Supreme Court Promulgated and Implemented the Judicial Interpretation on Application of Statute of Limitations for Trials of Civil Cases
 
The Supreme People’s Court has promulgated and implemented the Provisions on Several Issues concerning the Application of Statutory Limitation for the Trial of Civil Cases at September 1, 2008.  This is the first specific judicial interpretation on statute of limitations in China (the “Judicial Interpretation”). It contains 24 articles, regulating the commencement, interruption, suspension and effect of the statute of limitation, and elaborates the general provisions and supplemental provisions on the statute of limitation systematically and comprehensively.

Background

Statute of Limitation is an important and basic rule in the Civil and Commercial Law system, which has been widely applied in judicial practice and is closely related to the interests of both parties of the litigation. Our General Principles of Civil Law has some content about it, but it is simple and plain with only seven provisions. Later, some relevant judicial interpretations supplemented it to some extent, but it was still far from systematic and perfect. In recent years, as the issues related to statute of limitation arising from law practice in the PRC tend to be diversified and complicated, the Supreme People’s Court timely promulgated and implemented the judicial interpretation on statute to guide the application of the statute of limitation in the trial of civil cases, which is of great significance to the maintain of judicial unification and the protection of people’s civil rights.
 
Key Content

The scope of claim rights to which statute of limitation is applicable

This Judicial Interpretation confirms the object of the statute of limitation is the “claim for creditor’s right” but clarifies that there are four exceptions, including the claim for payment of the principal amount of a deposit and the interest thereon, the claim for the cashing of treasury bonds and financial bonds and the payment of corporate bonds issued to non-specific parties and the interest thereon, the claim for the making of capital contribution based on an investment relationship, considering the application of statute of limitation to those claims may impair the interest of the public. That is, under aforesaid claims, none of the parties in the lawsuits could use statute of limitation as a defense.

The court shall not autonomously apply the statute of limitation or interpreter it

Article 3 of this Judicial Interpretation clarifies that, in case any party to the lawsuit fails to raise  statute of limitation as a defense, the relevant court shall neither make a judgment by applying on its own the statute of limitation nor make any interpretation to the parties regarding the application of statute of limitation.

The duration to initiate the defense of statute of limitation

It is stipulated that any party to the lawsuit can raise a statute of limitation defense only during the “trial of first instance”; and if a party to the lawsuit fails to do so, the court shall not uphold any defense of statute of limitation in the trial of the second instance or petitions for retrial or requests for a retrial of a case, unless the raising party is able to prove with new evidence that the claim by the counterparty to the lawsuit has been asserted beyond the statutory limitation period. 

Commencement date of the statutory limitation period for installment debt claim

The commencement date of the statute of limitation for the claim of a debt which has been agreed to be performed in installments by the parties shall be the date on which the performance period for the final installment expires. What should be notice is that it is one bill of debt agreed to be performed in installments.
 
Two special events shall suspend the statute of limitation

Considering the relativity of the claim for creditor’s right, the existing civil law believes that an event may only have the effect to suspend the statute of limitation for one particular claim of creditor’s right. However, this judicial interpretation has a new break. It is stipulated that any subrogation action filed by a creditor shall be recognized as having the effect to suspend the statute of limitation for the claims of both the creditor and the debtor concerned. any transfer of a creditor’s right shall be recognized as having the effect to suspend the statute of limitation for claiming for such creditor’s right upon the delivery of relevant transfer notice to the debtor.

This Judicial Interpretation also sets forth some other important issues. For example, the Statute of limitation cannot be changed by agreement of parties, which is mandatory. Upon the claim for any part of the creditor’s right, the statute of limitation for the claim for the whole creditor’s right is suspended. Besides, the circumstance stipulated in the Judicial Interpretation under which the debtor may be deemed to “have agreed to perform the debt” is also an important guidance to the judicial practice.  On the other hand, this Judicial Interpretation does not made clear the commencement date of the statute of limitation for “the claim for restoring an invalid contract to its original state and returning such invalid contract”, which is still very disputable in the current judicial practice.
 
Huayi comments
 
The Statute of Limitation is purposed to urge the creditors to exercise their rights promptly and prohibit the abuse of right to maintain social order and the stability of transactions. It dose not deny the existence and exercise of their legitimate rights, but to strive a balance between the social and public interests and the interests of creditors. In the provisions of this Judicial Interpretation, we can see the legislators’ efforts in this respect. in order to avoid improper extension of the Statute of Limitation and unfair damage creditors’ legitimate rights, this Judicial Interpretation applied a limited interpretation on the scope of the Statute of Limitation, restricting the exercise of it and expanding the causes to suspend it so as to protect the legitimate interests of creditors.

