Impact of Statues of Limitations in Corruption Cases

23 / 36

IMPACT OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS IN CORRUPTION CASES AFFECTING EU FINANCIAL INTERESTS |PAG.23
47 The full text of the decision is available at this link:
.
Decision C-105/14 of the European Court of Ju-
stice passed on 08/09/2015 (also known as the
Taricco case47) ordered Italy to disapply its natio-
nal provisions on SOL for they did not allow for
the prosecution of crimes damaging the finan-
cial interests of the European Union. The case
concerned a possible violation of VAT by Mr Ta-
ricco and some associates; the Italian Court of
Cuneo asked the EU Court of Justice whether Ita-
lian law violated EU law by granting impunity to
individuals through its SOL regulations.
Considering that the so-called PIF Directive has
not been approved, we asked national resear-
chers and the experts we interviewed to consi-
der in this section a provisional definition of EU
financial interests, meaning “all revenues and
expenditures covered by, acquired through, or
due to: a) the Union budget; b) the budgets of
institutions, bodies, offices and agencies establi-
shed under the Treaties or budgets managed
and monitored by them”.
5.1 CONSIDERATIONS ON THE
TARICCO DECISION
The researchers and national experts we inter-
viewed had mixed feelings about this decision.
Most of them acknowledged the reasoning
behind the decision of the Court, this mirroring a
serious concern about the risk of impunity cau-
sed by national regulations and a direct dama-
ge to EU financial interests. On the other hand,
several arguments were raised concerning both
the content and the form of the decision.
One of the main criticisms lies in the principle
that national SOL laws are enacted after wei-
ghing the different interests involved: on the
one hand, the State’s interest in effectively pro-
secuting and punishing crimes and, on the other
hand, citizens’ interests in not being subject to
investigations or trial for an excessive amount
of time. The Taricco judgment intrudes upon the
State’s national policy by ordering it not to ap-
ply its absolute SOL and it is a strong imposition
upon national policy.
Even assuming we agree with the Court’s ratio-
nale, the way in which this European institution
addressed a country’s atavistic problem (this is
peacefully the case with SOL in Italy) cannot be
considered the best possible way. There is a sha-
red consensus that EU should exercise pressure
on Italy (and eventually on other Member Sta-
tes) to review its SOL legislation, a process which
should be made at national level, considering
the local framework.
At a juridical level, the Court failed to address the
substantial or procedural nature of SOL in Italy,
which is crucial for the retroactive effect of the
decision or its validity on ongoing proceedings
which have not yet become statute-barred. Most
practitioners consider SOL as substantial and
claim that EU decisions cannot be applied to
ongoing cases. Since only few practitioners con-
sider SOL a procedural issue, experts think Italy
should not accept such limitation to its national
sovereignty and should activate the “counter li-
mits doctrine” (a set of constitutional provisions
resistant to EU regulations).
5
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS
AND EU FINANCIAL INTERESTS