CJEU ruling on criminal prescription: Romanian courts to continue applying High Court's stance

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued a new ruling concerning the interruption of the statute of limitations for criminal liability, a decision that legal experts say clarifies but does not fundamentally alter previous interpretations. Traian Briciu, president of the National Union of Bar Associations in Romania (UNBR), explained that the "Lin2" case follows the direction set by the earlier "Lin1" ruling from 2023. He emphasized that the CJEU is developing and clarifying specific points rather than changing established principles. "Lin2 explicitly shows that the authority of res judicata requires that final decisions rendered on the grounds of prescription are not affected, regardless of subsequent interpretive solutions," Briciu stated. This means that court decisions that have already definitively established that a case is time-barred cannot be reopened or altered, even if the European Court later offers new interpretations of the law. This aspect is seen as a "vested right" for individuals involved in such cases. However, Briciu noted that the situation for cases still pending before Romanian courts is less certain. It remains to be seen whether judges will continue to apply a 2022 decision by Romania's High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ). That decision established a national protection standard derived from the Romanian Constitution, specifically the principle of applying the more favorable criminal law. "From what I read in the statement, it is not at all clear that the High Court's thesis from 2022 is automatically invalidated by the Lin2 ruling," Briciu commented, indicating that the application of this constitutional principle in ongoing proceedings requires further clarification. The ICCJ's 2022 ruling was based on the constitutional principle of applying the more favorable criminal law, a point Briciu believes may still hold relevance for cases not yet finalized.

“

Lin2 explicitly shows that the authority of res judicata requires that final decisions rendered on the grounds of prescription are not affected, regardless of subsequent interpretive solutions.