Infocenter

The Supreme Court investigated the moment for calculation of the limitation period for reference with demand of disputed property vindication when it became clear who was its illegal possessor or when the owner got to know about the circumstances of disputed property retirement, but did not received a well-defined refusal for access to it.
In the 5th of May, 2006 Design Bureau Navigation Systems LLC. (Navis) specializing in the field of developing of new technologies purchased SPEA 4040 electric control system from Scan-group LLC. Three months later, i.e. in the 2nd of August, 2006 Navis, one of its founders – Independent noncommercial organization “Design Bureau “Korund-M” and founder of the latter – Federal Government Budgetary Institution of Science – Scientific Research Institute of System Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences (NIISI RAS) adopted a decision to put the system into operation. The parties agreed to use the equipment collectively, and the place of its location was selected in Academik Kurchatov premises in Moscow owned by the Federal Government Budgetary Institution - National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute.
In 2008 the owner of Navis system stopped using the equipment. However, the system was still in the territory of Kurchatov Institute. In letter dd. January 16, 2009 Navis asked NIISI RAS to have an access to the equipment in order to dismantle and move it out. However, Navis was asked to provide title documents for the system, but when they had been provided there was no response to the second request.
In 2012 Navis asked several times to return the equipment, but it was in vain. All its requests were ignored. At the end of 2012 the company got to know that the disputed equipment was under repair at Enterprise OSTEK CJSC. The equipment was received from other company – DB “Korund-M” JSC.
In July 2013 Navis filed a claim in Moscow City Arbitration Court against non-profit organization Design Bureau “Korund-M”, NIISI RAS, Kurchatov Institute and DB “Korund-M” JSC with request to return the disputed system (No А40-102200/2013). The reference was made to Article 301 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation [Reclamation of the Property from the Other Person’s Adverse Possession]. In the course of court proceedings it has been found out that the equipment was exactly at DB “Korund-M” JSC and Navis closed a claim against all other defendants.
However, MCAC arbitrator Angela Belova dismissed owner’s claims. In her opinion the company defaulted three years limitation period specified in Article 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation “The claimant could not have been unaware about the circumstances of disputed property retirement from his possession not later than January, 16, 2009 – from the moment of notification of access of his employees to the electric control system with a view of its dismantle and subsequent exportation, i.e. beyond the limits of three year period before the date of submission of claim (July, 29, 2013)”, - declared the judge.
Board of Appeals of the 9th Arbitration Appeal Court (Margarita Verstova, Natalja Lavretskayaя and Natalja Levchenko) has recalled this judgement. In its opinion the limitation period for reference with the claimant’s demand of system vindication has been maintained. The period shall be counted from the moment of refusal to provide access to the equipment. But there was no such refusal at all, decided the judges. [In 2009] in reply to Navis’s letter “NIISI RAS on the contrary pointed out the possibility of dismantling the equipment provided that the documents of title would be submitted” stated the appeal decision.
However, the Cassation Board the Arbitration Court of Moscow District (Victoria Petrova,Elena Zvereva and Vladimir Kobylyansky) denounced this resolution upholding the first instance judgement.
Then Navis filed a claim in the Supreme Court. The company indicated that the disputed letter dd. January 19, 2009 had been sent to it for access to the territory of Kurchatov Institute and could not testify that at that time it knew about infringement of its rights. It did not receive any refusal to dismantle and move out the equipment at all. Besides, Navis referred to the fact that till 2010 it didn’t know who was an illegal possessor of its property and this very date was DB “Korund-M” JSC establishment date according to the extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities
Supreme Court Justice Natalia Pavlova considered these arguments worthy looking at and presented the case to Chamber for Commercial Disputes for discussion. The meeting took place in Tuesday, September, 1.
First of all Navis’s representative Artem Vasilyevich mentioned that the courts of the first instance and cassation had ignored provisions of Article 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. According to the provisions for limitation periods apply a court must find not only the date when the person has learned about infringement of his rights, but also the date when the actual illegal possessor has been founded. “In fact, till the end 2012 we didn’t know where our property was, - said the lawyer. - We leaned it only in November 2012 after Design Bureau Korund JSC had handed the equipment for repair. We sent a letter immediatly and learned about the illegal possessor only from the answer to the letter”. Vasilyevich insisted that these circumstances had prevented Navis from petition the court and asked Chamber for Commercial Disputes to uphold the appeal decision.
- What do you think the fact of the property retirement from your possession? Since what time is the limitation period to be calculated? - the president judge asked Navis lawyer.
- since November 2012 - when we found out the illegal possessor.

More