Principles limitation of claims for compensation of harm caused by an unlawful act (civil debt) are regulated in Article 442 1 kc
The concept of unlawful (delicate) action in civilian law
The civilian Code in Articles 415 to 449 defines the concept and consequences of the admission of an unlawful act by civilian law entities. civilian law entities shall be understood as natural persons as well as legal persons and bodies referred to in Article 331 kc.
General nature of Article 442 1 kc on limitationclaims for damages for unauthorised action (delicate)
The provisions of Articles 438 to 443 include the regulation of general issues concerning acts not permitted in civilian law. The issues included there are not related to peculiar types of unlawful conduct. 1 specified general provision is Article 442 1 kc.
As pointed out by the Lublin Court of Appeal in its judgement of 21 January 2014, Act mention I ACa 663/13, the limitation period referred to in Article 442 1 kc shall apply to any claim for compensation for harm caused by an unlawful act, including property claims for non-material damage. The categories of claims which are subject to limitation under Art. 442 1 kc besides include property claims for compensation to Art. 445 k.c. and Art. 448 k.c. (as well as: Commentary to the civilian Code, G. Bieniek and Others, Fr. III, Obligations Tom I, Issue 1996, p. 346).
Three years of limitation of a claim for compensation for harm caused by an unlawful act
Pursuant to Article 442 1 § 1 kc, a claim for compensation for harm caused by an unlawful act shall be limited to the expiry of 3 years from the date on which the injured individual was found or, with due care, could have known of the harm and of the individual liable to remedy it. However, that period may not exceed 10 years from the date on which the event causing the harm occurred.
Termination of damages claims on a person
In the event of harm to a person, the statute of limitations may not end earlier than 3 years after the date on which the injured individual was informed of the harm and of the individual liable to remedy it (Article 442(1)(3)).
Termination of claims by a insignificant for damages against a person
The limitation of claims by a insignificant for compensation of harm to a individual may not end before the expiry of the 2 years following his or her age (Article 442 1 § 4 kc).
Understanding the concept of “injury” by the victim
The “injury” can be referred to erstwhile the victim is aware of the negative consequences of events indicating the existence of damage. In another words, erstwhile he is “aware of the harm suffered”.
Learning about the harm to the future by the victim
As regards future damage, however, this arises not at the same time, but only any time after the event causing the damage, as a essential consequence. As long as this is understood to be the case, the limitation period cannot begin at all (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 21 October 2011, Act IV CSK 46/11, nonpubl.).
The ultimate Court in its judgement of 24 April 2003, the mention of Act I CKN 300/2001, OSNC 2004, No. 7-8, item 116, indicated that Article 442 1 § 1 § 1 of 1 k.c. refers to the commencement of the limitation period with cumulative fulfilment of 2 conditions, i.e. the taking of a message by the injured individual about the harm and about the individual liable to remedy the damage. However, in order to learn about the injury, the harm must already occur. It is not adequate to be aware of the harm in the future, even erstwhile the harm is imminent, due to the fact that the harm constitutes harm to the property, including losses already suffered by the victim (Article 361 §2 k.c.) (yes: Gudowski Jacek (ed.), civilian Code. Comment. Book one. General Part Published: LexisNexis 2014)
Situation of uncovering out about the individual liable for repairing the harm later than the harm itself
The first conviction of Article 442 1 § 1 kc indicates that the date on which a claim for compensation for harm caused by an unlawful act is due shall mean that the individual liable to remedy the harm must be informed of 2 facts: first, the harm and, secondly, the individual liable to remedy it. Learning about both facts may happen in 1 day, but it is not a rule.
If, therefore, the injured individual becomes aware of the individual liable to repair the harm later than the harm itself, that later date sets the beginning of the limitation period. However, in any case, as is apparent from the second conviction of that provision, a limitation claim shall be made at the end of the ten-year period from the date on which the injurious event occurred (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 10 April 2002, act No IV CKN 949/2000, Bulletin of SN 2002, No 11, p. 11).
