Limitation of criminal liability in Romania – time limits and case-law Skip to content

Limitation of criminal liability in Romania: how time limits are calculated and what the CCR and ICCJ decisions mean for your case

November 20, 2025

Limitation of criminal liability (in Romanian practice: prescripția răspunderii penale) is one of the most technical and sensitive institutions in Romanian criminal law. In the last years it has been at the centre of heated debate because of a series of decisions of the Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR), interventions from the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) and even the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which have radically changed how time limits are calculated and how courts decide whether an offence can still be punished or not.

If you are under investigation or on trial in a criminal case, limitation is not a theoretical topic—it can literally be the difference between the criminal proceedings being discontinued and a conviction. At the same time, the discussion is full of traps: ordinary limitation, special limitation, interruption, suspension, legislative “windows”, CCR judgments, ICCJ case law, the effects of the CJEU judgment in C‑107/23 PPU – Lin, offences affecting the financial interests of the EU, and so on.

This article explains, in accessible language:

  • what limitation of criminal liability is and where it is regulated in the Romanian Criminal Code;
  • what the standard limitation periods are and how they are calculated depending on the statutory maximum penalty;
  • what interruption and suspension of limitation mean in practice;
  • what changed after CCR Decisions no. 297/2018 and 358/2022 and ICCJ Decision no. 67/2022 (recurs în interesul legii – appeal in the interest of the law);
  • how the CJEU judgment in C‑107/23 PPU – Lin affects certain cases (especially those concerning the EU’s financial interests);
  • concrete examples of how limitation periods are calculated in practice;
  • what you should discuss with your defence lawyer if you suspect that your case may be affected by limitation issues.

Important disclaimer: the explanations below are general and for information only. Calculating limitation in a concrete case requires a full review of the file (date of the alleged facts, correct legal classification, successive legislative changes, procedural acts that were served on the suspect or defendant, any grounds for suspension, questions of EU law, jurisdictional issues, etc.). A serious assessment must always be done together with your lawyer, based on the specific documents in your case.

1. Legal framework: where limitation of criminal liability is regulated

Limitation is governed by Title VII – Grounds excluding criminal liability in Law no. 286/2009 – Criminal Code of Romania:

  • Article 153 – Limitation of criminal liability: sets the general rule that limitation extinguishes criminal liability and lists imprescriptible offences (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes etc.). An updated version of the article can be consulted, for example, on Lege5 – Article 153 Criminal Code.
  • Article 154 – Limitation periods: sets the ordinary limitation periods depending on the maximum statutory penalty for the offence committed. The consolidated version (as of late 2025) can be checked, for example, on Sintact – Article 154 Criminal Code.
  • Article 155 – Interruption of limitation: regulates when limitation is interrupted by procedural acts (in its current form, only by acts which must be served on the suspect or defendant). The up-to-date text (after Government Emergency Ordinance – GEO no. 71/2022) can be found, for instance, on Sintact – Article 155 Criminal Code.
  • Article 156 – Suspension of limitation: regulates situations where the running of the limitation period is temporarily halted (e.g. when a legal provision or an unforeseeable and unavoidable event prevents the criminal proceedings from progressing). See, for example, Article 156 Criminal Code.

In addition, the Criminal Code contains specific rules for certain categories of persons or offences:

  • Limitation of criminal liability for minors – Article 131 Criminal Code: limitation periods are reduced by half for persons who were minors at the time of the offence.
  • Imprescriptibility of certain very serious offences – explicitly laid down in Article 153 (2) Criminal Code (genocide, crimes against humanity, some serious offences against peace and security of mankind etc.).

All these provisions must be read together with:

2. Limitation periods: the basic grid

Article 154 Criminal Code sets limitation periods based on the maximum statutory penalty for the offence. In simplified form, the grid is as follows (for adults):

  • 15 years – if the law provides for life imprisonment or a maximum prison sentence greater than 20 years;
  • 10 years – if the maximum prison sentence is greater than 10 years but does not exceed 20 years;
  • 8 years – if the maximum prison sentence is greater than 5 years but does not exceed 10 years;
  • 5 years – if the maximum prison sentence is greater than 1 year but does not exceed 5 years;
  • 3 years – if the maximum prison sentence does not exceed 1 year or the law provides only a fine.

For minors, Article 131 Criminal Code halves these periods (for instance, a limitation period of 8 years for adults becomes 4 years if the offender was a minor). The rule is explained in more detail in the commentaries to Article 131 in the leading annotated codes (e.g. Hamangiu, Universul Juridic).

