In our legal practice, we have recently come across the issue of the running and establishment of limitation periods, which we solved only by using a reference to a violation of good morals. Since the application of the corrective of good morals is usually the last rescue from injustice in situations where other legal norms do not give a satisfactory answer (solution), I take the liberty of sketching the contours of the case in question and our thoughts in solving it in this post.
Subject A lent a financial sum of CZK 2 million to subject B. Subsequently, Subject B entered into a purchase agreement with Subject A for the apartment unit, when the purchase price was also CZK 2 million. Property rights were established. Subject A unilaterally set off his loan repayment claim against B's claim for payment of the purchase price, so the purchase price was never paid. Subsequently, subject B filed a lawsuit to determine the ownership right to the housing unit, because the purchase contract did not include the transfer of the share in the common parts of the real estate. The court decided on the absolute invalidity of the purchase contract and determined that entity B is the owner of the housing unit. As a result, the invalidity of the purchase contract also meant the invalidity of the set-off, as the claim for payment of the purchase price was non-existent.
4 years have passed from the time of maturity of the claim under the loan agreement to the time of filing the claim to determine the ownership right. The offset took place 1 year after the loan repayment claim was due. After filing a lawsuit to determine the ownership right, we sued for the return of the loan (already after the 3-year statute of limitations had expired).
Entity B raised a statute of limitations objection. The problem arose because, while Entity B lost its claim for payment of the purchase price together with the declaration of invalidity of the purchase contract, Entity A's claim at the same time she "came to life".
Our first consideration was whether an absolutely invalid legal action can cause the statute of limitations to be set. However, legal theory teaches that an invalid legal action cannot cause any legal consequences, i.e. not even the establishment of limitation periods. For this, see, for example, the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic dated 29 October 10, no. stamp 2008 Cdo 30/4635: "Invalidity of a legal act according to § 39 of the Civil disciple. is an absolute invalidity that operates from the law (ex lege) and from the beginning (ex tunc), so that subjective civil rights and civil obligations do not arise from such a legal act at all, while it is not decisive whether the parties to the contract knew about the reason for its invalidity."
Consideration was also given to the application of ustan. § 610 paragraph 2 of the Act No. 89/2012 Coll., Civil Code, according to which: "If the parties are obliged to return what they acquired under an invalid contract or from a canceled obligation, the court will consider the limitation objection only if the other party could also object to the limitation. This applies even if it was performed on the basis of an apparent legal action." The provision in question typically affects the situation of determining the invalidity of the purchase contract, when on the one hand there is a claim for the return of the purchase price (time-limiting claim) and on the other hand a property right (non-time-limiting). For this, see, for example, the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic dated 22/01/2003, file no. Stamp No. 33 Odo 773/2002 (to a similar provision § 107 paragraph 3 of Act No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code): "This provision is only aimed at cases of synalagmatic obligations, when on the one hand there is a right that expires, and on the other hand a right that cannot be time-barred, i.e. primarily at cases where there is a right to issue a monetary payment against the right of ownership. In the matter in question, two rights to monetary performance are opposed to each other, i.e. two time-barred rights." The provision in question is an expression of the intention of the legislator to give a statute of limitations instead of an objection only in those cases where it is also given to the other side, i.e. when the players are provided with equal chances. In our case, however, we excluded the application of the provision in question for the following reasons. This provision expressly provides for application to invalid contracts, canceled obligations or apparent legal actions. Unfortunately, invalid (unilateral) legal action is not listed. It is a question whether it would be possible to use an analogy. However, in relation to the statute of limitations, the Constitutional Court also takes a more rigid position regarding the application of norms: "At the same time, the Constitutional Court considers it necessary to emphasize that the statute of limitations is one of the fundamental and important institutions of substantive civil law, but also of the legal order as a whole, that its interpretation cannot be interfered with either extensively or restrictively by the application of other general institutions of the legal order, i.e. . . and by applying general principles." (see the resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic dated July 04, 07, file no. III. ÚS 2002/21). It should be noted that the finding is from an earlier date, when the composition of the Constitutional Court was different. He was the reporter judge JUDr. Vladimir Jurka.
All that was left was to look at the statute of limitations institute from a greater distance. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic made a comprehensive statement on the function of the statute of limitations in the legal order in the above-mentioned resolution. The statute of limitations is intended to stimulate the timely exercise of subjective rights, which at the same time ensures legal certainty for obligated subjects, all guided by the principle of Roman law vigilantibus iura scripta sunt. Specifically, the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic stated: "...the Civil Code also emphasizes the subjects' own contribution to the protection of their rights and requires that, above all, they themselves monitor their subjective rights and take such steps so that they are not threatened and damaged." In our case, both interested parties were aware of their rights and, until the filing of the lawsuit to determine the ownership right, were also in good faith in the validity of their actions. It is the aspect of good faith that plays an important role here. Subject A and subject B were in good faith in the extinguishment of claims by set-off as well as in the validity of the purchase contract (on the basis of which the cadastral office registered the ownership right). On the other hand, the good faith of subject B could not be given in the statute of limitations of his obligation to return the loan.
In this situation, it seems to us the right way to apply the correction of good morals, when the basic guardrails were formulated by the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic in its judgment of 22 August 08, file no. stamp 2002 Cdo 25/1839: "The application of a limitation objection would be contrary to good morals only in those exceptional cases where it would be an expression of abuse of this right at the expense of the participant who was not to blame for the futile expiration of the limitation period, and against whom, in such a situation, the loss of the right to performance as a result of the expiration of the limitation period would be disproportionate harsh punishment compared to the scope and nature of the right he exercised and the reasons for which he did not exercise his right in time. At the same time, these circumstances would have to be fulfilled in such an exceptional intensity that such a significant interference with the principle of legal certainty, such as the denial of the right to invoke the objection of limitation, is justified.
Unfortunately, we have not yet received a judicial answer to the question of limitation.
Source: epravo
