• Is the employee’s incapacity for work a reason for reinstating the deadline for going to court?
• Does the employee’s legal illiteracy indicate that missing the statute of limitations is valid?
• From what moment does the period for going to court begin to be calculated if there is an agreement on compensation for damage between the parties?

In order to win a labor dispute with an employee, sometimes it is enough to simply refer to the latter’s missing the statute of limitations. This guarantees that the employee’s claim will be rejected, even in cases where there are obvious arguments proving his case. However, the employee may demand that this period be reinstated, citing good reasons for missing it. Note that in lately courts have become less lenient in these matters and require significant evidence of the impossibility of filing a statement of claim on time.

Reasons such as violation of the rules of jurisdiction and being on a business trip are increasingly rarely recognized as grounds for reinstating the statute of limitations. At the same time, judicial practice is not completely uniform, and the courts sometimes grant the petitions of employees, for example, when a deadline was missed due to the employee’s appeal to the prosecutor’s office or labor inspection. Knowledge of such trends will allow the employer to predict its risks in disputes with employees.

The limitation period for filing an application in court is calculated from the next day after the issuance of the work book.

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes shorter deadlines for filing a lawsuit in comparison with the general limitation period. So, according to Part. 1-2 tbsp. 392 Labor Code In the Russian Federation, the period for an employee to apply to court for resolution of an individual labor dispute is 3 months from the day when he learned or should have learned about a violation of his rights. However, for disputes about dismissal and derivatives thereof, this period is 1 month from the date of delivery to the employee of a copy of the dismissal order or issuance of work book. Such a short period of time for going to court leads to the fact that in practice cases of missing them are quite common. Therefore, it is very important for both the employee and the employer to identify cases in which it is possible to restore missed deadlines for going to court.

In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, all listed deadlines for going to court in labor disputes can be restored by the court if they are missed for good reasons. In paragraph 5 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 No. 2, it is explained that circumstances that prevented the employee from filing a claim in court in a timely manner for the resolution of an individual labor dispute can be regarded as valid reasons for missing the deadline for filing a lawsuit. Such reasons may include the employee’s illness, being on a business trip, the inability to go to court due to force majeure, or the need to care for seriously ill family members. This may also be situations where the employee was not informed of the dismissal order in a timely manner or the issuance of a work book was delayed.

JUDICIAL PRACTICE. The employee received a copy of the dismissal order and work record book on January 21, 2011. Based on this, the deadline for the plaintiff to go to court expired on February 22, 2011. WITH statement of claim The plaintiff applied only on 03/05/2011, that is, outside the stipulated period. However, the court found that in the resignation letter at will the plaintiff asked to dismiss him from 01/12/2011. The employer fired him on January 11, 2011, but the court noted that legal grounds Moreover, he did not have one, since the application did not indicate a specific date of dismissal. The work record book was issued to the plaintiff with a delay, and immediately after this the employee went to court. At the same time, the court noted that the plaintiff’s initial appeal to the judicial authorities was made within the one-month period established by law. In this regard, the cassation court came to the conclusion that it was legal to restore the plaintiff’s time limit to go to court (decision of the Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic dated June 29, 2011 in case No. 33-2326/11).

However, the list of grounds for reinstating the missed deadline for filing a lawsuit established by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is not exhaustive. Good reasons can be understood as any circumstances that are likely to affect a person’s ability to file a claim in court in a timely manner. This position is held, in particular, by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, pointing out the need for a detailed consideration of each specific case of employee appeal (rulings dated 02/25/2010 No. 208-О-О, dated 03/23/2010 No. 352-0-0).

Violation of jurisdiction by an employee may be a valid reason for reinstating the deadline.

In every specific case the court takes into account all the circumstances that could have caused the deadline to be missed. At the same time, a lot depends on the personality of the employee himself.

JUDICIAL PRACTICE. The employee filed a lawsuit for reinstatement at work beyond the one-month period. The plaintiff indicated that she missed the deadline to go to court due to the lack of necessary cash. She could not use the help of a lawyer, the social legal service refused to help her, in addition, she is a sick person, disabled since childhood, poorly socially adapted, and has no people to whom she could turn for help. The defendant objected to the motion to restore the missed deadline. The court of first instance agreed with the employer's opinion. However, the cassation court overturned this decision, since she considered the refusal to satisfy the claim, based solely on the circumstances of her missing the deadline for going to court, without a full and comprehensive establishment and examination of her arguments about the presence of valid reasons for missing the deadline, unfounded. In this regard, the case was sent for a new consideration (ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated February 24, 2011 No. 33-2652/11).

Often in judicial practice, an employee’s lack of legal awareness is recognized as a valid reason if the employee misses the deadline for going to court. As a rule, this is justified by the fact that the courts recognize the initial dependence of the employee on the employer and try to protect the rights and interests of the employees as much as possible. In particular, this is how disputes related to an employee filing an application in violation of jurisdiction or the requirements for the form and content of the statement of claim are usually resolved. As a result, when the employee applied again to the appropriate court, or with a statement in the prescribed form, the courts found the reasons for missing the deadline to apply to the court to be valid and reinstated it.

JUDICIAL PRACTICE. The employee filed a claim against the employer to recover wages. This application was received by the court after 5 months after the dismissal and receipt of the work book. The plaintiff petitioned for restoration of the missed deadline. He motivated his position by the fact that he appealed to the district court on this dispute, but the statement of claim was left without movement by a court ruling dated 02/25/2011, a copy of the said ruling was received by the plaintiff via post only on 05/12/2011, and by a court ruling dated 04/11/2011 the statement of claim was returned due to lack of jurisdiction. The defendant insisted on missing the deadline, but the court did not agree with the defendant’s objections and recognized this reason as valid. He noted that the list of reasons in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 No. 2 is approximate and the court, assessing whether this or that reason is sufficient for making a decision to restore the missed deadline, checks and takes into account the entire set of circumstances of a particular case that did not allow the employee promptly applies to the court for resolution of the labor dispute (ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated October 10, 2011 No. 33-15239/2011).

