The plaintiff missed the deadline to go to court. Restoring the statute of limitations for labor disputes

The employee missed the deadline to apply to the labor court (Tishin A.P.)

Article posted date: 07/21/2014

If an employee has applied to the court for resolution of an individual labor dispute, or a former employee has applied to a dispute over illegal dismissal, it is necessary to check whether the deadline for applying to the court has been met. In order to ensure legal stability, shortened deadlines have been established for filing a lawsuit in labor disputes, and these deadlines are often violated by plaintiffs.
What are the deadlines for going to court to resolve individual labor disputes? How does the court assess the situation when the plaintiff applied within the prescribed period, but the statement of claim was returned to him and he subsequently missed the deadline? How does the court evaluate the availability of time to go to court before a valid reason arises? Is temporary disability always considered a valid reason for missing the deadline to go to court? What other reasons cited by the plaintiffs are not recognized as valid in judicial practice?

Time limits for applying to the labor court

In accordance with Art. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employee has the right to apply to the court for resolution of an individual labor dispute within three months from the day he learned or should have learned about a violation of his right, and in disputes about dismissal - within one month from the date he was given a copy of the order dismissal or from the date of issue of the work book.
The employer has the right to go to court in disputes about compensation by the employee for damage caused to the employer within one year from the date of its discovery.
If the deadlines specified above are missed for valid reasons, they can be restored by the court.
As established by Art. 14 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the period of time with which the Labor Code of the Russian Federation associates the emergence of labor rights and obligations begins with the calendar date that determines the beginning of the occurrence of these rights and obligations. The period of time with which the Labor Code of the Russian Federation associates the termination of labor rights and obligations begins the next day after the calendar date that determines the end of the labor relationship. Terms calculated in years, months, weeks expire on the corresponding date of the last year, month, week of the term. The period calculated in calendar weeks or days also includes non-working days. If the last day of the term falls on a non-working day, the end of the term is considered to be the next working day following it.
Provided by Art. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the three-month period for going to court to resolve an individual labor dispute is shorter than the general limitation period established by civil law. However, such a period, as the Constitutional Court has repeatedly noted in its decisions, being one of the necessary legal conditions for achieving optimal coordination of the interests of the parties to labor relations, cannot be considered unreasonable and disproportionate. The established shortened period for going to court and the rules for calculating it are aimed at quickly and effectively restoring the violated rights of workers, including the right to timely payment, and in terms of its duration this period is sufficient for going to court.
We note that according to paragraph 5 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 No. 2 “On the application by the courts of the Russian Federation of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as Resolution No. 2), the judge does not have the right to refuse to accept a statement of claim on the grounds of missing a deadline without good reason going to court or the deadline for appealing the decision of the labor dispute commission, since the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for such a possibility. The decision of the labor dispute commission to refuse to satisfy an employee’s claim due to missing the deadline for presenting it is not an obstacle to initiating a labor case in court.
Based on the content of paragraph 6 of Art. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, as well as paragraph 1 of Art. 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, according to which justice in civil cases is carried out on the basis of adversarial and equal rights of the parties, the issue of the plaintiff missing the deadline for filing a lawsuit can be resolved by the court, provided that this is stated by the defendant. That is, the defendant must file either a motion to dismiss the claim due to the plaintiff missing the deadline to go to court, or a statement about the plaintiff missing the specified deadline. Or he is obliged to indicate in the objections that the plaintiff missed the deadline. We recommend that such statements be made in writing with references to the law and materials of judicial practice.
When preparing a case for trial, it is necessary to keep in mind that in accordance with paragraph 6 of Art. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the defendant’s objection regarding the plaintiff’s missing the deadline for applying to the court for resolution of an individual labor dispute without good reason may be considered by a judge at a preliminary court hearing. Having recognized the reasons for missing a deadline as valid, the judge has the right to restore this deadline (Articles 390 and 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Having established that the deadline for filing a lawsuit has been missed without good reason, the judge makes a decision to reject the claim precisely on this basis without examining other factual circumstances in the case (paragraph 2, paragraph 6, article 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).
As valid reasons for missing the deadline for going to court, circumstances that prevented the employee from filing a lawsuit in a timely manner to resolve an individual labor dispute (for example, the plaintiff’s illness, being on a business trip, the impossibility of going to court due to force majeure, the need to provide care) may be considered. seriously ill family members).
According to the Decree of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 03/05/2009 N 295-О-О, the approximate list of circumstances given in paragraph 5 of Resolution No. 2 (they are named above) that can be regarded as preventing an employee from going to court in a timely manner is not exhaustive. When resolving a specific case, the court has the right to recognize as valid reasons for missing a deadline and other circumstances that are of significant importance for a particular employee.
Thus, in each specific case, the court assesses the validity of the reason for the employee missing the deadline for going to court to resolve an individual labor dispute, checking the entire set of circumstances of the case, including the nature of the reasons that did not allow the employee to go to court within the period established by law.

If the plaintiff applied within the deadline, but the statement of claim was returned due to the presence of comments...

