Limitation Periods for Anti-Corruption Claims for the Seizure of Property from Private Ownership: Issues of Legal Qualification

The specifics of applying limitation periods to individual claims and the general consequences associated with this have not been and remain fully specified by Russian legislation. The same issues form the field of scientific discussions, current directions of development of legal policy. The range of issues discussed is wide, a separate problem is anti-corruption claims of the prosecutor. The focus is on the relationship between special rules on the forced termination of ownership as the basis for an anti-corruption claim and the extension of general limitation periods to it. The issue is not directly regulated by Russian legislation, and law enforcement practice demonstrates the difference in approaches to its solution. The very existence of an anti-corruption claim in the legal space implies the certainty of its procedural form and material content, clarity of the legal nature, legal opportunities and restrictions associated with this for participants in circulation and government bodies. The author does not consider an anti-corruption claim among the methods of civil rights protection and draws attention to its inseparability from the public-law competence of state authorities. When filing anti-corruption claims, the prosecutor’s office does not become a party to civil legal relations and, accordingly, is not bound by the limitation period. The limitation period for filing anti-corruption demands and claims is determined by public, not civil law.