Time Clash: the Court of Justice Limits the Temporal Scope of Lex Mitior

In the Lin judgment, 1 the ECJ held that the primacy of EU law requires national courts to disapply a national standard of protection of fundamental rights, specifically when the application of lex mitior to procedural norms jeopardises the EU obligation to effectively punish offences against EU financial interests.Six years after the Taricco II (technically M.A.S.) decision, the ECJ used another preliminary reference to clarifyby distinguishingits previous ruling: primacy is limited by the prohibition of retroactive laws, but not by the retroactive application of more favourable procedural norms.Consequently, national norms of this type must be disapplied when they conflict with EU law obligations.This case note argues that the ECJ has reached this conclusion by juxtaposing lex mitior with another rule of law principletempus regit actumultimately denying that the former can limit the primacy of EU law.An intricate case law development triggered the ECJ s intervention.Two judgments of the Romanian Constitutional Court have declared the national rule of limitation periods unconstitutional for violating the principles of foreseeability

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Constitutional Law Review
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s1574019624000361
Citations
2
Primary Topic
International Law and Aviation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.46

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Time Clash: the Court of Justice Limits the Temporal Scope of Lex Mitior

Franco Peirone
2 citations
European Constitutional Law Review
International Law and Aviation
4.46
article

Time Clash: the Court of Justice Limits the Temporal Scope of Lex Mitior

Franco Peirone
article en
2 citations

Abstract

In the Lin judgment, 1 the ECJ held that the primacy of EU law requires national courts to disapply a national standard of protection of fundamental rights, specifically when the application of lex mitior to procedural norms jeopardises the EU obligation to effectively punish offences against EU financial interests.Six years after the Taricco II (technically M.A.S.) decision, the ECJ used another preliminary reference to clarifyby distinguishingits previous ruling: primacy is limited by the prohibition of retroactive laws, but not by the retroactive application of more favourable procedural norms.Consequently, national norms of this type must be disapplied when they conflict with EU law obligations.This case note argues that the ECJ has reached this conclusion by juxtaposing lex mitior with another rule of law principletempus regit actumultimately denying that the former can limit the primacy of EU law.An intricate case law development triggered the ECJ s intervention.Two judgments of the Romanian Constitutional Court have declared the national rule of limitation periods unconstitutional for violating the principles of foreseeability

European Constitutional Law ReviewVol. 20(4)
Maastricht University (NL)
Universiteit Maastricht
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
International Law and Aviation
4.46
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.