Impact of Statues of Limitations in Corruption Cases

NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATIONS

OF SOL REGULATIONS

4.1 DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE

One of the main reasons behind the extensive

reform of SOL regulations in Italy in 2005 was

the excessive amount of judicial discretion

in determining which class a crime was to fall

in: based on the aggravating and extenuating

circumstances of the crime, judges could set

the sanction applicable to a case, thus making

this fall within a given class of crimes or another

(SOL could be five years longer or shorter

depending on such class).

Italy has now reviewed its legislation and,

despite the fact that the laws on SOL are strict

in most countries, there are still some cases

where a judge’s discretion can determine

whether or not a case becomes statute barred.

In Spain, the qualification of an offence in its

ordinary form rather than its aggravated one

changes the scenario of the SOL, which can even

double. Another case where a wide discretion

is retained in the judges’ hands occurs in case

of continuous crimes and the decision over the

“dies a quo” of the crime (and the SOL indeed).

Portugal has an unusual procedure concerning

crimes sanctioned with less than five years: an

agreement between the public prosecutor, the

judge and the defendant can suspend the trial.

SOL REGULATIONS CAN BE AFFECTED BY SPECIFIC, RELEVANT PROVISIONS OR PRACTICES ADOPTED

AT NATIONAL LEVEL THAT CAN CONTRIBUTE TO ALTER THE EFFECTS OF THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK.

On September 8, 2006, the businessman Dino Patriciu, the manager of SC Rompetrol

, was charged by the

DIICOT (Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism) with seven offences: embezzlement,

money laundering, association to commit a crime, market manipulation through transactions or trading

orders, disclosure of privileged information and initiation or establishment of an organized crime ring

The case was extremely relevant at high levels, involving former Minister Sorin Pantis and former Senator

Sorin Rosca Stanescu.

The criminal case against Patriciu was closed following his death in August 2014 (a civil case continued)

and, during the last hearing in September 2014, the DIICOT asked the Court to close the case against

Pantis and Stanescu, since the case had become statute barred in 2011: they were convicted nonethe-

less to two years and four months and to two years and eight months, respectively.

EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIODS IGNORED (ROMANIA)