Examples of how offences fall into limitation brackets

Example 1 – Simple theft

  • Offence: simple theft (Article 228 Criminal Code).
  • Statutory penalty (basic form): imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years or a fine (see the current text in the consolidated Criminal Code on Lege5).
  • Maximum statutory penalty: 3 years (greater than 1 year, not exceeding 5 years).
  • Limitation period: 5 years (Article 154(1)(d) Criminal Code).

Example 2 – Bribe taking

  • Offence: taking a bribe (Article 289 Criminal Code).
  • Statutory penalty (basic form): imprisonment from 3 to 10 years and a ban on certain rights (according to the current text of Article 289).
  • Maximum statutory penalty: 10 years (greater than 5, not exceeding 10 years).
  • Limitation period: 8 years (Article 154(1)(c) Criminal Code).

Example 3 – Murder

  • Offence: murder (Article 188 Criminal Code).
  • Statutory penalty (basic form): imprisonment from 10 to 20 years (according to the consolidated Criminal Code).
  • Maximum statutory penalty: 20 years.
  • Limitation period: 10 years (Article 154(1)(b) Criminal Code).

Example 4 – Imprescriptible offence

For genocide, crimes against humanity and certain war crimes, Article 153(2) Criminal Code expressly provides that limitation does not extinguish criminal liability. In other words, these offences are not subject to limitation and can be prosecuted at any time.

3. When does the limitation period start running?

Article 154(2)–(4) Criminal Code sets the rules on the starting point of limitation. In principle:

  • for simple offences, limitation starts on the date when the offence was committed;
  • for continuous offences (for example, unlawful deprivation of liberty), the starting point is the date when the action ceased;
  • for continued offences (several acts of the same type committed with a single criminal resolution – e.g. repeated embezzlement), limitation starts on the date of the last act (Article 154(2));
  • for habitual offences or offences that involve repeated conduct over time, limitation generally runs from the date when the conduct ended or when the last harmful act occurred – this is supported by both legal doctrine and case law (see, for example, the commentaries in the Hamangiu Criminal Code commentary).

There are specific rules for certain categories, for instance sexual offences committed against minors: the limitation period starts from the date when the victim becomes an adult (or from the victim’s death, if the victim dies before turning 18), according to Article 154(4) Criminal Code (see again the consolidated text in Lege5 – limitation of criminal liability).

In recent years, the ICCJ has been asked, through appeals in the interest of the law or preliminary rulings, to clarify the starting point of limitation for certain offences (corruption, service offences, offences involving a series of acts etc.). These clarifications can make a decisive difference in borderline cases.

4. Suspension of limitation: when the clock “freezes”

Suspension of limitation means that, for a certain period of time, the limitation clock stops, but the time that has already elapsed remains counted. The general rule is laid down in Article 156 Criminal Code (see, for instance, the consolidated version on Sintact – Article 156):

  • the limitation period is suspended as long as a legal provision or an unforeseeable or unavoidable circumstance prevents the commencement or continuation of the criminal proceedings;
  • limitation resumes on the date when the cause of suspension ceases.

Classic examples of suspension—discussed in doctrine and practice (see, for instance, the commentaries to Article 156 in Hamangiu and discussions such as “Și totuși… prescripția” on NewLaw.ro)—include:

  • the state of emergency declared during the COVID‑19 pandemic by Decree no. 195/2020 and extended by Decree no. 240/2020, where the legislator expressly provided for suspension of limitation in criminal cases where the proceedings were practically frozen;
  • the period when files were transferred after the abolition of the Section for the Investigation of Offences in the Judiciary (SIIJ), regulated by Law no. 49/2022, which also provided for suspension of limitation until files were reassigned;
  • cases of force majeure (war, major natural disasters etc.) that make it impossible in fact to conduct criminal proceedings.

Unlike interruption, suspension does not wipe out the time that has already elapsed. Once the cause of suspension ends, the limitation clock resumes from where it left off.

5. Interruption of limitation: what the CCR changed and why it matters

Interruption of limitation is regulated in Article 155 Criminal Code and essentially means that, when an interrupting act occurs, the limitation clock resets and a new period starts running from zero. In addition, Article 155(4) provides for special limitation: once the ordinary limitation period has been exceeded by the same amount again (effectively doubled), limitation operates in any case, regardless of how many interruptions occurred.

