Upon the decision of the plenary meeting of the State Council, the cancellation of the powers of the administration to identify administrative violations and the obligation of administrative offenses was defined as the fundamental guarantee of the state.
This restriction, first of all, is connected with the principle of the security of law and stability of the administrative situation, as well as with the requirement that the envisaged period of restriction has in general a reasonable duration. These two rules differ from each other. One of them is an expression of the principle of predictability and the principle of clarity of restrictions of fundamental rights, including the right to property that is harmed by taxes or financial sanctions, and the other is the final result of a broader principle of proportionality. The principle of proportionality, during the limitation period, works not only in favor, but also against the citizens, because long periods of time pose a serious threat to the violation of legitimate human rights, but, nevertheless, serve the interests of the society to the best extent.
The arguments of the State Council on 1738/2017 are based on three decisions. Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2011, case C-201/10, of the European Court of Human Rights in 2013 and 2015. From the arguments of the Plenary session it follows that the requirement of proportionality for budgetary fees is related to the effectiveness of tax audits, tax evasion and equality in the public burden, as well as the possibility of planning and prosperity of economic activity in the interests of the economy, as well as legal rights protected by The Constitution. Thus, the legislature has the discretion in assessing the length of the statute of limitations for administrative offenses and imposing sanctions, on the other hand, this power is limited by the principle of proportionality, the proper observance of which is checked by the judge on the basis of the following criteria. First, the risk, secondly, the severity and form of violations of citizens, and thirdly, the principle of good governance.
In conclusion, it was felt that a five-year period is a reasonable period for cancellation, and a decade as a write-off period raises a serious problem that is contrary to the principle of proportionality. These intervals, although not considered short, are not necessary for the successful detection of violations