Situations like this occur frequently. As a rule, the plaintiffs try to prove that they filed the statement of claim within the prescribed period, but for objective reasons did not receive a determination to return the statement of claim.
By virtue of paragraphs 1, 2 of Art. 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the judge, having established that the statement of claim was filed in court without complying with the requirements provided for in Art. Art. 131 and 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, issues a ruling to leave the application without progress, notifies the person who submitted the application about this, and gives him a reasonable period to correct the deficiencies. If the applicant fulfills the judge’s instructions listed in the ruling within the prescribed period, the application is considered submitted on the day of its initial submission to the court. Otherwise, the application is considered not submitted and is returned to the applicant with all documents attached to it.
Generalized conclusions about the legal significance of actions in such a situation were made in the Appeal Ruling of the Rostov Regional Court dated March 21, 2013 in case No. 33-3236.
Thus, on July 16, 2012, the plaintiff was fired. The statement of claim was filed with the court on December 7, 2012, that is, the deadline for going to court to resolve an individual labor dispute was missed. The plaintiff did not provide evidence to justify such a long missed deadline. He only referred to the fact that earlier (August 15, 2012) he had applied to the court with a similar demand, but by the judge’s ruling dated August 21, 2012, the statement of claim was left without movement, and by the ruling dated September 10, 2012, it was returned. By the appeal ruling of October 18, 2012, the ruling of the Leninsky District Court was left unchanged, and the applicant was explained that he was not deprived of the opportunity to appeal to the court again if the shortcomings specified in the court ruling were eliminated. Taking this into account, the plaintiff filed a new claim in court on December 7, 2012, that is, a month and a half after the appeal ruling was issued.
According to the court, the arguments cited by the plaintiff do not prove the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline, since filing a claim in court that was left without progress and subsequently returned does not entail a suspension of the deadline for filing a claim in court. Thus, the judges came to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline to apply to the court for protection of the violated right, and the claim was rejected.
In the appeal, the plaintiff asked to cancel the decision, indicating that he did not know about leaving his application without progress, and received a copy of the decision dated August 21, 2012 on the need to correct the shortcomings of the application by September 5, 2012 only on September 9, 2012. , when I found in my mailbox a notice about the need to obtain a ruling dated August 21, 2012, therefore, I was objectively deprived of the opportunity to correct the shortcomings indicated by the judge within the required time frame.
By the ruling of the judge of the Leninsky District Court of Rostov-on-Don dated September 10, 2012, the statement of claim was returned to him, and on September 26, 2012 he sent a private complaint against this ruling, which was appealed by the judicial panel for civil cases of the Rostov Regional Court dated On October 18, 2012, the request was left unsatisfied. At the same time, it was explained to him that he was not deprived of the opportunity to appeal to the court again if the shortcomings specified in the ruling dated August 21, 2012 were eliminated. He received the appeal ruling by mail on November 28, 2012, and on December 3, 2012 he submitted this statement of claim to the court.
The appellant considered that the court ignored the evidence presented by him confirming the reasons for the missed deadline, and therefore, in his opinion, the decision is illegal.
Meanwhile, evidence of the presence of reasons that really or with a high degree of probability could affect the plaintiff’s ability to go to court in compliance with the provisions of civil procedural and labor legislation, as well as the presence of such circumstances that would objectively prevent a person from performing procedural actions within the established time frame, the court not presented.
As the judges noted, the mere fact of challenging the ruling to return the statement of claim does not count as a valid reason for missing a deadline, since it did not prevent the plaintiff from filing these requirements within the period established by law, and even without taking into account the time the statement of claim was in the district and regional courts excluded from the calculation of the statutory deadline for filing a lawsuit with the above-mentioned demands, the deadline for filing a lawsuit to resolve an individual labor dispute should be considered missed without good reason.
The expiration of the statute of limitations, that is, the period within which a court of general jurisdiction is obliged to provide protection to a person whose right has been violated, is an independent basis for refusing a claim. In this case, judicial protection of the citizen’s rights (regardless of whether there was actually a violation of his rights) is impossible, as a result of which the study of other circumstances of the case cannot influence the nature of the court decision.
Given such data, the panel of judges found the court’s conclusion to refuse to satisfy the claims to be justified.
It should also be noted that sending a ruling by mail to return the statement of claim is considered the court fulfilling its duties. All problems associated with obtaining this determination fall squarely on the plaintiff.
In the Appeal ruling dated September 20, 2012 in case No. 33-5310, the Saratov Regional Court, returning the statement of claim, indicated: since the plaintiff did not comply with the ruling on dismissal of the claim within the prescribed period, by virtue of clause 2 of Art. 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, it must be returned to the applicant. The ruling to abandon the claim was promptly sent to the plaintiff and indicates that the latter had sufficient time to eliminate the existing shortcomings of the claim.
In accordance with clause 22 of the Rules for the provision of postal services, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 15, 2005 N 221 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the sender must indicate the exact addresses of the sender and addressee on postal items. Compliance with these requirements of the Rules indicates that the court and the postal authority took the necessary measures to properly serve the applicant with a copy of the ruling. According to clause 36 of the Rules, the postal item is returned to the return address, in particular, if the addressee (his legal representative) refuses to receive it, as well as in the absence of the addressee at the specified address.
As follows from the case materials, the determination sent by mail arrived at the post office at the plaintiff’s place of residence and was subsequently returned to the court after the expiration of the storage period. The failure of the plaintiff to appear at the post office to receive registered mail received from the court does not indicate a valid reason preventing, within the time period established by the court, from eliminating the deficiencies specified in the ruling on leaving the claim without proceeding; therefore, the court had no obstacles to returning the claim due to failure to eliminate the deficiencies. Moreover, by virtue of clause 3 of Art. 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the return of the statement of claim does not prevent the plaintiff from filing a lawsuit again with the same defendant, on the same subject and on the same grounds, if the plaintiff eliminates the violations.
Thus, failure to receive a court ruling at the post office to return the statement of claim is not a valid reason for missing the deadline for the plaintiff to file a lawsuit. That is, he must either inquire in court about the progress of the consideration of his claim, or live at the registration address and receive postal notifications.

Availability of time before the onset of a valid reason

This situation was considered in the Ruling of the Perm Regional Court dated September 23, 2013 in case No. 33-8927.
The demands for reinstatement at work, payment for forced absence, and compensation for moral damage were denied because the plaintiff, without good reason, missed the statute of limitations for going to court, as stated by the defendant. In the appeal, the plaintiff asked to cancel the decision and make a new one, considering that he missed the deadline for going to court for a good reason.
Having checked the legality and validity of the decision based on the arguments of the complaint, the judicial panel concluded that the decision should be left unchanged. The decision of the trial court was made at the preliminary court hearing.
From the case materials it follows that, on the basis of an order dated 04/23/2013, the plaintiff was dismissed on 04/23/2013 for a single gross violation of labor duties by the employee (absenteeism committed from 04/18/2013 to 04/19/2013). An appeal to the court for reinstatement at work followed on May 24, 2013.
The court of first instance, at the request of the defendant, recognized that the plaintiff had missed the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit.
The plaintiff requested the reinstatement of the missed deadline, indicating as valid reasons that he was on a business trip from 04/29/2013 to 05/19/2013, the absence of a certificate of calculation of the average salary, and the insignificance of the missed deadline. He presented similar arguments in his appeal.
The panel of judges considered that the court of first instance gave a fair assessment of the plaintiff’s arguments about the reasons for missing the deadline and there were objectively no grounds for changing it.
As follows from the materials of the civil case, the plaintiff, within the period for filing a claim, had the necessary time to file a statement of claim, but was not reasonable and prudent in using it, despite the fact that this period was shortened. Thus, the nature of the reasons with which the plaintiff associates the missed deadline for filing a lawsuit does not have the property of irresistibility; accordingly, such reasons are not valid.
That is, in any other case, when before the occurrence of circumstances that can be considered by the court as valid reasons, the plaintiff had some time, even several days, as in the case considered, the court has the right not to restore the period for filing a lawsuit.

Temporary disability

The plaintiff's illness is indicated as a valid reason for missing the deadline to go to court. At the same time, judicial practice shows that not in all cases the state of temporary disability prevents going to court. In this regard, the cassation ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Saratov Regional Court dated December 3, 2009 is of interest. Thus, by order of the manager, the plaintiff was dismissed under clause 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract. The plaintiff was familiarized with this order on April 20, 2009, and he received the work book on April 23, 2009, which was not disputed by the parties and was established by the case materials. However, the plaintiff filed a statement of claim in court only on July 29, 2009.
The reason for the plaintiff missing the deadline to go to court (being on outpatient treatment in the central district hospital from March 25 to July 24, 2009) was rightly recognized by the court of first instance as disrespectful.
Thus, this fact did not prevent the plaintiff from personally familiarizing himself with the dismissal order on April 20, 2009 and receiving on April 23, 2009 a work book in the organization in which he previously worked. In addition, when assessing the validity of the reasons for the plaintiff missing the deadline to go to court, the court of first instance rightfully took into account the testimony of a witness - a general practitioner at the central district hospital, from which it follows that in May 2009 the plaintiff’s health condition improved, although the plaintiff was prescribed home regime, this did not prevent him from moving independently, in particular, periodically visiting a doctor.
As the court noted, the presence of this disease also did not prevent the plaintiff from concluding an agreement for the provision of legal assistance or issuing a power of attorney to someone to represent his interests in court.
Taking into account the above, the court of first instance rightfully came to the conclusion that the plaintiff’s reasons for missing the deadline for filing a lawsuit were not valid and rejected the claim on the grounds of missing this deadline.
Based on the above, the court rejected the cassation appeal.
Thus, the plaintiff’s illness is a valid reason for missing a deadline only if it was an insurmountable obstacle to going to court. Otherwise, the state of temporary disability does not have any legal consequences.

Other reasons for missing deadlines that are not recognized as valid in judicial practice

Plaintiffs may also point to other reasons that prevented them from filing a lawsuit in a timely manner. In particular, this is an appeal to other bodies and organizations to protect violated rights, legal illiteracy (ignorance of the need to go to court, the timing of such an appeal), which are not valid reasons for missing the procedural deadline for going to court to resolve an individual labor dispute (see. Appeal rulings of the Kostroma Regional Court dated October 23, 2013 in case No. 33-1794, Khabarovsk Regional Court dated September 25, 2013 in case No. 33-5832/2013, etc.). The presence of young children (Appeal ruling of the Volgograd Regional Court dated 10/09/2013 in case No. 33-11040/13), submission of a certificate of incapacity for work due to a child’s illness (Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic) are not recognized by the court as valid reasons for missing the deadline for applying to the court. Bashkortostan dated September 17, 2013 in case No. 33-11348/2013), as well as some other circumstances that are considered in each specific case and are recognized as such during the trial.
Summarize. An employee has the right to go to court for resolution of an individual labor dispute within three months from the day he learned or should have learned about a violation of his right, and in disputes about dismissal - within one month from the date he was given a copy of the dismissal order or day issuing a work book. If the deadline is not met, it is necessary to declare in court that the plaintiff missed the deadline to go to court and prove that the reason cited by the plaintiff does not have an insurmountable obstacle. Only in rare cases is the reason for missing this deadline recognized as valid. Definitely such a reason is being in the hospital with a serious illness. The situation when the plaintiff applied to the court within the prescribed period, but the application was left without progress due to the presence of shortcomings in it, and was subsequently returned because the plaintiff had not eliminated the indicated shortcomings, is not considered a valid reason; the case when the plaintiff had any - time before the onset of a valid reason, outpatient treatment of the plaintiff, legal illiteracy, appeal to other bodies and organizations, presence of young children, illness of a child, etc. In each specific case, the question of whether the reason is valid is examined by the court individually.

The restoration of the procedural period is carried out by the court upon the application of a party to the dispute, usually the plaintiff. There are two types of procedural deadlines: those established by procedural law and those appointed by the court. An example of deadlines established by law is the deadline for filing or. As an example of a deadline set by the court, the deadline for correcting deficiencies in a claim abandoned. In addition, there are procedural deadlines that cannot be restored necessity . These deadlines are established for the court, for example, the deadline for accepting an application for court proceedings or the deadline for preparing a reasoned decision.

Valid reasons for missing a deadline

If the period is established by law, it may be restored by the court if there are good reasons for this. What reasons are valid? This issue is left to the discretion of the court. One of the main valid reasons for missing a deadline is late receipt of a copy of the court order - due to illness, being on a business trip, force majeure (fire, natural disasters). We recommend that you look at the list of valid reasons related to the applicant’s identity in the article.

The deadline was missed due to the fault of the court

There are often situations when procedural deadlines are missed due to improper performance of its duties by the court.

The court may not notify interested parties about the time and place of the court hearing or even that a civil case is pending. The court may not send a copy of the decision to persons who live in another locality.

And, of course, the most common reason is the late preparation of court orders. Let us remind you that court rulings must be made immediately, at the court hearing, before their announcement. A reasoned court decision can be made within no more than 5 days from the date of issuance.

However, these deadlines are violated in most cases. What should I do?

If you do not immediately receive a document regarding this application, duplicate it the next day, and then a few more days later. The court will be required to respond to you in writing about the time frame for issuing the court order. In addition, you will have a document on hand confirming that on the day of application the necessary decisions have not yet been made.

In such cases, when preparing an application for restoration of the term, you can refer to paragraph 8 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 19, 2012 No. 13 “On the application by courts of the norms of civil procedural legislation governing proceedings in the court of appeal.” You can download this resolution.

The law does not establish a specific period for filing an application to the court to restore the term; it is believed that this period may depend on specific circumstances. It is advisable to indicate the circumstances when filing a statement of claim.

To restore the term, you will have to fill out an application for restoration of the term, which is submitted to the court that performs this action. Such an application is not subject to state duty. The application for restoration of the deadline must be accompanied by documents confirming the valid reasons for missing the deadline. It is better to submit an application for restoration of the deadline as a separate document, although it can also be stated in the initial application.

An application for restoration of the missed deadline is considered by the court in a court session with mandatory notification of all persons participating in the case. If they fail to appear, the court considers the application in their absence. Based on the results of consideration of the application, the court issues a ruling in which it either satisfies the application and restores the missed deadline, or refuses to restore the deadline.

When filing an application for restoration of the deadline, it is necessary to simultaneously complete those procedural actions by which the missed deadline is restored. The determination to restore or refuse to restore a missed procedural period is an independent object, and a private complaint may be filed against it within 15 days from the date of issuance.

