Article 49 - Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties
Article 52 - Scope and interpretation
Article 53 - Level of protection
Key facts of the case:
In this case the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal asked the High Court of Cassation and Justice to interpret national law on the limitation period for criminal liability.
The Constitutional Court decided in two cases on the interruption of the limitation period for criminal liability. In the first case of 2018 (Decision 297/2018) it annulled the national provisions based on which the limitation period for criminal liability can be interrupted. In the second decision of 2022 (Decision 358/2022) it clarified how the first decision had to be interpreted, namely that from 2018, from the time the first decision was published, Romanian legislation did not prescribe any possibility to interrupt the limitation period for criminal liability and hence for any crimes committed during that time the limitation period for criminal liability passed uninterrupted, up until 30 May 2022 when specific provisions were introduced in Romanian legislation.
This in practice led to a high number of cases, including several high-profile corruption cases, being closed and the defendant acquitted because of the intervention of the limitation period for criminal liability.
This situation was referred to both the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Court of Justice of the European Union which issued conflicting decisions.
On the one hand, Decision no. 67/2022 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice established that the provisions governing the interruption of the statute of limitations of criminal liability are rules of substantive criminal law, which are to be applied according to the principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law.
On the other hand, at a later date, the Court of Justice of the European Union held in Case C-107/23 that the courts of a Member State of the Union ‘are required to disapply a national standard of protection relating to the principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law (lex mitior) which makes it possible, including in the context of appeals brought against final judgments, to call into question the interruption of the limitation period for criminal liability in such cases by procedural acts which took place before such a finding of invalidity.’
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The High Court of Cassation and Justice is asked to clarify which interpretation should national courts follow, the one previously rendered by the High Court of Cassation and Justice or the one of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Outcome of the case:
The High Court stressed that the principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law is a constitutionally enshrined principle in Romania and it is also enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
This principle has been recognized by the European Court of Human Rights as being an integral part of Article 7 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention). It gives substance to the principle of legality of the crime and punishment, as regulated by Article 7 of the Convention and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) noted that a consensus is gradually emerging in Europe and internationally around the view that the application of a criminal law providing for a lighter penalty, even a law enacted after the commission of the crime, has become a fundamental principle of criminal law.
Moreover, the principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law should apply the same way irrespective of the nature of the crime, including for crimes against the financial interests of the European Union so as not to lead to discrimination and unpredictable applications in practice.
The Court found that the way in which the principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law is recognized in Romanian legislation offers a higher level of protection than the one offered by the Court of Justice of the European Union held in Case C-107/23.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 53 of the Charter, national courts must apply national standards, which provide a broader protection.
Hence the High Court found that national courts are to apply Decision no. 67/2022 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and to apply the principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law, even when the financial interests of the European Union might be affected.
321. It follows from the foregoing that, in so far as the legislature of a State signatory to the Convention has decided to apply a higher standard of protection to a fundamental right guaranteed by the Convention, the courts could not lower that standard by a case-law interpretation contrary to the legislative rules without infringing the rule of law and the Convention itself. The interpretation is in line with the provisions of Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, according to which none of the provisions of this Charter may be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized, in their respective fields of application, by European Union and international law and by international conventions to which the Union or all the Member States are party, in particular the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and by the constitutions of the Member States.
332. The principle of more favourable criminal law is also part of European Union criminal law. According to article 49 (1) of the Charter, no one shall be convicted of an act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, did not constitute an offense under national or international law. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time the offense was committed. If, after the commission of the offense, the law provides for a lighter penalty, the latter shall apply.
338. It follows from the Explanations on the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17) that, according to Article 52(3) of the Charter, the right guaranteed in Article 49 of the Charter has the same meaning and scope as the right guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
340. The Court took particular account of the provisions of Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, according to which, in so far as the rights enshrined in the Charter correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention, their meaning and scope are the same, without prejudice to the possibility that European Union law may confer more extensive protection.
4. the national standard of protection of fundamental rights, mitior lex (corollary of the non-retroactivity/ultra-activity of the most severe criminal law), including in matters of prescription of criminal liability and interruption of the limitation period, gives substance to the principle of the legality of the offense and punishment, as regulated by Art. 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Art. 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, providing the guarantees laid down in them and a higher level of protection, in the sense that, in accordance with Art. 53 of the Charter, national courts must apply national standards, which provide a broader protection;
321. Din cele de mai sus reiese faptul că, în măsura în care legiuitorul unui stat semnatar al Convenţiei a decis aplicarea unui standard de protecţie superior a unui drept fundamental, garantat de Convenţie, instanţele judecătoreşti nu ar putea diminua acest standard printr-o interpretare jurisprudenţială contrară normelor legislative, fără a încălca statul de drept şi însăşi Convenţia. Interpretarea este în acord cu prevederile art. 53 din Carta drepturilor fundamentale a Uniunii Europene, potrivit cărora niciuna dintre dispoziţiile prezentei carte nu poate fi interpretată ca restrângând sau aducând atingere drepturilor omului şi libertăţilor fundamentale recunoscute, în domeniile de aplicare corespunzătoare, de dreptul Uniunii Europene şi dreptul internaţional, precum şi de convenţiile internaţionale la care Uniunea sau toate statele membre sunt părţi şi, în special, Convenţia pentru apărarea drepturilor omului şi a libertăţilor fundamentale, precum şi prin constituţiile statelor membre.
332. Principiul aplicării legii penale mai favorabile face parte, de asemenea, şi din dreptul penal al Uniunii Europene. Potrivit art. 49 alin. (1) din cartă, nimeni nu poate fi condamnat pentru o acţiune sau omisiune care, în momentul săvârşirii, nu constituia infracţiune potrivit dreptului intern sau dreptului internaţional. De asemenea, nu se poate aplica o pedeapsă mai mare decât cea aplicabilă la momentul săvârşirii infracţiunii. În cazul în care, ulterior săvârşirii infracţiunii, legea prevede o pedeapsă mai uşoară, se aplică aceasta din urmă.
338. Din Explicaţiile cu privire la Carta drepturilor fundamentale (JO 2007, C 303, p. 17) reiese că, potrivit art. 52 alin. (3) din Cartă, dreptul garantat la art. 49 din aceasta are acelaşi înţeles şi acelaşi domeniu de aplicare ca şi dreptul garantat prin Convenţia europeană pentru apărarea drepturilor omului şi a libertăţilor fundamentale.
340. Curtea a ţinut seama în special de dispoziţiile art. 52 alin. (3) din Carta drepturilor fundamentale a Uniunii Europene, potrivit cărora, în măsura în care drepturile cuprinse în cartă corespund unor drepturi garantate prin Convenţie, înţelesul şi întinderea lor sunt aceleaşi, fără a aduce atingere posibilităţii ca dreptul Uniunii Europene să confere o protecţie mai largă.
4. standardul naţional de protecţie a drepturilor fundamentale, mitior lex (corolar al neretroactivităţii/ultraactivităţii legii penale mai severe), inclusiv în materia prescripţiei răspunderii penale şi a întreruperii acesteia, dă substanţă principiului legalităţii infracţiunii şi pedepsei, astfel cum este reglementat de art. 7 din Convenţia europeană a drepturilor omului şi art. 49 din Carta drepturilor fundamentale a Uniunii Europene, asigurând garanţiile prevăzute de acestea şi o protecţie superioară, sens în care, în acord cu dispoziţiile art. 53 din Cartă, instanţele naţionale trebuie să aplice standardele naţionale, care asigură o protecţie mai largă;