The prescription of criminal liability probably remains, to this day, one of the biggest controversies at the level of national jurisprudence, the courts carrying out, over time, their own interpretation of the legal provisions, the issue being repeatedly submitted to the attention of the Constitutional Court of Romania (” CCR “) and the High Court of Cassation and Justice (” ÎCCJ “).
Following the ÎCCJ Decision no. 67/25.10.2022, the criminal prosecution bodies felt the need for additional clarifications, related to the compatibility of the decisions adopted by the CCR and ÎCCJ with European legislation, thus preliminary questions were addressed to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) , following , at least on a theoretical level, an interpretation on the application of the legal rules regarding the prescription of criminal liability, in the light of the jurisprudence of the constitutional court and the supreme court.
Although the Court of Justice of the European Union has not yet ruled in case C – 107/23 (formed as a result of some preliminary questions), on June 29, 2023, the Advocate General of the CJEU presented a series of conclusions confirming the CCR’s solutions and ÚCCJ.
Moreover, in the supported conclusions, the Advocate General of the CJEU makes a series of admirable remarks, expanding the scope of the referral and directing attention to a new aspect likely to generate even more controversies, namely the applicability of the statute of limitations on criminal liability in adjudicated cases as well definitively, regarding persons serving a sentence, regardless of whether or not the appellate court analyzed the prescription of criminal liability in the respective cases.
Regarding these aspects, the General Advocate expressed a categorical point of view, his claims being unequivocal: Read more
