taricco judgement from italian point o vies
TRANSCRIPT
ECJ’s Taricco judgment.
A look from an italian criminal lawyer’s point of view.
Nicola Canestrini
Luxembourg, october 2015. European Criminal Bar Association ECBA
Taricco judgement C 105 / 14
september 2015
intent of ECJ ?
Member States cannot ignore fraud against the EU budget, but have to take effective measures to stop it (art 325 TFEU)
“The national court must give full effect to EU law, if need be by disapplying the provisions of national law the effect of which would be to prevent the Member State concerned from fulfilling its obligations”
italian duration of limitation period concerning fraud (6 + 1/4 max. interruption) can be too short and thus affect effectiveness of sanctions
italian point of view
statute of limitations are running even during the trial
interruption extends prescription period with a maximum limit
prescription is part of substantial criminal law: prescription extinguishes the crime and defendant is acquitted
limitation periods
ensure legal certainty and finality
prevent infringements of the rights of defendants
(fait trail: evidence might have become incomplete because of the passage of time)
effectiveness and dissuasive character of the penalties
vs.
observance of the fundamental rights of the individual (…even if a tax evader)
Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed
(art. 49 Charta)
question
149. .. However (modifying rules of limita9on) does not entail an infringement of the rights guaranteed by Ar9cle 7, since that provision cannot be interpreted as prohibi9ng an extension of limita9on periods through the immediate applica9on of a procedural law where the relevant offences have never become subject to limita9on (Coeme vs Belgium, ECHR, 2000)
european law prevails over ordinary law but has to be interpreted according to italian Constitution
counter -limits
doctrine
EU law should not be applied when it is able to breach the fundamental principles of the constitutional order or the fundamental rights of the individuals
”Aims of a purely economic nature cannot constitute pressing
reasons of public interest justifying a restriction of a fundamental
freedom guaranteed by the Treaty.”
ECJ, C-109/04
www.canestriniLex.comt @canestrinilex g+ +canestrinilex f canestrinilex