1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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

7. ”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

8. www.canestriniLex.com
t @canestrinilex g+ +canestrinilex f canestrinilex