CJEU Decision C-107/23 PPU: Insights on the Protection of the EU Financial Interests and the National princIple of "Lex Mitior"
In: European journal of law and public administration, Band 10, Heft 2, S. 24-33
ISSN: 2360-6754
The request came from a Romanian court in the context of an extraordinary appeal against a previous decision of that court, in which the appellants were sentenced to imprisonment and to pay damages for tax evasion and the setting up of a criminal organisation. The extraordinary appeal is a special procedure in Romania and allows a plaintiff to seek the annulment of definitive judgements in criminal matters when a sentence was pronounced despite the existence of grounds liable to end criminal proceedings. This situation led Romanian courts to adopt non-uniform case law regarding the interruption of limitation periods. To cease the uncertainty, the RCC stressed, in 2022, that the interruption of limitation periods is part of substantive criminal law (not procedural) and is thus covered by the principle of legality and of retroactive application of the lex mitior. The RCC drew the conclusion that, following the adoption of its decision in 2018 and the failure of the legislator to put the law in line with that decision, Romanian criminal law should be understood as not providing for any ground of interruption of the limitation periods. As a result, pending criminal proceedings could be ended if a definitive judgment has not been delivered within the uninterrupted limitation period. Following the 2022 decision, the Romanian legislator adopted a normative act enumerating the grounds for interruption of the limitation periods. However, Lin concerns the effects of the 2022 decision on situations where a person has been convinced by a definitive judgement, but an extraordinary appeal is intended.
