{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-280-25","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-280-25)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-10","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:1cb91d","proof":"sha256:da66832d60f8fd6dc0bc13ee0d61b54fd2c5196e018ba8497e98d1b4a1f515cc","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-280-25","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"A. The first question","paragraphs":["para_24"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"B. The second question","paragraphs":["para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"V. Costs","paragraphs":["para_41","para_42"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"In Case C‑280/25 [Lin II], ( i )","paragraphs":["para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Judgment","paragraphs":["para_59","para_60","para_61"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"I.       Legal context","paragraphs":["para_62"],"kind":"legal_framework"},{"title":"A.       International law","paragraphs":["para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66"],"kind":"legal_framework"},{"title":"B.       European Union law","paragraphs":["para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205"],"kind":"legal_framework"},{"title":"III.  Procedure before the Court","paragraphs":["para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209"],"kind":"legal_framework"},{"title":"IV.     Consideration of the questions referred","paragraphs":["para_210"],"kind":"questions"},{"title":"A.       The first question","paragraphs":["para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"B.       The second question","paragraphs":["para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"V.       Costs","paragraphs":["para_404","para_405"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraphs":["para_406","para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414"],"kind":"operative"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"Provisional text","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"16 July 2026 ( * )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"Table of contents","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"I. Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"A. International law","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"B. European Union law","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"1. The PFI Convention","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"2. Decision 2008/40/JHA","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"3. Directive (EU) 2017/1371","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"4. Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"5. Decisions 2007/436/EC and 2014/335/EU, Euratom","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"C. Romanian law","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"1. The Romanian Constitution","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"2. The Criminal Code of 1968","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"3. The Criminal Code of 2009","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"4. Case-law of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court)","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"5. OUG nr. 71/2022","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"6. Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"7. Law No 241/2005","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"II. Procedure in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"III. Procedure before the Court","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"IV. Consideration of the questions referred","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"A. The first question","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"B. The second question","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"1. Admissibility","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"2. Substance","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"(a) The judgment in Lin","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"(1) The assessment, in the judgment in Lin, of the national standard of protection enshrined in the decisions of the Constitutional Court of 2018 and 2022","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"(2) The assessment, in the judgment in Lin, of the national standard of protection enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"(i) Classification of the national standard of protection enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ in the light of Article 49 of the Charter","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"(ii) Assessment of the systemic risk arising from the national standard of protection enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"(b) Application of the judgment in Lin in the light of the constitutional principle prohibiting the application of lex tertia in criminal law","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"(c) The application, in the judgment in Lin, of the condition relating to the systemic risk of impunity","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"(d) Application of the judgment in Lin to offences definitively time-barred under the national standard of protection enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"(1) Application of the judgment in Lin to a case in which a court decision has definitively found that the limitation period for criminal liability has expired","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"(2) Application of the judgment in Lin to criminal proceedings in respect of which expiry of the limitation period has not been found by a final judicial decision","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"(i) Date of the entry into force of the requirements stemming from Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"(ii) Clarity and foreseeability of the requirements stemming from Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"(e) Article 7 ECHR","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"V. Costs","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of the financial interests of the European Union – Article 325(1) TFEU – Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests – Article 2(1) – Obligation t …","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"In Case C‑280/25 [Lin II], ( i )","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania), made by decision of 13 March 2025, received at the Court on 10 April 2025, in the criminal proceedings against","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"M.G.D.,","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"with the participation of:","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Oradea,","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"Statul român – Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală prin Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, prin Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Satu Mare,","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"THE COURT (Grand Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"composed of K. Lenaerts, President, T. von Danwitz, Vice-President, C. Lycourgos (Rapporteur), I. Jarukaitis, M.L. Arastey Sahún, I. Ziemele, J. Passer and M. Condinanzi, Presidents of Chambers, N. Piçarra, A. Kumin, N. Jääskinen, D. Gratsias, B. Smulders, S. Gervasoni and N. Fenger, Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"Advocate General: M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona,","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"Registrar: R. Şereş, Administrator,","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 7 October 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"–        the Romanian Government, by M. Chicu, E. Gane, L. Ghiță and L. Liţu, acting as Agents, and by G. Rădășanu, in his capacity as expert,","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"–        the European Commission, by F. Blanc, I.V. Rogalski, C. Valero and P.J.O. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 18 December 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"gives the following","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"1         This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2 TEU, Article 4(2) and (3) TEU, Article 2(2) TFEU, Article 325(1) TFEU, and Article 49, Article 52(3) and Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), as well as Article …","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"2         The request has been made in connection with an appeal on a point of law brought before the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania) (‘the ICCJ’) by the Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Oradea (Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court o …","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"I.       Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"A.       International law","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"3         Article 7 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘ECHR’), provides:","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"‘1.      No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"2.      This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.’","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"B.       European Union law","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"1.       The PFI Convention","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"4         Article 1 of the PFI Convention, entitled ‘General provisions’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"‘1.      For the purposes of this Convention, fraud affecting the European Communities’ financial interests shall consist of:","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"(b)      in respect of revenue, any intentional act or omission relating to:","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"–        the use or presentation of false, incorrect or incomplete statements or documents, which has as its effect the illegal diminution of the resources of the general budget of the European Communities or budgets managed by, or on behalf of, the European Communities,","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"2.      Subject to Article 2(2), each Member State shall take the necessary and appropriate measures to transpose paragraph 1 into their national criminal law in such a way that the conduct referred to therein constitutes criminal offences.","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"3.      Subject to Article 2(2), each Member State shall also take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional preparation or supply of false, incorrect or incomplete statements or documents having the effect described in paragraph 1 constitutes a criminal offence if it is not already punishable as a principal offence or as participation in, instigation of, or attempt to commit, fraud as defined in paragraph 1.","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"5         Article 2 of that convention, entitled ‘Penalties’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"‘1.      Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the conduct referred to in Article 1, and participating in, instigating, or attempting the conduct referred to in Article 1(1), are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, including, at leas …","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"2.      However in cases of minor fraud involving a total amount of less than [EUR] 4 000 and not involving particularly serious circumstances under its laws, a Member State may provide for penalties of a different type from those laid down in paragraph 1.","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"6         Article 9 of the PFI Convention, entitled ‘Internal provisions’, states:","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"‘No provision in this Convention shall prevent Member States from adopting internal legal provisions which go beyond the obligations deriving from this Convention.’","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"2.       Decision 2008/40/JHA","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"7         Article 2(1) of Council Decision 2008/40/JHA of 6 December 2007 concerning the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, the Protocol of 27 September 1996, the Protocol of 29 November 1996 and the Second Protocol of 19 June 1997 (OJ 2008 L 9, p. 23), provides:","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"‘[The PFI Convention], the [Council Act of 27 September 1996 drawing up a Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (OJ 1996 C 313, p. 1)] and the [Council Act of 29 November 1996 drawing up, on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Un …","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"3.       Directive (EU) 2017/1371","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"8         Article 16 of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ 2017 L 198, p. 29), entitled ‘Replacement of [the PFI Convention]’, specifies:","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"‘[The PFI Convention], including the Protocols thereto of 27 September 1996 [and] of 29 November 1996, [as well as the Second Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, drawn up by the Council Act of 19 June 1997 on the basis of Article K.3 of the …","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"For the Member States bound by this Directive, references to [the PFI Convention] shall be construed as references to this Directive.’","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"4.       Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"9         Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 of 29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the collection of own resources accruing from value added tax (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 9), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘Regulation No 1553/89’), provides:","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"‘For a given calendar year, and without prejudice to Articles 5 and 6, the [value added tax (VAT)] resources base shall be calculated by dividing the total net VAT revenue collected by a Member State during that year by the rate at which VAT is levied during that same year.","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"If more than one VAT rate is applied in a Member State, the VAT resources base shall be calculated by dividing the total net VAT revenue collected by the weighted average rate of VAT. In this case the Member State shall calculate the weighted average rate, to four decimal places, by the common method defined in Article 4. This weighted average rate shall be expressed as a percentage.’","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"5.       