Statute of limitations of criminal proceedings thoroughly reformed

The reform consists of three key points: 

(i)    Extension of statute of limitations using fixed periods without interruption mechanism

The rules on the prescription of criminal proceedings had become very complex. The applicable statute of limitations not only depended on the classic tripartite division between crimes, misdemeanours and infringements, but other factors also had to be taken into account. For instance, the prescription period changed in some cases if there were mitigating circumstances or the age of the victim could affect the prescription period. With the recent legislative amendment, the legislator is trying to put an end to this by significantly simplifying the prescription regime using the following statute of limitations:  

The new prescription periods are generally substantially longer than within the old system. The longest prescription period within the old regime was 20 years. It applied to crimes punishable by life imprisonment and to some listed serious crimes committed against minors. For numerous financial offences such as fraud, abuse of trust, abuse of corporate assets and money laundering, which all constitute misdemeanours, the prescription period is doubled from 5 to 10 years. 

This substantial extension of prescription periods can be explained by the abolition of the mechanism of interruption. Before the legislative amendment, acts of interruption, so-called acts of investigation or prosecution, could still extend the prescription periods. Without extension of prescription periods, abolishing the interruption mechanism would have resulted in crimes being time-barred more quickly. Within the original prescription period, such an act of interruption allowed a new prescription period to start with the same duration as the original period. Thus, it was possible that fraud committed in 2018, through a timely act of interruption in 2023, would not be time-barred until 2028. In practice, it had to be ascertained when the last useful act of interruption was committed. The law change abolished this complex mechanism and introduced new, longer, prescription periods.

While the old system allowed to change the applicable statute of limitations by the assumption of mitigating circumstances, according to the new rule prescription periods remain unchanged, even if the sentence is reduced or modified due to mitigating circumstances. Thus, if a forgery, which is a crime and not a misdemeanour, is reduced to a misdemeanour by law due to mitigating circumstances, the prescription period remains 15 years under the new rules. 

As before the change in the law, certain crimes are not subject to prescription. Murder and robbery are now added to that list if "those crimes, by their nature or context, may seriously harm a country or an international organisation, or are of a nature to cause serious fear to the population or to unlawfully compel the government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or to seriously disrupt or destroy the basic political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation". This could include crimes such as those committed by the Brabant Killers (a criminal gang who committed a series of violent attacks in Belgium during the 80s).

(ii)    Drastic curtailment of grounds for suspension 

The prescription period for criminal proceedings can be suspended in accordance with Article 24 of the Preliminary Title of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure, which temporarily halts the current limitation period. Initially, suspension was only possible if the law expressly provided for it or if a legal impediment existed that prevented the judicial authorities from starting or continuing the criminal proceedings. Over the years, the legislator systematically added grounds for suspension and grounds for suspension developed by case-law also had to be taken into account.

With the amendment of Article 24 of the Preliminary Title of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure, the prescription of criminal proceedings will henceforth be suspended only when the law so provides or when there is a legal impediment preventing the institution of criminal proceedings. However, several other statutory provisions still contain grounds for suspension that were not amended by the Criminal Procedure Act I and thus continue to apply. 

(iii)    Stopping the prescription period when criminal proceedings are brought before the trial court 

Finally, the legislator changes the end point of the prescription period. The prescription period of the criminal proceedings no longer runs from the day on which the criminal matter is brought before the police court, the correctional court, the court of assizes or the court of appeal sitting in first and last instance. In concrete terms, this means that the case must be brought before the criminal trial court within the prescription period. Once the criminal case has been brought before such a court, the statute of limitations stops running. 

This reform is a total reversal of the old prescription regime in which the prescription period could still be reached after the case had been brought before the criminal trial court. As a result, after a time-intensive investigative stage, the trial court could still find itself unable to rule on the merits of the case because of the statute of limitations. The legislator considered this to be no longer in line with the social expectations of citizens and therefore changed the ending point of the prescription period.

The effect of this part of the reform is that the basic premise in civil cases now also applies in criminal cases. 

Given the general "aggravation" of the prescription regime, an additional safeguard was introduced in case the duration of the criminal proceedings exceeds the reasonable time requirement. When a judge finds that the accused is faced with a very serious disregard of the right to be tried within a reasonable time, he can pronounce the expiry of the criminal proceedings in addition to a sentence reduction and simple conviction without penalty. According to the legislator, whether the "reasonable time limit" has been exceeded, must be assessed according to the circumstances of the case, which require an overall assessment.