Specifics of Applying the Statute of Limitations in Protecting Public Interest through Anti-Corruption Lawsuits: Insights from Constitutional Court Decision No. 49

This article examines the key issues of application of the limitation period in cases involving anti-corruption lawsuits aimed at protecting public interests and initiated by prosecutors. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of judicial practice, identifying differences in the approach of courts to the interpretation of norms and legal regulation in this area. The circumstances under which it is possible to deviate from the standard limitation periods if it is necessary to protect the public good and ensure fairness are studied separately. The central object of the analysis is the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 49-P of October 31, 2024, which establishes the conditions and legal grounds for such exceptions, which emphasizes the importance of protecting the public interest in the fight against corruption and maintaining law and order. The research employs methods of comparative analysis, study of judicial practice, and a systematic approach. It is based on legal acts, court decisions, and doctrinal approaches to the statute of limitations. The study identifies key legal conflicts between public and private interests in applying limitation periods to anti-corruption claims. For the first time, a comprehensive analysis of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 49-P of October 31, 2024 is provided, which justifies the possibility of waiving limitation periods to protect state interests. The author concludes that legislative clarification of the criteria for exceptions to limitation periods is necessary, along with strengthened guarantees for bona fide participants in civil turnover. Measures are proposed to enhance legal certainty and balance public and private interests in anti-corruption cases.

limitation, protection of public interest, countering corruption, anti-corruption claims, prosecutor's office, Constitutional Court, illicit enrichment, asset recovery, public interests, judicial practice