Decisions 2007/436/EC and 2014/335/EU , Euratom","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"10       Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Decision 2007/436/EC of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (OJ 2007 L 163, p. 17) provided:","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"‘1.      Revenue from the following shall constitute own resources entered in the general budget of the European Union:","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"(b)      without prejudice to the second subparagraph of paragraph 4, the application of a uniform rate valid for all Member States to the harmonised VAT assessment bases determined according to [European] Community rules. The assessment base to be taken into account for this purpose shall not exceed 50% of [gross national income (GNI)] for each Member State, as defined in paragraph 7;","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"4.      The uniform rate referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall be fixed at 0,30%.","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"11       Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom of 26 May 2014 on the system of own resources of the European Union (OJ 2014 L 168, p. 105), applicable from 1 January 2014 in accordance with Article 11 thereof, provided:","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"‘1.      Revenue from the following shall constitute own resources entered in the budget of the Union:","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"(b)      without prejudice to the second subparagraph of paragraph 4, the application of a uniform rate valid for all Member States to the harmonised VAT assessment bases determined in accordance with Union rules. For each Member State the assessment base to be taken into account for this purpose shall not exceed 50% of [GNI], as defined in paragraph 7;","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"4.      The uniform rate referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall be fixed at 0,30%.","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"12       That decision was repealed by paragraph 1 of Article 11 of Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 of 14 December 2020 on the system of own resources of the European Union and repealing Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom (OJ 2020 L 424, p. 1), subject to paragraph 2 of that article.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"C.       Romanian law","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"1.       The Romanian Constitution","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"13       The principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law (‘the lex mitior principle’) is set out in Romanian law in Article 15(2) of the Constituția României (Romanian Constitution), pursuant to which ‘the law shall have legal effect only for the future, with the exception of the more lenient criminal or administrative law’.","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"14       Article 147(1) and (4) of the Romanian Constitution provides:","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"‘1.      The provisions of laws and ordinances currently in force, as well as those of regulations, that are found to be unconstitutional shall cease to have legal effect 45 days after the publication of the decision of the Curtea Constituțională [(Constitutional Court, Romania)] if, during that tim …","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"4.      The decisions of the Curtea Constituțională [(Constitutional Court)] shall be published in the Monitorul Oficial al României [(Official Gazette of Romania)]. As from the date of publication, those decisions shall be generally binding and shall have legal effect only for the future.’","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"2.       The Criminal Code of 196 8","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"15       Before being replaced by Legea nr. 286 privind Codul penal (Law No 286 establishing the Criminal Code) of 17 July 2009 ( Monitorul Oficial al României , Part I, No 510 of 24 July 2009), in force since 1 February 2014 (‘the Criminal Code of 2009’), the Criminal Code was the one which had ini …","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"16       During that period, Article 122(1) of the Criminal Code of 1968 provided:","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"‘The limitation periods for criminal liability for natural persons are as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"(a)      15 years, where the offence committed is punishable by law by life imprisonment or by a term of imprisonment of more than 15 years;","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"(b)      10 years, where the offence committed is punishable by law by a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years and not more than 15 years;","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"(c)      8 years, where the offence committed is punishable by law by a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years;","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"(d)      5 years, where the offence committed is punishable by law by a term of imprisonment of not less than 1 year and not more than 5 years;","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"(e)      3 years, where the offence committed is punishable by law by a term of imprisonment of less than 1 year or by a fine.’","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"17       During the period from 1 January 1969 to 1 February 2014, Article 123 of the Criminal Code of 1968 provided that the limitation period for criminal liability would be interrupted by the performance of any act which, by law, had to be notified to the suspect or defendant in the course of the criminal proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"3.       The Criminal Code of 2009","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"18       Article 5 of the Criminal Code of 2009 provides:","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"‘1.      If, between the commission of an offence and the final judgment in the case, one or more criminal laws are passed, the more lenient law shall be applied.","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"2.      The provisions of paragraph 1 shall also apply to legislative acts or provisions thereof that have been declared unconstitutional, as well as to emergency orders approved by Parliament with amendments or additions or rejected, if – during the period in which they were in force – they contained more lenient criminal provisions.’","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"19       Article 36(1) of that code provides:","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"‘The penalty for an ongoing offence shall be the penalty provided for by law for that offence; in the case of a term of imprisonment, the maximum length of that term may be increased by a maximum of 3 years. In the case of a fine, the maximum amount of that fine may be increased by a maximum of one third.’","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"20       Article 154(1) of the Criminal Code of 2009 provides:","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"‘The limitation periods for criminal liability are as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"(a)      15 years, where the offence committed is punishable by law by life imprisonment or by a term of imprisonment of more than 20 years;","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"(b)      10 years, where the offence committed is punishable by law by a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years;","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"(c)      8 years, where the offence committed is punishable by law by a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years;","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"(d)      5 years, where the offence committed is punishable by law by a term of imprisonment of not less than 1 year and not more than 5 years;","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"(e)      3 years, where the offence committed is punishable by law by a term of imprisonment of less than 1 year or by a fine.’","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"21       In its initial version, Article 155(1) of that code provided:","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"‘The limitation period for criminal liability shall be interrupted by the performance in the proceedings of any procedural act.’","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"4.       Case-law of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court)","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"22       By Decizia nr. 297 din 26 aprilie 2018 (Decision No 297 of 26 April 2018), published on 25 June 2018 in the Monitorul Oficial al Românei , the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) upheld a plea of unconstitutionality concerning Article 155(1) of the Criminal Code of 2009, inasmuch …","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"23       By Decizia nr. 358 din 26 mai 2022 (Decision No 358 of 26 May 2022), published on 9 June 2022 in the Monitorul Oficial al Românei , the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) upheld another plea of unconstitutionality concerning Article 155(1) of the Criminal Code of 2009, finding th …","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"5.       OUG nr. 71/2022","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"24       After Decision No 358 of 26 May 2022 was handed down by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court), but before it was published, the Romanian Government, acting on the basis of its delegated legislative powers, adopted Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 71 pentru modificarea artic …","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"25       Since 30 May 2022, that provision, as inserted by OUG nr. 71/2022, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"‘The limitation period for criminal liability shall be interrupted by the performance in the proceedings of any procedural act which, by law, must be notified to the suspect or defendant.’","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"6.       Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"26       On 25 October 2022, the ICCJ – Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept (Panel for Preliminary Ruling on Questions of Law) found, by Decizia nr. 67 (Decision No 67), published on 28 November 2022 (‘Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ’), that, in Romanian law, the rules relating to th …","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"27       Accordingly, that panel of the ICCJ held that a final conviction could, in principle, be the subject of an extraordinary appeal based on the effects of Decisions No 297 of 26 April 2018 and No 358 of 26 May 2022 of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) (‘the decisions of the Constitutional Court of 2018 and 2022’), as the more lenient criminal law.","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"7.       Law No 241/2005","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"28       The version of Article 9 of Legea nr. 241 pentru prevenirea și combaterea evaziunii fiscale (Law No 241 on preventing and combating tax evasion) of 15 July 2005 ( Monitorul Oficial al României , Part I, No 672 of 27 July 2005) which was in force on 23 January 2014 provided:","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"‘1.      Commission of the following acts in order to avoid fulfilling tax obligations shall constitute tax evasion and shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment of two to eight years and the loss of certain rights or the imposition of a fine:","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"(c)      the recording, in the accounts or in other legal documents, of expenditure which does not correspond to actual transactions or the recording of other fictitious transactions;","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"2.      If the acts referred to in paragraph 1 give rise to a loss of more than EUR 100 000, in the equivalent in national currency, the minimum and maximum penalties provided for by law shall be increased by five years.","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"3.      If the acts referred to in paragraph 1 give rise to a loss of more than EUR 500 000, in the equivalent in national currency, the minimum and maximum penalties provided for by law shall be increased by seven years.’","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"29       The version of Article 9 of that law currently in force provides:","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"‘1.      Commission of the following acts in order to avoid fulfilling tax obligations shall constitute tax evasion and shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment of 3 to 10 years and the loss of certain rights or the imposition of a fine:","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"(c)      the recording, in the accounts, in an electronic invoice or in other legal documents, of expenditure which does not correspond to actual transactions or the recording of other fictitious transactions;","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"2.      If the acts referred to in paragraph 1 give rise to a loss of more than EUR 500 000, in the equivalent in national currency, the minimum and maximum penalties provided for by law shall be increased by three years.","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"3.      If the acts referred to in paragraph 1 give rise to a loss of more than EUR 1 000 000, in the equivalent in national currency, the minimum and maximum penalties provided for by law shall be increased by five years.’","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"II.     