Termination of claims from an act not permitted erstwhile this constitutes a criminal offence or an offence
The provision of Article 442 1 § 2 kc provides for a longer period of limitation of claims from an unlawful act (delicate) if the harm is the consequence of a crime or offence.
In a situation where no criminal offence has been found to have been committed, the civilian court assesses whether a criminal offence has been committed by examining the existence of the subject and applicable factors of the criminal offence (yes: judgments of the ultimate Court of 18 November 1997, No.
As is widely accepted in literature and jurisprudence, the civilian court's making of its own arrangements concerning the existence of the subject substance and the nature of the crime is carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in criminal law. These include, inter alia, the unlawfulness of the action and the guilt of the offender (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 18 December 2008, Act III CSK 193/08). Findings in this respect, as elements of the facts on which the decision is based, may not be subject to cassation charges and be subject to review in the cassation proceedings (Article 398 3 § 1 kpc)
Limitation of claims for damages for unauthorised action and the regulation that the limitation period is ended on the last day of the calendar year
General regulation Article 118 kc states that jif the peculiar provision does not supply otherwise, the limitation period is six years and for interim benefits and business claims 3 years. However, the limitation period shall end on the last day of the calendar year, unless the limitation period is little than 2 years.
The question so arises as to whether Article 118, 2 Kc, as regards the limitation on the last day of the calendar year, besides applies to Article 442 1 kc (which is longer than 2 years). Author Mariusz Zelek in a paper published in the Transformation of Private Law 1/2022 ISSN 1641–1609 (published: Jagiellonian University) entitled "Period of limitation of claims for damages caused by an unlawful act‘ points out that: ‘It must be noted further that, although Article 442 1 k.c. constitutes a peculiar provision in relation to the general statute of limitations laid down in Articles 117 and n.c., it is not, however, that the limitation institution is to be regulated in Article 442 1 k.c. comprehensively or exhaustively in relation to the delict claims.
The second provision does not cover all matters relating to the limitation of claims as defined by the general provisions, and so excludes their application only in terms of the dimension of limitation periods, the time erstwhile the limitation period for the limitation period for claims to be made begins to run and the earliest time erstwhile the limitation period for certain claims expires. To the another extent, general provisions will apply to the limitation of the limitation of the delict claims. It cannot so be concluded that Article 442 1 k.c. provides for a derogation from the mechanics resulting from Article 118 (2) k.c., which would consist in the expiry of the limitation period for claims referred to therein being calculated in accordance with Article 112 k.c.It’s okay. ”
Probation of limitation inclaims for compensation for harm caused by an unlawful act (delicate) and the principles of social coexistence
Pursuant to Article 5 kc, it is not possible to make usage of its right of usage which would be contrary to the social and economical intent of that right or to the principles of social coexistence. specified action or omission of the rightholder shall not be regarded as exercise of the right and shall not enjoy protection.
There is no uncertainty that the application of Article 5 kc includes the lodging of a limitation charge. However, it should be borne in head that the statute of limitations rules are of a stabilising nature and warrant their certainty. Allowing claims to be made without any limitation in time would lead to a situation where the parties would stay in uncertainty for decades about their legal situation (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 12 February 1991, act No. III CRN 500/90).
According to the established position of doctrine and judicature, the standard Article 5 kc is exceptional and can only be applied after exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated. erstwhile assessing whether the plea of limitation of a claim constitutes an abuse of the law determining the importance of the circumstances of a peculiar accident involving the injured organization and of the individual liable for compensation.
The jurisprudence has developed uniform criteria for the assessment of whether the plea of limitation raised is not based on fraud within the meaning of Article 5 kc. It is essential to consider the nature of the claim and the reasons for the hold in bringing the action.
It is not excluded to take into account the allegation of abuse of the subject-matter rights if the hold is not excessive and justified by exceptional circumstances (yes: resolution of the ultimate Court of 10 March 1993, act No III CZP 8/93, and 11 October 1996, Act III CZP 76/96, lex 27450, Konin territory Court judgement of 3 November 2015, Case I C 201/15).
