14 / 36
promise, request) and are not influenced by the
commission of a subsequent act, since only a given
legal interest is harmed.
In Bulgaria, common rules are applicable to cor-
ruption crimes but, in these cases, different SOL
run for different offenders: for the corrupter, the
limitation period starts when he paid the bribe,
for the corrupt when he received it.
3.3
RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE SOL
Notwithstanding the differences in the length of
limitation periods among the six countries consi-
dered, most of themprovide for both relative and
absolute statutes of limitations. Relative statutes
are the basic terms, independent of the causes of
suspension and interruption; absolute SOL are
the maximum terms that can be reached, inclu-
ding causes of suspension and interruption.
The only country that does not provide for abso-
lute SOL is Spain, where relative SOL are not fol-
lowed by any other term; so, if a trial begins befo-
re the expiry of a limitation period, it is bound to
be concluded without becoming statute barred.
In Romania, SOL start when the offence is com-
mitted. In some cases, after the crime has been
committed, its effects continue to exist and deve-
lop without a further intervention by the offender,
resulting in a more serious crime. In these cases,
the crime changes, the sanction changes and the
SOL accordingly, too.
Romaniahas thewider gap, whereabsolute SOLdou-
ble the relative ones
26
; Bulgaria and Portugal
27
add
half of the relative SOL to determine the absolute
SOL; Italy adds a quarter; Greece adds different
amounts based on the different qualification of
the offence (it adds half for petty offences; more
than a half for misdemeanours; one third and
one fourth for the two kinds of felonies envisa-
ged).
DOES THE LAW OR SUPREME COURT ESTABLISH WHEN SOL START RUNNING?
THE CESAR ALIERTA CASE (SPAIN)
Cesar Alierta, the former chairman of the state-owned company Tabacalera, was prosecuted for insi-
der trading regarding the acquisition of his company’s shares by a US tobacco company. The limitation
period for this crime is five years in the general form and ten in the aggravated one: the latter is trig-
gered when the public interest is violated. The Supreme Court stated that the general interest was not
harmed because the sum was not relevant
25
, because the action was isolated and not an engineered
scheme, because the position of Mr Alierta as chairman was not relevant to the case as Tabacalera
was a publicly-owned company at IBEX, and because damage can only occur if insider information
concerns a price drop and not when it is incremental to someone’s benefit.
The case then fell into five-year SOL regime, which would have allowed for the proceedings against
Alierta because the sale of shares had taken place 4 years and 9 months before the complaint was
served. However, the judge considered SOL to run not as from the time of the sale of shares but when
these had reached their maximum value because of the insider information, this happening five years
and two months before Mr Alierta was notified of the judicial action.
This case was widely debated as it was the first of several cases where high-level, well connected and
powerful entrepreneurs were “saved” by favourable interpretations of the law.