Trombini, GabrielleZucunelli, André Fernando2024-03-042024-03-042021https://repositorio.uricer.edu.br/handle/35974/568The same fact can have multiple incidences, that is, it can reflect in several areas of Law. It is not only civil offenses that can lead to the duty of reparation, but also criminal offenses, as long as the occurrence of damage is verified. In this case, there is, in a single fact, repercussions in two different legal branches. Focusing on the legal asset protected by the criminal law, it can be said that there are crimes that affect the community as a whole, and it is not feasible to personify or particularize a particular victim, as is the example of the crime of drug trafficking. On the other hand, there are crimes that directly affect the economic or moral patrimony of a specific victim. As an example, one can mention the crime of damage, established in art. 163 of the CP. Those who commit such a crime, in addition to being liable in the criminal sphere for their unlawful behavior, may be held responsible for repairing the damage caused to someone else's property. In these situations, the criminal offense will also have effects in the civil scope, notably, in the field of civil liability. In this context, the present work has as central scope to analyze the jurisprudential dissent about the initial mark for counting the statute of limitations in the ex delicto civil action, with the objective of showing which understanding provides the best legal application in the concrete case. For that, the work adopted the bibliographic research method, and as an inductive method of approach.pt-BRDireitoAção civilEx delictoTrabalho de Conclusão de Curso