Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_230290 AI generated

Statute of limitations calculation upon criminal case reopening and applicability of the more favorable law doctrine

Case Number ICCJ_230290
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice, through its Criminal Law Unit, resolved two preliminary questions referred by the Brașov Court of Appeal, ruling that the time period between the finality of an initial conviction and the reopening of the criminal proceedings is excluded from the calculation of the special statute of limitations under Article 155(4) of the Penal Code, and that no new general limitation period under Article 155(5) commences upon reopening if the original general period had already expired before the initial conviction became final. This decision addressed the legal mechanics of statute of limitations in cases where criminal proceedings are reopened pursuant to Article 155(4), specifically analyzing the interplay between the reopening mechanism and the constitutional unconstitutionality of Article 155(1) declared by Constitutional Court Decisions No. 297/2018 and No. 358/2022. The Court held that the application of the more favorable criminal law under Article 5 of the Penal Code prevents the restart of the general limitation period in such circumstances, thereby establishing a uniform interpretation for the calculation of criminal liability deadlines following procedural reopenings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 155 alin. (4) din Codul penal, art. 155 alin. (5) din Codul penal, art. 5 din Codul penal, art. 477 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură penală; Statute of limitations calculation upon criminal case reopening and applicability of the more favorable law doctrine: This decision addressed the legal mechanics of statute of limitations in cases where criminal proceedings are reopened pursuant to Article 155(4), specifically analyzing the interplay between the reopening mechanism and the constitutional unconstitutionality of Article 155(1) declared by Constitutional Court Decisions No. 297/2018 and No. 358/2022. The Court held that the application of the more favorable criminal law under Article 5 of the Penal Code prevents the restart of the general limitation period in such circumstances, thereby establishing a uniform interpretation for the calculation of criminal liability deadlines following procedural reopenings.

Keywords

AI generated
statute of limitations reopening of proceedings procedural limitations interpretation of the law legal doctrine excluded cases

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 155 alin. (4) din Codul penal
Main ground for the ruling, determining that the period between the finality of the initial conviction and the reopening is excluded from the calculation of the special statute of limitations.
art. 155 alin. (5) din Codul penal
Provision analyzed to establish that a new general limitation period does not commence upon reopening if the original period had already expired.
art. 5 din Codul penal
Basis for applying the more favorable criminal law doctrine to prevent the restart of the limitation period.
art. 477 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură penală
Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to determine the date of obligatoriness for the decision, specifically upon publication in the Official Gazette.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 391/2025
Limitation period for reopened in absentia conviction deemed expired; proceedings terminated
Decizia nr. 529/RC/2023
Criminal statute of limitations: Effect of Constitutional decisions on the interruption of the prescription period for public official offenses
Decizia nr. 831/RC/2023
Criminal statute of limitations interruption by pre-2018 procedural acts and applicability of EU case law to final domestic judgments
Decizia nr. 299/RC/2019
Retroactive application of Constitutional Court reinterpretation of criminal statute of limitations interruption to pending cases
Decizia nr. 44/RC/2023
High Court Upholds Termination of Criminal Proceedings Due to Expired Limitation Period

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 155 alin. (4) din Codul penal

Main ground for the ruling, determining that the period between the finality of the initial conviction and the reopening is excluded from the calculation of the special statute of limitations.

art. 155 alin. (5) din Codul penal

Provision analyzed to establish that a new general limitation period does not commence upon reopening if the original period had already expired.

art. 5 din Codul penal

Basis for applying the more favorable criminal law doctrine to prevent the restart of the limitation period.

art. 477 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură penală

Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to determine the date of obligatoriness for the decision, specifically upon publication in the Official Gazette.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

R O M Â N I A

ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE

COMPLETUL PENTRU DEZLEGAREA UNOR CHESTIUNI DE DREPT

ÎN MATERIE PENALĂ

Minuta deciziei nr. 391 Dosar nr. 1669/1/2025

Ședința din data de 27 octombrie 2025

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E:

Admite sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Braşov, Secţia penală, prin care se solicită pronunțarea unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarelor chestiuni de drept:

1. În cazul redeschiderii procesului penal, în aplicarea prevederilor art. 155 alin. (4) din Codul penal, la calculul termenului special de prescripţie a răspunderii penale, se ia în considerare şi perioada cuprinsă între data rămânerii definitive a hotărârii iniţiale de condamnare şi data redeschiderii procesului penal?

2. În cazul aplicării art. 5 din Codul penal privind legea penală mai favorabilă, prin prisma declarării ca neconstituţionale a dispoziţiilor art. 155 alin. (1) din Codul penal prin deciziile nr. 297/2018 şi nr. 358/2022 ale Curţii Constituţionale, ulterior redeschiderii procesului penal curge un nou termen general de prescripţie conform art. 155 alin. (5) din Codul penal, chiar dacă acest termen era împlinit anterior rămânerii definitive a condamnării iniţiale? „

și stabilește că:

1. În cazul redeschiderii procesului penal, în aplicarea art. 155 alin. (4) din Codul penal, la calculul termenului de prescripție a răspunderii penale nu se ia în considerare și perioada cuprinsă între data rămânerii definitive a hotărârii inițiale de condamnare și data redeschiderii procesului penal.

2. Ulterior redeschiderii procesului penal nu mai curge un nou termen de prescripție generală conform art. 155 alin. (5) din Codul penal, dacă acest termen era împlinit anterior rămânerii definitive a condamnării inițiale, în aplicarea art. 5 din Codul penal privind legea penală mai favorabilă, prin prisma declarării ca neconstituționale a dispozițiilor art. 155 alin. (1) din Codul penal prin deciziile nr. 297/2018 şi nr. 358/2022 ale Curții Constituționale.

Obligatorie de la data publicării în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I-a, potrivit art. 477 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură penală.

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 27 octombrie 2025.