Abstract

An analysis of Supreme Court judgements shows that abuse of the charge of prescription cases are mostly situations whereby the charge of prescription is recognized as contrary to the principles of community life (Art. 5 of the Civil Code) not because of an unethical conduct of the debtor but owing to special circumstances controllable by the creditor. Referring to Art. 5 of the Civil Code in those cases is out of compliance with actual ratio legis and the substance of that provision, and that is why the authoress proposes to consider de lege ferenda whether it would not be better to introduce a solution similar to that laid down in the second sentence of previous Art. 117 § 3 of the Civil Code. That provision stipulated that the court may disregard the prescription if the time limit did not exceed three years and the delay in asserting a claim was justified by exceptional circumstances and was not excessive.