To draw up an application for restoration, you can use the general sample provided in this publication, or select a sample application for a specific situation.

Sample application for restoration of deadline

IN _________________________
(name of court)
Applicant: __________________
(full name, address)

Application for restoration of the deadline

I am submitting an application to the court _________ (indicate which application was filed with the court).

When applying to court with the specified application, the law establishes shortened deadlines _________ (indicate by what law and what period is established for filing such an application in court).

Missing the deadline for filing an application is due to good reasons _________ (list good reasons for missing the deadline for going to court, indicate when these reasons arose, how long they lasted and when they were eliminated).

Evidence of valid reasons is _________ (indicate what evidence can support valid reasons for reinstating the deadline).

Based on the above, guided by the article of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

Ask:

Reinstate the deadline _________ (indicate the deadline for which action the applicant requests to restore).

List of documents attached to the application(copies according to the number of persons participating in the case):

Copy of application
Documents confirming the grounds for the application for restoration of the deadline

Date of application: “___”_________ ____ Signature _______

Is the employee’s incapacity for work a reason for reinstating the deadline for going to court?
Does the employee’s legal illiteracy indicate that missing the statute of limitations is valid?
From what moment does the period for going to court begin to be calculated if there is an agreement on compensation for damage between the parties?

In order to win a labor dispute with an employee, sometimes it is enough to simply refer to the latter’s missing the statute of limitations. This guarantees that the employee’s claim will be rejected, even in cases where there are obvious arguments proving his case. However, the employee may demand that this period be reinstated, citing good reasons for missing it. Let us note that recently the courts have become less lenient in these matters and require significant evidence of the impossibility of filing a statement of claim on time.

Reasons such as violation of the rules of jurisdiction and being on a business trip are increasingly rarely recognized as grounds for reinstating the statute of limitations. At the same time, judicial practice is not completely uniform, and courts sometimes grant workers’ requests, for example, when a deadline is missed due to the employee’s appeal to the prosecutor’s office or labor inspectorate. Knowledge of such trends will allow the employer to predict its risks in disputes with employees.

The limitation period for filing an application in court is calculated from the next day after the issuance of the work book.

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes shorter deadlines for filing a lawsuit in comparison with the general limitation period. So, according to Part. 1-2 tbsp. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the period for an employee to go to court for resolution of an individual labor dispute is 3 months from the day when he learned or should have learned about a violation of his rights. However, for disputes about dismissal and derivatives thereof, this period is 1 month from the date of delivery to the employee of a copy of the dismissal order or the issuance of a work book. Such a short period of time for going to court leads to the fact that in practice cases of missing them are quite common. Therefore, it is very important for both the employee and the employer to identify cases in which it is possible to restore missed deadlines for going to court.

In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, all listed deadlines for going to court in labor disputes can be restored by the court if they are missed for good reasons. In paragraph 5 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 No. 2, it is explained that circumstances that prevented the employee from filing a claim in court in a timely manner for the resolution of an individual labor dispute can be regarded as valid reasons for missing the deadline for filing a lawsuit. Such reasons may include the employee’s illness, being on a business trip, the inability to go to court due to force majeure, or the need to care for seriously ill family members. These may also be situations where the employee was not informed of the dismissal order in a timely manner or the issuance of a work book was delayed.

ARBITRAGE PRACTICE. The employee received a copy of the dismissal order and work record book on January 21, 2011. Based on this, the deadline for the plaintiff to go to court expired on February 22, 2011. The plaintiff filed a statement of claim only on 03/05/2011, that is, outside the prescribed period. However, the court found that in the application for dismissal at his own request, the plaintiff asked to be dismissed from 01/12/2011. The employer fired him on January 11, 2011, but the court noted that he had no legal grounds for this, since the application did not indicate a specific date of dismissal. The work record book was issued to the plaintiff with a delay, and immediately after this the employee went to court. At the same time, the court noted that the plaintiff’s initial appeal to the judicial authorities was made within the one-month period established by law. In this regard, the cassation court came to the conclusion that it was legal to restore the plaintiff’s time limit to go to court (decision of the Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic dated June 29, 2011 in case No. 33-2326/11).

However, the list of grounds for reinstating the missed deadline for filing a lawsuit established by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is not exhaustive. Good reasons can be understood as any circumstances that are likely to affect a person’s ability to file a claim in court in a timely manner. This position is held, in particular, by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, pointing out the need for a detailed consideration of each specific case of employee appeal (rulings dated 02/25/2010 No. 208-О-О, dated 03/23/2010 No. 352-0-0).

Violation of jurisdiction by an employee may be a valid reason for reinstating the deadline.

In each specific case, the court takes into account all the circumstances that could cause the deadline to be missed. At the same time, a lot depends on the personality of the employee himself.

ARBITRAGE PRACTICE. The employee filed a claim in court for reinstatement at work beyond the one-month period. The plaintiff indicated that she missed the deadline to go to court due to the lack of necessary funds. She could not use the help of a lawyer, the social legal service refused to help her, in addition, she is a sick person, disabled since childhood, poorly socially adapted, and has no people to whom she could turn for help. The defendant objected to the motion to restore the missed deadline. The court of first instance agreed with the employer's opinion. However, the cassation court overturned this decision, as it considered the refusal to satisfy the claim, based solely on the circumstances of her missing the deadline for going to court, without a full and comprehensive establishment and examination of her arguments about the existence of valid reasons for missing the deadline, as unfounded. In this regard, the case was sent for a new consideration (ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated February 24, 2011 No. 33-2652/11).

Often in judicial practice, an employee’s lack of legal awareness is recognized as a valid reason if the employee misses the deadline for going to court. As a rule, this is justified by the fact that the courts recognize the initial dependence of the employee on the employer and try to protect the rights and interests of the employees as much as possible. In particular, this is how disputes related to an employee filing an application in violation of jurisdiction or the requirements for the form and content of the statement of claim are usually resolved. As a result, when the employee applied again to the appropriate court, or with a statement in the prescribed form, the courts found the reasons for missing the deadline to apply to the court to be valid and reinstated it.

ARBITRAGE PRACTICE. The employee filed a claim against the employer to recover wages. This application was received by the court after 5 months after the dismissal and receipt of the work book. The plaintiff petitioned for restoration of the missed deadline. He motivated his position by the fact that he appealed to the district court on this dispute, but the statement of claim was left without movement by a court ruling dated 02/25/2011, a copy of the said ruling was received by the plaintiff via post only on 05/12/2011, and by a court ruling dated 04/11/2011 the statement of claim was returned due to lack of jurisdiction. The defendant insisted on missing the deadline, but the court did not agree with the defendant’s objections and recognized this reason as valid. He noted that the list of reasons in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 No. 2 is approximate and the court, assessing whether this or that reason is sufficient for making a decision to restore the missed deadline, checks and takes into account the entire set of circumstances of a particular case that did not allow the employee promptly applies to the court for resolution of the labor dispute (ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated October 10, 2011 No. 33-15239/2011).

