Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/3867

21.7.2025

(Case C-280/25, Lin II)

(C/2025/3867)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Oradea

Respondent: M.G.D.

Respondent in civil action: Statul roman – Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală prin Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Satu Mare

Questions referred

1.In interpreting and applying Article 325 [TFEU], Article 1(1)(a) and Articles 2 and 9 of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests [(‘the PIF Convention’)], ([and] Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [(‘the Charter’)], in the absence of a provision of domestic law establishing a minimum amount for a case of fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union to be considered serious, must the provisions of EU law be interpreted as meaning that fraud is considered serious only if it involves an amount exceeding EUR 50 000?

2.If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, must the provisions of Article 2 and Article 4(2) and (3) TEU, Article 2(2) and Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the [PIF Convention], as interpreted by the judgment of the Court [of 24 July 2023, Lin, C-107/23 PPU, EU:C:2023:606; ‘the Lin judgment’], [and] of Article 49(1), Article 52(3) and Article 53 of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that, in criminal proceedings concerning offences relating to [value added tax (VAT)], the national court must disapply the national standard of protection relating to the principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law (lex mitior), as this emerges from the binding case-law of the highest court of that Member State, a standard according to which procedural acts taking place before the national legislative provision governing the causes of interruption of the limitation periods for criminal liability was invalidated do not have the effect of interrupting a limitation period, where:

(a)the disapplication of that national standard is incompatible with the prohibition on applying lex tertia – a principle of constitutional rank;

(b)in application of that national case-law, it can be considered that the general limitation period for criminal liability had expired before the [Lin] judgment was delivered;

(c)the disapplication, on the basis of EU law, of that national standard results in a level of protection of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter that is not equivalent or comparable to the protection guaranteed by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights [‘the ECHR’];

(d)national law does not lay down specific criteria to be applied by the court of the Member State to assess, at a preliminary stage, the systemic risk of impunity arising from the application of that national standard in cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union?

—

(1)The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (OJ 1995 C 316, p. 49).

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3867/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—