Impact of Statues of Limitations in Corruption Cases

IMPACT OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS IN CORRUPTION CASES AFFECTING EU FINANCIAL INTERESTS |

PAG.9

On the other hand, the excessive length of SOL

or the establishment of abusable causes of su-

spension of the limitation period can produce

the opposite effect of extending time during

trials, thus compromising the right to be judged

within a reasonable time. In Greece, the SOL,

especially for felonies, is quite long; as a result,

a number of cases are not adjudicated within a

reasonable time. An expert from Portugal states

that the recent introduction of a new cause for

suspension

exaggeratedly extends the SOL

thus causing an infringement of the right to a

trial within a reasonable time

Namely the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, The President of the Senate and the

President of the House of Representatives.

Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Specifically, the suspension of SOL when an appeal is lodged.

Some common law-based countries – where SOL do not exist - give defendants the option to claim that their trial

is prejudiced by a culpable delay of prosecution. In Bulgaria, chapter 26 of Criminal Procedure Code regulates special

proceedings: when a criminal case has started and a person is qualified as a defendant for a certain period defined by

law but no indictment is filed, s/he can request to be examined by the Court

The Attorney General of the Republic, Joana Marques Vidal, corroborated the inadequate performance, and announced

that she would make a case study to improve criminal investigation performances.

ARE SOME PHASES OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TOO LONG? THE SUBMARINES CASE (PORTUGAL)

This case concerns a billionaire deal for the acquisition of two navy submarines by a German consortium:

suspicions of bribery involved, among many defendants, relevant Portuguese political office holders,

such as the former Minister of Defence (Paulo Portas), who signed the deal, but who was only interro-

gated as a witness 8 years after the incident.

Investigations lasted eight years and resulted in no indictments and no formal charges being brought

against anyone; then, in December 2014, the Portuguese Central Bureau for Investigation and Criminal

Action (DCIAP) dismissed the case, despite the fact that two former Ferrostaal executives had pled

guilty and had been convicted in a German court in December 2011 for bribing Portuguese and Greek

officials in the sale of submarines to these two countries.

The case was dismissed because of the statute of limitations and the lack of evidence. In particular,

the case was closed during the investigation phase, before the limitation period expired and without a

certain expiration date, to avoid useless acts being performed. The reason for these excessively long

preliminary activities was the lack of mutual legal assistance, short term research, poor performance

by the Public Prosecutor’s Office also caused by many factors of instability, external pressures and mi-

stakes in the investigative strategy

. Moreover, this case was adjudicated under the legal framework

existing before the 2010 reform.

The outcome of the case led to widespread frustration in Portugal as the 8-year investigation did not

even lead to an indictment of the defendants, and the corresponding criminal procedure concerning

the offsets contracts also resulted in the acquittal of all defendants. MEP Ana Gomes nonetheless

attempted, in January 2015, to open a special court-led investigation following the dismissal of the

case but her claim was quashed by the criminal investigation court due to the lack of the necessary

objective and subjective elements of the crime, which are required in this kind of procedural request.