The Constitutional Court states that the legislation in force does not contain from 2018 “any case that would allow the interruption of the prescription of criminal liability” and to restore the state of constitutionality, it is necessary for Parliament to clarify and detail the provisions on termination of criminal liability.
The constitutional judges published, on Wednesday, the motivation of the decision of May 26 by which they admitted several notifications coming from the courts of the country and found that the provisions of art.155 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional, respectively “ criminal proceedings are interrupted by the fulfillment of any procedural act in question “, according to Agerpres.
The Constitutional Court admitted on May 26 a notification regarding the interruption of the limitation period of criminal liability, an exception raised by the businessman Adrian Mititelu in the case in which he was definitively sentenced to 3 years in prison for tax evasion.
CCR then showed that the article of the Penal Code has been declared unconstitutional since 2018, but the Parliament has not changed it since.
“The Court finds that, under the conditions of establishing the legal nature of Decision 297 of April 26, 2018 as a simple / extreme decision, in the absence of active intervention of the legislator, mandatory under Article 147 of the Constitution, between the date of publication of that decision and until entry In force of a normative act clarifying the norm, by expressly regulating the cases capable of interrupting the course of the term of prescription of criminal liability, the active fund of the legislation does not contain any case that would allow the interruption of the course of prescription of criminal liability.
The Court finds that such a consequence is the result of the legislature’s failure to comply with its obligations under the Basic Law and its passivity, even though the decisions of the High Court of Cassation and Justice signaled from 2019 the non-uniform practice resulting from the lack of intervention. legislative ”, it is specified in the motivation of CCR.
The Court also points out that the rationale behind the ruling of Decision 297 of 26 April 2018 was not to remove the limitation periods of criminal liability or to remove the institution of interruption of the course of these time limits, but to align the provisions of Article 155 paragraph (1) of the Code. criminal to the constitutional requirements.
“Thus, the Court observes that the terms of general prescription regulated by the provisions of art. 154 of the Criminal Code are not affected by the decisions of the Constitutional Court”, the document states.
In this context, the Court finds that “the situation created by the passivity of the legislator, following the publication of the above-mentioned admission decision, is a violation of the provisions of Article 1 paragraphs (3) and (5) of the Basic Law, which enshrines the rule of law the Romanian state, as well as the supremacy of the Constitution. This is because the prevalence of the Constitution over the entire normative system is the crucial principle of the rule of law. However, the Constitutional Court itself is the guarantor of the supremacy of the Fundamental Law, through the decisions it pronounces, so that the neglect of the findings and provisions contained in its decisions determines the weakening of the constitutional structure that must characterize the rule of law (in the same sense , published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 519 of May 26) ”.
“Therefore, the Court finds that, in the present case, the legislator disregarded the provisions of Article 147 paragraph (4) of the Constitution, ignoring the binding effects of Decision no. 297 of April 26, 2018 with the consequence of creating a more serious unconstitutionality defect generated by the non-unitary application of the text of the law “the term of the statute of limitations criminal. In order to restore the state of constitutionality, it is necessary for the legislator to clarify and detail the provisions regarding the termination of the prescription of criminal liability, in the spirit of those specified in the recitals of the aforementioned decision “, say the constitutional judges.
On 30 May, the Government adopted a draft emergency ordinance amending Article 155 (1) of the Criminal Code, which reads as follows: , according to the law, must be communicated to the suspect or defendant “.
#CCR #motivation #legislation #longer #provisions #interruption #prescription #criminal #liability