Comment to article 183. Interruption of the limitation period of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan
A break in the limitation period means that the time elapsed before the break is not taken into account and loses its legal significance, and after the break, the limitation period begins anew for the entire period. For example, if the three-year limitation period expires on December 1, 1996, the interruption that occurred on November 30 of the same year will result in an extension of the limitation period for another three years, until November 30, 1999.
The filing of a claim as a circumstance entailing a break in the limitation period is of a general nature and applies to all legal relations, regardless of the composition of their participants. The significance of the statute of limitations break is that if, for example, a claim is filed 5 days before the expiration of the statute of limitations, then the time for preparing the case for a hearing is not included in the statute of limitations, and it is considered not missed, although in fact the dispute is considered after the expiration of the established statute of limitations.
In addition, the limitation period remains valid after a break in the period if the dispute is not resolved during the initial hearing in court and the case is not terminated by the proceedings (in particular, postponement of the case or suspension of the proceedings).
The limitation period is interrupted only on condition that the claim is filed in accordance with the procedure established by the CPC. So, if the plaintiff fails to comply with the procedure for preliminary out-of-court dispute resolution established for this category of cases, the court leaves the claim without consideration (art. 218 of the CPC). In this case, the limitation period is not interrupted (see art. 184 CC).
The limitation period is also interrupted as a result of the performance by the obligated person of actions indicating recognition of a debt or other obligation. This reason for the interruption of the limitation period is also universal, since the commented article does not contain any reservations, unlike the previously valid Civil Code. Consequently, the recognition of debt as the basis for the interruption of the limitation period also applies to legal relations between legal entities.
Constitution Law Code Standard Decree Order Decision Resolution Lawyer Almaty Lawyer Legal service Legal advice Civil Criminal Administrative cases Disputes Defense Arbitration Law Company Kazakhstan Law Firm Court Cases
The commentary was prepared within the framework of the scientific and practical research program of the Scientific Research Center of Private Law of the Kazakh State Law University.
Head of the working group on the preparation of the draft Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Professor Suleimenov M.K.
Deputy head Professor Basin Yu.G.
