CJEU ruling on prescription: Romania's courts to interpret European court's decision

A recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the "Lin II" case has prompted significant discussion and interpretation regarding its impact on Romania's Constitutional Court decisions on the statute of limitations for criminal offenses.

Legal experts clarify that the CJEU's decision does not automatically invalidate decisions made by Romania's Constitutional Court, nor does it compel Romanian courts to disregard them. Instead, the European court places the onus on national judges to scrutinize each case individually. They must determine whether the application of domestic rules leads to a concrete risk of impunity that conflicts with European Union law. If such a systemic risk is not demonstrated, the Constitutional Court's jurisprudence will continue to be applied within the national legal framework.

The CJEU's ruling specifically emphasizes its relevance in cases concerning the financial interests of the European Union and serious corruption offenses. For cases falling outside this scope, national courts may continue to apply domestic law and the Constitutional Court's precedents according to internal regulations. Therefore, the ruling does not alter Romanian legislation or the constitutional status of the Constitutional Court itself but rather establishes criteria for judges to consider when resolving individual cases.

In response, Romania's High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) issued a statement affirming its commitment to ensuring a "loyal, coherent, and predictable application of the law." The court stressed that its approach to prescription has aimed to harmonize European Union law with the European Convention on Human Rights, rather than choosing between them. The ICCJ reiterated its dedication to upholding the correct application of law and protecting fundamental rights.