ECJ C-321/25 (Gidzhinov) – Questions – National limitation rules’ compatibility with EU law regarding tax offense prosecutions

On May 8, 2025, the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgarian court) submitted a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the compatibility of national limitation rules with EU law in the context of criminal prosecutions for tax offenses. This inquiry specifically focuses on whether the criteria for determining limitation periods undermine effective enforcement against VAT fraud and the implications for penalties associated with criminal organizations.

Summary

Background and Legal Context: The case involves charges against individuals for running and participating in a criminal organization aimed at committing tax offenses in Bulgaria. The referring court raised concerns about the compatibility of national limitation rules with EU law, particularly regarding the time-barring of criminal prosecutions for tax-related offenses.
Questions to the Court: The referring court asked whether EU law, specifically Article 325 TFEU and Article 2(1) of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, precludes national laws that set limitation periods based solely on maximum penalties, potentially leading to impunity for serious tax offenses. Additionally, it questioned if Article 3(1)(b) of Council Framework Decision 2008/841 allows for a higher maximum penalty for running a criminal organization compared to the offenses it aims to commit.
CJEU’s Decision: The CJEU ruled that national limitation rules must allow for effective punishment of VAT fraud and should not create systemic risks of impunity. It emphasized that limitation periods should be based on objective criteria related to the complexity of cases rather than solely on maximum penalties.
Justification of the Decision: The court highlighted that the effectiveness of investigations and judicial proceedings is paramount, and limitation periods should accommodate the time needed for thorough investigations. It also noted that while national law can set penalties, it should not exceed those for the underlying offenses committed by the criminal organization.
Implications for National Law: The ruling clarifies that while Member States can establish their own penalties, they must ensure that these do not undermine the objectives of EU law regarding the prosecution of serious tax offenses. This decision will guide the referring court in determining appropriate limitation periods and penalties in future cases involving tax fraud and organized crime.

Questions

Do Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 2(1) of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests preclude a national law which provides for criminal prosecution to become time-barred in respect of acts directed against the EU’s financial interests and for which the limitation period is determined solely by reference to the maximum potential penalty applicable to an offence and not by reference to the factual and legal complexity of the case, and which takes no account of the possibility of a coincidental occurrence making it necessary to restart the criminal proceedings anew, such that the application of national law may lead to impunity?

Does Article 3(1)(b) of Council Framework Decision 2008/841 preclude a national law under which the offence referred to in Article 2(b) is punishable by a higher maximum term of imprisonment than the offence which the agreement referred to in Article 2(b) concerns?

Source

Curia

Other ECJ Cases referred to

C-107/23 (Lin): This case addresses the effective enforcement of VAT fraud and emphasizes that Member States must ensure that national limitation rules do not allow for impunity in cases of serious tax offenses. The principles established in this case could directly influence the CJEU’s reasoning in Gidzhinov regarding the importance of effective punishment for VAT fraud.
C-286/22 (KBC Verzekeringen): The CJEU ruled on the necessity for Member States to ensure that national laws effectively implement EU directives regarding financial regulations, emphasizing the importance of compliance and facilitating cross-border operations within the EU.