# C_2023205EN.01002701.xml

| 12.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 3 March 2023 — Criminal proceedings against C.A.A. and C.V.

(Case C-131/23, Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială Judeţul Braşov)

(2023/C 205/30)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Brașov

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: C.A.A., C.V.

Respondent: Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială Județul Brașov

Interested party: Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Direcția Națională Anticorupție — Serviciul Teritorial Brașov

Questions referred

| 1. | Should the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) [TEU], Article 325[(1)] TFEU, Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention (1) and Commission Decision 2006/928/EC (2) be interpreted as precluding the application of a decision of the Constitutional Court finding, retroactively, that there were no cases of interruption of the limitation period, despite the existence of a body of generalised, long-standing case-law of the national courts, including the highest courts, where the application of that decision would entail a systemic risk of impunity as a result of the re-opening of a significant number of criminal cases in which final judgment has been given and the delivery, in extraordinary appeal proceedings, of a decision to discontinue criminal proceedings as a result of a finding that the limitation period has expired? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) [TEU], Article 325[(1)] TFEU, Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention (1) and Commission Decision 2006/928/EC (2) be interpreted as precluding the application of a decision of the Constitutional Court finding, retroactively, that there were no cases of interruption of the limitation period, despite the existence of a body of generalised, long-standing case-law of the national courts, including the highest courts, where the application of that decision would entail a systemic risk of impunity as a result of the re-opening of a significant number of criminal cases in which final judgment has been given and the delivery, in extraordinary appeal proceedings, of a decision to discontinue criminal proceedings as a result of a finding that the limitation period has expired?

| 2. | Does the principle of the primacy of EU law, with reference to Commission Decision 2006/928/EC and the third sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the principle of the retroactivity of the more lenient criminal law), preclude any re-examination, at the stage where a sentence is being enforced, in extraordinary appeal proceedings, of the limitation period for criminal liability, where the lodging of the extraordinary appeal is a consequence of a decision of the Constitutional Court, delivered after the judgment passing sentence has become final, which overturns a body of generalised and long-standing case-law of the national courts and where the dissuasiveness and effectiveness of the sentence and the certainty and stability of legal relations are thereby affected? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the principle of the primacy of EU law, with reference to Commission Decision 2006/928/EC and the third sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the principle of the retroactivity of the more lenient criminal law), preclude any re-examination, at the stage where a sentence is being enforced, in extraordinary appeal proceedings, of the limitation period for criminal liability, where the lodging of the extraordinary appeal is a consequence of a decision of the Constitutional Court, delivered after the judgment passing sentence has become final, which overturns a body of generalised and long-standing case-law of the national courts and where the dissuasiveness and effectiveness of the sentence and the certainty and stability of legal relations are thereby affected?

| 3. | Does the principle of the primacy of EU law, with reference to Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, permit the application of national standards of protection, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, guaranteed by the national law of the Member State and arising from the effects attributed to decisions of the Constitutional Court, where the effective application of EU law in the Member State is thereby undermined? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the principle of the primacy of EU law, with reference to Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, permit the application of national standards of protection, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, guaranteed by the national law of the Member State and arising from the effects attributed to decisions of the Constitutional Court, where the effective application of EU law in the Member State is thereby undermined?

---

(1)  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 (OJ 1995 C 316, p. 49).

(2)  Commission Decision of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption (OJ 2006 L 354, p. 56).

---