Procedure in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"30       M.G.D. is being prosecuted for having, in his capacity as director of two commercial companies, deliberately made available to B.V. 12 tax invoices relating to fictitious purchases during the period from 3 May 2012 to 3 January 2014. The amount of the damage caused to the State budget is 268 536 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately EUR 59 304), and the amount of VAT evaded is RON 163 656 (approximately EUR 36 142).","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"31       By a decision of 21 March 2024, regarded as final in Romanian law, the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Court of Appeal, Oradea, Romania) held, relying on Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, that the limitation period for M.G.D.’s criminal liability had expired.","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"32       On 9 April 2024, the Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Oradea (Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Appeal, Oradea) (‘the Parchetul’) lodged an appeal on a point of law in respect of that decision before the ICCJ, which is the referring court.","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"33       The Parchetul notes that it follows from the judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 July 2023, Lin (C‑107/23 PPU, EU:C:2023:606) (‘the judgment in Lin ’), that Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention have to be interpreted as meaning that the Romanian courts are required to disapply the national standard of protection, enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, relating to the application of the lex mitior principle.","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"34       Accordingly, the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Court of Appeal, Oradea) was wrong to order that the criminal proceedings against M.G.D. be closed when, pursuant to the judgment in Lin , the limitation period could not be regarded as having expired. Indeed, procedural acts interrupting that period had been carried out both before 25 June 2018 and after 30 May 2022.","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"35       In the first place, the referring court notes that Article 325(1) TFEU obliges the Member States to counter fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union through effective deterrent measures. In addition, cases of serious fraud or other serious illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union must be punishable with effective dissuasive criminal penalties.","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"36       Furthermore, Articles 1 and 2 of the PFI Convention require the Member States, first, to establish as criminal offences instances of conduct constituting fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union and, second, to ensure that such conduct, including instances of VAT fraud, be punis …","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"37       However, the referring court questions whether Article 325(1) TFEU, as well as Article 1(1), Article 2(1) and Article 9 of the PFI Convention, are to be interpreted as meaning that, where there is no provision of national law fixing a minimum amount above which an instance of fraud affectin …","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"38       In the referring court’s view, EU law precludes such an interpretation. Indeed, where there is no provision of national law fixing a minimum amount above which an instance of fraud may be regarded as ‘serious’, it should be possible to take into account other circumstances which, in accordance with that law, may constitute aggravating circumstances, such as the ongoing nature of the offence.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"39       In the second place, the referring court emphasises, as a preliminary point, that, although it was handed down after the judgment in Lin , the final decision of the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Court of Appeal, Oradea) implemented the national standard of protection, enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, relating to the application of the lex mitior principle.","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"40       The referring court also notes that, by two decisions handed down after that decision of the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Court of Appeal, Oradea), other panels of the ICCJ have (i) considered that the information provided to the Court of Justice in connection with the case giving rise to the jud …","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"41       Thus, in Decizia nr. 37 din 17 iunie 2024 (Decision No 37 of 17 June 2024) (‘Decision No 37/2024 of the ICCJ’), the ICCJ’s Panel for Preliminary Ruling on Questions of Law held that the prohibition laid down, by the judgment in Lin , on the Romanian courts applying Decision No 67/2022 of th …","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"42       Furthermore, in Decizia nr. 16 din 16 septembrie 2024 (Decision No 16 of 16 September 2024) (‘Decision No 16/2024 of the ICCJ’), the ICCJ – Completul pentru soluționarea recursului în interesul legii (Panel for Appeal in the Interest of the Law) held that, by virtue of Decizia nr. 265 din 6 …","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"43       On the basis of that constitutional case-law, the ICCJ’s Panel for Appeal in the Interest of the Law began by establishing that procedural acts performed before 25 June 2018 interrupted the limitation period for criminal liability in cases relating to instances of fraud affecting the financ …","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"44       Next, it is apparent from Decision No 16/2024 of the ICCJ that procedural acts which, in accordance with the law, had to be notified to the suspect or the defendant after 30 May 2022, the date on which OUG nr. 71/2022 entered into force, do not interrupt the limitation period for criminal liability, as regards acts committed before that date, unless the criminal legislation in force from 30 May 2022 may be regarded, overall, as being the more lenient criminal law.","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"45       Lastly, Decision No 16/2024 of the ICCJ specifies that, given that, during the period from 25 June 2018 to 30 May 2022, the limitation periods for criminal liability ran without the possibility of interruption, the act of disapplying Decision No 265/2014 of the Curtea Constituțională (Const …","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"46       The referring court notes, however, that, by not recognising procedural acts performed before 25 June 2018 as having interrupting effect with regard to limitation unless the criminal law applicable during that period can be regarded as being lex mitior , Decision No 16/2024 of the ICCJ make …","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"47       The referring court notes that Decision No 37/2024 of the ICCJ and Decision No 16/2024 of the ICCJ are binding on all the Romanian courts.","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"48       In those circumstances, that court has questions as to whether the obligation, deriving from the judgment in Lin , for the Romanian courts to disapply the national standard of protection, enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, relating to the application of the lex mitior principle, is to be maintained.","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"49       More specifically, the referring court questions, first, whether it remains required to refuse to apply such a standard, including where, by virtue of Decision No 37/2024 of the ICCJ and Decision No 16/2024 of the ICCJ, such a refusal would be contrary to a constitutional principle forbiddi …","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"50       In that regard, that court considers that, in the context of criminal proceedings relating to instances of serious VAT fraud, the Romanian courts should be empowered, under EU law, to set aside the obligation deriving from that constitutional principle, pursuant to which they cannot recogni …","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"51       The referring court considers that, pursuant to the lex mitior principle, the national courts are free to determine whether the more lenient criminal law is the law in force until 25 June 2018 or, on the contrary, the law after that date. However, when they exercise that prerogative, those …","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"52       Furthermore, the application of the judgment in Lin to a case of concurrence between offences, only some of which affect the financial interests of the Union, raises only questions of application of national law and may be examined only specifically by the national courts. Such a hypothetical situation should not affect the primacy of EU law, which cannot be dependent on the interpretation given to national legislation in areas not covered by EU law.","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"53       In any event, the referring court considers that the Romanian legislation relating to the grounds for interruption of the limitation period for criminal liability, interpreted in conformity with EU law, cannot be regarded as constituting a standard of protection relating to the application of the lex mitior principle which is not equivalent or comparable to the standard enshrined in Article 7 ECHR.","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"54       Second, that court also questions whether it remains required to refuse to apply the national standard of protection, enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, relating to the application of the lex mitior principle in a situation where – as in the present case – the application of the …","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"55       According to the referring court, the answer to that question requires an assessment of the predictability and accessibility of the interpretation of EU law provided in the judgment in Lin .","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"56       That being so, that court recalls that, according to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the rules concerning limitation are, in principle, procedural laws, with the result that Article 7 ECHR does not prevent the immediate application, to ongoing proceedings, of laws which extend limitation periods where the relevant offences have never become subject to limitation.","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"57       In addition, Romanian legislation does not contain any express provisions on the basis of which it could be concluded that, for offences of the same nature as those at issue in the main proceedings, the limitation period for criminal liability had expired before the delivery of the judgment …","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"58       Third, the referring court has questions as to whether it has an obligation to disapply the national standard of protection, enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, relating to the application of the lex mitior principle even though the Romanian legislature has not established any cri …","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"59       In that regard, that court notes that, in paragraph 91 of the judgment in Lin , the Court of Justice held that Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ entailed such a systemic risk of impunity. Accordingly, the referring court considers that its obligation to give full effect to EU law, as interpreted in that judgment, cannot be made subject to a prior, separate assessment of whether there is a systemic risk of impunity in respect of instances of serious VAT fraud.","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"60       Lastly, that court emphasises that, although the rules relating to the limitation period for criminal liability have traditionally been regarded as forming part of substantive criminal law and, consequently, as falling within the scope of the principles of legality, non-retroactivity, and r …","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"61       In those circumstances, the ICCJ decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"‘(1)      In interpreting and applying Article 325 [TFEU], Article 1(1)(a) and Articles 2 and 9 of [the PFI Convention], [as well as] Article 49 of [the Charter], in the absence of a provision of domestic law establishing a minimum amount for a case of fraud affecting the financial interests of the …","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"(2)      If the answer to [Question 1] is in the negative, must the provisions of Article 2 and Article 4(2) and (3) TEU, Article 2(2) and Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of [the PFI Convention], as interpreted by the [Court of Justice in the judgment in Lin ], [as well as] Article 49(1), Artic …","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"(a)      the disapplication of that national standard is incompatible with the prohibition on applying lex tertia  – a principle of constitutional rank;","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"(b)      in application of that national case-law, it can be considered that the general limitation period for criminal liability had expired before [the judgment in Lin ] was delivered;","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"(c)      the disapplication, on the basis of EU law, of that national standard results in a level of protection of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter that is not equivalent or comparable to the protection guaranteed by Article 7 [ECHR];","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"(d)      national law does not lay down specific criteria to be applied by the court of the Member State to assess, at a preliminary stage, the systemic risk of impunity arising from the application of that national standard in cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union?’","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"III.  Procedure before the Court","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"62       By order of 17 June 2025, Lin II (C‑280/25, EU:C:2025:499), the President of the Court decided that the request for a preliminary ruling was to be determined pursuant to the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"63       On 6 August 2025, the Court of Justice sent the referring court a request for information regarding the legal context of the procedure in the main proceedings. On 2 September 2025, the referring court replied to that request.","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"64       On 12 September 2025, the Court of Justice sent the referring court a request for clarification. On 15 September 2025, the referring court replied to that request.","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"IV.     