However, it should be noted that in some cases the courts do not recognize such a valid reason as filing a claim outside the jurisdiction and its subsequent return to the employee.

ARBITRAGE PRACTICE. The employee filed a claim with the district court for reinstatement at work without complying with the rules of jurisdiction, therefore, by a court ruling, the statement of claim was returned to her. After this, the employee appealed to the appropriate district court, already missing the statute of limitations. The defendant filed a petition for the application of its consequences, which the court granted, since it did not consider the plaintiff’s appeal to the court without observing the rules of jurisdiction as a circumstance preventing compliance with the deadlines established by Art. 392 Labor Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the court took into account that after the return of the statement of claim to the plaintiff, the appeal in compliance with the rules of jurisdiction followed only after a long period of time, despite the fact that the employee had professional legal assistance (ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated August 30, 2011 No. 33-12905 ).

A similar decision contains the ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated August 30, 2011 No. 33-12905.

It is important to take into account that according to Art. Art. 28 and 29 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in a dispute arising from labor relations, an employee has the right to appeal to one of the courts of general jurisdiction: either at the location of the defendant, or at the place of performance of duties under the employment contract. Therefore, if an employee applies to the court at his place of residence and the statement of claim is returned due to the lack of jurisdiction of this court, this circumstance will not be considered a missed deadline because only the fact of the initial appeal to the courts within the established period is of key importance.

We also note that employees often refer to filing statements and complaints with various non-judicial bodies. Judicial practice in the overwhelming majority of cases does not recognize such an appeal as a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations, since such an appeal in itself is not an obstacle to timely filing a corresponding claim in court.

ARBITRAGE PRACTICE. The employer calculated the employee's wages in violation of the law without taking into account the minimum wage. The employee repeatedly approached him verbally with a demand for payment of lost wages, and did not receive a written refusal to pay; on the contrary, she was promised to sort it out. Without waiting for an answer, she contacted various authorities for more than six months and waited for a long time for answers from them, and only then went to court when the statute of limitations had already expired. The court refused to reinstate the worker, noting that the mere fact of contacting the prosecutor’s office, the State Labor Inspectorate, and the absence of a written refusal from the employer to pay lost wages did not prevent the plaintiff from timely seeking judicial protection (decision of the Perm Regional Court dated May 11, 2011 No. 33- 4448).

We emphasize that, despite the social significance of labor relations, an employee’s legal illiteracy does not create objective obstacles to filing a claim. Thus, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in its ruling dated June 17, 2010 No. 85-B10-2, directly stated that legal ignorance, due to which an employee first first applies to the prosecutor’s office and labor inspectorate, cannot serve as a basis for reinstating the missed deadline for going to court. .
Thus, recently, courts are less and less inclined to consider the employee’s legal ignorance, due to which he first turns to extrajudicial authorities, and only then, after missing the statute of limitations, to the court, as a valid reason for such an omission. Some courts attribute this to the fact that the plaintiff’s appeal for protection of his rights to various non-judicial bodies not only does not justify missing a deadline, but, on the contrary, indicates the absence of insurmountable obstacles to the timely filing of a claim in court (decision of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dated August 11, 2011 No. 33-11092/2011). Similar conclusions are contained in the rulings of the Moscow City Court dated May 4, 2011 No. 33-13211, dated July 22, 2011 No. 33-20218, etc.
But there is also an opposite point of view, according to which the courts find a valid reason for an employee to miss the deadline for going to court, such as a preliminary appeal to various non-judicial authorities: the prosecutor's office, trade union organizations or the labor inspectorate. True, such appeals are assessed by the court as a valid reason for missing a deadline only in conjunction with other circumstances.

ARBITRAGE PRACTICE. The workers appealed to the EU demanding compensation for unused vacation and compensation for moral damage. The employer announced that he had missed the three-month deadline to go to court. However, the court found these arguments unfounded. He indicated that the plaintiffs applied to the state labor inspectorate to conduct an investigation into the fact of non-payment of compensation for unused vacation upon termination of employment. Based on the results of the inspection, the company was ordered to pay compensation to workers. At the same time, the general director of the company, in a letter to the state labor inspector, pledged to repay the debt, but did not do so. In this regard, according to the court, the plaintiffs had reason to believe that their rights would be restored out of court and came to the conclusion that the employees, for good reason, did not have the opportunity to timely go to court due to the actions of the defendant. In addition, at the court hearing, the representative of the defendant did not provide evidence that upon dismissal, the plaintiffs were given pay slips, from which it was possible to establish for what period and in what amount compensation for unused vacation was not paid, which also deprived them of the opportunity to timely apply to court (ruling of the Lipetsk Regional Court dated October 27, 2010 in case No. 33-2538/2010).

Let us note that missing the deadline for going to court due to contacting the prosecutor's office or the labor inspectorate has often been criticized by many experts. In particular, the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Saratov Region Lukashova N.V. stated that Art. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation should be supplemented with a provision according to which the period for going to court is interrupted if the employee first applies to the labor inspectorate or prosecutor’s office to resolve a labor dispute (Council report
Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation 2009 “On the state of legislation in the Russian Federation. Monitoring the legal support of the main directions of domestic and foreign policy”). However, current practice follows the path that the employee has the right to choose the method of resolving the dispute and this does not suspend the statute of limitations.

The statute of limitations does not apply to claims for personal injury.

An employee’s request for qualified assistance from a lawyer, who subsequently improperly fulfilled his obligations, may be recognized by the court as a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations. In addition, it is important to remember that if the statement of claim contains, along with other circumstances, demands employees who do not have a statute of limitations, such claims themselves do not require restoration of the deadlines. For example, a claim for compensation for injury to health, to which the statute of limitations does not apply by virtue of Article 208 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

ARBITRAGE PRACTICE. Considering the employer’s complaint about the unlawful restoration of the employee’s deadline for filing a claim, the court found this argument in the cassation appeal to be unfounded. The court found that the plaintiff’s appeal to various non-judicial bodies, as well as seeking qualified assistance from a lawyer, who subsequently improperly fulfilled his obligations, did not prevent the employee from going to court after the end of treatment. Therefore, these circumstances should not have been regarded by the court as a valid reason for missing the specified deadline. But, taking into account the social significance of controversial legal relations, in particular ensuring the employee’s right to social protection in case of illness, and the existence of a claim for compensation for damage to health, the judicial panel came to the conclusion that the period for filing a lawsuit was legally restored and the restoration of the deadline for filing an application cannot be grounds for canceling the court decision (ruling of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dated February 14, 2012 in case No. 33-1804/2012).

