The interpretation of paragraph 2, part 1, article 268 of the Civil Code, taking into account the principle of reasonableness, gives grounds for the conclusion that the statute of limitations does not apply to any demand of the depositor regarding the issuance (return) of the deposit by the bank.
In this case, the depositor appealed to the court with a claim against JSC CB “PrivatBank” for compensation for damage and losses caused by the employee during the performance of work duties.
He provided the bank with money in the amount of 430,000 hryvnias through the cash register, which accrued interest on the deposit. But after the expiration of the contract, the bank refused to return the deposit, referring to the fact that these funds were seized by a former employee of the bank.
The decision of the district court rejected the claim on the grounds that the damage to the plaintiff was caused by a bank employee when performing actions that did not belong to his job duties according to the job description and the powers granted by the employer.
The appellate court, on the contrary, satisfied the claim. But after two returns of the case for retrial, he agreed with the position of the court of first instance.
Resolving the issue of the application of the statute of limitations, as stated by the defendant, the CCS noted that in the civil legislation
the objective limits of the application of the statute of limitations are determined, which are established directly (Article 268 of the Civil Code); indirectly (taking into account the essence of the stated claim).
However, the statute of limitations does not apply to the depositor’s request to the bank (financial institution) for the release of the deposit (item 2, part 1, article 268 of the Civil Code).
The CCS emphasized that the specified guarantee of protection of the depositor’s rights does not depend on the method of protection of rights chosen by him, the grounds for making such a claim, termination of the bank deposit agreement by mutual agreement of the parties or in a court of law, unilateral withdrawal from the agreement in the cases provided for by the agreement and the law, or even invalidity of the contract (nullity of the contract or its recognition as invalid on the basis of a court decision).
In the end, the CCS changed the decision of the appellate court in the part of the satisfied claims for the return of the deposit, setting out the motivational part in a new version, and the decision of the district court and the decision of the appellate court in the part of the decision of the claims for recovery from the bank of inflationary losses, 3% annual, missed benefits and compensation for moral damage was canceled, referring the case to the court of first instance for a new consideration.