The major controversy arose from the wording of Article 155(1) and how the CCR and, later, the legislator intervened:

  1. Initial wording (1 February 2014 – 25 June 2018): “The running of the limitation period of criminal liability is interrupted by performing any procedural act in the case.” This wording can be found, for instance, in earlier consolidated versions of Article 155 published on legal databases such as Lege5.
  2. CCR Decision no. 297/2018: the CCR held that the solution according to which any procedural act in the case interrupts limitation is unconstitutional because it is unpredictable, especially when it includes acts that are not even communicated to the suspect or defendant (see the reasoning in Decision no. 297/2018).
  3. CCR Decision no. 358/2022: the CCR declared Article 155(1) Criminal Code unconstitutional in its entirety, emphasising that Parliament’s failure to amend the provision after Decision no. 297/2018 created a legislative vacuum. The full text can be read, for example, in the pdf published on the CCR website and in commentaries such as those in Revista Pro Lege.

The key practical consequence, as understood in case law and doctrine, is that in the period 25 June 2018 – 30 May 2022 there was no valid legal provision governing interruption of limitation by procedural acts. This conclusion is supported by analyses such as those published by Universul Juridic and by academic authors (see, for instance, Dragoș Pârgaru’s paper “Prescripție, quo vadis?” in the Forum Juridic journal).

GEO no. 71/2022 (published in the Official Gazette on 30 May 2022) amended Article 155(1), essentially taking over the solution from the old 1969 Criminal Code: the limitation period is interrupted only by procedural acts which, according to the law, must be served on the suspect or defendant. The current wording can be consulted on Sintact.

6. What ICCJ Decision no. 67/2022 and the CJEU judgment in C‑107/23 PPU – Lin say

ICCJ Decision no. 67/2022 (appeal in the interest of the law) aimed at unifying national practice regarding the effects of the CCR decisions on limitation. According to the press release and doctrinal summaries (see, for example, ICCJ press release of 25 October 2022):

  • rules on limitation of criminal liability are rules of substantive criminal law, not purely procedural law;
  • CCR Decisions no. 297/2018 and 358/2022 may constitute a more favourable criminal law within the meaning of Article 5 Criminal Code for facts committed when Article 155(1) was unconstitutional or not aligned with the Constitution;
  • courts must take into account this “window” when checking whether an offence is time-barred;
  • in some situations, limitation cannot be re‑litigated via extraordinary remedies (such as a special annulment appeal) if the appellate court has already examined the issue in the main proceedings.

The situation became even more complex after the CJEU judgment of 24 July 2023 in case C‑107/23 PPU – Lin, which examined the interaction between CCR/ICCJ case law on limitation and Romania’s obligations to protect the EU’s financial interests. The judgment (available in Romanian on the CJEU website) can be accessed at C‑107/23 PPU – Lin, and the Romanian Ministry of Justice has also published an explanatory press release at just.ro.

Simplifying the key messages of Lin and later EU‑law analysis (for example, the articles summarised on ABC Juridic):

  • the principle of the more lenient criminal law (lex mitior) cannot be applied in such a way as to create a systemic risk of impunity for serious offences affecting the EU’s financial interests (e.g. VAT fraud, EU funds fraud);
  • in certain circumstances, a national court must set aside national case law (including CCR and ICCJ decisions) if the way they are applied would lead to such systemic impunity, in order to comply with Article 325 TFEU and the PIF Convention;
  • the case‑by‑case nature of this assessment is essential: the judge must explain concretely why, in a given case, EU law requires a different approach to limitation than the one resulting from national constitutional or supreme court case law.

Following Lin, the ICCJ has been asked several questions regarding how to reconcile CCR decisions, ICCJ precedent and CJEU case law. Decisions such as ICCJ Decision no. 115/2024 and Decision no. 16/2024 (RIL) discuss in detail the relationship between:

  • CCR Decisions no. 297/2018 and 358/2022;
  • ICCJ Decision no. 67/2022;
  • the CJEU judgments in Lin (C‑107/23 PPU) and the subsequent order in case C‑131/23.

Practical takeaway: for offences falling within the scope of EU law (notably fraud affecting the EU’s financial interests), limitation must be calculated considering both CCR/ICCJ case law and the requirements of CJEU Lin. As a result, similar offences may be treated differently in terms of limitation depending on whether they affect EU financial interests or only national interests.

7. Worked examples: how limitation may be calculated in practice

To better understand how all these layers (legislation, CCR, ICCJ, CJEU) interact in a concrete file, here are three simplified scenarios. They are illustrative only—any real case requires a granular, document‑by‑document review.

Example A – Simple theft committed in 2015 (no EU dimension)

  • Offence: simple theft (Article 228 Criminal Code); maximum penalty 3 years; limitation period 5 years (Article 154(1)(d)).
  • Date of offence: February 2015.
  • Procedural acts: criminal complaint in 2015, formal opening of the investigation, suspect hearing in 2016, indictment in 2018, trial continuing until 2023.