However, it should be noted that in some cases the courts do not recognize such a valid reason as filing a claim outside the jurisdiction and its subsequent return to the employee.

JUDICIAL PRACTICE. The employee filed a claim with the district court for reinstatement at work without complying with the rules of jurisdiction, therefore, by a court ruling, the statement of claim was returned to her. After this, the employee appealed to the appropriate district court, already missing the statute of limitations. The defendant filed a petition for the application of its consequences, which the court granted, since it did not consider the plaintiff’s appeal to the court without observing the rules of jurisdiction as a circumstance preventing compliance with the deadlines established by Art. 392 Labor Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the court took into account that after the return of the statement of claim to the plaintiff, the appeal in compliance with the rules of jurisdiction followed only after a long period of time, despite the fact that the employee had professional legal assistance (ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated August 30, 2011 No. 33-12905 ).

A similar decision contains the ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated August 30, 2011 No. 33-12905.

It is important to take into account that according to Art. Art. 28 and 29 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation for a dispute arising from labor relations, the employee has the right to appeal to one of the courts of general jurisdiction: either at the location of the defendant, or at the place of performance of duties under the employment contract. Therefore, if an employee applies to the court at his place of residence and the statement of claim is returned due to the lack of jurisdiction of this court, this circumstance will not be considered a missed deadline because only the fact of the initial appeal to the courts within the established period is of key importance.

We also note that employees often refer to filing statements and complaints with various non-judicial bodies. Judicial practice in the overwhelming majority of cases, does not recognize such an appeal as a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations, since such an appeal in itself is not an obstacle to timely filing a corresponding claim with the court.

JUDICIAL PRACTICE. The employer calculated the employee's wages in violation of the law without taking into account the minimum wage. The employee repeatedly approached him verbally with a demand for payment of lost wages, and written refusal She did not receive any payment; on the contrary, they promised to look into it. Without waiting for an answer, she contacted various authorities for more than six months and waited for a long time for answers from them, and only then went to court when the statute of limitations had already expired. The court refused to reinstate the worker, noting that the mere fact of contacting the prosecutor's office, the State Labor Inspectorate, and the absence of a written refusal from the employer to pay the lost wages did not prevent the plaintiff from timely seeking judicial protection (decision of the Perm Regional Court dated May 11, 2011 No. 33- 4448).

We emphasize that, despite the social significance of labor relations, an employee’s legal illiteracy does not create objective obstacles to filing a claim. Thus, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in its ruling dated June 17, 2010 No. 85-B10-2, directly stated that legal ignorance, due to which an employee first first applies to the prosecutor’s office and labor inspectorate, cannot serve as a basis for reinstating the missed deadline for going to court. .
Thus, recently, courts are less and less inclined to consider the employee’s legal ignorance, due to which he first turns to extrajudicial authorities, and only then, after missing the statute of limitations, to the court, as a valid reason for such an omission. Some courts attribute this to the fact that the plaintiff’s appeal for protection of his rights to various non-judicial bodies not only does not justify missing a deadline, but, on the contrary, indicates the absence of insurmountable obstacles to the timely filing of a claim in court (decision of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dated August 11, 2011 No. 33-11092/2011). Similar conclusions are contained in the rulings of the Moscow City Court dated May 4, 2011 No. 33-13211, dated July 22, 2011 No. 33-20218, etc.
But there is also an opposite point of view, according to which the courts find a valid reason for an employee to miss the deadline for going to court, such as a preliminary appeal to various non-judicial authorities: the prosecutor's office, trade union organizations or the labor inspectorate. True, such appeals are assessed by the court as a valid reason for missing a deadline only in conjunction with other circumstances.

JUDICIAL PRACTICE. The workers appealed to the EU demanding compensation for unused vacation and compensation for moral damage. The employer announced that he had missed the three-month deadline to go to court. However, the court found these arguments unfounded. He indicated that the plaintiffs applied to the state labor inspectorate to conduct an investigation into the fact of non-payment of compensation for unused vacation upon termination of employment. Based on the results of the inspection, the company was ordered to pay compensation to workers. At the same time general manager The company, in a letter to the state labor inspector, undertook to repay the debt, but did not do so. In this regard, according to the court, the plaintiffs had reason to believe that their rights would be restored out of court and came to the conclusion that the workers good reason did not have the opportunity to go to court in a timely manner due to the actions of the defendant. In addition, at the court hearing, the representative of the defendant did not provide evidence that upon dismissal, the plaintiffs were given pay slips, from which it was possible to establish for what period and in what amount compensation for unused vacation was not paid, which also deprived them of the opportunity to timely apply to court (ruling of the Lipetsk Regional Court dated October 27, 2010 in case No. 33-2538/2010).

Let us note that missing the deadline for going to court due to contacting the prosecutor's office or the labor inspectorate has often been criticized by many experts. In particular, the Commissioner for Human Rights in Saratov region Lukashova N.V. stated that Art. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation should be supplemented with a provision according to which the period for going to court is interrupted if the employee first applies to the labor inspectorate or prosecutor’s office to resolve a labor dispute (Council report
Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation 2009 “On the state of legislation in Russian Federation. Monitoring legal support main directions of domestic and foreign policy"). However, current practice follows the path that the employee has the right to choose the method of resolving the dispute and this does not suspend the statute of limitations.

The statute of limitations does not apply to claims for personal injury.

An employee’s request for qualified assistance from a lawyer, who subsequently improperly fulfilled his obligations, may be recognized by the court as a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations. In addition, it is important to remember that if the statement of claim contains, along with other circumstances, demands employees who do not have a statute of limitations, such claims themselves do not require restoration of the deadlines. For example, a claim for compensation for injury to health, which is not subject to statute of limitations by virtue of Article 208 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

JUDICIAL PRACTICE. Considering the employer’s complaint about the unlawful restoration of the employee’s deadline for filing a claim, the court found this argument in the cassation appeal to be unfounded. The court found that the plaintiff’s appeal to various non-judicial bodies, as well as seeking qualified assistance from a lawyer, who subsequently improperly fulfilled his obligations, did not prevent the employee from going to court after the end of treatment. Therefore, these circumstances should not have been regarded by the court as a valid reason for missing the specified deadline. But, taking into account the social significance of controversial legal relations, in particular ensuring the employee’s right to social protection in case of illness, and the existence of a claim for compensation for damage to health, the judicial panel came to the conclusion that the period for filing a claim was restored legally and the restoration of the deadline for filing an application cannot be a basis for canceling the court decision (ruling of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dated 02/14/2012 in the case No. 33-1804/2012).

In addition, the period for going to court in practice is restored to the employee in cases where he objectively could not find out about the violation of his rights. For example, when a person dismissed on the basis of clause 2 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employee did not know about reinstatement staffing table position he previously held (review of the judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia on civil cases for the 1st half of 2010).

Outpatient treatment is not an obstacle to going to court

It should be noted that on the issue of restoring the deadlines for filing a lawsuit in a labor court, some trends have emerged that are favorable for the employer. Today, existing judicial practice indicates a gradual narrowing towards greater objectivity in the interpretation of the instructions set out in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In particular, a valid reason for missing the deadline for filing a complaint, according to various courts, is not any illness, but only one that actually prevents the employee from filing a lawsuit.

JUDICIAL PRACTICE. The employee filed a claim for reinstatement in service and asked to restore the missed statute of limitations, since the order for his dismissal was issued on 03/25/2011, and from 03/30/2011 to 04/14/2011 and from 05/03/2011 to 05/13/2011 he was on inpatient treatment. He stated that during periods of outpatient treatment, his psychophysical condition after being fired and undergoing operations did not allow him to file a claim in court. The defendant in his objection asked for the restoration of the deadline to be refused. The court concluded that, given the nature of the plaintiff’s illness - varicose veins veins - and the fact that he was repeatedly treated as an outpatient, his arguments that he objectively did not have the opportunity to file a claim in court are untenable. The very fact of dismissal for the plaintiff was indeed stressful situation, but filing a lawsuit is an action aimed at protecting a violated right, which cannot be attributed to a traumatic situation. Filing a statement of claim does not require the personal presence of the plaintiff in court; he has the right to send a statement of claim via postal service. Therefore, the reasons stated by the plaintiff for missing the deadline were not rightfully recognized by the district court as valid, objectively preventing the timely filing of the claim (ruling of the Ryazan Regional Court dated November 2, 2011 No. 33-2221).

Moreover, the courts take into account the nature and severity of the disease, while some courts recognize that going to court is prevented only by being in inpatient rather than outpatient treatment (cassation ruling of the Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic dated May 30, 2011 No. 33-1878/11 and the Ryazansky ruling regional court dated November 2, 2011 No. 33-2221). Similar conclusions are contained in the review of the cassation and supervisory practice of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court for the 3rd quarter of 2008 dated December 24, 2008

The employee must prove that the business trip prevented him from filing a lawsuit in a timely manner

It must be taken into account that the courts may refuse to restore the term to an employee if he abuses his right. For example, the court refused to reinstate the deadline for an employee who presented documents about undergoing treatment in a day hospital. However, during the same period, he personally participated in court hearings in other civil cases, in connection with which the court considered that the plaintiff’s health condition did not prevent him from exercising his right to judicial protection within the limits established by Art. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for a three-month period (determination of the St. Petersburg City Court dated September 19, 2011 No. 33-14182/20.11).

In a similar way, the courts interpret the basis for missing a deadline as being on a business trip. The employee must prove that the business trip actually prevented him from going to court.

JUDICIAL PRACTICE. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit on November 19, 2010 to declare the dismissal order dated August 20, 2010 illegal. Due to the fact that the employer evaded issuing him a work book, the employee was able to receive it only on October 12, 2010, as a result of an appeal to the city prosecutor's office. The plaintiff asked to restore the missed deadline for filing a lawsuit due to the fact that from October 25, 2010 to November 16, 2010, he was in another city. The defendant considered the reasons for missing the deadline to be unjustified. The court refused to restore the deadline to the plaintiff, since it determined that the limitation period began on October 13, 2010, and ended on November 13, 2010, that is, the plaintiff had the opportunity from October 13 to October 25 to file an application with the court, since during this period he did not travel outside the city (decision of the Perm Regional Court dated 02/07/2011 No. 33-1044).
Court decisions note that the mere presence of an employee in another city does not prevent him from seeking judicial protection, especially if there are breaks in travel.

JUDICIAL PRACTICE. The employee was fired on November 24, 2009, and with a claim for debt collection wages I applied only in the summer of 2010. She asked to restore the missed deadline on the grounds that she learned about the violation of her right only on May 21, 2010. At the same time, in the period from May 19, 2010 to October 15, 2010, she was on a business trip and could not file a claim in court, and she also had the intention of participating in the trial in person. The court found the indicated reasons for missing the deadline to be unjustifiable and granted the defendant’s request to apply its consequences. In this case, the court proceeded from the fact that while on a business trip, the plaintiff came to the city and applied to the prosecutor’s office, which means she had the opportunity to go to court, in particular, by sending an application by mail (ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated June 27, 2011 No. 33-9548).

The court's position that an employee being on a business trip is not a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations is also contained in the cassation ruling of the Vologda Regional Court dated March 25, 2011, No. 33-1279.

The limitation period begins to run from the moment the employer discovers a violation of the right to compensation for damages

It is traditionally more difficult for an employer to prove the valid reasons for missing the deadline to go to court. To restore the missed deadline, the employer must prove the presence of circumstances beyond his control that prevented the timely filing of the claim (review of the judicial practice of the Chelyabinsk Regional Court dated October 12, 2009 for the 3rd quarter of 2009). Russian courts refuse to recognize any other circumstances that prevent the employer from going to court within the period established by law as valid.

JUDICIAL PRACTICE. The company discovered material damage on March 6, 2009. At the request of the employer, a criminal case was initiated regarding the misappropriation of funds. On 02/05/2010, the employee gave a sincere confession to the employer, in which he fully admitted his guilt in embezzling funds in the amount of 90 thousand rubles, and promised to repay the debt. 02/02/2011. After the employee failed to pay the next payment, the employer filed a lawsuit to recover material damages. The employer considered the statute of limitations to be met, since on 02/05/2010 there was an acknowledgment of the debt, but in court the defendant asked to recognize it as missed. The court sided with the employee and indicated that the employer’s appeal to the investigative authorities did not prevent the plaintiff from filing a claim for compensation for material damage, since the fact of the existence of this damage was established on 05/06/2009 (decision of the Perm Regional Court dated 04/13/2011 No. 33-3589 ).

If an agreement is concluded with an employee on voluntary compensation for damages with installment payment, the employer has the right to go to court within a year from the moment the employee violates its provisions. But if the employer misses this deadline without good reason, he will not be able to restore it.

JUDICIAL PRACTICE. The employer entered into a compensation agreement with the employee. The last payment from the employee was received on June 19, 2009. After not receiving the next payment from the employee, on 05/07/2010 the employer turned to the magistrate, who on 06/02/2010 refused to issue a court order. On September 3, 2010, the employer filed a complaint with the district court against the ruling of the magistrate, who refused to accept the employer’s application due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The employer tried to appeal this decision to the cassation court, which considered that an appeal to the magistrate does not entail a break in the limitation period within the meaning of Article 203 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph 15 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated November 12, 2001 No. 15, and the plaintiff’s subsequent appeals to the court took place after the expiration of the one-year period, that is, after 06/19/2010 (ruling of the Perm Regional Court dated 02/28/2011 No. 33-1623).

At the same time, if the employer complies with the deadlines for going to court, he has every chance of receiving compensation for damages. And although judicial practice on the successful restoration by the employer of the missed limitation period established by Art. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, today is minimal, it is possible to track certain positive trends in favor of the company. The most positive moment for the employer, which can be seen in court decisions, is the recognition in practice of the fact that the one-year period for disputes about voluntary compensation by an employee for damage begins to be calculated not from the moment the employer discovers the damage, but precisely from the moment it discovers a violation of its right to compensation.

JUDICIAL PRACTICE. The employee filed a counterclaim against the employer for the recovery of amounts previously paid by her under the agreement on compensation for damage to the employer. In the statement of claim, she indicated that the payments she made were paid under pressure from the employer. She also requested to apply the consequences of missing the statute of limitations. The plaintiff motivated her statement by the fact that the employer became aware of the shortage in December 2007, and the claim was brought against her in May 2009. The court of first instance upheld the employee's claim. The cassation court left the court's decision unchanged. The employer appealed to the supervisory authority, which established that the actual amount of damage to the employer became known only on 07/09/2008 as a result of an audit. After the audit, on July 30, 2008, the employee undertook in writing to pay off the damage by December 31, 2008. But in violation of her obligations, she did not make payments after September 2, 2008. Consequently, the employer had the right to go to court within a year from the moment of violation of his right to compensation for damage, that is, from 09/02/2008 to 09/02/2009. Thus, the claim brought by the employer on May 26, 2009 was filed in compliance with the established deadlines (determined by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of July 30, 2010 No. 48-B10-5).

In this case, if the employer had not entered into an agreement with the employee on compensation for damage, the statute of limitations would have been calculated from the moment the employer discovered the deficiency.

Judicial practice knows many cases where the rights of a citizen are violated due to expired statute of limitations are considered by the court and restored in full. The grounds for reinstating the statute of limitations may be various life circumstances, natural disasters, illnesses and so on.

The reasons really must be weighty and respectful. Otherwise, the court will not consider it and the application will be rejected. It is difficult for a person without the appropriate education to understand the legal intricacies, draw up a competent appeal, and substantiate the arguments. Therefore, we advise you to use it, this will guarantee a positive outcome of the case.

10 good reasons

Lawyers can tell you whether your arguments have enough weight to judiciary. Only those of them that are directly related to the plaintiff himself are considered and a direct connection with him is traced.

1. Serious illness.

This is an argument because health directly concerns the personality of the victim. It is necessary to provide evidence, relevant certificates of inpatient and outpatient treatment indicating the fact that the patient was not able to move freely.

2. Helpless state.

Possible if the applicant:

• mentally, emotionally unstable (depression, mental instability, shock), which prevents the timely filing of a claim;
• is under hypnotic influence;
• uses medical supplies containing alcohol and drugs.

3. Family circumstances.

Reasons for going to court:

• death loved one;
• caring for a seriously ill relative;
• residence of a deceased, sick relative (whom the applicant was caring for) in another city, which is why he was unable to file a claim on time.

4. Long business trip.

If violations of a citizen’s rights occurred during his long absence on business (business trip). Upon arrival, he can go to the courts.

5. Emergency conditions.

The occurrence of insurmountable forces that prevented the filing of a claim - natural disasters, natural disasters, strikes, large-scale military actions in the applicant’s territory of residence.

6. Being in the ranks of army units transferred to martial law.

7. Change of place of residence of the plaintiff.

Or staying for a long period at a different address that does not coincide with the official registration. This circumstance is clearly considered by the court to be a sufficient basis for reviewing the case.

8. Inability to find the debtor.

To bring a claim in the prescribed manner, you need to know the location (place of registration) of the debtor. By law, a person does not have to have investigative skills.

9. Illiteracy.

Grounds for reinstating the deadline may also arise for this reason:

• ignorance, poor command of the state (Russian) language - this fact becomes an obstacle when signing contracts, interferes with the understanding of legal norms and requirements.

This situation is possible if the citizen has been abroad for a long time or is a foreigner. A small problem arises here - if the applicant resorts to the services of lawyers to restore justice, the court ceases to perceive this fact as a valid reason. Therefore, it is important to contact experienced lawyers who know the intricacies and nuances of legal science.

10. Other reasons.

Restoration of the term is possible in the following cases:

• the citizen officially resides in another city;
• change of place of residence during the limitation period;
• being in prison or under investigation;
• other conditions that cause difficulties, obstacles to filing a claim with the judicial authorities.

Law for legal entities

It is stated that all people have equal rights. But in practice this is not entirely true. For legal entities and private entrepreneurs equated to them, the restoration of the limitation period does not apply.

If for the former this is an absolutely fair decision (good reasons individuals difficult to apply to them), then in relation to individual entrepreneurs it's unfair. Their only difference from individuals is that they work for themselves.

In the same way, they may have sick relatives, care for them, suffer from various diseases themselves, live in another city, and find out late about violations of their constitutional rights. Most authoritative experts consider this fact to be a gross error of law.

Instructions from our lawyers

1. File a statement of claim in court. At the same time, the limitation period does not matter - a person can appeal to the justice authorities at any time.
2. Clearly justify your appeal, indicate really important reasons - illness of loved ones, unforeseen emergency circumstances, force majeure. The main condition is that the reason must concern you.
3. The application prepared in the form is submitted at the appropriate time (wait for the moment when the defendant informs you about the expiration of the statute of limitations). Otherwise, the judge will ignore your appeal and the case will be considered as usual.

For an ignorant person, all this is complex and incomprehensible. If you have any problems, please contact our experienced lawyers. They will study your case in detail, suggest the best course of action, and ensure the protection of your rights.

The law allows filing a labor claim in court in sufficient time. short terms, after this time you will have to submit an application to restore the deadline for labor disputes. If the plaintiff’s demand is expressed in reinstatement at work, the claim must be filed with the court within 1 month after the fact of violations was established (when the employee learned of the illegality of the dismissal). If the claim is related to the payment of wages, compensation, recovery of moral damages from the employer, etc., it is carried out within 3 months.

Missing a deadline for a labor dispute means that the demands, no matter how legitimate they may be, will be refused. Therefore, an application to restore such a period is necessary to continue the progress of the case. An example and sample document is posted below. Additional questions and nuances can be discussed with the site’s duty lawyer.

Example of an application for restoration of the deadline for labor disputes

To Brasovsky District Court

Bryansk region

address: 242300, Bryansk region, Brasovsky district,

p. Lokot, st. Sovetskaya, 19

tel. 8765527811111

within the framework of case No. 1-312/2021

On July 16, 2021, I filed a claim with the Brasovsky District Court of the Bryansk Region against PlanetPlus LLC (Bryansk) and the payment of average earnings during forced absence.

In accordance with the order of the director of PlanetPlus LLC, the position of electrician in the specified organization was reduced from May 10, 2021, however, in violation of the requirements of Art. 81 and art. 318 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, norms about, the employer did not provide notice of upcoming organizational and staffing events and were not proposed vacant positions in the organization.

In violation of Art. 81.4. The Labor Code of the Russian Federation did not issue me a dismissal order. In addition, on May 12, 2021, I submitted them to the employer in order to analyze them and submit them to the court. The response to such an application and the work book arrived at my address by post only on July 14, 2021.

I don't have higher education and is illiterate in legal matters, so on July 15, 2021, he submitted documents to State inspection labor, where I was advised about violations of my labor rights.

In accordance with the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated June 19, 2012 No. 13 on issues of appeal, illiteracy can be one of the reasons for missing a deadline for a valid reason, especially since in my case there is a fact of violation of deadlines by the employer and my absence for a long period of the required for court documents.

Based on the above, guided by Art. 112 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation,

1. Reinstate the deadline for the labor dispute of Kuntseva V.F. to PlanetPlus LLC for reinstatement and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.

Application:

1. Copy of application
2. A copy of the application to the employer for the issuance of documents
3. A copy of information from PlanetPlus LLC, notification of receipt.

08/22/2021 Kuntsev V.F.

How to draw up and submit an application for reinstatement of the deadline for labor disputes

Missing the deadline for going to court will not be grounds for. But, if the defendant refers to this circumstance verbally or even verbally, the demands will be denied.

A request to restore the deadline for labor disputes can be made in the text of the statement of claim itself. In this case, missing the deadline for submitting claims to the employer must also be justified by valid reasons.

In any case, an application for restoration of the deadline for labor disputes can be submitted before the issuance. The reasons for missing the deadline are indicated, and a request is made to postpone the court hearing to provide evidence of the justification for missing the deadline.

If the application is being prepared for separate document, then it is addressed to the court that is considering the case. It is best to file it along with the claim itself.

Valid reasons for missing a deadline may include illness (severe, associated with placement in a hospital, etc., but not outpatient), helplessness and illiteracy in combination with other circumstances (as in the example), caring for a family member in need of constant assistance . Possibly force majeure, etc.

Consideration by the court of an application to restore the deadline for labor disputes

The received application and the plaintiff’s arguments are considered at the court hearing. The court is obliged to listen to the opinions of other persons in the case and their objections.

But only the judge will decide whether to grant or deny such an application according to his own inner conviction.

The decision on the result of consideration of the application is formalized by issuing a court ruling, which can be filed. Re-submission of an application for restoration of the deadline for labor disputes is not possible by law.

Revisions of the document have been prepared with changes that have not entered into force

"Code of Administrative Proceedings of the Russian Federation" dated 03/08/2015 N 21-FZ (as amended on 12/27/2018) (as amended and supplemented, entered into force on 12/28/2018)

CAS RF Article 219. Time limit for filing an administrative claim in court

1. Unless this Code establishes other deadlines for filing an administrative claim in court, an administrative claim may be filed with the court within three months from the day when a citizen, organization, or other person became aware of a violation of their rights, freedoms and legitimate interests .

ConsultantPlus: note.

From the date of commencement of activity cassation courts general jurisdiction and courts of appeal of general jurisdiction Art. 219 is supplemented by Part 1.1 (FZ dated November 28, 2018 N 451-FZ). See future edition.

2. Administrative claim to challenge legal act the highest official of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation (head of the highest executive body state power subject of the Russian Federation) on the removal from office of the head municipality, to challenge the decision of a representative body of a municipality on self-dissolution or to challenge the decision of a representative body of a municipality to remove the head of a municipality from resignation may be filed with the court within ten days from the date of adoption of the relevant decision.

(see text in the previous edition)

3. An administrative claim to recognize as illegal decisions, actions (inactions) of a bailiff may be filed with the court within ten days from the day when a citizen, organization, or other person became aware of a violation of their rights, freedoms and legitimate interests.

4. Administrative statement of claim to challenge decisions, actions (inaction) of an executive body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, a local government body on issues related to the coordination of the place and time of the event public event(meeting, rally, demonstration, procession, picketing), as well as with a warning issued by these bodies regarding the purposes of such a public event and the form of its conduct, may be filed with the court within ten days from the day when a citizen, organization, or other person became aware of the violation of their rights, freedoms and legitimate interests.

5. Missing the established deadline for applying to the court is not a basis for refusing to accept an administrative claim for court proceedings. The reasons for missing the deadline for going to court are clarified at a preliminary court hearing or court hearing.

6. Late consideration or failure to consider the complaint higher authority, superior official indicates the presence of a valid reason for missing the deadline for filing a lawsuit.

7. The deadline for filing an administrative claim missed for the reason specified in Part 6 of this article or for another valid reason may be restored by the court, except in cases where its restoration is not provided for by this Code.

8. Missing the deadline for going to court without a good reason, as well as the impossibility of restoring the missed time (including for a good reason) for going to court is grounds for refusing to satisfy an administrative claim.

The employee missed the deadline to apply to the labor court (Tishin A.P.)

Date of article posting: 07/21/2014

If an employee goes to court to resolve an individual labor dispute, or a former employee goes to court for a dispute about illegal dismissal, it is necessary to check whether the deadline for going to court has been met. In order to ensure legal stability, shortened deadlines have been established for filing a lawsuit in labor disputes, and these deadlines are often violated by plaintiffs.
What are the deadlines for going to court to resolve individual labor disputes? How does the court assess the situation when the plaintiff applied within the prescribed period, but the statement of claim was returned to him and he subsequently missed the deadline? How does the court evaluate the availability of time to go to court before a valid reason arises? Is temporary disability always considered a valid reason for missing the deadline to go to court? What other reasons cited by the plaintiffs are not recognized as valid in judicial practice?

Time limits for applying to the labor court

In accordance with Art. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employee has the right to apply to the court for resolution of an individual labor dispute within three months from the day he learned or should have learned about a violation of his right, and in disputes about dismissal - within one month from the date he was given a copy of the order dismissal or from the date of issue of the work book.
The employer has the right to go to court in disputes about compensation by the employee for damage caused to the employer within one year from the date of its discovery.
If the deadlines specified above are missed for valid reasons, they can be restored by the court.
As established by Art. 14 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the period of time with which the Labor Code of the Russian Federation associates the emergence of labor rights and obligations begins with calendar date, which determines the beginning of the emergence of these rights and obligations. The period of time with which the Labor Code of the Russian Federation connects the termination of labor rights and obligations begins the next day after the calendar date that determines the end of the labor relationship. Terms calculated in years, months, weeks expire on the corresponding date last year, month, week period. The period calculated in calendar weeks or days also includes non-working days. If the last day of the term falls on a non-working day, the end of the term is considered to be the next working day following it.
Provided by Art. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the three-month period for going to court to resolve an individual labor dispute is shorter than the general limitation period established by civil law. However, such a period, as has been repeatedly noted Constitutional Court in its decisions, being one of the necessary legal conditions for achieving optimal coordination of the interests of the parties to labor relations, cannot be considered unreasonable and disproportionate. The established shortened period for going to court and the rules for calculating it are aimed at quickly and effectively restoring the violated rights of workers, including the right to timely payment, and in terms of its duration this period is sufficient for going to court.
We note that according to paragraph 5 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 No. 2 “On the application by the courts of the Russian Federation of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as Resolution No. 2), the judge does not have the right to refuse to accept a statement of claim on the grounds of missing a deadline without good reason going to court or the deadline for appealing the decision of the labor dispute commission, since the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for such a possibility. The decision of the labor dispute commission to refuse to satisfy an employee’s claim due to missing the deadline for presenting it is not an obstacle to initiating a labor case in court.
Based on the content of paragraph 6 of Art. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, as well as paragraph 1 of Art. 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, according to which justice in civil cases is carried out on the basis of adversarial and equal rights of the parties, the issue of the plaintiff missing the deadline for filing a lawsuit can be resolved by the court, provided that this is stated by the defendant. That is, the defendant must file either a motion to dismiss the claim due to the plaintiff missing the deadline to go to court, or a statement about the plaintiff missing the specified deadline. Or he is obliged to indicate in the objections that the plaintiff missed the deadline. We recommend that such statements be made in writing with references to the law and materials of judicial practice.
When preparing a case for trial, it is necessary to keep in mind that in accordance with paragraph 6 of Art. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the defendant’s objection regarding the plaintiff’s missing the deadline for applying to the court for resolution of an individual labor dispute without good reason may be considered by a judge at a preliminary court hearing. Having recognized the reasons for missing a deadline as valid, the judge has the right to restore this deadline (Articles 390 and 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Having established that the deadline for filing a lawsuit has been missed without good reason, the judge makes a decision to reject the claim precisely on this basis without examining other factual circumstances in the case (paragraph 2, paragraph 6, article 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).
As valid reasons for missing the deadline for going to court, circumstances that prevented the employee from filing a lawsuit in a timely manner to resolve an individual labor dispute (for example, the plaintiff’s illness, being on a business trip, the impossibility of going to court due to force majeure, the need to provide care) may be considered. seriously ill family members).
According to the Decree of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 03/05/2009 N 295-О-О, the approximate list of circumstances given in paragraph 5 of Resolution No. 2 (they are named above) that can be regarded as preventing an employee from going to court in a timely manner is not exhaustive. When resolving a specific case, the court has the right to recognize as valid reasons for missing a deadline and other circumstances that are of significant importance for a particular employee.
Thus, in each specific case, the court assesses the validity of the reason for the employee missing the deadline for going to court to resolve an individual labor dispute, checking the entire set of circumstances of the case, including the nature of the reasons that did not allow the employee to go to court within the period established by law.

If the plaintiff applied on time, but the statement of claim was returned due to the presence of comments...

Situations like this occur frequently. As a rule, the plaintiffs try to prove that they filed the statement of claim within the prescribed period, but for objective reasons did not receive a determination to return the statement of claim.
By virtue of paragraphs 1, 2 of Art. 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the judge, having established that the statement of claim was filed in court without complying with the requirements provided for in Art. Art. 131 and 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, issues a ruling to leave the application without progress, notifies the person who filed the application about this, and gives him a reasonable period to correct the deficiencies. If the applicant fulfills the judge’s instructions listed in the ruling within the prescribed period, the application is considered submitted on the day of its initial submission to the court. Otherwise, the application is considered not submitted and is returned to the applicant with all documents attached to it.
Generalized conclusions about the legal significance of actions in such a situation were made in the Appeal ruling of the Rostov Regional Court dated March 21, 2013 in case No. 33-3236.
Thus, on July 16, 2012, the plaintiff was fired. The statement of claim was filed with the court on December 7, 2012, that is, the deadline for going to court to resolve an individual labor dispute was missed. The plaintiff did not provide evidence to justify such a long missed deadline. He only referred to the fact that earlier (August 15, 2012) he had applied to the court with a similar demand, but by the judge’s ruling dated August 21, 2012, the statement of claim was left without movement, and by the ruling dated September 10, 2012, it was returned. By the appeal ruling of October 18, 2012, the ruling of the Leninsky District Court was left unchanged, and the applicant was explained that he was not deprived of the opportunity to appeal to the court again if the shortcomings specified in the court ruling were eliminated. Taking this into account, the plaintiff filed a new claim in court on December 7, 2012, that is, a month and a half after the appeal ruling was issued.
According to the court, the arguments cited by the plaintiff do not prove the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline, since filing a claim in court that was left without progress and subsequently returned does not entail a suspension of the deadline for filing a claim in court. Thus, the judges came to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline to apply to the court for protection of the violated right, and the claim was rejected.
IN appeal The plaintiff asked to cancel the decision, indicating that he did not know about leaving his application without progress, and received a copy of the decision dated August 21, 2012 on the need to correct the shortcomings of the application by September 5, 2012 only on September 9, 2012, when he discovered V mailbox notice of the need to obtain a ruling dated August 21, 2012, therefore, he was objectively deprived of the opportunity to correct the shortcomings indicated by the judge within the required period.
By the ruling of the judge of the Leninsky District Court of Rostov-on-Don dated September 10, 2012, the statement of claim was returned to him, and on September 26, 2012 he sent a private complaint against this ruling, which was appealed by the judicial panel for civil cases of the Rostov Regional Court dated On October 18, 2012, the request was left unsatisfied. At the same time, it was explained to him that he was not deprived of the opportunity to go to court again if the shortcomings specified in the ruling dated August 21, 2012 were eliminated. He received the appeal ruling by mail on November 28, 2012, and on December 3, 2012 he submitted this statement of claim to the court.
The appellant considered that the court ignored the evidence presented by him confirming the reasons for the missed deadline, and therefore, in his opinion, the decision is illegal.
Meanwhile, evidence of the presence of reasons that really or with a high degree of probability could affect the plaintiff’s ability to go to court in compliance with the provisions of civil procedural and labor legislation, as well as the presence of such circumstances that would objectively prevent a person from performing procedural actions within the established time frame, the court not presented.
As the judges noted, the mere fact of challenging the ruling to return the statement of claim does not count as a valid reason for missing a deadline, since it did not prevent the plaintiff from filing these requirements within the period established by law, and even without taking into account the time the statement of claim was in the district and regional courts excluded from the calculation of the statutory deadline for filing a lawsuit with the above-mentioned demands, the deadline for filing a lawsuit to resolve an individual labor dispute should be considered missed without good reason.
The expiration of the statute of limitations, that is, the period within which a court of general jurisdiction is obliged to provide protection to a person whose right has been violated, is an independent basis for refusing a claim. In this case, judicial protection of the citizen’s rights (regardless of whether there was actually a violation of his rights) is impossible, as a result of which the study of other circumstances of the case cannot influence the nature of the court decision.
Given such data, the panel of judges found the court’s conclusion to refuse to satisfy the claims to be justified.
It should also be noted that sending a ruling by mail to return the statement of claim is considered the court fulfilling its duties. All problems associated with receiving this definition, fall directly on the plaintiff.
In the Appeal ruling dated September 20, 2012 in case No. 33-5310, the Saratov Regional Court, returning the statement of claim, indicated: since the plaintiff did not comply with the ruling on abandoning the claim within the prescribed period, by virtue of clause 2 of Art. 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, it must be returned to the applicant. The ruling to abandon the claim was promptly sent to the plaintiff and indicates that the latter had sufficient time to eliminate the existing shortcomings of the claim.
In accordance with clause 22 of the Rules for the provision of postal services, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 15, 2005 N 221 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the sender must indicate the exact addresses of the sender and addressee on postal items. Compliance with these requirements of the Rules indicates that the court and the postal authority took the necessary measures to properly serve the applicant with a copy of the ruling. According to clause 36 of the Rules postal item is returned to the return address, in particular, if the addressee (his legal representative) refuses to receive it, as well as in the absence of the addressee at the specified address.
As follows from the case materials, the determination sent by mail arrived at the post office at the plaintiff’s place of residence and was subsequently returned to the court after the expiration of the storage period. The failure of the plaintiff to appear at the post office to receive registered mail received from the court does not indicate a valid reason preventing, within the time period established by the court, from eliminating the deficiencies specified in the ruling on leaving the claim without proceeding; therefore, the court had no obstacles to returning the claim due to failure to eliminate the deficiencies. Moreover, by virtue of clause 3 of Art. 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the return of the statement of claim does not prevent the plaintiff from filing a lawsuit again with the same defendant, on the same subject and on the same grounds, if the plaintiff eliminates the violations.
Thus, failure to receive a court ruling at the post office to return the statement of claim is not a valid reason for missing the deadline for the plaintiff to file a lawsuit. That is, he must either inquire in court about the progress of the consideration of his claim, or live at the registration address and receive postal notifications.

Availability of time before the onset of a valid reason

This situation was considered in the Ruling of the Perm Regional Court dated September 23, 2013 in case No. 33-8927.
The demands for reinstatement at work, payment for forced absence, and compensation for moral damage were denied because the plaintiff, without good reason, missed the statute of limitations for going to court, as stated by the defendant. In the appeal, the plaintiff asked to cancel the decision and make a new one, considering that he missed the deadline for going to court for a good reason.
Having checked the legality and validity of the decision based on the arguments of the complaint, the judicial panel concluded that the decision should be left unchanged. The decision of the trial court was made at the preliminary court hearing.
From the case materials it follows that, on the basis of an order dated 04/23/2013, the plaintiff was dismissed on 04/23/2013 for a one-time gross violation employee labor responsibilities(absenteeism committed from 04/18/2013 to 04/19/2013). An appeal to the court for reinstatement at work followed on May 24, 2013.
The court of first instance, at the request of the defendant, recognized that the plaintiff had missed the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit.
The plaintiff requested the reinstatement of the missed deadline, citing as valid reasons his being on a business trip from 04/29/2013 to 05/19/2013, the absence of a certificate of calculation of the average salary, and the insignificance of the missed deadline. He presented similar arguments in his appeal.
The panel of judges considered that the court of first instance gave a fair assessment of the plaintiff’s arguments about the reasons for missing the deadline and there were objectively no grounds for changing it.
As follows from the materials of the civil case, the plaintiff had the necessary time to file a claim within the time limit for filing a claim, but was not reasonable and prudent in using it, despite the fact that this period was shortened. Thus, the nature of the reasons with which the plaintiff associates the missed deadline for filing a lawsuit does not have the property of irresistibility; accordingly, such reasons are not valid.
That is, in any other case, when before the occurrence of circumstances that could be considered by the court as valid reasons, the plaintiff had some time, even several days, as in the case considered, the court has the right not to restore the period for filing a lawsuit.

Temporary disability

The plaintiff's illness is indicated as a valid reason for missing the deadline to go to court. At the same time, judicial practice shows that not in all cases the state of temporary disability prevents going to court. In this regard, the cassation ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Saratov Regional Court dated December 3, 2009 is of interest. Thus, by order of the manager, the plaintiff was dismissed under clause 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation due to the expiration of the deadline employment contract. The plaintiff was familiarized with this order on April 20, 2009, and he received the work book on April 23, 2009, which was not disputed by the parties and was established by the case materials. However, the plaintiff filed a statement of claim in court only on July 29, 2009.
The reason for the plaintiff missing the deadline to go to court (being on outpatient treatment in the central district hospital from March 25 to July 24, 2009) was rightly recognized by the court of first instance as disrespectful.
Thus, this fact did not prevent the plaintiff from personally familiarizing himself with the dismissal order on April 20, 2009 and receiving on April 23, 2009 a work book in the organization in which he previously worked. In addition, when assessing the validity of the reasons for the plaintiff missing the deadline to go to court, the court of first instance rightfully took into account the testimony of a witness - a general practitioner at the central district hospital, from which it follows that in May 2009 the plaintiff’s health condition improved, although the plaintiff was prescribed home regime, this did not prevent him from moving independently, in particular, periodically visiting a doctor.
As the court noted, the presence of this disease also did not prevent the plaintiff from concluding an agreement for the provision of legal assistance or issuing a power of attorney to someone to represent his interests in court.
Taking into account the above, the court of first instance rightfully came to the conclusion that the plaintiff’s reasons for missing the deadline for filing a lawsuit were not valid and rejected the claim on the grounds of missing this deadline.
Based on the above, the court rejected the cassation appeal.
Thus, the plaintiff’s illness is a valid reason for missing a deadline only if it was an insurmountable obstacle to going to court. Otherwise, the state of temporary disability does not have any legal consequences.

Other reasons for missing deadlines that are not recognized as valid in judicial practice

Plaintiffs may also point to other reasons that prevented them from filing a lawsuit in a timely manner. In particular, this is an appeal to other bodies and organizations to protect violated rights, legal illiteracy (ignorance of the need to go to court, the timing of such an appeal), which are not valid reasons for missing procedural period to go to court for resolution of an individual labor dispute (see Appeal rulings of the Kostroma Regional Court dated October 23, 2013 in case No. 33-1794, Khabarovsk Regional Court dated September 25, 2013 in case No. 33-5832/2013, etc.). The presence of young children (Appeal ruling of the Volgograd Regional Court dated 10/09/2013 in case No. 33-11040/13), submission of a certificate of incapacity for work due to a child’s illness (Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic) are not recognized by the court as valid reasons for missing the deadline for applying to court. Bashkortostan dated September 17, 2013 in case No. 33-11348/2013), as well as some other circumstances that are considered in each specific case and are recognized as such during the trial.
Let's summarize. An employee has the right to go to court for resolution of an individual labor dispute within three months from the day he learned or should have learned about a violation of his rights, and in disputes about dismissal - within one month from the date he was given a copy of the dismissal order or day issuing a work book. If the deadline is not met, it is necessary to declare in court that the plaintiff missed the deadline to go to court and prove that the reason cited by the plaintiff does not have an insurmountable obstacle. Only in rare cases is the reason for omission given period is considered respectful. Definitely such a reason is being in the hospital with a serious illness. The situation when the plaintiff went to court within the prescribed period, but the application was left without progress due to the presence of shortcomings in it, and was subsequently returned because the plaintiff the indicated disadvantages were not eliminated, the case when the plaintiff had any time before the onset of a good reason, outpatient treatment of the plaintiff, legal illiteracy, appeal to other bodies and organizations, the presence of young children, illness of a child, etc. In each specific case, the issue of good reason is investigated by the court individually.