Bankruptcy does not affect the statute of limitations on vindication.

Subject of the case:

The company was declared bankrupt.

Bankruptcy trustee sued for expropriation of disputed debtor’s property from the company.

Positions of the courts:

The courts of three instances satisfied the claim.

Courts took into account absence of documents confirming the right of ownership of the Defendants to this property.

Having considered the application of the limitation period, the courts found that the bankruptcy trustee (plaintiff) only became aware of the violation of rights to return the disputed property on 15.10.2019, namely, from the date of receipt of title documents for the Debtor’s property.

CG appealed to court on 13.01.2020, the three-year limitation period has not expired.

The position of the Supreme Court:

When considering a claim of an owner for recovery of property from illegal possession of a person to whom the property was assigned on the basis of transaction, availability or absence of will of the owner to withdraw the property from his possession, compensability or uncompensated nature of transactions for alienation of disputable property, as well as compliance or non-compliance of behavior of a buyer of the property with bona fides are legally significant circumstances, subject to judicial evaluation.

The courts essentially proceeded from the facts they established that the disputed property belonged to the plaintiff by right of ownership and was currently in the possession of the defendant, considering this sufficient to substantiate their conclusions.

The circumstances to be examined related to the withdrawal of the property from the possession of the plaintiff, the grounds for the transfer of ownership of the property to other persons, the compensation for the acquisition of the property by the present owner of the thing necessary for the resolution of the dispute have not been established.

Being the owner of the property, the Company leased it out and actually lost subsequent possession, not receiving it at the end of the lease term, which occurred in 2015.
The Company, as the owner of the thing transferred on a contractual basis, did not use the means of protection established for such cases in accordance with the legislation governing these relations to recover its property from the counterparty.

According to the bankruptcy trustee, he learned of the existence of rights to the equipment of the Company, in relation to which bankruptcy proceedings were initiated in 2018, in October 2019 from a person who had no rights to the disputed property.

Defendants drew the courts’ attention to the fact that the period for returning the equipment to the plaintiff began to run from the date the lease was terminated and the date the tenant was required to return the property. Meanwhile, the courts concluded that the limitation period for the claimed claim begins from the moment when the bankruptcy trustee became aware of the violation of the right to return the disputed property.

The limitation period for claims of a legal entity begins from the date when the person who has the right to act independently or jointly with other persons on behalf of the legal entity learned or should have learned about the violation of the legal entity’s rights and who is the appropriate respondent. Change in the composition of the bodies of a legal entity does not affect the determination of the beginning of the period of limitation.

Definition of the beginning of the period of limitation from the date when the bankruptcy trustee became aware of the violation of the rights of the organization bankrupt violates the provisions of Art. 200 of the Civil Code, which links its course with the violation of the rights of the person, and this circumstance by virtue of law does not affect the other term of limitation in this case. In this case, the protection of the rights of creditors of the bankrupt organization, based on the basic principles of civil law, can not have a special priority over other participants in civil relations, and the statement on the application of limitation is an abuse of right.

Judicial acts were cancelled, the case was sent for a new review.

Source: Determination of 23.05.2022 in case A56-3762/2020 (308-ES21-21093)