Criminal proceedings against A & Ors (Gidzhinov)

Complexity ignored: Whether national legislation can impose time bar ‘irrespective of the occurrence of any reason for interruption or suspension of the limitation period or of any unforeseeable circumstances, and without account being taken of the degree of complexity of the case’ [40] under Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PIF Convention.

Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PIF Convention interpreted: Limitation rules within competence of Member States [44]. But ‘the existence of a systemic risk that such offences remain unpunished in criminal proceedings is incompatible with the requirements of Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PIF Convention’ [45]. Lin, C-107/23 PPU and Lin II, C-280/25.

1. 2.1

   Taricco & Ors, C-105/14 on criminal association applied: ‘formation of a criminal association with a view to committing offences relating to VAT constitutes a case of fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union’ [38]. VAT fraud of more than EUR 4 million ‘serious’ [35].

Mikroregion Porta Bohemica, C-539/24 on absolute time bars applied: Absolute period ‘helps to ensure legal certainty by preventing the limitation period for proceedings from being extended indefinitely by repeated acts interrupting or suspending that limitation period’ [46].

Whiteland Import Export, C-308/19 on sufficient duration applied: Period ‘must be of sufficient duration so as not to make it impossible or excessively difficult in practice to protect the financial interests of the European Union’ [47]. Trenitalia, C-510/23 [47] and Taricco & Ors, C-105/14 [48].

1. 4.1

   No systemic risk shown: ‘changes affecting the composition of panels in isolated cases are not sufficient to establish the existence of a systemic risk of impunity for those offences.’ [51]

Fifteen years reasonable: Period ‘in principle, allows the Bulgarian criminal authorities a reasonable amount of time to complete the criminal proceedings … including where that judgment requires the case to be examined at three levels of jurisdiction.’ [50]

Penalty above aimed offence: Whether national legislation can punish agreement to commit an offence with maximum penalty ‘both longer than that of the custodial sentence applicable to the offence at which that agreement is aimed and longer than five years’ [53] under Article 3(1)(b) of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA.

1. 7.1

   Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Removal – Medicinal cannabis), C-69/21 on context defined by referring court applied: ‘Court cannot call into question the referring court’s assessment that the offences of leading and participating in an organised crime group … fall within the scope of Article 2(b)’ [59]. NTH Haustechnik, C-484/24.

Article 3(1)(b) of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA on penalties applied: Agreement punishable ‘either by a custodial sentence the maximum duration of which is identical to that provided for the offence at which that agreement is aimed, or by a maximum custodial sentence of at least between two years and five years.’ [61] Ekro, 327/82 and Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab, Afdeling Schackenborgvænge, C-417/23.

1. 8.1

   Bouchereau, 30/77 on divergent language versions applied: Italian version reads ‘between two and five years’ [63]. Provision ‘must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part’ [65]. Höldermann, C-447/24.

Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA interpreted purposively: ‘in the light of the importance which the EU legislature attaches to the fight against organised crime, the difficulty of detecting such criminal organisations and the seriousness of the consequences arising from their activity’, longer maximum not precluded [73]. PT (Agreement concluded between the prosecutor and the perpetrator of an offence), C-432/22.

1. 9.1

   Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on proportionality of penalties applied: ‘severity of a penalty must correspond to the seriousness of the offence concerned’ [75]. Range ‘does not appear, as such, to exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary’ [77]. AK Dlhopolec & Ors, C-590/24.