Consideration of the questions referred","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"A.       The first question","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"65       By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 325(1) TFEU, Article 1(1)(a) of the PFI Convention, and Articles 2 and 9 of the PFI Convention, read in conjunction with Article 49 of the Charter, are to be interpreted as meaning that, where no provision of natio …","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"66       The uncertainty of the referring court which has given rise to that question is derived from the fact that, according to the explanations provided by that court, the illegal activities at issue in the main proceedings have resulted in damage to the Romanian State budget in a total amount of RON 268 536 (approximately EUR 59 304), while the amount of VAT evaded is RON 163 656 (approximately EUR 36 142), as is indicated in paragraph 30 of the present judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"67       Regarding, in the first place, the PFI Convention, it should be emphasised, first, that, as the acts giving rise to the procedure in the main proceedings were committed during the years 2012 to 2014, that convention applied to them ratione temporis .","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"68       It can be seen from Article 2 of Decision 2008/40 that that convention entered into force in Romania on, at the latest, 1 January 2008. In addition, the PFI Convention ceased to have effect only as from 6 July 2019, the date on which it was replaced by Directive 2017/1371, as specified in Article 16 of that directive (the judgment in Lin , paragraph 64).","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"69       As regards, second, the material scope of the PFI Convention, it should be noted that, in the context of prejudice to the financial interests of the Union, Article 1 of that convention defines the concept of ‘fraud’ as being, inter alia, ‘in respect of revenue, any intentional act or omissi …","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"70       Subject to verification by the referring court, it therefore appears that the offence at issue in the main proceedings comes within the material scope of the PFI Convention as established in Article 1 thereof, inasmuch as it concerns, inter alia, the intentional preparation of false invoices the aim of which is the evasion of VAT.","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"71       Third, Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention requires the Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that instances of conduct constituting fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, including, …","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"72       It thus follows from Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, which have remained unaltered since that convention was adopted, that criminal penalties must be adopted in order effectively and dissuasively to combat, inter alia, cases of serious fraud affecting the proper receipt, by the budget of the Union, of the part of VAT revenue which is its due.","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"73       It is expressly stated in Article 2(1) of that convention that any instance of fraud in an amount exceeding EUR 50 000 necessarily constitutes an instance of ‘serious fraud’ for the purposes of that provision.","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"74       Accordingly, while it follows from the wording of Article 9 of the PFI Convention that instances of fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union in an amount not exceeding such a threshold may be classified as ‘serious’ by the laws of the Member States, any instance of fraud involving an amount exceeding such a threshold necessarily constitutes an instance of ‘serious fraud’ for the purposes of Article 2(1) of that convention.","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"75       In the second place, it should be borne in mind that Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention has direct effect (see, to that effect, the judgment in Lin , paragraph 96 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"76       It follows that, where it is unable to interpret national legislation in conformity with that provision of EU law, any national court which is called upon, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to apply that provision must give full effect to the requirements of EU law in the proceedings b …","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"77       Accordingly, where they are unable to interpret their national legislation in a manner which is consistent with Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, the courts of the Member States are required to disapply any provision of national law which would prevent an instance of fraud which involves an amount exceeding EUR 50 000 and which affects the financial interests of the Union from being classified as ‘serious’ for the purposes of that provision.","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"78       Thus, without prejudice to the possibility provided for in Article 9 of the PFI Convention and to the extent that national law does not clarify the concept of ‘serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union’, the courts of the Member State concerned are required to classify an instance of fraud which is in an amount exceeding EUR 50 000 and which affects the financial interests of the Union as ‘serious fraud’.","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"79       In the third place, it should be emphasised that such a threshold must be regarded as having been exceeded from the moment that the total amount of the damage caused by the instance of fraud or illegal activity is greater than EUR 50 000, regardless of whether the damage caused to the budget of the Union as a result of that offence reaches such an amount.","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"80       Such an interpretation follows, first, from the very wording of Article 2(1) and (2) of the PFI Convention.","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"81       Article 2(1) of that convention confines itself to establishing that any instance of fraud ‘involving a minimum amount to be set in each Member State’ must be considered to be serious fraud, it being understood that ‘this minimum amount may not be set at a sum exceeding [EUR] 50 000’; it do …","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"82       In addition, Article 2(2) of the PFI Convention permits the Member States, by way of derogation, not to impose criminal penalties in cases of minor fraud, which involve, inter alia, a ‘total amount’ of less than EUR 4 000. It is therefore apparent from the very wording of that provision tha …","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"83       In view of the connections between, on the one hand, the threshold of EUR 50 000, beyond which an instance of fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union must be classified as ‘serious’, and, on the other, the ceiling of EUR 4 000 below which such an instance of fraud may be classi …","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"84       Second, as has been emphasised in paragraph 69 of the present judgment, the PFI Convention is intended vigorously to combat fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union. Such an objective therefore argues in favour of an interpretation of Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention which ena …","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"85       However, in practice, establishing precisely, at a sufficiently early stage in a given set of criminal proceedings, the exact amount of the damage suffered by the Union as a result of an instance of fraudulent conduct which, as in the present case, has enabled its perpetrator to evade a num …","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"86       This is particularly the case for an instance of fraud which, as in the present case, concerns, inter alia, VAT, as the reduction of the Union’s own resources which could be caused by such an instance of fraud is difficult to quantify.","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"87       The Union’s own resources derived from the levying of VAT are not made up of simply a percentage of the revenue from that tax actually collected, but result from the application of a uniform rate to the harmonised VAT assessment bases of the Member States, themselves calculated in accordanc …","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"88       Thus, regarding, more specifically, the period during which the instances of VAT fraud took place in the present case, it can be seen from Article 2(1)(b) and (4) of Decisions 2007/436 and 2014/335 that own revenue entered in the budget of the Union resulted from, inter alia, the applicatio …","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"89       It follows that there is no easily quantifiable correlation between the amount of VAT evaded by an economic operator, on the one hand, and the loss of revenue suffered by the budget of the Union as a result of that instance of fraud, on the other.","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"90       Third, in so far as Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention requires that harsher penalties be imposed in the event of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union, it should be borne in mind that Article 49(1) of the Charter requires that offences and penalties be laid down in a …","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"91       If only instances of fraud which cause damage to the budget of the Union in an amount greater than EUR 50 000 were to be covered by the concept of ‘serious fraud’, the perpetrators of such offences would be, in a considerable number of cases, unable to determine with sufficient precision, on the date of committing those offences, whether they would be risking a stricter penalty pursuant to Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention.","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"92       As can be seen from paragraph 88 of the present judgment, the share of the revenue collected each year by a Member State as a result of VAT which goes to the budget of the Union varies depending on various criteria, some of which, such as GNI, are not foreseeable on the date of collection or evasion of such a tax.","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"93       Fourth, the interpretation provided in paragraph 79 of the present judgment is also supported by the case-law of the Court: when called upon to classify an instance of fraud as ‘serious’ for the purpose of applying Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, the Court has taken account of the entir …","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"94       In the present case, it is therefore appropriate to take into consideration the total amount of the damage, namely RON 268 536 (approximately EUR 59 304), and not only the amount of VAT evaded, for the purpose of classifying the instance of fraud which gave rise to that damage.","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"95       In the fourth and last place, it should be added that, as can be seen from Article 1(3) and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, an attempt to commit fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union must be treated in the same way as an instance of fraud affecting those interests (see, t …","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"96       It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to the first question is that Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, read in the light of Article 49 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that, where no provision of national legislation establishes an amount above whic …","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"97       As that interpretation of the PFI Convention is sufficient to provide the referring court with an answer to the first question which will be of use to it, there is no need to interpret, in addition, in examining that question, the concept of ‘fraud’ as referred to in Article 325(1) TFEU.","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"B.       The second question","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"1.       Admissibility","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"98       According to settled case-law, which is now reflected in Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure, the order for reference must set out the precise reasons why the national court is unsure as to the interpretation of EU law and considers it necessary to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling (judgment of 29 July 2024, LivaNova , C‑713/22, EU:C:2024:642, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"99       In the present case, in the first place, the referring court has clearly set out, in the order for reference, the reasons why it considers it necessary to obtain clarification from the Court of Justice as to the interpretation of Article 325(1) TFEU, Article 49(1) of the Charter, and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention.","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"100     In the second place, it should be observed that that court also refers to Article 2 TEU and Article 4(2) and (3) TEU, as well as Article 2(2) TFEU. Those provisions concern, respectively, the values on which the Union is founded, respect, on the part of the Union, for the national identities …","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"101     However, the referring court has not explained, even in summary form, the reasons why it is unsure as to the interpretation of those provisions and considers it necessary to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in that regard. In particular, that court has not sp …","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"102     It follows that the second question must be declared inadmissible inasmuch as it concerns the interpretation of Article 2 TEU and Article 4(2) and (3) TEU, as well as Article 2(2) TFEU.","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"103     Regarding, in the third place, Article 52(3) and Article 53 of the Charter, to which reference is also made in the second question, it should, first, be borne in mind that Article 52(3) of the Charter provides that the meaning and scope of rights enshrined in the Charter which correspond to rights guaranteed by the ECHR are to be the same as those laid down by the ECHR.","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"104     Accordingly, although the ECHR does not constitute, as long as the European Union has not acceded to it, a legal instrument which has been formally incorporated into EU law, with the result that the interpretation of EU law and the examination of the validity of acts of the European Union mu …","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"105     Second, Article 53 of the Charter confirms that, in a situation where the action of the Member States is not entirely determined by EU law, as is the case in the procedure in the main proceedings, national authorities and courts remain free to apply national standards of protection of fundam …","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"106     Third, as has been stated in paragraphs 39 to 45 of the present judgment, the concerns which are reflected in the second question put by the referring court have, to a large extent, been caused by the doubts expressed by other compositions of the ICCJ as regards the possibility of reconcilin …","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"107     It follows from the foregoing considerations that the second question is admissible inasmuch as it seeks an interpretation of Article 325(1) TFEU, Article 49(1), Article 52(3) and Article 53 of the Charter, and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention.","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"2.       Su bstance","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"108     By its second question, the referring court seeks, in essence, to obtain clarification as to the way in which Romanian courts are to apply the section of the operative part of the judgment in Lin whereby the Court has held that Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention must …","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"109     As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind, in that regard, that, according to settled case-law, Article 325(1) TFEU requires the Member States to counter fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union through effective deterrent measures. Altho …","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"(a)     The judgment in   Lin","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"110     In the case giving rise to the judgment in Lin , the Court, hearing a request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Court of Appeal, Brașov, Romania), was called upon to examine whether EU law precluded the application, by the Romanian courts, of both the decisions of the Constitutional Court of 2018 and 2022 and Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ.","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"111     In that regard, it is important to specify, as a preliminary point, that, as can be seen from paragraphs 33 and 37 of the judgment in Lin , the Court was not called upon, in the case giving rise to that judgment, to give a ruling regarding the obligations which Article 325(1) TFEU and Articl …","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"(1)     The assessment, in the judgment in Lin , of the national standard of protection enshrined in the decisions of the Constitutional Court of 2018 and 2022","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"112     It follows from the first section of point 1 of the operative part of the judgment in Lin that Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention must be interpreted as meaning that the Romanian courts are not required to disapply the decisions of the Constitutional Court of 2018 and 2022 when they are called upon to rule on criminal proceedings relating to cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union.","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"113     In order to reach such a conclusion, the Court found, in the first place, that those decisions gave rise to a systemic risk that offences of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union would remain unpunished under criminal law, which is incompatible with the requirements of …","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"114     In the second place, the Court nevertheless recalled, in paragraph 101 of the judgment in Lin , that no national court can be required, by virtue of Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, to disapply a national rule relating to the calculation of limitation periods which …","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"115     However, the Court found, in paragraphs 109 and 111 of the judgment in Lin , that the decisions of the Constitutional Court of 2018 and 2022 enshrine a national standard of protection relating to the application of the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law which goes beyond the guarantees provided in the first sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter.","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"116     The Court recalled, in paragraphs 104, 105 and 108 of the judgment in Lin , that that provision guarantees the accessibility, foreseeability and precision of provisions which define offences and the penalties associated therewith, and not that of provisions governing limitation periods for c …","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"117     In the third place, the Court considered that, notwithstanding the systemic risk of impunity entailed by the national standard of protection, enshrined in the decisions of the Constitutional Court of 2018 and 2022, relating to the application of the principle that offences and penalties must …","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"118     Thus, the Court noted, in paragraphs 113 to 118 of the judgment in Lin , that, inasmuch as it guaranteed the foreseeability and precision of criminal law, including the rules on limitation with regard to criminal offences, that national standard supplements the protection against arbitrarine …","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"(2)     The assessment, in the judgment in Lin , of the national standard of protection enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"119     It follows from the second section of point 1 of the operative part of the judgment in Lin that Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention must, by contrast, be interpreted as meaning that the Romanian courts are required to disapply Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ when they are called upon to hear and determine criminal proceedings relating to cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union.","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"(i)     Classification of the national standard of protection enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ in the light of Article 49 of the Charter","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"120     In the first place, the Court held, in paragraphs 106 to 109 of the judgment in Lin , that the ICCJ, in Decision No 67/2022, had enshrined a national standard of protection relating to the application of the lex mitior principle which went beyond the guarantees provided in the last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter.","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"121     Under that national standard of protection, a rule governing the grounds for interruption of the limitation period for criminal liability may have to be applied retroactively as lex mitior where it appears, following an overall assessment of successive legal regimes, that such a rule is more favourable to the defendant.","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"122     It is apparent from the last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter that the lex mitior principle, as understood in EU law, enables a defendant to benefit from a provision which entered into force after the offence was committed and which either alters the classification, under criminal la …","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"123     By contrast, unlike the national standard of protection enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, the lex mitior principle, as guaranteed in the last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter, is not applicable to a temporal succession of rules governing the method for calculating the limitation period for criminal liability.","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"124     In the second place, it should be noted that that interpretation of the last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter is consistent with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights relating to the guarantees provided in Article 7 ECHR which must be taken into account, as has been emphasised in paragraph 104 of the present judgment, as a minimum threshold of protection.","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"125     According to that case-law, although Article 7(1) ECHR implicitly guarantees the principle of retroactivity of the more lenient criminal law, the fact remains that that principle applies only to provisions which define offences and the penalties for those offences, with the European Court of …","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"126     It follows that, contrary to what was held by the ICCJ in Decision No 37/2024, the prohibition for Romanian courts, derived from the judgment in Lin , on applying Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ and, accordingly, on giving retroactive effect to the legal rules, derived from the decisions of …","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"127     In the third place, the interpretation of the last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter provided in paragraph 123 of the present judgment is also not called into question by the reasoning adopted by the ICCJ in Decision No 37/2024, according to which it follows from the judgment of the E …","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"128     It is true that it can be seen from paragraph 35 of that judgment that the European Court of Human Rights held that, under the principle of the supremacy of law, of which Article 7 ECHR constitutes an essential element, the national courts must apply a later law providing for a lighter penal …","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"129     However, first, such an obligation has been enshrined by the European Court of Human Rights only with regard to provisions laying down lighter penalties and not with regard to provisions attenuating the severity of the method for calculating limitation periods for criminal liability. It cann …","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"130     Second, the reasoning adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in that judgment explicitly relies on the principle of the supremacy of law, of which Article 7 ECHR constitutes an essential element.","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"131     Therefore, it cannot be argued on the basis of the judgment of the ECtHR of 12 January 2016, Gouarré Patte v. Andorra (CE:ECHR:2016:0112JUD003342710), that a national standard of protection relating to the application of the lex mitior principle which goes beyond the guarantees provided in t …","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"132     That is all the more the case given that, as has been emphasised in paragraph 105 of the present judgment, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the national courts cannot apply national standards of protection of fundamental rights except in so far as, inter alia, the primacy, unity and effectiveness of EU law are not thereby compromised.","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"133     The requirement that such national standards of protection must not compromise the primacy, unity and effectiveness of EU law would not be met if it were to be accepted that a national standard of protection relating to the application of the lex mitior principle which goes beyond the guaran …","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"134     It follows from paragraphs 120 to 133 of the present judgment that it is appropriate to reiterate the assessment, set out in the judgment in Lin , that the national standard of protection, enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, relating to the application of the lex mitior principle does not implement the guarantees enshrined in the last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter.","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"(ii)  Assessment of the systemic risk arising from the national standard of protection enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"135     In paragraphs 98, 99 and 121 to 124 of the judgment in Lin , the Court held that the Romanian courts had to disapply the national standard of protection, enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, relating to the application of the lex mitior principle, after weighing that national standard of protection against the requirements stemming from Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention.","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"136     In that regard, the Court noted, more specifically, that Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ exacerbated the systemic risk of impunity which, as has been recalled in paragraph 113 of the present judgment, had already arisen from the decisions of the Constitutional Court of 2018 and 2022, by exte …","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"137     In so doing, in the judgment in Lin , Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ enshrining the national standard of protection relating to the application of the lex mitior principle, on the one hand, and the decisions of the Constitutional Court of 2018 and 2022 enshrining the national standard of pr …","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"138     Thus, it should, in the first place, be noted that, contrary to the decisions of the Constitutional Court of 2018 and 2022, Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ does not rely on the requirements of foreseeability and precision regarding criminal law – which are of specific importance in EU law, a …","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"139     In the second place, it