in Russia, they condemned for terrorism 40 (!) Once upon a time, more than during years, more than years. The study of Putin’s return to the Kremlin in 2012 Re: Russia-about how the fight against terror turned into a instrument of repression5 this is understandable. And what about the abolition of privatization – now there is also no limitation period? No, everything is a little more complicated. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has recently made one exception in the affairs of the seizure of property from a private person to public property. But this happened in October 2024 – and concerned exclusively to the anti -corruption claims of the prosecutor’s office. The Constitutional Court then considered the appeal of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Krasnodar Regional Court. It concerned the case of a former official, from whom “shares and shares in the authorized capital of 22 economic societies with a total value of over nine billion rubles were seized.” The defense tried to challenge the decision just with the expiration of the maximum ten -year limitation period. The Judicial Collegium referred to mutually exclusive approaches in judicial practice in cases related to the corruption privatization of property, and asked for clarification from the Constitutional Court. And the one, before making a decision, he heard a large number of various lawyers and experts. On this meeting of the Constitutional Court, the representatives of the Russian Federation of the Russian Federation of the Russian Federation of the Russian Federation of the RFISSIA and the Entrepreneurs of Private Law named after S. S. Alekseev under the President of the Rfinth Institute under the Government of the RFISTITITY of the State and Law of the State and the Law of the State and the Law of the State and the Law of the State and the Law of the State and the Law of the State and the President of the Republic of Rfinchii and the Presidential Institute of the Republic of Rfinchii and the President The Russian Academy of Science is also a full -person representative of the Russian Government in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation Mikhail Barshchevsky for Human Rights in the Russian Federation Tatyana Moskalkova, What did the judges decide? Referring to the need to protect public interests, the Constitutional Court decided that the three -year -old statute of limitations should not be applied in such cases. In fact, anti -corruption claims became unlimited. At least until the parliament establishes the special limitation period for such cases. At the same time, the Constitutional Court separately noted: the conclusion made in this decision cannot be automatically extended to the decision on the applicability or inconsistency of the statute of limitations to other, in addition to those specified, the claims of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation or the prosecutors subordinate to the transfer of property to public legal entities or the recognition of their right to property, including those based on violation of the procedure privatization. 8 And the Constitutional Court confirmed the legality of this decision? no. He refused to evaluate the court decision. Noting only that the court, in principle, had to independently determine the moments from which the countdown of the three -year and ten years of limitation period began. But he did not understand the essence of the matter: the moment when public legal education became or should have become known about the violation of its rights, as well as the moment when a violation of the conditions of the use of such an object (that is, violation of the rights of public education) took place during the validity of this condition, is also determined by the court, taking into account the entire aggregate of actual circumstances, therefore it is not necessarily the date of the transfer of the corresponding object from public property to the private in the course of privatization. The Constitutional Court did not understand the essence of the matter? Because he decided that he had nothing to do in this dispute. The company who has applied to the court is actually just demanding to re -check the conclusions of other instances. And without the fact of violation of constitutional rights, this issue is beyond the competence of the Constitutional Court: violation of the obligation to maintain the appointment (profile) of the object, the content of which, including the duration of its action, and the legal consequences (ways of protecting public interests) in case of violation of such an obligation are not related to the regulation of the disputed norms, is established by the court in each specific case, taking into account the entire aggregate of actual circumstances, including the legality and legitimacy and the legitimacy and legitimacy The good faith of the behavior of the owner of such an object in the dynamics of changes in the state of the social infrastructure of the corresponding profile in the subject of the Russian Federation (municipal education), disputed laws cannot be regarded as violating constitutional rights, the arguments of which … actually boils down to the requirement to verify the erroneous, in his opinion, the interpretation of these norms, taking into account the actual circumstances of a particular case. Review of the results of privatization is not coming? We do not know. The practice of nationalization of wartime, of course, cannot but cause anxiety among the owners. But at the same time, our analysis of the decision of the Constitutional Court indicates that there are essentially no new introductory cases of deprivatization of assets in the state. The lawyers interrogated by the newspaper “Vedomosti” and interpreted the court ruling as a position not from the moment of privatization, but from the moment of privatization, but from the moment of identification of violations As part of the prosecutor’s audit. It is worth noting that the three -year term provided for by the Civil Code, already allowed to start its countdown from the moment the injured party found out about the violation. As for the ten -year limitation period, the Constitutional Court does not explain when it should begin to count. He only emphasizes that he did not study the materials of a particular case, and stipulates that this period does not have to count from the moment of privatization due to the nuances of a particular case. In the case of Saratov case, the violation occurred just at the moment of privatization, but at least a decade after. And the Constitutional Court stated that the right -legged instance should determine the exact date of the limitation period. The Sr. partner of the Bartolius lawyer, Julius Ty, in the commentary “Vedomosti” noted that the materials contested in the Saratov case contradict the positions of the constitutional court itself, which we analyzed above, about the non -proliance of the terms The prescription from anti-corruption cases to “other claims of the Prosecutor General’s Office aimed at transferring property to public legal entities or recognition of their right to property, including those based on violation of the procedure for privatization”. We also do not see such a contradiction. On the one hand, the Constitutional Court wrote in that decision that it is impossible to automatically extend the cancellation of the deadlines for other cases and that there is no ban on the abolition of deadlines in other cases. On the other hand, even in the definition of Saratov’s case, we are not talking about the cancellation of the limitation period – the only question is how to count them. And the Constitutional Court gives this issue to the lower authorities, without taking the side of the owners, but not adding anything new to the current legal practice. The Sud arrested the assets of the Lest Game company – it is responsible for the Russian version of the World of Tanks are suspected of financing the Armed Forces of the Armed Forces and want to nationalize the assets of the company “Leste Game” – it is responsible for the Russian version of World of Tanks, the studio is suspected of financing the Armed Forces of the Armed Forces and want to nationalize Dmitriev’s detenis (Tagstotranslate) News