In addition, the period for going to court in practice is restored to the employee in cases where he objectively could not find out about the violation of his rights. For example, when a person dismissed on the basis of clause 2 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employee did not know about the reinstatement of the position he previously occupied in the staff list (review of the judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia in civil cases for the 1st half of 2010).

Outpatient treatment is not an obstacle to going to court

It should be noted that on the issue of restoring the deadlines for filing a lawsuit in a labor court, some trends have emerged that are favorable for the employer. Today, existing judicial practice indicates a gradual narrowing towards greater objectivity in the interpretation of the instructions set out in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In particular, a valid reason for missing the deadline for filing a complaint, according to various courts, is not any illness, but only one that actually prevents the employee from filing a lawsuit.

ARBITRAGE PRACTICE. The employee filed a claim for reinstatement in service and asked to restore the missed statute of limitations, since the order for his dismissal was issued on 03/25/2011, and from 03/30/2011 to 04/14/2011 and from 05/03/2011 to 05/13/2011 he was on inpatient treatment. He stated that during periods of outpatient treatment, his psychophysical condition after being fired and undergoing operations did not allow him to file a claim in court. The defendant in his objection asked for the restoration of the deadline to be refused. The court concluded that given the nature of the plaintiff’s disease - varicose veins - and the fact that he was repeatedly treated as an outpatient, his arguments that he objectively did not have the opportunity to file a claim in court were untenable. The very fact of dismissal was indeed a stressful situation for the plaintiff, but filing a claim in court is an action aimed at protecting a violated right, which cannot be classified as a traumatic situation. Filing a statement of claim does not require the personal presence of the plaintiff in court; he has the right to send a statement of claim via postal service. Therefore, the reasons stated by the plaintiff for missing the deadline were not rightfully recognized by the district court as valid, objectively preventing the timely filing of the claim (ruling of the Ryazan Regional Court dated November 2, 2011 No. 33-2221).

Moreover, the courts take into account the nature and severity of the disease, while some courts recognize that going to court is prevented only by being in inpatient rather than outpatient treatment (cassation ruling of the Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic dated May 30, 2011 No. 33-1878/11 and the Ryazansky ruling regional court dated November 2, 2011 No. 33-2221). Similar conclusions are contained in the review of the cassation and supervisory practice of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court for the 3rd quarter of 2008 dated December 24, 2008

The employee must prove that the business trip prevented him from filing a lawsuit in a timely manner

It must be taken into account that the courts may refuse to restore the term to an employee if he abuses his right. For example, the court refused to reinstate the term for an employee who presented documents about undergoing treatment in a day hospital. However, during the same period, he personally participated in court hearings in other civil cases, in connection with which the court considered that the plaintiff’s health did not prevent him from exercising his right to judicial protection within the limits established by Art. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for a three-month period (determination of the St. Petersburg City Court dated September 19, 2011 No. 33-14182/20.11).

In a similar way, the courts interpret the basis for missing a deadline as being on a business trip. The employee must prove that the business trip actually prevented him from going to court.

ARBITRAGE PRACTICE. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit on November 19, 2010 to declare the dismissal order dated August 20, 2010 illegal. Due to the fact that the employer evaded issuing him a work book, the employee was able to receive it only on October 12, 2010, as a result of an appeal to the city prosecutor's office. The plaintiff asked to reinstate the missed deadline for filing a lawsuit due to the fact that from October 25, 2010 to November 16, 2010, he was in another city. The defendant considered the reasons for missing the deadline to be unjustified. The court refused to restore the time limit to the plaintiff, since it determined that the limitation period began on October 13, 2010, and ended on November 13, 2010, that is, the plaintiff had the opportunity from October 13 to October 25 to file an application with the court, since during this period he did not travel outside the city (decision of the Perm Regional Court dated 02/07/2011 No. 33-1044).
Court decisions note that the mere presence of an employee in another city does not prevent him from seeking judicial protection, especially if there are breaks in travel.
ARBITRAGE PRACTICE. The employee was fired on November 24, 2009, and filed a claim for the collection of arrears of wages only in the summer of 2010. She asked to restore the missed deadline on the grounds that she learned about the violation of her right only on May 21, 2010. At the same time, in the period from May 19, 2010 to October 15, 2010, she was on a business trip and could not file a claim in court, and she also had the intention of participating in the trial in person. The court found the indicated reasons for missing the deadline to be unjustifiable and granted the defendant’s request to apply its consequences. In this case, the court proceeded from the fact that while on a business trip, the plaintiff came to the city and applied to the prosecutor’s office, which means she had the opportunity to go to court, in particular, by sending an application by mail (ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated June 27, 2011 No. 33-9548).

The court's position that an employee being on a business trip is not a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations is also contained in the cassation ruling of the Vologda Regional Court dated March 25, 2011 No. 33-1279.

The limitation period begins to run from the moment the employer discovers a violation of the right to compensation for damages

It is traditionally more difficult for an employer to prove the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline to go to court. To restore the missed deadline, the employer must prove the presence of circumstances beyond his control that prevented the timely filing of the claim (review of the judicial practice of the Chelyabinsk Regional Court dated October 12, 2009 for the 3rd quarter of 2009). Russian courts refuse to recognize any other circumstances that prevent the employer from going to court within the period established by law as valid.

ARBITRAGE PRACTICE. The company discovered material damage on March 6, 2009. At the request of the employer, a criminal case was initiated regarding the misappropriation of funds. On 02/05/2010, the employee gave a sincere confession to the employer, in which he fully admitted his guilt in embezzling funds in the amount of 90 thousand rubles, and promised to repay the debt. 02/02/2011. After the employee failed to pay the next payment, the employer filed a lawsuit to recover material damages. The employer considered the statute of limitations to be met, since on 02/05/2010 there was an acknowledgment of the debt, but in court the defendant asked to recognize it as missed. The court sided with the employee and indicated that the employer’s appeal to the investigative authorities did not prevent the plaintiff from filing a claim for compensation for material damage, since the fact of the existence of this damage was established on 05/06/2009 (decision of the Perm Regional Court dated 04/13/2011 No. 33-3589 ).

