Romania / Supreme Court of Justice and Cassation / Decision no. 144/RC/2023

National Anticorruption Agency, Bacau office and defendants A. and B.
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Court of Justice and Cassation
Type
Decision
Decision date
28/02/2023
  • Romania / Supreme Court of Justice and Cassation / Decision no. 144/RC/2023

    Key facts of the case:

    The case is one of many corruption cases for which the defendants were acquitted as a result of the statute of limitation for their respective crimes, following two Constitutional Court Decisions. In 2018, the Romanian Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional a provision related to the interruption of the limitation period of the criminal liability for all offences for which a statute of limitation applies. The respective provision was not amended following the decision and there was a second decision of the Constitutional Court on the same article in May 2022. This decision considered that as from the first decision, and until the conditions for interruption of the limitation period are set out by the legislature, there is no basis for the interruption of the limitation period for the criminal liability. Because of this the Supreme Court held that, according to the principle of the most favourable law in the period 2014-2022 no procedural acts of the prosecution may be considered to interrupt the limitation period for criminal liability. In this case the Anticorruption Agency uses an extraordinary appeal against an acquittal arguing that because of the Constitutional Court decisions there is a systemic risk of impunity and that national courts should not adhere to them, but to general principles of EU law. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal relying, among others, on Article 49 of the Charter on principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties, and showing that Member States can and should provide in their national law a qualification for existing legal institutions and can provide for a statute of limitation and cases in which the statute of limitation is interrupted, as law and these don’t come in violation of the Charter.

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    The Court was asked to rule on whether the risk of systematic impunity should override existing rights of the defendant.

    Outcome of the case:

    This judgement confirmed that existing Constitutional Court decisions should be applied and that defendants should benefit from the principles of legal certainty and clarity. The 2023 Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, issued the by EU Commission, shows that the effects of the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court decisions will continue in the future for all offences committed until May 2022, when the provisions on the statute of limitations was amended, while citing the Anticorruption Agency that shows that that 557 corruption cases could be closed, which caused an estimated damage of around EUR 1.2 billion.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    The High Court recalls that the Court of Justice of the European Union recognized in its jurisprudence the significance of the qualification in the internal law of the Member States of certain legal institutions and the effectiveness of the protection standards established by national law. The Court noted that the principle of legality of crimes and punishments provided by Art. 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has the same meaning and the same scope as the right guaranteed by the ECHR. The Court found, however, that the Member States have the freedom to provide in their own legal order that the regime of the statute of limitation for criminal liability belongs, like the rules regarding the definition of crimes and the establishment of punishments, to the material criminal law and is, as such, subject, just like the latter rules, the principle of the legality of crimes and punishments. Likewise, national authorities and courts are free to apply national standards of protection of fundamental rights, provided that this application does not compromise the level of protection provided by the Charter, as interpreted by the Court, nor the supremacy, unity and effectiveness of Union law.

    The consequence of the inclusion in national law of the rules on the statute of limitation for criminal liability in the field of application of the principle of legality of incrimination resides in the obligation of the judicial authorities to ensure respect for the fundamental rights of accused persons, as they result from the content of Art. 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Art. 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, especially in terms of the requirement that the applicable criminal law be predictable, precise and non-retroactive.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Înalta Curte aminteşte că Curtea de Justiţie a Uniunii Europene a recunoscut în jurisprudenţa sa semnificaţia calificării în dreptul intern al statelor membre a anumitor instituţii juridice şi a eficienţei standardelor de protecţie consacrate de dreptul naţional. Curtea a arătat că principiul legalităţii infracţiunilor şi pedepselor prevăzut de art. 49 din Carta drepturilor fundamentale a Uniunii Europene are acelaşi înţeles şi acelaşi domeniu de aplicare precum dreptul garantat prin CEDO. Curtea a arătat însă că statele membre au libertatea să prevadă în ordinea juridică proprie că regimul prescripţiei răspunderii penale ţine, asemenea normelor privind definirea infracţiunilor şi stabilirea pedepselor, de dreptul penal material şi este, ca atare, supus, la fel ca aceste din urmă norme, principiului legalităţii infracţiunilor şi pedepselor. De asemenea, autorităţile şi instanţele naţionale sunt libere să aplice standarde naţionale de protecţie a drepturilor fundamentale, cu condiţia ca această aplicare să nu compromită nivelul de protecţie prevăzut de cartă, astfel cum a fost interpretată de Curte, şi nici supremaţia, unitatea şi caracterul efectiv al dreptului Uniunii.

    Consecinţa includerii în dreptul naţional a normelor în materia prescripţiei răspunderii penale în domeniul de aplicare a principiului legalităţii incriminării rezidă în obligaţia autorităţilor judiciare de a asigura respectarea drepturilor fundamentale ale persoanelor acuzate, astfel cum rezultă acestea din conţinutul art. 7 din Convenţia europeană pentru apărarea drepturilor omului şi libertăţilor fundamentale şi art. 49 din Carta drepturilor fundamentale a Uniunii Europene, în special sub aspectul cerinţei ca legea penală aplicabilă să fie previzibilă, precisă şi neretroactivă.