TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

Zastaranje sankcionira upnikovo pasivnost pri izterjevanju terjatve in s tem varuje pravno varnost. Upnikova pasivnost pa je včasih opravičljiva, če zaradi okoliščin, za katere ni odgovoren, ni mogel pravočasno uveljavljati svojega zahtevka. Zato zakon določa, da nekatere okoliščine vplivajo na tek zastaralnih rokov tako, da povzročijo zadržanje zastaranja ali pretrganje zastaranja. Članek podrobno obravnava posamezne razloge, ki pripeljejo do pretrganja oz. zadržanja zastaranja, in predstavi, kako jih razlaga sodna praksa. Poleg določb Obligacijskega zakonika je obravnavana tudi ureditev pretrganja oz. zadržanja zastaranja po drugih predpisih: o menici in čeku, o dedovanju, o insolvenčnih postopkih, o prevoznih pogodbah, o arbitraži in mediaciji, na konkurenčnopravnem ter na davčnopravnem področju. Avtor razpravlja o smiselnosti popolne kogentnosti norm o zastaralnih rokih, ki izključuje možnost dogovora strank o zadržanju zastaranja, npr. med pogajanji. Posebej je obravnavano še vprašanje, kako razlogi pretrganja oz. zadržanja zastaranja učinkujejo v večosebnih razmerjih: med solidarnimi dolžniki, solidarnimi upniki, glavnim dolžnikom in porokom ter med družbeniki družbe z neomejeno odgovornostjo.

Limitation sanctions creditors’ passivity in the recovery of claims and thereby protects legal certainty. However, the creditors’ inaction is sometimes excusable if, due to circumstances out of their sphere, they have been unable to assert their claims. Therefore, the law provides that certain circumstances have an impact on the running of limitation periods so as to cause either a suspension or an interruption of the limitation period. The article elaborates specific reasons that either interrupt or suspend the limitation period under Slovenian law and outlines how they are interpreted in the case law. In addition to the provisions of the Code of Obligations, the arrangement of interruption and suspension of limitation periods in certain other regulations is discussed: in the legislation on bills and cheques law, on succession, on insolvency proceedings, on transport contracts, on arbitration and mediation, on competition law and on tax law. The author discusses the advisability of the current mandatory nature of the norms on limitation periods, which prevents the parties from agreeing to suspend the limitation period, e.g. during negotiations. Specifically discussed is the effect of the interruption or suspension of the limitation period in multiparty relationships: between solidary debtors, solidary creditors, in relations of suretyship as well as between the partners of unlimited liability companies.

Interruption and Suspension of Limitation Periods