1. CONTROVERSE VIZÂND APLICAREA ŞI EXECUTAREA SANCȚIUNII COMPLEMENTARE ÎN MATERIA CONTRAVENȚIILOR RUTIERE.
- Author
-
POPESCU, EMILIAN-FLORIA
- Subjects
MOTOR vehicle drivers ,LEGAL judgments ,MOTOR vehicle driving ,FARM tractors ,ACCESS to justice - Abstract
An atypical situation, rarely encountered in the area of offenders who exercise the means of appeal of the contraventional complaint in the field of traffic on public roads, has generated controversies regarding the interpretation of Article 118 of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 195/2002, including of the rules of application contained in the Order No 141/2014, to which there are added other problems of interpretation and suspicions of unconstitutionality of Article 103 (2) of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 195/2002, which regulate extension of the duration of the suspension of exercising the right to drive vehicles on public roads by another 30 days, if, within a period of 6 months from committing a contravention, a driver commits another contravention to the traffic rules. Although it is well known that the overwhelming majority of offenders who are subject to the complementary sanction of suspension of the right to drive motor vehicles, agricultural or forestry tractors or trams, this being the full name of this complementary sanction, file a complaint in order to benefit from the suspension of the execution of this complementary sanction, the judicial practice has revealed that there are also cases in which such offenders, for well-justified reasons, renounce this benefit and begin the execution of the complementary contraventional sanction, even if they have exercised the mentioned means of appeal. As the practice of the police units that manage the IT application for keeping records of withheld licenses and sanctions applied to the drivers of motor vehicles or trams is to register ex officio that they are operating the suspension of execution of the complementary sanction, when they receive the alert that the contraventional complaint has been filed, although Article 118 (3) of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 195/2002 establishes that the offender applicant is the one who must submit/send to the police unit of which the fact-finding agent is a part the document certifying the situation of filing the complaint and only after this step it will be made the corresponding mention of the suspension of the execution of this sanction, the question of violation of the right of access to justice arises. Such a violation derives from the situation that the offender in question faces the situation to waive the right to exercise the means of appeal of the contraventional complaint, in order to „immediately" execute the sanction, due to the uncertainty of the duration of the related judicial proceedings as well. If such offenders will take the risk and will file a complaint, also formulating a request with the aim of obtaining in due time a court decision ordering the entry of the mention that they started the execution simultaneously with the filing of the complaint, as it will result from the court decisions used as judicial practice, they will face the exception of inadmissibility. Finally, the text of Article 103 (2) of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 195/2002, which regulates the extension of the duration of the suspension of the right to drive vehicles on public roads by another 30 days in the case of committing a new contravention, evokes the institution of „contraventional recidivism" and it must be analyzed whether this institution finds its place in the matter of contraventions, under the conditions in which the institution in question has applicability only in the field of traffic on public roads, raising discussions as to whether such regulation is constitutional. Controversial is also the nature of the 15-day term established by the legislator for the communication of the extension provision implied by this text in the context in which the legislator did not regulate the consequences of its non-compliance, as it did in the case of the communication of the contraventional fact-finding report, for the latter establishing the prescription for the execution of contraventional sanctions. Last but not least, it arouses interest to what extent the principle of loyalty of evidence finds its place in the context of traffic contraventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2024