Without the constitutional case law, one would have simply said that each procedural act (opening of the investigation, ordering prosecution against a person, indictment, court hearings etc.) interrupts limitation, so the case could continue for many years.

After CCR and ICCJ decisions, the analysis is more nuanced:

  1. for the period 1 February 2014 – 25 June 2018, certain acts served on the suspect/defendant might still be considered interrupting (depending on how the effects of Decision no. 297/2018 are interpreted);
  2. for the period 25 June 2018 – 30 May 2022, there was no valid interruption rule under Article 155(1), so in principle the 5‑year limitation period runs without interruptions;
  3. as of 30 May 2022, GEO no. 71/2022 reintroduced interruption by acts that must be served on the suspect or defendant.

In a case with a 5‑year limitation period, the absence of valid interruption in the 2018–2022 window can lead quite quickly to the conclusion that the offence is time‑barred, especially if no significant procedural acts were served on the defendant during that period.

Example B – Fraud affecting EU funds committed between 2012 and 2016

  • Offence: fraud involving EU funds (for instance, Article 18 of Law no. 78/2000 or related provisions, carrying a maximum penalty higher than 10 years, so limitation of at least 10 years, depending on the exact classification).
  • Timeframe of the alleged facts: several acts between 2012 and 2016 (continued or habitual offence).
  • Complex case: expert reports, international cooperation requests, lengthy investigation, indictment after many years.

Here, both national rules and EU law come into play:

  • the starting point and length of the limitation period are determined according to the Criminal Code (Articles 154–156), taking CCR and ICCJ case law into account;
  • however, because the case relates to the EU’s financial interests (VAT or EU funds), the court must also assess whether applying the more lenient law (as interpreted by CCR and ICCJ) would create a systemic risk of impunity contrary to Lin and Article 325 TFEU;
  • if such a risk exists, the court may, in the specific case, set aside parts of national case law on limitation that would otherwise lead to time‑barring a large number of serious EU‑fraud cases.

As a result, two files that look similar in terms of legal classification could have different outcomes on limitation depending on whether EU financial interests are involved.

Example C – Service‑related offence committed after 30 May 2022

  • Offence: abuse of office committed in winter 2022–2023.
  • Date of offence: December 2022.
  • Limitation period: determined by the maximum penalty provided by the version of the abuse of office provision applicable at the time (noting that the legislator has publicly discussed amendments to service offences—see, for example, the draft law published by the Ministry of Justice on just.ro).

In this scenario, the offence is committed after GEO no. 71/2022 entered into force. Therefore:

  • the current form of Article 155(1) Criminal Code applies from the outset: interruption occurs only through procedural acts that must be served on the suspect or defendant;
  • ordinary and special limitation are calculated in the “normal” way, without the 2018–2022 legislative vacuum;
  • EU‑law issues (such as those in Lin) arise only if the offence affects the EU’s financial interests.

8. What all this means for your criminal case

In practice, when assessing whether a case is time‑barred, lawyers and judges usually follow several steps:

  1. Identify the correct legal classification: what offence(s) are alleged? Which version of the provision applies (e.g. before or after certain legislative amendments)? These details are found in the indictment, procedural orders and court decisions.
  2. Determine the maximum statutory penalty at the time of the offence: this requires checking the text of the law in force at the time of the alleged facts, using official sources such as the Portalul legislativ and updated criminal codes.
  3. Establish the starting point of limitation: date of the offence, date of the last act in a continued offence, date when the minor victim turned 18 etc., depending on Article 154(2)–(4).
  4. Map the relevant time segments:
    • before 25 June 2018;
    • between 25 June 2018 and 30 May 2022 (CCR “vacuum” period);
    • after 30 May 2022 (application of GEO no. 71/2022 and the current Article 155(1)).
  5. List all procedural acts served on the suspect/defendant: orders placing the person under criminal investigation, indictments, court summonses, decisions ordering preventive measures etc. For the periods when valid interruption rules applied, these acts may reset the limitation period.
  6. Check any grounds for suspension: states of emergency, special legal provisions transferring files between specialised prosecutors’ offices, suspension of proceedings pending constitutional review etc. Several INM (National Institute of Magistracy) studies discuss these topics in detail, for instance the paper on suspension of criminal proceedings available on inm‑lex.ro.
  7. Assess whether EU law is engaged: if the case involves serious VAT fraud or EU‑fund fraud, the court must also consider the Lin judgment and later CJEU case law when deciding how limitation rules apply.

Ultimately, the court compares the applicable limitation period (ordinary or special) with the effective time that has passed, taking into account all valid interruptions and suspensions.

