STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - OLD DOUBTS AND NEW QUESTIONS

Abstract

The paper analyses a specific aspect of the national statute of limitations in the light of violation of the right of access to court as a form of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The Convention case-law and the protection provided to Convention rights, including the mentioned form of the right to fair trial in civil matters, shows that the statute of limitations can be discussed as a limitation that is not justified, i.e. proportionate, legitimate and predictable, in connection with the regulation of the statute of limitations for claims for compensation for non-pecuniary loss due to health injuries. If the state expands its margin of appreciation by regulating the beginning and the length of the limitation period for these claims and thus imposes excessive burden on the individual (the victim), a causal link will be established. This represents a Convention causal link embodied by the state’s failure to act in accordance with its obligations under the Convention. The most important question that has been raised regarding the proportionality of limitation is regulation of the moment of learning about the damage and the victim as the beginning of the course of subjective time limit for the statute of limitation of the claim for compensation and in this connection the duration of the time limit calculated from that moment. For that reason, this question has been analysed in detail in search for an answer regarding the proportionality of national regulation and possible violation of the right of access to a court and its relation to the principle of legal certainty.