The Administrative Offences and Penalties Act expressly regulates limitation in two contexts: enforcement of a penalty imposed by a final administrative penalty decision (Article 82), and administrative offence proceedings themselves (Article 34). Article 34(1) and (3) set time limits for the proceedings before the authority empowered to impose the penalty; once the applicable time has expired, the authority can no longer initiate the proceedings or proceed to impose the penalty, as the case may be. The Act contains no express rules on limitation at the judicial stage. By virtue of the reference in Article 11, the Criminal Code provisions on limitation and absolute limitation apply at that stage.<\/p>\n
In Chapter IX of the Criminal Code, on the extinction of criminal prosecution and of penalties imposed, Article 79 bars prosecution once the statutory limitation period has expired. Under Article 80(1), point 5, prosecution is time-barred if it has not been initiated within three years for offences carrying penalties other than those listed in the preceding points of that paragraph. Article 81(3), however, lays down an absolute limitation period. Once it expires, liability lapses even if proceedings have already been initiated. Regardless of any suspension or interruption of the limitation period, prosecution is barred once a period exceeding that prescribed in the preceding article (Article 80(1)) by one half has elapsed. In the case discussed here, the absolute period under Article 81(3) is four and a half years from the commission or completion of the administrative offence, applying Article 80(3) by analogy.<\/p>\n
This article is not a legal opinion or advice on any particular situation or person. For legal assistance in a similar case, consult a lawyer practising administrative and criminal law.<\/em>
\n