Key point: each file has its own timeline of procedural acts and its own “normative trajectory” (especially for offences committed before 30 May 2022). Two cases that look very similar at first glance may have different outcomes on limitation once all these variables are factored in.

9. Why you should discuss limitation with a specialised criminal lawyer

As the sources cited above show, and as confirmed by a vast amount of doctrinal analysis (see, for example, commentaries on Universul Juridic, JURIDICE.ro, ABC Juridic and NewLaw), limitation has become a complex topic in itself within every criminal case.

The tension between:

  • CCR decisions (aimed at ensuring legality and foreseeability of criminal law),
  • ICCJ case law (aimed at unifying national practice),
  • CJEU case law (aimed at protecting EU financial interests and avoiding systemic impunity),
  • and the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights

means that correctly calculating limitation is no longer just a matter of counting years. It requires a careful legal analysis that combines constitutional law, criminal law and EU law.

If you are under investigation or on trial in Romania, it is advisable to consult a criminal defence lawyer, provide them with the entire case file (not just summons and the latest judgment) and explicitly ask them to analyse, among others:

  • what the ordinary limitation period is for each alleged offence (and whether special limitation might apply);
  • whether, in light of CCR and ICCJ decisions, there are periods where no valid interruption rule existed (especially between June 2018 and May 2022);
  • whether the file has any EU‑law dimension (EU funds, VAT, customs duties etc.) that could trigger the application of Lin and related case law;
  • what the realistic prospects are for the court to find that limitation has occurred, and at what procedural stage the limitation defence should be raised.

On my English‑language blog at maglas.ro – lawyer blog you will find additional articles explaining other key concepts that interact with limitation (for example, about preventive measures, appeal remedies against prosecutors’ decisions, reopening of criminal proceedings, and so on), to help you understand the broader context of your case.

Frequently asked questions about limitation of criminal liability in Romania

1. What is limitation of criminal liability in simple terms?

Limitation is a legal rule that extinguishes criminal liability after a certain time has passed since the offence was committed. Once the limitation period has expired, the state can no longer punish the offence, and the criminal proceedings must be discontinued for limitation. The rules are found mainly in Articles 153–156 of the Romanian Criminal Code.

2. How do I know which limitation period applies in my case?

You need to identify the legal classification of the alleged offence (the article in the Criminal Code or special law) and the maximum statutory penalty. Based on this maximum, you apply the grid in Article 154 Criminal Code (3, 5, 8, 10 or 15 years). For offences committed by minors, the periods are reduced by half, under Article 131 Criminal Code.

3. What is the difference between interruption and suspension of limitation?

Interruption “resets” the limitation clock: after an interrupting act, a new limitation period starts running from zero. Suspension only freezes the clock for a while: the time that has already elapsed remains valid and is added to the time that runs after the cause of suspension ends.

4. What changed with CCR Decisions no. 297/2018 and 358/2022?

CCR Decisions no. 297/2018 and 358/2022 held that the solution in Article 155(1) Criminal Code—interruption of limitation by “any procedural act in the case”—was unconstitutional. As a result, between 25 June 2018 and 30 May 2022 there was effectively a legislative vacuum regarding interruption, which led to the limitation of many older cases, especially for less serious offences.

5. What did ICCJ Decision no. 67/2022 establish?

ICCJ Decision no. 67/2022 clarified that rules on limitation are substantive criminal law and that CCR decisions on Article 155(1) may operate as more favourable criminal law. Courts must therefore apply them retroactively where they are more lenient, including in pending cases, subject to certain limits on reopening or extraordinary appeals.

6. Why is the CJEU judgment in C‑107/23 PPU – Lin important?

Lin deals with offences affecting the EU’s financial interests (especially serious VAT and EU‑fund fraud) and holds that the more lenient criminal law principle cannot be applied in a way that creates a systemic risk of impunity for such offences. In some circumstances, national courts may need to set aside domestic case law on limitation (including CCR decisions) if applying it would lead to time‑barring a large number of serious EU‑fraud cases.

7. Can my case be closed solely because the limitation period has expired?

Yes. If the court finds that the applicable limitation period (ordinary or special), properly calculated and taking into account valid interruptions and suspensions, has expired, it must discontinue the criminal proceedings on the ground of limitation. However, reaching that conclusion requires a detailed legal and factual analysis of your case file.

8. What should I do if I suspect that the alleged offence in my file is time‑barred?

You should consult a criminal defence lawyer, provide them with the entire case file, and ask for a specific analysis of limitation. The limitation defence is usually raised as an objection before the prosecutor or the court, depending on the stage of the proceedings, and its timing and form are matters of legal strategy.