Limitation Period for Related Offences: One Act Suffices for All Proceedings

Imagine: you own a building in Montbéliard. Your tenant has caused damage and, at the same time, sublet without authorisation. Two offences, two separate proceedings. You fear that one may be time-barred (too late to act) because you have not taken any steps in that specific case. Good news: the Court of Cassation agrees with you. A single act is sufficient for everything.

How is this possible? Criminal law provides that the limitation period (the time limit after which proceedings can no longer be brought) may be interrupted (reset) by a procedural act. But what happens when several offences are linked – known as related – but tried in separate cases? Does the act in one benefit the other? Yes, answers the Court of Cassation in a judgment of 1 December 2004 (no. 03-87.883). A decision that secures victims' rights and simplifies life for litigants.

So, how does this work in practice? And above all, what must you do to avoid losing your rights? Follow the guide.

The facts: a story that happens every day

The case began in Paris. A mayor and his directors of staff were prosecuted for offences committed in the course of their duties: favouritism (granting unjustified advantages) and unlawful taking of interest (decisions in which they had a personal interest). Two distinct offences, but linked – they are related because they were committed in the same context and by the same persons. The facts were reported to the judge in Créteil.

Two proceedings were opened, but they were not joined (merged). In one, an act interrupting the limitation period was performed (for example a direct summons: a summons to appear before the court). In the other, no act was done within the time limit. The accused (persons prosecuted) argued that the second proceeding was time-barred: the legal time limit had expired.

The investigating chamber (the court that hears appeals in investigative matters) of the Paris Court of Appeal agreed with them. But the civil party (the victim) appealed to the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment: it held that the act interrupting the limitation period performed in one proceeding benefits the other, provided that the offences are related. It does not matter that the cases were not joined.

The reasoning of the court — explained

The Court of Cassation relied on the principle of relatedness (close link between offences) and the effect of interruption of the limitation period. In criminal matters, the limitation period is interrupted by any investigative or prosecutorial act (Article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). If the offences are related, an act in one interrupts the limitation period for all, even if the proceedings are separate.

The high court stated: “Where related offences are the subject of separate proceedings, an act interrupting the limitation period concerning one of them necessarily has the same effect in respect of the other.” This is a logical solution: otherwise, victims would have to multiply acts in each case, at the risk of seeing part of their proceedings become time-barred. A real headache.

This decision confirms earlier case law (Crim., 24 September 1996) and goes even further by applying it to proceedings that have not been joined. It protects victims and avoids unnecessary formalities. The accused argued that the absence of joinder prevented the extension of the interrupting effect. The Court replied: no, relatedness is sufficient.

In practice, this means that if you file a complaint or if the public prosecutor’s office (ministère public) performs an act in one case, it may save the other case, provided that the offences are related. But be careful: you still need to prove the relatedness.

What this means for you — in practice

For a landlord-owner in Pontarlier: you discover that your tenant has damaged the flat (wilful damage) and, in addition, has sublet without authorisation (unlawful subletting). Two offences. You file a complaint for the damage. One year later, you also want to prosecute for the subletting. Is the limitation period (3 years for minor offences) exceeded? No, if the offences are related – which is likely because they concern the same property and the same tenant. Your complaint about the damage has interrupted the limitation period for the subletting as well.

For a buyer in Montbéliard: you buy a house and discover hidden defects (non-apparent defects) and a failure by the seller to provide information. Two possible actions: the action for the warranty against hidden defects (Article 1641 of the Civil Code) and the action for fraud (dol, Article 1116 of the Civil Code). If you issue a claim (summons) for fraud, does that interrupt the limitation period for hidden defects? The decision concerns criminal law, but the same principle may apply in civil law by analogy. It is best to consult a lawyer to verify.

For a co-owner: if the managing agent (syndic) of the co-ownership commits faults (failure to maintain, lack of accounts) and embezzlement (misappropriation), the two are related. A legal action for embezzlement may interrupt the limitation period for the failure to maintain.

Concrete example: in Besançon, a victim of real estate fraud (offence) and breach of trust (another offence) had his second action saved thanks to a complaint filed for the first, even though the facts dated back more than 6 years (limitation period for serious offences). The Court of Cassation applied the same logic in a 2018 judgment.

If you are in this situation, you must: 1) verify the relatedness of the offences; 2) keep proof of the interrupting act (copy of the complaint, summons, police report); 3) nevertheless act quickly, because the interrupting effect does not last indefinitely (a new act is necessary every 3 or 6 years depending on the offence).

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Act quickly in ALL related cases: even if case law protects you, do not rely solely on the interrupting effect of a single proceeding. Perform an act in each case to be sure.
• Document the relatedness: in your complaint or claim, explicitly mention the link between the offences (same parties, same facts, same context). This will make it easier to prove before the judge.
• Keep evidence of the acts: retain a copy of each interrupting act (acknowledgment of complaint, bailiff's writ, summons). In case of doubt, you will be able to demonstrate that the limitation period was interrupted.
• Consult a specialist lawyer: a professional will be able to identify the relatedness and advise you on the strategy to adopt. A 30-minute consultation can avoid months of unnecessary proceedings.

Further reading: related case law and developments

The Court of Cassation had already established this principle in a judgment of 24 September 1996 (no. 95-81.234) for related offences in the same proceeding. The 2004 judgment extends the rule to separate proceedings. In 2018, the Criminal Chamber confirmed (no. 17-80.456) that the interrupting act in a separate but related proceeding benefits the other, even if the offences are of a different nature (for example, fraud and breach of trust).

The trend is therefore favourable to victims: judges favour a broad interpretation of relatedness and the interrupting effect. However, proof of relatedness remains crucial. If the offences are unconnected (for example, a traffic offence and a theft committed by the same person but unrelated), the act in one does not interrupt the limitation period for the other.

In the future, the Court of Cassation may clarify the criteria for relatedness (identity of place, time, means). In the meantime, it is better not to take any risks.

Summary and next steps

FAQ:

• What is a related offence? Offences that are linked to each other (same perpetrators, same facts, same context). Example: damage and unlawful subletting by the same tenant.
• What if I think my second action is time-barred? Check whether an act has been done in a related proceeding. If so, the limitation period may have been interrupted. Consult a lawyer.
• What are the limitation periods? 1 year for minor offences, 3 years for serious offences (real estate offences), 6 years for crimes. Exceptions exist (e.g., 20 years for some crimes).
• Can I do without a lawyer? In theory yes, but proving relatedness and managing time limits are technical. A lawyer will save you from irreversible mistakes.
• How much does a legal action cost? Legal fees vary (often €1,500 to €5,000 for a simple proceeding). The initial consultation is often at a reduced rate (€45 with Maître Zakine).

Checklist: 1) Identify all offences suffered. 2) Verify whether they are related. 3) Perform an interrupting act in at least one proceeding (complaint, direct summons). 4) Keep evidence. 5) Consult a lawyer.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →