Valid reasons for missing the specified deadline. Restoring the procedural deadline

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 request reinstatement given period, citing the presence of valid reasons for missing it. Note that in lately courts have become less lenient in these matters and require significant evidence of the impossibility of sending on time statement of claim.

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 homogeneous, and courts sometimes grant workers’ requests, for example, when a deadline is 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 short term to go 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 valid reasons. In paragraph 5 of the resolution of the Plenum Supreme Court RF dated March 17, 2004 No. 2, it is explained that circumstances that prevented an employee from filing a claim in court in a timely manner for resolution of an individual labor dispute may be regarded as valid reasons for missing the deadline for going to court. 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. These 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. The plaintiff filed a statement of claim only on 03/05/2011, that is, outside the prescribed period. However, the court found that in the resignation letter at will the plaintiff asked to be dismissed 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 initial appeal to judiciary the plaintiff was committed 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 Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, pointing out the need for a detailed consideration of each specific case of employee appeal (determinations 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 claim in court 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 existence 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, the employee’s legal ignorance is recognized good 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 for recovery 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 in a dispute arising from labor relations, an 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 at 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 in 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 appealed to various authorities for more than six months and long time I waited for answers from them, and only then went to court when the statute of limitations had already passed. 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 appealed to state inspection labor with an application to conduct an audit regarding 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 outside judicial procedure and concluded that the employees, for good reason, did not have the opportunity to timely go to court 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, in practice, the period for going to court 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 filed a claim for the collection of arrears of wages 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 cassation ruling 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 validity of the 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 09/02/2008. 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 limitation period would have been calculated from the moment the employer discovered the deficiency.

The Labor Code establishes shortened deadlines for going to court to protect a violated right. The period is one month, for other disputes three months.

The court cannot refuse to accept a claim due to missing the deadline for filing a lawsuit. However, the issue of missing the deadline for going to court will be decided by the court if there is a corresponding application from the defendant. If the reasons for absence are valid, the court reinstates the deadline. If the deadline for applying to the court is missed without good reason, the court makes a decision to reject the claim on this basis without examining other factual circumstances in the case.

Reasons for missing the deadline for going to court

Valid reasons for missing the deadline for going to court are circumstances that prevented the employee from filing a claim in court within the established time frame for resolution of an individual labor dispute (for example, the illness of the plaintiff, his being on a business trip, the impossibility of going to court due to force majeure, the need to care for a seriously ill member family). We recommend that you look at the list of valid reasons related to the applicant’s personality in the article.

When considering cases, labor relations which has not been terminated, for the collection of accrued but unpaid wages, it is taken into account that the employer’s statement that the employee missed the deadline for filing a lawsuit in itself cannot serve as a basis for refusing to satisfy the claim, since in this case the deadline for filing a lawsuit was not missed, since the violation is of a continuing nature, and the employer’s obligation to timely and fully pay the employee wages, and even more so the delayed amounts, remains throughout the entire period of validity of the employment contract.

Missing the deadline for compensation for moral damage

If an employee makes a claim for compensation for moral damage arising from a violation of his labor rights, such a claim is subject to the consequences of missing the deadlines for going to court, which are established by Article 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. For example, if an employee declared the presence of suffering associated with, filing a claim in court for compensation for moral damage, then the period will be calculated depending on the establishment of violations of the employee’s labor rights. A month period, if it is necessary to establish a violation of labor rights, without a time limit, if the fact of violation of the employee’s rights was previously established by the court.

Application for restoration of the deadline for going to court

To restore the deadline, it is recommended to apply for a separate one. The statement must indicate when the employee became aware of the violation of his rights. In this case, it is possible to provide the source of your information, for example, an order, instruction, pay slip. Then the application indicates valid reasons for missing the deadline. It is advisable to provide evidence confirming the valid reasons for missing the deadline for going to court. The application must be signed by the plaintiff and dated.

17 comments to “ Restoring the deadline for filing a lawsuit in labor court”

The taxpayer has three months to challenge the decision tax authority based on the results of the inspection (clause 4 of article 198 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). Practice shows that this period is often forgotten. And when they go to court, it’s already too late.

But! If the company has good reasons, the court may restore this period. The problem is that the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not contain a list of such reasons. In each specific case, the courts decide the issue individually.

The possibility of the court reinstating the deadline for filing an application is confirmed by the Federal Tax Service of Russia

The tax department expressed the possibility of the court reinstating the deadline for filing an application in letter No. GD-4-14/19159@ dated 10.10.16. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in its ruling dated November 18, 2004 No. 367-O, indicated that the mere establishment in law of deadlines for applying to the court with applications to recognize non-normative legal acts as invalid, and decisions, actions (inactions) as illegal, is due to the need to ensure stability and certainty of administrative and other public legal relations and cannot be considered as violating the right to judicial protection.

Since failure to comply with the established deadline, by virtue of the relevant norms of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, is not a basis for refusing to accept applications in cases arising from administrative and other public legal relations, the issue of the reasons for missing the deadline is decided by the court after the initiation of the case, that is, at a court hearing. Interested persons have the right to petition for the restoration of the missed deadline, and if the missed deadline was due to valid reasons, such petitions are subject to satisfaction by the court.

To restore the deadline, file a petition with your claim.

Thus, if a company missed the deadline to go to court, it submits a corresponding petition along with the claim. It indicates that the norms of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation do not contain a list of valid reasons, in the presence of which the court can restore the period established by part 4 of Article 198 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, the right to establish the presence of these reasons and their assessment according to the rules of Articles 65 and 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation belongs to the court. In the petition, the taxpayer asks the court to evaluate the presented reasons for missing the deadline and recognize them as valid. It is also worth noting the following. Article 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes that the protection of civil rights is carried out by the methods provided for by this article, or by other methods provided by law. By virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation a necessary condition the application of one or another method of protecting civil rights is to ensure the restoration of the violated right. In this case, the choice of a specific method of protecting their violated rights and legitimate interests belongs to the applicant. Based on these standards, the company requests the restoration of the period for appeal. non-normative act tax authority due to valid reasons.

There are important reasons

An analysis of judicial practice currently shows that courts sometimes recognize reasons as valid. Here are examples of court decisions where companies managed to convince the court of the importance of their circumstances:

Resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Ural District dated 02/08/12 No. F09-10083/11 in case No. A07-1621/2008.

Valid reasons that are grounds for reinstating the missed deadline: a sharp deterioration in health.

Resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Ural District dated May 19, 2009 No. F09-3076/09-S3 in case No. A07-9777/2008-A-RMF.

Valid reasons that are grounds for reinstating the missed deadline: the absence of a lawyer on the staff of the enterprise, the lack of legal training among other employees, the difficult financial situation of the enterprise, insufficient funds to pay for the services of a representative, and information about a difficult financial situation.

Resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the North-Western District dated January 12, 2006 No. A66-2937/2005.

Valid reasons that are grounds for reinstating the missed deadline: the courts of both instances considered that the reason why the enterprise missed the deadline to go to court was due to valid reasons, expressed in absence from the state municipal enterprise lawyer.

Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District dated September 27, 2016 No. F10-2109/2016 in case No. A09-9248/2015.

Valid reasons for missing a deadline include circumstances of an objective nature that are independent of the applicant, that are beyond his control, provided that he observes the degree of care and prudence that was required of him in order to comply with the established procedure.

Decision of the Arbitration Court of the Chita Region dated 02.06.09 No. A78-1910/2009, resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the East Siberian District dated 27.10.09 No. A78-1910/2009

Valid reasons that are grounds for reinstating the missed deadline: the insignificance of the company missing the deadline (2 months later) for filing a corresponding application in court to challenge a non-normative act of the tax authority, as well as for the purpose of ensuring accessibility of justice in a public law dispute.

Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District dated April 6, 2009 in case No. Ф09-9224/08-С2

Valid reasons that constitute grounds for reinstating the missed deadline: the court restored the deadline for appealing the decision of the tax authority due to the fact that the director of the taxpayer organization was on a long business trip.

Despite the existence of court decisions in favor of taxpayers, please note that there are quite a few cases when the courts refuse to restore the missed deadline.

What reasons will the court not accept?

The following cannot, as a rule, be considered as valid reasons:

the need to coordinate with a higher authority (other person) the issue of filing an application,
the presence of the applicant's representative on a business trip (vacation),
personnel changes,
absence of a lawyer on the staff of the organization,
change of manager (his being on a long business trip, vacation),
other internal organizational problems of the legal entity that resulted in late submission of the application.

This list is compiled in accordance with the opinion of the judges set out in paragraph 14 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 05/28/09 No. 36, paragraph 60 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 07/30/13 No. 57 and paragraph 34 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 12/25/13 No. 99, paragraph 30 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated March 29, 2016 11.

In addition, in paragraph 32 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 25, 2013 No. 99 “On procedural deadlines” it is noted that when deciding on the issue of reinstating the missed deadline for filing a complaint, the arbitration court should evaluate the validity of the arguments of the person insisting on such restoration, in in order to prevent abuses when appealing judicial acts and take into account that the unreasonable restoration of a missed procedural deadline may lead to a violation of the principle of legal certainty and corresponding procedural guarantees. When deciding whether to restore a procedural time limit, courts should maintain a balance between the principle of legal certainty and the right to a fair trial, which presupposes a lawful and reasoned judicial decision, so that the restoration of the missed time limit can only take place within a reasonable period and in the presence of significant objective circumstances that did not allow the interested person seeking his restoration to protect his rights.

Failure to receive the appealed act of the tax authority is a fairly common reason for missing the appeal deadline, however, it is not recognized as a valid reason. In one of the cases, the court did not accept such arguments. Since the decision was sent by the tax authority in a timely manner according to the only known legal address taxpayer. The company did not notify the tax authority of the change in its location. A change of director cannot serve as a basis for changing the course of the term. Since the subject of tax legal relations is an organization, and not an individual - a founder or director (resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the West Siberian District dated May 25, 2009 No. F04-3079/2009(7325-A03-25)).

Organizations often justify the reasons for missing a deadline by the fact that at the time of the expected deadline for filing an application with the court, they did not have a lawyer or legal adviser on their staff. The absence of a lawyer on the staff of an organization is not a valid reason for missing the deadline for a judicial appeal of a decision of the tax authority, since the duty to represent the interests of the organization and manage its current activities is assigned by law to the sole executive body of the enterprise. The courts believe that the presence or absence of a lawyer on the staff of an organization is a matter of personnel policy the organization itself (resolutions of the Central Federal Antimonopoly Service dated 03/17/09 No. A09-6863/2008-33, Volga District dated 01/10/08 No. A55-477/07; Volga-Vyatka District dated 05/21/07 No. A43-30515/2006-31-915) .

Ivan Dmitrievich

What are good reasons for missing the statute of limitations?

The statute of limitations is the period during which the injured party has the right to go to court to demand protection of its own rights. The legislation establishes a period of three years for this.

In individual cases, something else may be possible. Situations often arise when the injured party misses these deadlines.

As a result of going to court after the statute of limitations has expired, the body considering the case often decides to refuse to satisfy the claim. To avoid this, you need to prove to the court that there were good reasons for missing the statute of limitations.

What circumstances are recognized as valid reasons for missing the statute of limitations?

The list of valid circumstances is established by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in particular Art. 205. The plaintiff’s health condition may be recognized as such a reason if the plaintiff was undergoing inpatient treatment for a long period of time.

If the diagnosis does not require hospital treatment, such a reason will not be considered valid. The exception is situations when the plaintiff is in a helpless state, regardless of the presence or absence of an established diagnosis.

Often, missing the statute of limitations is motivated by illiteracy. This may be due to lack of sufficient knowledge of the language when the plaintiff for a long time lived or continues to live abroad. General illiteracy, including ignorance of the law, makes it possible to restore missed deadlines.

Place of permanent residence may have an impact significant influence. The plaintiff, who lives in another area and is also serving a sentence in prison, may well not have known about the need to file a claim in court; then this reason must be justified to the court when applying.

Restoring deadlines

The judicial authorities allow the restoration of the statute of limitations. To do this, you need to submit a separate application. The application details the valid reasons for missing the limitation period.

In this case, restoration is allowed if these valid reasons were valid during the last six months, or during the entire limitation period, when the latter does not exceed six months.

The submitted application must be substantiated. Any supporting information and documents can be provided as supporting facts. Witness testimony, if available, must be presented as evidence.

The court's decision to extend the limitation period becomes the basis for subsequent filing with the court with the main claim. A decision is attached to it that the deadlines have been restored.

Have all the procedural deadlines for this already expired? Or another situation - the court made a decision, but the citizen was not even aware of the process. This results in blockages. bank cards, accounts, seizure of property, seizure of things, etc. Of course, the law provides for the extension of the right to file claims and complaints. But for this there must be valid reasons for reinstating the missed deadline. We’ll talk about them in more detail in this article.

Valid reasons for reinstating a missed deadline (Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation): unlawful actions of the court

Judicial practice in our country shows that deadlines are often missed due to the fault of the authorities administering justice. Of course, you can understand them and refer to excessive workload. However, personally for a citizen whose rights, in his opinion, have been violated, this will be an insignificant factor. His own situation is important to him. The rest don't interest him.

What are the most common violations committed by the courts, which are interpreted as valid reasons for reinstating a missed deadline? There are several of them:

The court did not inform, according to the law, about the time and place of the hearing of the case. As a result, one of the parties was unable to attend the meeting.

It is noteworthy that in reasoned decisions there is always a phrase, in the absence of the defendant, that he “was duly warned about the time and place of the court hearing.” However, in reality this often does not happen.

The court did not indicate at all that it had the case under consideration. This reason is close to the first in meaning.
The most common case is that the copy was made late. We'll talk about this in more detail below.

Late production of a copy of the court decision

Valid reasons for reinstating a missed deadline include late production of a copy of the court decision. Let us remind you that the court ruling must be made immediately after the trial. But, of course, without a reasoned decision it is impossible to make a quality complaint.

Many professional lawyers on forums state that it is not necessary to wait for a copy of the production. Like, you were present at the meeting. However, there are cases when the judge attaches some petitions and evidence to the case, but this is not reflected in the reasoned decision.

Often the courts resort to the following “trick”. Knowing that no more than five days are given to produce a copy of the reasoned decision, they inform the interested party that it has been sent by mail. It is difficult to prove or disprove this, since such letters are not recorded electronically.

What to do if the court delays in preparing a copy of a reasoned court decision?

There are several ways to protect yourself from illegal actions (or rather, inaction) to violate the deadlines for preparing a reasoned court decision:

Indicate in claims or petitions for demands that copies not be sent by mail. Then, in case of delay, you can file a private complaint with the panel of judges, attaching this statement as an argument. In this case, the standard phrase “the court produced and sent everything on time, but it got lost somewhere in the mail” will not stand up to criticism.
Immediately after the trial, write applications for a copy. This must be done several days in a row for 5 days. Believe me, the staff of the apparatus is the first to make copies for such citizens, since no one wants unnecessary hassle and litigation in our country.

However, violation of the court is not the only problem. There are other valid reasons for reinstating a missed deadline.

Serious illness

The disease is directly related to the personality of the participant in the process. In order for the court to grant a request to file procedural actions, this fact must be proven. You can submit certificates from medical institutions, copies of medical history, etc.

Helplessness

Deterioration in health, injuries, fractures - all of these, of course, are valid reasons for reinstating the missed deadline for appeal. However, there is such a thing as helplessness.

It can be understood as:

Mental or emotional instability that prevented timely filing. Such cases often occur with the loss of relatives and friends, due to the discovery of serious illnesses in a person, with financial bankruptcy, etc. We advise in such cases to seek help from a psychiatrist for examination. He can issue an appropriate certificate confirming this condition. There is no need to be afraid, this does not mean that a person has become crazy, and he should be sent for treatment if he turned to a psychiatrist for help. Cases severe shock in such situations, on the contrary, it is the norm for mentally healthy people.
Being under hypnosis, in a trance.
Drug use medical supplies as prescribed by the attending physician.

Family circumstances

Reasons related to family circumstances, are also interpreted as valid reasons for reinstating the missed deadline for going to court. These may include:

Illness, death of loved ones.
Living in another region while caring for relatives, moving with minor child for his treatment.
Caring for the seriously ill, etc.

Extraordinary Advents and Conditions

Sometimes natural elements intervene trials. For example, a hurricane blocked several settlements, as a result of which the residents became prisoners of the elements. Circumstances that may be interpreted by the court as valid reasons for reinstating the missed statute of limitations may include: floods, fires, earthquakes, as a result of which citizens could be evacuated to safe places, which did not allow filing a claim or complaint on time.

Business trip or work in another region

A long business trip to another city can also cause missed procedural deadlines. Unlike other cases (except for illness), this one is spelled out directly in the law without the veiled wording “other cases at the discretion of the court.”

All valid reasons for reinstating the missed deadline for filing a claim are specified in Art. 112 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, and business trips among them are clearly spelled out. Therefore, having evidence in hand (copies of orders, etc.), you can be calm in restoring the deadlines.

A change of place of residence with a new registration, as well as relocation due to study, work, etc., are also interpreted by the courts as a significant reason for missing deadlines.

Illiteracy

By illiteracy, many of our citizens naively believe the lack of legal education, as well as ignorance of legal terms, norms, calculation periods, etc. This is not so. Illiteracy is rather the inability to write, read, count, etc. People who do not understand (literally) what is written fall under the category of “illiterates”, from a legal point of view.

This is true for some indigenous peoples of the north, small national peoples etc. Many of their representatives live in their native places from generation to generation and do not know how to read ordinary newspapers, not to mention complex legal documents.

Valid reasons for reinstating a missed deadline for an organization

As they say, everyone is equal before the law, but some are more equal. This concerns legal entities. There are no valid reasons for the organization to reinstate the missed deadline. Firms must have a permanent body, representatives, acting responsibilities, etc. But large or medium-sized companies are one thing, small individual entrepreneurs are another.

IP, despite legal status, in fact, this is the same citizen as an individual. He may get sick, have an accident, go on a business trip, etc. However, unlike ordinary citizens, he cannot restore the right to file a complaint or claim. Many, of course, consider this norm to be unfair, but nothing can be done about it.

In fact, the main difference between IP and individual in work status. One works for himself, the other works for someone else. An individual entrepreneur may not have employees, and his work sometimes turns out to be more difficult and less paid than that of private employees in large companies. In this regard, the logic of equating individual entrepreneurs with large companies is unclear, from the point of view of procedural legislation on restoring the deadline for filing complaints.

Valid reasons for absence for heirs

We list the main valid reasons for restoring the missed inheritance period. There are two aspects here: whether the future heir knew about the inheritance within the required six months or not.

In the event that the future “lucky” person knew about his new condition, then a valid reason for restoration will be one of the reasons listed above in the article. However, judicial practice shows that courts rarely grant such requests. They refer to the fact that in six months it was possible to find time for the appropriate procedure, unless, of course, the future heir was in a coma all this time.

Another nature of cases of restoration of terms is that the heir did not know about the new status for six months. For example, the fact of the death of a relative was hidden from him, he was not informed, and he could not find out about it on his own. For example, lives in another region, country, etc.

In this case, the courts are more willing to restore the terms of inheritance, since it is objectively clear that the rights of such citizens will be violated in the event of refusal.