If an agreement is concluded with an employee on voluntary compensation for damages with installment payment, the employer has the right to go to court within a year from the moment the employee violates its provisions. But if the employer misses this deadline without good reason, he will not be able to restore it.

ARBITRAGE PRACTICE. The employer entered into a compensation agreement with the employee. The last payment from the employee was received on June 19, 2009. After not receiving the next payment from the employee, on 05/07/2010 the employer turned to the magistrate, who on 06/02/2010 refused to issue a court order. On September 3, 2010, the employer filed a complaint with the district court against the ruling of the magistrate, who refused to accept the employer’s application due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The employer tried to appeal this decision in the cassation instance, which considered that an appeal to the magistrate does not entail a break in the limitation period within the meaning of Article 203 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph 15 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of November 12, 2001 No. 15, and the plaintiff’s subsequent appeals to the court took place after the expiration of the one-year period, that is, after 06/19/2010 (ruling of the Perm Regional Court dated 02/28/2011 No. 33-1623).

At the same time, if the employer complies with the deadlines for going to court, he has every chance of receiving compensation for damages. And although judicial practice on the successful restoration by the employer of the missed limitation period established by Art. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, today is minimal, it is possible to track certain positive trends in favor of the company. The most positive moment for the employer, which can be seen in court decisions, is the recognition in practice of the fact that the one-year period for disputes about voluntary compensation by an employee for damage begins to be calculated not from the moment the employer discovers the damage, but precisely from the moment it discovers a violation of its right to compensation.

ARBITRAGE PRACTICE. The employee filed a counterclaim against the employer for the recovery of amounts previously paid by her under the agreement on compensation for damage to the employer. In the statement of claim, she indicated that the payments she made were paid under pressure from the employer. She also asked to apply the consequences of missing the statute of limitations. The plaintiff motivated her statement by the fact that the employer became aware of the shortage in December 2007, and the claim was brought against her in May 2009. The court of first instance upheld the employee's claim. The cassation court left the court's decision unchanged. The employer appealed to the supervisory authority, which established that the actual amount of damage to the employer became known only on 07/09/2008 as a result of an audit. After the audit, on July 30, 2008, the employee undertook in writing to pay off the damage by December 31, 2008. But in violation of her obligations, she did not make payments after September 2, 2008. Consequently, the employer had the right to go to court within a year from the moment of violation of his right to compensation for damage, that is, from 09/02/2008 to 09/02/2009. Thus, the claim brought by the employer on May 26, 2009 was filed in compliance with the established deadlines (determined by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of July 30, 2010 No. 48-B10-5).

In this case, if the employer had not entered into an agreement with the employee on compensation for damage, the limitation period would have been calculated from the moment the employer discovered the deficiency.

Have all the procedural deadlines for this already expired? Or another situation - the court made a decision, but the citizen was not even aware of the process. The result of this is the blocking of bank cards, accounts, seizure of property, confiscation of things, etc. Of course, the law provides for the extension of the right to file claims and complaints. But for this there must be valid reasons for reinstating the missed deadline. We’ll talk about them in more detail in this article.

Valid reasons for reinstating a missed deadline (Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation): unlawful actions of the court

Judicial practice in our country shows that deadlines are often missed due to the fault of the authorities administering justice. Of course, you can understand them and refer to excessive workload. However, personally for a citizen whose rights, in his opinion, have been violated, this will be an insignificant factor. His own situation is important to him. The rest don't interest him.

What are the most common violations committed by the courts, which are interpreted as valid reasons for reinstating a missed deadline? There are several of them:

The court did not inform, according to the law, about the time and place of the hearing of the case. As a result, one of the parties was unable to attend the meeting.

It is noteworthy that in reasoned decisions there is always a phrase, in the absence of the defendant, that he “was duly warned about the time and place of the court hearing.” However, in reality this often does not happen.

The court did not indicate at all that it had the case under consideration. This reason is close to the first in meaning.
The most common case is that the copy was made late. We'll talk about this in more detail below.

Late production of a copy of the court decision

Valid reasons for reinstating a missed deadline include late production of a copy of the court decision. Let us remind you that the court ruling must be made immediately after the trial. But, of course, without a reasoned decision it is impossible to make a quality complaint.

Many professional lawyers on forums state that it is not necessary to wait for a copy of the production. Like, you were present at the meeting. However, there are cases when the judge attaches some petitions and evidence to the case, but this is not reflected in the reasoned decision.

Often the courts resort to the following “trick”. Knowing that no more than five days are given to produce a copy of the reasoned decision, they inform the interested party that it has been sent by mail. It is difficult to prove or disprove this, since such letters are not recorded electronically.

What to do if the court delays in preparing a copy of a reasoned court decision?

There are several ways to protect yourself from illegal actions (or rather, inaction) to violate the deadlines for preparing a reasoned court decision:

Indicate in claims or petitions for demands that copies not be sent by mail. Then, in case of delay, you can file a private complaint with the panel of judges, attaching this statement as an argument. In this case, the standard phrase “the court produced and sent everything on time, but it got lost somewhere in the mail” will not stand up to criticism.
Immediately after the trial, write applications for a copy. This must be done several days in a row for 5 days. Believe me, the staff of the apparatus is the first to make copies for such citizens, since no one wants unnecessary hassle and litigation in our country.

However, violation of the court is not the only problem. There are other valid reasons for reinstating a missed deadline.

Serious illness

The disease is directly related to the personality of the participant in the process. In order for the court to grant a request to file procedural actions, this fact must be proven. You can submit certificates from medical institutions, copies of medical history, etc.

Helplessness

Deterioration in health, injuries, fractures - all of these, of course, are valid reasons for reinstating the missed deadline for appeal. However, there is such a thing as helplessness.

It can be understood as:

Mental or emotional instability that prevented timely filing. Such cases often occur with the loss of relatives and friends, due to the discovery of serious illnesses in a person, with financial bankruptcy, etc. We advise in such cases to seek help from a psychiatrist for examination. He can issue an appropriate certificate confirming this condition. There is no need to be afraid, this does not mean that a person has become crazy, and he should be sent for treatment if he turned to a psychiatrist for help. Cases of severe shock in such situations, on the contrary, are the norm for mentally healthy people.
Being under hypnosis, in a trance.
Use of narcotic medications as prescribed by the attending physician.

Family circumstances

Reasons related to family circumstances are also interpreted as valid reasons for reinstating the missed deadline for going to court. These may include:

Illness, death of loved ones.
Residence in another region while caring for relatives, moving with a minor child for his treatment.
Caring for the seriously ill, etc.

