The statute of limitations for criminal prosecution is one of the fundamental
postulates of the modern rule of law. After a specified period, prosecuting
crimes becomes untenable. The principle raises questions regarding the
deadlines set by the state for a retrial in criminal cases, when the Supreme
Court annuls a final conviction after filing a legal remedy, or whether the latter
is annulled after filing a constitutional complaint, or when the European
Court of Human Rights finds a violation of the European Convention on Human
Rights. Many dilemmas arise here. Does the statute of limitations for the
underlying offense still apply to the retrial? If not, does the state set a new
statute of limitations for completing this retrial? In addition, if a new deadline
is set, is it considered a statute of limitations, or is it a distinct legal concept?
The article examines these dilemmas and clarifies the nature of such deadlines,
which can only be defined as a statute of limitations. The authors believe that
the state should invoke this deadline only once. Allowing multiple uses of the
same deadline—for successive trials—would undermine legal security, as the
individual would perpetually face the uncertainty of state interference with
their human rights.
Key words: statute of limitations, deadline for completion of proceedings,
criminal prosecution, European Court of Human Rights, right to a fair trial.