is important to emphasise that the national standard of protection, enshrined by the ICCJ in Decision No 67/2022, relating to the application of the lex mitior principle leads to the systemic risk that perpetrators of instances of serious fraud affecting the financial …","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"140     First, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ requires that procedural acts which have taken place during the period from 1 February 2014, the date of the entry into force of Article 155(1) of the Criminal Code of 2009, to 25 June 2018, …","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"141     It follows that, under Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, a period of at least 51 months is added to the period of approximately 47 months during which no act was capable of interrupting the limitation period for criminal liability, in accordance with the legal rules derived from the decisions …","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"142     Second, it is apparent from the order for reference that Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ would also deprive procedural acts which have been notified to the suspect or defendant during the period from 1 January 1969, the date of the entry into force of Article 123 of the Criminal Code of 1968 …","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"143     In such a scenario, the limitation period for the criminal liability of perpetrators of all instances of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union which were committed between the date of Romania’s accession to the Union and 30 May 2022 would thus not be subject to any grounds for interruption.","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"144     Third, it should also be emphasised that Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ leads to procedural acts which, on the date they took place, legally had interrupting effect, being retroactively deprived of such an effect. Such a consequence would significantly reduce the effectiveness of criminal p …","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"145     Conversely, from the date on which the decision of the Constitutional Court of 2018 was published – 25 June 2018 – those authorities were in a position to assess the risk that the procedural acts which they were planning to adopt from that date and which, under Article 155(1) of the Criminal …","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"146     In the third place, it should be added that the prohibition, derived from the judgment in Lin , on Romanian courts applying the national standard of protection enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ does not affect the requirements of precision and foreseeability regarding criminal law which stem from the national standard of protection enshrined in the decisions of the Constitutional Court of 2018 and 2022.","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"147     On the contrary, by requiring the Romanian courts to disapply Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, pursuant to which procedural acts which took place before 25 June 2018 could be retroactively deprived of their interrupting effect, the Court maintained, in the judgment in Lin , the full application of the rules relating to the method for calculating the limitation period for criminal liability that were in force before the publication of Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ.","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"148     Thus, the judgment in Lin in no way has the result that grounds for interruption of the limitation period for criminal liability for serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union which were not provided for on the date when such offences were committed will be applied to perpe …","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"149     In the fourth and last place, it follows from the foregoing considerations that the Court in no way held, in the judgment in Lin , that the national standard of protection laid down in Romanian law relating to the application of the lex mitior principle is in breach, as a matter of principle …","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"(b)     A pplication of the judgment in   Lin   in the light of the constitutional principle prohibiting the application of lex tertia   in criminal law","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"150     By point (a) of its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 325 TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, read in conjunction with Article 49, Article 52(3) and Article 53 of the Charter, are to be interpreted as meaning that the Romanian courts are required …","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"151     The referring court specifies that the lex mitior principle, as interpreted by the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court), involves, where there is a succession of legal rules, choosing and applying the law which, as a whole, guarantees that the accused person benefits from a more favourable situation, without it however being permissible to combine the favourable provisions of successive laws and create, through judicial development of the law, lex tertia .","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"152     In that regard, and in the first place, it should be noted that, as was confirmed by the Romanian Government at the hearing, the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law, as understood in Romanian law, means that the calculation of the limitation period for a given offenc …","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"153     In addition, in the judgment in Lin , the Court confined itself to ruling that EU law precluded the Romanian courts, when called upon to hear and determine criminal proceedings relating to cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union, from applying Decision No 67/202 …","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"154     It follows from the foregoing that, as was, moreover, noted by the referring court in its request for a preliminary ruling, the interpretation of Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention provided in the judgment in Lin in no way requires the Romanian courts to combine sever …","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"155     More specifically, it should be emphasised, first, that the judgment in Lin has not had the effect of preventing Romanian courts from calculating the limitation period for the criminal liability of the perpetrator of an offence committed before 1 February 2014 in accordance with the grounds …","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"156     Second, the Court in no way prohibited, in the judgment in Lin , the Romanian courts from calculating the limitation period for the criminal liability of the perpetrator of an offence committed during the period from 25 June 2018 to 30 May 2022 by refusing to recognise any procedural act whatsoever as having interrupting effect with regard to limitation, in accordance with the decisions of the Constitutional Court of 2018 and 2022.","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"157     Third, EU law also does not preclude Article 155(1) of the Criminal Code of 2009, as inserted by OUG nr. 71/2022, from applying only to offences which were committed from 30 May 2022, the date of its entry into force.","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"158     In the second place, in the event that, by point (a) of its second question, the referring court also seeks to question the Court regarding the difference in treatment, derived from the judgment in Lin , as between, on the one hand, the legislation applicable to the method for calculating th …","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"159     It is true that Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, as interpreted by the Court in the judgment in Lin , require only that the Romanian courts disapply the national standard of protection, enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, relating to the application of th …","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"160     However, such a difference in treatment, which arises directly from the limited material scope of the requirements laid down in Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, which are intended to ensure effective protection of the financial interests of the Union, must be regar …","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"161     Furthermore, it cannot be accepted that, under a national standard of protection prohibiting such a difference in treatment, the Romanian courts would be required to apply Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ to cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union.","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"162     Indeed, first, such a consequence would entail an increase in the systemic risk of impunity for instances of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union which would be equivalent to that arising from the application, by those courts, to those cases of serious fraud, of the n …","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"163     It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to point (a) of the second question is that Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, read in conjunction with Article 49, Article 52(3) and Article 53 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that the R …","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"(c)     The application , in the judgment in Lin , of the condition relating to the systemic risk of impunity","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"164     By point (d) of its second question, which it is appropriate to examine second, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, read in conjunction with Article 49, Article 52(3) and Article 53 of the Charter, are to be interpreted as …","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"165     In that regard, it should be noted, in the first place, that, as has been recalled in paragraphs 113 and 136 of the present judgment, the Court held, in paragraph 91 of the judgment in Lin , that the legal situation resulting from the decisions of the Constitutional Court of 2018 and 2022 an …","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"166     Such a finding was based not only on the findings made by the referring court in the case giving rise to the judgment in Lin , but also on the data presented by the Commission on 22 November 2022 in its Report to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the Cooper …","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"167     In addition, as has been recalled in paragraphs 136 and 141 of the present judgment, the Court found, in the judgment in Lin , that the national standard of protection, enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, relating to the application of the lex mitior principle considerably increase …","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"168     Thus, as has been noted by the referring court in its request for a preliminary ruling, it expressly follows from the judgment in Lin that the Court itself held that the national standard of protection, enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, relating to the application of the lex miti …","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"169     It also follows that, unlike in the situation giving rise to the judgment in M.A.S. and M.B. , the assessment of whether the application of Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ entails a systemic risk of impunity for perpetrators of instances of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of …","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"170     Lastly, it should be added, in that regard, that, although the Romanian Government referred to certain judicial statistics during the hearing before the Court, none of those statistics appears to be such as to alter the finding of the Court that Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ entails a syst …","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"171     In the second place, it should be emphasised that, by finding that such a systemic risk of impunity exists, the Court did not act in breach of the guarantees derived from the principle of legal certainty, as referred to in paragraph 118 of the present judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"172     Thus, the analysis set out in paragraphs 89 to 91, 99, 121 and 122 of the judgment in Lin is based on a foreseeable interpretation of the concept of a ‘systemic risk of impunity’ within the meaning of EU law, in view of, inter alia, the explanations provided in that regard in paragraph 47 of …","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"173     In addition, it should be noted that, from the moment of its publication, it was foreseeable that Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ would entail such a systemic risk of impunity. Thus, perpetrators of instances of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union were in a position …","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"174     Moreover, while it is true that, for offences committed before the publication of Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, the existence of that risk was not foreseeable on the date when those offences were committed, such a situation nevertheless does not arise from a lack of foreseeability of the …","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"175     It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to point (d) of the second question is that Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, read in conjunction with Article 49, Article 52(3) and Article 53 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that the R …","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"(d)     A pplication of the judgment in Lin   to offences definitively time-barred under the national standard of protection enshrined in Decision No 67 /2022 of the ICCJ","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"176     By point (b) of its second question, which it is appropriate to examine third, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, read in conjunction with Article 49(1), Article 52(3) and Article 53 of the Charter, are to be interpreted …","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"177     In that regard, it is important to distinguish