The statute of limitation as a challenge of cross-border cooperation in criminal matters - Development of a harmonization proposal

在一个共同的欧洲，目前在国家诉讼时效方面存在的巨大差异很难证明是合理的。它们导致了刑事合作中的摩擦。在这种背景下，欧盟迫切需要协调时效规则，本研究项目将满足这一需求。在犯罪是否可以因时间流逝而失效的根本问题上，甚至没有达成共识：英国法律基于刑事起诉通常不受时间限制的原则。相比之下，大多数欧洲国家的刑法规定，犯罪受到限制。诉讼时效与执行时效通常是有区别的。具体实施例有很大的不同。这适用于对实体法或程序法的分配、时效期限的长短以及起诉行为或其他事件对时效期限的正常期限有何影响的问题，因此，这种情况主要造成检察机关挑选法庭的风险。事实证明，限制规则也阻碍了相互承认原则的实际适用。一些行为，比如关于欧洲逮捕令的框架决定，允许在国内法律规定的时限内拒绝合作。时效期长短的严重差异使拒绝理由的接受变得复杂，并可能导致双方的困惑。该研究项目将首次指出国际和欧洲的法律框架。此外，还对选定的12个欧盟国家和2个非欧盟国家的限制规则进行了比较分析。为此，将对14个国家的国家限制规则进行系统和严格的审查，并对其一般适用性进行测试。这种比较还包括在功能上等同于诉讼时效的规定，例如反对滥用权利。在此基础上，将制定第一个统一时效规则的监管建议。这一项目将在物质刑法和刑事诉讼法之间进行，为期三年。

The currently existing striking differences in the national statutes of limitations are difficult to justify in a common Europe. They lead to frictions in the cooperation in criminal matters. Against this background, there is an urgent need for harmonization of limitation rules in the European Union, which will be satisfied by this research project.There is not even a consensus in the fundamental question of whether offenses can expire due to lapse of time: English law is based on the principle that criminal prosecution is generally not time-barred. By contrast, the criminal law of most European countries provides that crimes are subject to limitation. The statutes of limitation usually draw a distinction between prescription of prosecution and limitation of enforcement. The specific embodiment differs considerably. This applies to their assignment to the substantive or procedural law, the length of limitation periods and the question of what impact, if any, acts of prosecution or other events have on the regular length of limitation periods.From this situation results primarily the risk of a forum shopping by the prosecuting authorities. The rules on limitation also prove to be obstacles in the practical application of the principle of mutual recognition. Some acts, like the framework decision on the European arrest warrant, allow refusing of cooperation if an offense is time-barred under the domestic law. Serious differences in the length of limitation periods complicate the acceptance of the grounds for refusal and may lead to confusion on both sides.The research project will point out the international and European legal framework for the first time. Furthermore, the limitation rules in twelve selected EU and two non-EU countries are subjected to a comparative analysis. To this end, the national rules on limitation of 14 countries will be systematically and critically examined and tested for their general suitability. The comparison also includes provisions which are functional equivalents to the statute of limitations, e.g. the objection of abuse of rights. On this basis, the first regulatory proposal harmonizing the rules on limitation will be developed. This project at the interface between material criminal law and criminal procedure law will last three years.