Extraordinary Advents and Conditions

Sometimes natural elements interfere with legal proceedings. For example, a hurricane blocked several populated areas with snow, leaving residents captive to the elements. Circumstances that may be interpreted by the court as valid reasons for reinstating the missed statute of limitations may include: floods, fires, earthquakes, as a result of which citizens could be evacuated to safe places, which did not allow filing a claim or complaint on time.

Business trip or work in another region

A long business trip to another city may also cause missed procedural deadlines. Unlike other cases (except illness), this one is spelled out directly in the law without the veiled wording “other cases at the discretion of the court.”

All valid reasons for reinstating the missed deadline for filing a claim are specified in Art. 112 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, and business trips among them are clearly spelled out. Therefore, having evidence in hand (copies of orders, etc.), you can be calm in restoring the deadlines.

A change of place of residence with a new registration, as well as relocation due to study, work, etc., are also interpreted by the courts as a significant reason for missing deadlines.

Illiteracy

By illiteracy, many of our citizens naively believe the lack of legal education, as well as ignorance of legal terms, norms, calculation periods, etc. This is not so. Illiteracy is rather the inability to write, read, count, etc. People who do not understand (literally) what is written fall under the category of “illiterates”, from a legal point of view.

This is true for some indigenous peoples of the north, small national peoples, etc. Many of their representatives from generation to generation live in their native places and do not know how to read ordinary newspapers, not to mention complex legal documents.

Valid reasons for reinstating a missed deadline for an organization

As they say, everyone is equal before the law, but some are more equal. This applies to legal entities. There are no valid reasons for the organization to reinstate the missed deadline. Firms must have a permanent body, representatives, acting responsibilities, etc. But large or medium-sized companies are one thing, small individual entrepreneurs are another.

An individual entrepreneur, despite his legal status, is in fact the same citizen as an individual. He may get sick, have an accident, go on a business trip, etc. However, unlike ordinary citizens, he cannot restore the right to file a complaint or claim. Many, of course, consider this norm to be unfair, but nothing can be done about it.

In fact, the main difference between an individual entrepreneur and an individual is their work status. One works for himself, the other works for someone else. An individual entrepreneur may not have employees, and his work sometimes turns out to be more difficult and less paid than that of private employees in large companies. In this regard, the logic of equating individual entrepreneurs with large companies is unclear, from the point of view of procedural legislation on restoring the deadline for filing complaints.

Valid reasons for absence for heirs

We list the main valid reasons for restoring the missed inheritance period. There are two aspects here: whether the future heir knew about the inheritance within the required six months or not.

In the event that the future “lucky” person knew about his new condition, then a valid reason for restoration will be one of the reasons listed above in the article. However, judicial practice shows that courts rarely grant such requests. They refer to the fact that in six months it was possible to find time for the appropriate procedure, unless, of course, the future heir was in a coma all this time.

Another nature of cases of restoration of terms is that the heir did not know about the new status for six months. For example, the fact of the death of a relative was hidden from him, he was not informed, and he could not find out about it on his own. For example, lives in another region, country, etc.

In this case, the courts are more willing to restore the terms of inheritance, since it is objectively clear that the rights of such citizens will be violated in the event of refusal.

The lawyer, S.O. Koroleva, responded:

Hello, Alexander!
Part 1 of Art. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides that an employee has the right to go to court for resolution of an individual labor dispute within three months from the day when he learned or should have learned about a violation of his right, and in disputes about dismissal - within one month from the date of delivery to him copies of the dismissal order or from the date of issue of the work book.
If you miss the deadline established by Part 1 of Art. for good reasons. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, it can be restored by the court (Part 3 of Article 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).
At the same time, it should be noted that the provisions of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation do not contain a list of valid reasons for missing the deadline for going to court.
Paragraph 5 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 N 2 “On the application of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation by the courts of the Russian Federation” established that as valid reasons for missing the deadline for going to court circumstances may be considered that prevented the employee from filing a lawsuit in a timely manner to resolve an individual labor dispute (for example, the plaintiff’s illness, being on a business trip, the inability to go to court due to force majeure, the need to care for seriously ill family members).
Thus, a common feature of the reasons that are valid in case of missing the deadline for applying to the court is the inability to file an application with the court within the established period.
As noted by the Moscow City Court in the Appeal ruling dated November 20, 2013 in case No. 11-37429, the arguments of the appeal that the deadline for applying to the court was missed for a good reason, namely in connection with an application for protection of violated rights in violation of the rules of jurisdiction to the court cannot lead to the cancellation of the decision, since the filing of claims in violation of the rules of territorial jurisdiction does not interrupt the period for applying to the court to resolve an individual labor dispute.
However, as indicated by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in Ruling dated 02/09/2015 N 5-КГ14-153, as established by the court and as follows from the case materials, the plaintiff was familiarized with the order of dismissal on April 8, 2013. The claim for declaring this order illegal and reinstating at work, recognizing the entry in the work book as illegal, canceling the entry in the work book, collecting wages for the period of forced absence and compensation for moral damage, the plaintiff appealed to the Basmanny District Court of Moscow on May 2, 2013, that is, within the one-month period established by law. By the ruling of the judge of the Basmanny District Court of Moscow dated May 20, 2013, the statement of claim was returned to the plaintiff due to the lack of jurisdiction of the case by this district court. This determination was received by the plaintiff on June 5, 2013, and on the same day, with similar demands, he applied for jurisdiction to the Meshchansky District Court of Moscow.
Meanwhile, the time it takes for the plaintiff’s statement of claim to be in the Basmanny District Court of Moscow (from the moment the statement of claim is received by this court until the judge of this court makes a ruling on its return) when resolving the issue of whether the plaintiff complies with the deadline for applying to court to resolve an individual labor dispute is not excluded Meshchansky District Court of Moscow, as well as the court of appeal when calculating the statutory period for an employee to file a claim in court regarding a dismissal dispute. The courts did not take into account that this circumstance did not depend on the plaintiff, and therefore should not have been taken into account by the court when calculating the provisions established by Art. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Thus, the period during which the employee’s statement of claim is in court in violation of the rules of jurisdiction should be excluded from the period for the employee to apply to the court for protection of the violated right provided for in Art. 392 Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Consequently, an employee’s timely appeal to the court for protection of his violated rights in violation of the rules of jurisdiction is a valid reason for the employee to miss the deadlines provided for in Art. 392 Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
However, from your explanations it follows that you exercised your right to judicial protection, but went to court with incorrect claims; therefore, there can be no talk of reinstating the deadline for filing a correct claim.