between two scenarios. The first concerns a situation where a Romanian court is called upon to apply Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention to cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union in respect o …","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"(1)     Application of the judgment in Lin to a case in which a court decision has definitively found that the limitation period for criminal liability has expired","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"178     In the first place, it is important to bear in mind the importance of the principle of res judicata both in the legal order of the Union and in the national legal orders. In order to ensure both stability of the law and legal relations and the sound administration of justice, it is important …","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"179     Therefore, EU law does not require a national court to disapply domestic rules of procedure conferring the authority of res judicata on a decision of a court or tribunal, even if to do so would make it possible to remedy a national situation which is incompatible with EU law. Accordingly, EU …","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"180     As was noted, in essence, by the Advocate General in points 74 to 80 of his Opinion, Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention thus do not require, in themselves, that a court decision having the authority of res judicata by which it has been found, on the basis of a calcula …","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"181     However, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 179 of the present judgment, if Romanian law were to provide the possibility, under certain conditions, to go back on a decision having the authority of res judicata in order to render the situation compatible with that law, s …","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"182     In the second place, it should be emphasised, first, that, while the assessment of the ‘final’ nature of the conviction must be carried out on the basis of the law of the Member State in which that conviction was handed down, the fact remains that that concept must be given an autonomous and …","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"183     Second, a court decision cannot be regarded as being final, for the purposes of that case-law, where it may be the subject of an ordinary appeal, that is to say, any appeal which forms part of the normal course of an action and which, as such, constitutes a procedural development which any p …","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"184     It follows that, where an appeal in cassation is launched, under the conditions referred to in the previous paragraph of the present judgment, against a decision of a court or tribunal, that decision cannot become final until the parties have exhausted that legal remedy or have allowed the t …","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"185     In this instance, it does not appear from the file before the Court that the decision of 21 March 2024 of the Curtea de Appel Oradea (Court of Appeal, Oradea) finding, on the basis of a calculation of the limitation period for criminal liability applying the national standard of protection, …","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"(2)     Application of the judgment in Lin to criminal proceedings in respect of which expiry of the limitation period has not been found by a final judicial decision","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"186     As can be seen from paragraph 176 of the present judgment, the referring court is questioning whether the first sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter requires the Romanian courts to refrain from applying Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention as interpreted in the judg …","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"187     That court thus seeks to determine whether, by applying the judgment in Lin , the Romanian courts are reactivating, in breach of the guarantees provided in Article 7 ECHR, a limitation period which should be regarded as having definitively expired.","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"188     As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind, first, that the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law, as enshrined in the first sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter, requires, according to the very wording of that provision, that no one is to be held guilty of …","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"189     By contrast, the first sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter does not guarantee that persons prosecuted under criminal law will remain subject to the rules governing the limitation period for their criminal liability which were in force on the date when the offences which they are alleged …","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"190     However, the first sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter precludes the possibility that, after the limitation period for the criminal liability of the perpetrator of an offence has expired, that person’s liability may be triggered again because of the entry into force of a new provision w …","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"191     That interpretation of the first sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter respects the minimum threshold of protection offered under Article 7 ECHR. In accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, Article 7 ECHR does not prevent limitation periods from being extended, …","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"192     Second, it should also be borne in mind that, as has been emphasised in paragraph 118 of the present judgment, the principle of legal certainty – of which the first sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter constitutes one particular expression – requires, on the one hand, that the rules of l …","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"193     It follows that, in order not to be in breach of that principle, neither Article 325 TFEU nor Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention may prevent the limitation period for the criminal liability of perpetrators of instances of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union from bein …","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"194     It is therefore necessary to examine whether the interpretation of Article 325 TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention in the judgment in Lin has had the effect of requiring, in breach of Article 49(1) of the Charter, the reopening of a limitation period after that period has expired. Th …","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"(i)     Date of the entry into force of the requirements stemming from Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"195     In the first place, it should be emphasised that Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention were incorporated into Romanian law on, at the latest, 1 December 2009 and 1 January 2008, respectively.","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"196     In addition, it is common ground that no instance of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union could have been committed, in Romania, before 1 January 2007, the date of that State’s accession to the Union. Moreover, it is apparent from the file before the Court that the minimum limitation period applicable to such instances of fraud is eight years.","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"197     It follows that Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention were part of Romanian law well before any kind of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union was capable of being time-barred under the standard of protection, enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, relating to the application of the lex mitior principle in Romanian law.","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"198     In the second place, as has been recalled in paragraph 119 of the present judgment, those provisions were interpreted, in the judgment in Lin , as precluding a national standard of protection relating to the application of the lex mitior principle, such as that enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, from being applied to criminal proceedings brought in respect of cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union.","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"199     It can be seen from settled case-law that the interpretation thus given, in the judgment in Lin , to Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention is confined to clarifying and defining the meaning and scope of those provisions as they ought to have been understood and applied f …","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"200     It follows that those provisions must be regarded, from the moment of their entry into force in the Romanian legal order, as precluding the application of a national standard of protection, such as that enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, to criminal proceedings in respect of instances of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union.","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"201     In the third place, both Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention have direct effect (the judgment in Lin , paragraph 96 and the case-law cited). It follows that, where it is unable to interpret the national legislation in conformity with those provisions of EU law, any Rom …","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"202     Thus, Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention must be regarded as having forbidden the Romanian courts, from the date on which those provisions of EU law entered into force in Romanian law, to apply a national standard of protection relating to the application of the lex m …","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"203     In the fourth place, it should also be noted that Article 280 EC, as inserted by the Treaty of Nice, that is to say, before Romania’s accession to the Union, was worded almost identically to Article 325 TFEU, which replaced it. It is therefore permissible to consider, for reasons similar to …","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"204     It follows from the foregoing considerations that the Romanian courts were under an obligation, derived from Article 325 TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, to disapply a national standard of protection relating to the application of the lex mitior principle, such as that enshrined …","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"(ii)  Clarity and foreseeability of the requirements stemming from Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"205     As a second step, it is, however, still necessary to verify, as has been emphasised in paragraph 194 of the present judgment, whether Article 325 TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention constitute a sufficiently clear and foreseeable legal basis to prevent the expiry of a limitation period calculated in accordance with Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ.","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"206     In that regard, it should be noted that Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention are clearly and precisely worded. Those subject to the law are in a position to ascertain, on the basis of the wording of the relevant provisions and, if need be, with the help of the interpret …","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"207     In addition, while there is no doubt that, from the date of delivery of the judgment in Lin , it has been foreseeable that Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention will require the Romanian courts to disapply Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ in criminal proceedings involving instances of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union, the Court must still examine whether such was the case before the delivery of that judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"208     In that regard, it should be noted, as a preliminary point, that such a requirement of foreseeability does not preclude a necessary clarification of Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention by the Court, provided that the result of such a clarification is reasonably foresee …","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"209     In addition, the scope of the concept of foreseeability depends to a large extent on the content of the text in issue, the field it covers and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed. A law may still satisfy the requirement of foreseeability even if the person concerned has to …","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"210     In the light of those preliminary observations, it should, in the first place, be emphasised that, already before Romania’s accession to the Union, the Court had held that the principle of sincere cooperation, now set out in Article 4(3) TEU, requires that, where EU law does not establish pe …","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"211     It follows that the interpretation whereby Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention preclude, in principle, the courts of the Member States from applying provisions of national law relating to the method for calculating the limitation period for criminal liability which impede the effective punishment of prejudice to the financial interests of the Union was foreseeable already before Romania’s accession to the Union.","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"212     That case-law was fully confirmed by the Court as soon as it was called upon to interpret Article 325(1) TFEU, as is made clear by the case-law referred to in paragraph 109 of the present judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"213     In addition, in the judgment of 8 September 2015, Taricco and Others (C‑105/14, EU:C:2015:555, point 1 of the operative part), the Court expressly held that Article 325 TFEU must be interpreted as forbidding the courts of a Member State to apply provisions of national legislation relating to …","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"214     In the second place, it is true that, in the judgment in M.A.S. and M.B. , the Court acknowledged that Article 325(1) TFEU does not preclude the courts of a Member State from