Articolul 405. Pretenţiile imprescriptibile extinctiv
Sînt imprescriptibile extinctiv pretenţiile:
a) privind apărarea drepturilor personale nepatrimoniale dacă legea nu prevede altfel;
b) clienţilor faţă de bănci, asociaţii de economii şi împrumut şi alţi prestatori de servicii de plată privind eliberarea mijloacelor înscrise în contul acestora sau a remiterilor de bani efectuate în folosul lor;
c) cu privire la repararea prejudiciului patrimonial şi moral cauzat prin deces sau vătămare a sănătăţii. În acest caz, se repară prejudiciul despre care reclamantul a aflat în perioada anterioară intentării acţiunii, dar nu mai mare de 3 ani.
Zolotas vs Grecia (Nr. 2), cererea nr. 66610/09, hotărârea in 29 ianuarie 2013:
51. However, the Court considers that such a drastic measure as the time-barring of claims in respect of a bank account, on the ground that there have been no transactions on the account for a certain time, coupled with the case-law according to which the entering of interest in the records does not constitute an account transaction, is apt to place account holders, especially when they are ordinary citizens unversed in civil or banking law, at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the bank or even the State in cases where Article 3 of the legislative decree is applicable.
52. The Court notes that under Article 830 of the Civil Code, if a person who deposits a sum of money in a bank transfers to the latter the right to use the sum in question, the bank must keep it and, if it uses it for its own purposes, must return an equivalent sum to the depositor on termination of the agreement. Account holders are therefore entitled to believe, in good faith, that their deposits are safe, especially if they see that interest has been credited to their account. They can legitimately expect to be informed of any situation that might jeopardise the agreement they entered into with the bank or their financial interests, so that they can take the necessary steps in advance to comply with the law and protect their property rights. Such a relationship of trust is inherent in banking transactions and banking law.
53. The Court further reiterates that the principle of legal certainty is implicit in all the Articles of the Convention and constitutes one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law (see Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, § 56, 20 October 2011). In the Court’s view, the State has a positive obligation to protect citizens and to require that banks, in view of the potentially adverse consequences of limitation periods, should inform the holders of dormant accounts when the limitation period is due to expire and thus afford them the possibility of stopping the limitation period running, for instance by performing a transaction on the account. Not requiring any information of this kind to be provided is liable to upset the fair balance that must be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights.
54. In the Court’s view, the absence of such information placed an excessive and disproportionate burden on the applicant which cannot be justified either by the need to terminate legal relationships whose existence has become uncertain – as asserted by the Court of Appeal in the instant case – or in order to ensure the proper functioning of the banking system.
55. Accordingly, there has been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.