参考译文：

最高院颁布施行《关于审理民事案件适用诉讼时效制度若干问题的规定》
最高人民法院《关于审理民事案件适用诉讼时效制度若干问题的规定》已于2008年9月1日颁行施行，是我国第一部有关诉讼时效制度的专门的司法解释。该司法解释共24条，分别从诉讼时效总则、起算、中断、中止、效力、附则等方面进行了较为系统、全面的规定。

诉讼时效制度是民商法中的一项基本制度，具有较强的实践性，在司法实务中适用广泛，与诉讼当事人利益息息相关。我国民法通则对诉讼时效制度进行了规定，但根据当时的情况仅规定了七条内容。之后颁布的相关司法解释虽进行了补充规定，但仍然不够系统、完善。近年来，由于社会生活的纷繁复杂，在司法实务中出现的诉讼时效问题呈现多样化、疑难化趋势，为加强对司法实务中出现的诉讼时效问题的指导，最高院出台的司法解释，对于统一司法尺度，公正高效审理案件，保护当事人的合法权益，维护社会交易秩序，保护社会公共利益具有重要意义。
 
主要内容

诉讼时效的适用权利范围。

该司法解释明确了诉讼时效的客体是“债权请求权”，同时又明确规定四种例外情况分别为：支付存款本金及利息请求权；兑付国债、金融债券以及向不特定对象发行的企业债券本息请求权；基于投资关系产生的缴付出资请求权。也就是说当事人不能就以上四种债权请求权，提出诉讼时效抗辩。这是因为前两种请求权的实现关系到社会公共利益的保护，如果适用诉讼时效的规定，则将使民众的切身利益受到损害。缴付出资请求权不适用诉讼时效的规定，否则，有违公司资本充足原则，且不利于对其他足额出资的股东及公司债权人的保护。

法院不能主动适用诉讼时效的规定进行裁判或对诉讼时效问题进行释明

时效抗辩属于实体抗辩，非经当事人援引法院不得主动适用，而当事人未援引时效抗辩的，该法第三条明确规定，人民法院亦不应对诉讼时效问题进行释明。

时效抗辩的援引期间

当事人提出时效抗辩的时间规定为“一审期间”，一审期间未提出，二审期间提出的，或者以此为由申请再审或者提出再审抗辩的，法院都将不予支持。例外情况是与最高院的民事诉讼证据规定相衔接，当事人基于新的证据能够证明对方当事人的请求权已过诉讼时效期间的情形除外。

分期履行的债权请求权时效的起算

分期履行的债务，当事人约定同一债务分期履行的，诉讼时效期间从最后一期履行期限届满之日起计算。应注意的是，本条适用的情形是对同一笔债务约定分期履行。这样的规定是符合诉讼时效制度的立法目的，且有利于减少诉累、实现诉讼效率。

诉讼时效特殊中断事由

传统民法基于债权请求权的相对性，时效中断的效力仅能针对一个特定的债权请求权。本司法解释则规定债权人提起代位权诉讼的，应当认定对债权人的债权和债务人的债权均发生诉讼时效中断的效力。此外，债权转让，自转让通知到达债务人时起，中断被转让的债权请求权的时效，新债权人对债务人的诉讼时效期间重新起算。
 
此外，本司法解释明确规定了诉讼时效不可以以协议方式变更，对请求权的部分中断及于全部（即债权人请求债务人履行部分债务的，全部债权的诉讼时效期间均发生中断）、视同“债务人同意履行债务”的情形等，均对司法实务有重要指导意义。但作为实务中争议较大的“无效合同的恢复原状与返还请求权”的起算问题，本司法解释未明确规定。

华一评论

诉讼时效制度具有督促权利人行使权利的立法目的，但并非否定权利的合法存在和行使，而是禁止权利的滥用，以维护社会交易秩序的稳定，进而保护社会公共利益。在此次司法解释的条文中，我们注重到立法者坚持在保护社会公共利益的基础上基于公平原则进行利益衡量，为避免不当扩大适用诉讼时效制度，损害权利人的合法权利，司法解释对诉讼时效的适用范围进行了限缩解释，对诉讼时效抗辩权的行使阶段进行了限定、对诉讼时效障碍事由的认定进行了合法的扩张解释，有利于保护债权人的合法利益。