applying a national standard of protection of fundamental rights which entails such a systemic risk of impunity where …","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"215     However, it in no way follows from that judgment that it must be held that, since the date on which the judgment in Lin was delivered, the interpretation of Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention which was adopted in that judgment has become unforeseeable.","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"216     In that regard, first, as was noted by the Advocate General in point 56 of his Opinion, the Court applied, in the judgment in Lin , the lessons from the judgment in M.A.S. and M.B. as recalled in paragraph 214 of the present judgment. The Court held that EU law did not preclude Romanian cour …","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"217     Second, it clearly follows from the judgment in M.A.S. and M.B. that the particular status which the Court, in that judgment, recognised the national standard of protection relating to the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law as having, in respect of the requirements …","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"218     Thus, the judgment in M.A.S. and M.B. could not be understood as meaning that the Court held, in that judgment, that Article 325(1) TFEU permits the courts of the Member States to apply any national standard of protection relating to the method for calculating the limitation period for crimi …","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"219     Indeed, such an interpretation of the judgment in M.A.S. and M.B. would have been manifestly at odds with the settled case-law of the Court, recalled in paragraph 47 of that judgment, according to which the courts of the Member States may apply national standards of protection of fundamental …","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"220     Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the Court held, following the delivery of the judgment in M.A.S. and M.B. , that provisions of Romanian law, in respect of which it could not be excluded that they constituted a national standard of protection relating to effective judicial protectio …","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"221     In addition, in paragraphs 51 to 61 of the judgment in M.A.S and M.B. , the Court expressly acknowledged that the national standard of protection relating to the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law, in respect of the requirements of precision, foreseeability and non- …","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"222     As has been emphasised in paragraph 118 of the present judgment, such a national standard of protection supplements the protection against arbitrariness in criminal matters which is offered by EU law under the fundamental principle of legal certainty, which constitutes an essential element of the rule of law and thus a founding value of the European Union as referred to in Article 2 TEU.","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"223     However, as has been emphasised in paragraph 138 of the present judgment, the national standard of protection, enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, relating to the application of the lex mitior principle, far from being based on such requirements, involves, on the contrary, the retr …","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"224     It follows from paragraphs 206 to 223 of the present judgment that Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention must be regarded as constituting a sufficiently clear and foreseeable legal basis to enable the national standard of protection, enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of t …","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"225     Furthermore, it should be noted that, in view of the sufficiently clear and precise nature of those provisions of EU law, and contrary to what was held by the ICCJ in Decision No 37/2024, the judgment in Lin has not had the result of disappointing any kind of legitimate expectation of person …","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"226     Indeed, it is sufficient to recall that, according to settled case-law, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations cannot be relied upon against an unambiguous provision of EU law; nor can the conduct of a national authority responsible for applying EU law, which acts in brea …","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"227     In the third and last place, it also cannot be maintained that the judgment in Lin failed to have regard to the principle of legal certainty on the ground that, by requiring the Romanian courts to disapply Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, the Court once again gave rise, within those courts, to uncertainty regarding the method for calculating the limitation period for criminal liability; uncertainty which had been dispelled by Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ.","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"228     It should be noted that the development of a consensus in the case-law as regards ascertaining how successive laws concerning time-barring are to be applied is a process which may evolve over time. Accordingly, the principle of legal certainty does not preclude the existence of such uncertai …","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"229     The preliminary ruling procedure, as provided for in Article 267 TFEU, would have enabled the Romanian courts to avoid such uncertainty if they had made use of their option or abided by their obligation to question the Court as to the exact scope of the requirements stemming from Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, as interpreted in the judgment in Lin .","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"230     Regarding, more specifically, Decisions No 37/2024 and No 16/2024 of the ICCJ, referred to in paragraphs 40 to 45 of the present judgment, it should be borne in mind that, by those decisions, that court of last instance held, in essence, that the Romanian courts had to refuse to apply Articl …","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"231     However, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, where there is no judicial remedy under national law against the decisions of a national court or tribunal, that court or tribunal is in principle obliged to make a reference to the Court of Justice under the third para …","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"232     In addition, it follows from equally settled case-law that national courts do not have the power to declare acts of the European Union institutions invalid. Thus, where a national court or tribunal considers that one or more grounds for invalidity of an act of the European Union, raised by t …","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"233     The same is true where a court or tribunal of a Member State considers that the interpretation of a provision of EU law in a decision of the Court is in breach of the requirements stemming from Article 7 ECHR or of requirements of constitutional rank specific to its national law. The autonom …","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"234     It follows that, by adopting Decisions No 37/2024 and No 16/2024 without submitting a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court beforehand, the ICCJ not only failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 267 TFEU, but also contributed to creating a situation devoid of legal certainty by …","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"235     It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to point (b) of the second question is that Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, read in conjunction with Article 49(1), Article 52(3) and Article 53 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not requiring t …","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"236     By contrast, those provisions of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, except in such a scenario, they forbid the Romanian courts to apply that national standard of protection to criminal proceedings brought in respect of cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the …","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"(e)     Article  7   ECHR","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"237     By point (c) of its second question, which it is appropriate to examine fourth and last, the referring court asks, in essence, whether, in order not to infringe Article 7 ECHR, the Romanian courts are required, contrary to what the judgment in Lin requires of them, to apply the national standard of protection, enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, relating to the application of the lex mitior principle.","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"238     It can be seen from paragraphs 134, 163, 175, 235 and 236 of the present judgment that Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, as interpreted in the judgment in Lin , correspond to the requirements of Article 49(1) of the Charter, which are at least equivalent to the guarantees derived from Article 7 ECHR.","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"239     It follows that the answer to point (c) of the second question is that consideration of that question has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to permit the consideration that, in order not to infringe Article 7 ECHR, the Romanian courts must apply the national standard of protection, enshrined in Decision No 67/2022 of the ICCJ, relating to the application of the lex mitior principle.","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"240     It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to the second question is that Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, read in conjunction with Article 49, Article 52(3) and Article 53 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not requiring that a court deci …","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"V.       Costs","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"241     Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"1.       Article 2(1) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Brussels on 26 July 1995 and annexed to the Council Act of 26 July 1995, read in the light of Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"must be interpreted as meaning that, where no provision of national legislation establishes an amount above which an instance of fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union is to be regarded as ‘serious’, such an instance of fraud must necessarily be so classified as soon as it concerns a total amount greater than EUR 50 000, irrespective of whether the damage suffered by the budget of the Union as a result of that instance of fraud also exceeds such an amount.","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"2.       Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, read in conjunction with Article 49(1), Article 52(3) and Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"must be interpreted as not requiring that a court decision which has the authority of res judicata and which has found that the limitation period for the criminal liability of perpetrators of instances of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union has expired, pursuant to the natio …","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"By contrast, except in such a scenario, those provisions of EU law forbid the Romanian courts to apply that national standard of protection to criminal proceedings brought in respect of cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union, notwithstanding the fact that (i) under a p …","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"[Signatures]","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"*       Languages of the case: French and Romanian.","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"i       The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_414"}],"operative_part":"On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:\n\n1.       Article 2(1) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Brussels on 26 July 1995 and annexed to the Council A …","word_count":25758,"cites":["C-107/23","C-105/14","C-574/15","C-430/21","C-615/21","C-213/19","C-357/19","C-379/19","C-547/19","C-811/19","C-840/19","C-713/22","C-311/18","C-202/24","C-617/10","C-42/17","C-612/15","C-115/17","C-544/23","C-224/01","C-582/21","C-213/13","C-140/20","C-303/05","C-570/20","C-189/02","C-202/02","C-205/02","C-208/02","C-213/02","C-194/14","C-201/19","C-326/88","C-382/92","C-387/02","C-391/02","C-403/02","C-244/24","C-290/24","C-561/19","C-144/23","C-366/10","C-384/16","C-471/22","C-448/23"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"3d292ee87dca0c8c31cd61ee126cfc0f2c84c165c6be7a6a8384f812b34b6daf","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62025CJ0280","fetched_at":"2026-09-28T06:29:30.195+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-280-25","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-280-25","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-280-25","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-280-25","verification":{"stored_sha256":"3d292ee87dca0c8c31cd61ee126cfc0f2c84c165c6be7a6a8384f812b34b6daf","recomputed_sha256":"3d292ee87dca0c8c31cd61ee126cfc0f2c84c165c6be7a6a8384f812b34b6daf","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-10T23:37:30.447Z"}},"hash":"sha256:da66832d60f8fd6dc0bc13ee0d61b54fd2c5196e018ba8497e98d1b4a1f515cc","version":"legal-2026-10-10","expires":"2026-10-11T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-10+legal-2026-10-10+2026-10-10T17:32:53","content_hash":"sha256:da66832d60f8fd6dc0bc13ee0d61b54fd2c5196e018ba8497e98d1b4a1f515cc","revalidate_after":"2026-10-11T00:37:30.789Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-280-25","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-280-25"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-280-25"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-280-25"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-280-25","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-9ca11423f3dd2ad8923a0168fa81a26f","response_hash":"sha256:da66832d60f8fd6dc0bc13ee0d61b54fd2c5196e018ba8497e98d1b4a1f515cc"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-02T22:57:05.365Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-280-25&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":35238}}