Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background: This study deals with interruption of statutory time limits for civil claims. It is based on the assumption that the reason for granting an interruption of the statutory time limit is the manifestation of an intention to claim one's right, instead of keeping silent about it. Methods: The analytical-comparative method is used to analyse and compare the provisions on the interruption of prescription. This study also includes a review of the literature related to the phenomenon being investigated. Therefore, The selection of data complies with the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The research design includes an analysis of different legislations and a review of the most significant previous studies which afford a useful guide for discerning between straightforward cases (like the filing of a lawsuit or the initiation of an executive procedure by the creditor) and more difficult ones (like the initiation of merely precautionary proceedings, or the lodging of a lawsuit that is turned down for reasons of lack of jurisdiction or of outright inadmissibility). Results: Interruption, unlike suspension, entails the start of a fresh statutory time limit. Moreover, pronouncement of lack of jurisdiction does not prevent the lawsuit from coming into being, since it is a rejection of the lawsuit on merely formal grounds, and it does not affect the basis of the claim. Conclusions: The selected jurisdictions agree that claims that are merely precautionary, but that do not involve realization of the substantive entitlement, do not necessarily entail an interruptive effect.
Jadalhaq et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: